---

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

             Friday, May 29, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 105

                           Headlines

AT&T WIRELESS: Wash. Court Allows Ex-Customers' Suit to Proceed
DELTA AIR: Faces Ga. Litigation Over First Bag Fee Collusion
DIRECTTV GROUP: Pension Fund Leads Del. Suit Over Liberty Merger
DYNAKOR PHARMACAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in California
FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Judge Moves Fairness Hearing to July 15

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Bid Opposing Class Status Fraud Suit Due June
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Beary" Suit in Ohio
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Haddock" Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Defends Appeal to Dismissed Woodbury Suit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Unit Defends Appeal to Junked ERISA Suit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Units Defend Lawsuit by ASEA Plan Members
NATIONWIDE LIFE: June 5 Hearing Set for "Carr" Suit Settlement
SEQUENOM INC: June 30 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Status
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal to "Galura" Suit Ruling Remains Pending

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Opposes Class Status Bid in Arbitration
SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing
SPRINT NEXTEL: Easements Cases v. Unit Remain Pending in Tenn.
SPRINT NEXTEL: To Defend Kansas Fraud Suit Over Nextel Merger
TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Faces Buyers' Suit Over Fla. Hotel Project

TYSON FOODS: Ill. Judge Give Final OK to Chicken Suit Settlement
W.R. GRACE: Continues to Face ZAI-Related Property Damage Claims
W.R. GRACE: Settlement of ERISA Lawsuit Pending Court Approval
WIZARD OF CLAWS: Fla. Court Allows Suit Over Puppies to Proceed
ZYNEX INC: June 8, 2009 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status

ZYNEX INC: June 8, 2009 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
SEQUENOM INC: Holzer Holzer Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Cites $500,000 Income at March 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ashland Drop to 106T at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Still Faces 27T Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $627M March 31 Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 103,900 Cases Ongoing v. EnPro at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Garlock Sealing Trials Commenced in 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites 5 Pending Appeals at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $22.5M Settlement Commitments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $302.2MM Coverage at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Incurs No Material Amounts at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Still Subject "Premises" Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Subject to Damage, Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 415 Damage Claims at April 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $923M Excess Coverage at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Cites $47.7M March 31 Libby Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $24.6Mil for Libby at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJDEP Appeal in Grace Case Filed April 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 69 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameren at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Dillingham Ship's Review Bid

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $58M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 30T at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $17M for Rockwell Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Cites $1.019B Carolinas Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Still Facing 114 Actions at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation, BGE Face 512 Ongoing Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Bull Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prime Group Has $7.6M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nevamar Claims Settlement Paid in Nov. 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premix-Marbletite Facing Five Injury Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Still Party to Bodily Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $176.5M Adjustment at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $78.2M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records 534 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Occidental Petroleum Facing Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Eldorado-Reno Hotel Rooms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harbinger To File Asarco LLC Reorganization
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln County to Get $6Mil for Health Care
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baggett Suit v. 33 Firms Filed in Jefferson
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Point to Pay $815 for Safety Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Fell Runner's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers Seek to Overturn New Exposure Law
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harron, Cassoff to Answer Questions in CSX
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trinity to Seek EPA Decision on 1515 Tower
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Give $250,000 Check to St. John's

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jones Kin Seeks Justice in Compensation Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.M. Workers Injured During Hazard Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashton Widow Gets Payout for Wrongful Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Rules on East Reading Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Councilor Has Retrospective Approval

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Barrow Asbestos Conference Held Last May 22
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cambria Awarded $34.1M Remediation Contract
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Cadlo Action


                           *********

AT&T WIRELESS: Wash. Court Allows Ex-Customers' Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
has ruled that AT&T Wireless subscribers who felt mistreated
when the company was bought by Cingular can go ahead with a
class-action lawsuit, Peter Svensson of The Associated Press
reports.

Previously, the Class Action Reporter reported that cell phone
customers who sued AT&T Corp. and Cingular Wireless over abuses
in the companies' 2004 merger are asking the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington to protect their rights
and give them their day in court (Class Action Reporter, March
19, 2009).

In papers filed with the court, lawyers representing potentially
millions of AT&T cell phone customers asked the court to
invalidate the class action ban embedded in the company's
arbitration clause, which AT&T claims requires the court to
dismiss the case.

"At stake here is the right of AT&T customers to get a fair
hearing and obtain justice," said Harvey Rosenfield, a lawyer
with the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
(FTCR).  "If the court rules that AT&T and Cingular's customers
cannot join together to sue these companies, then the companies
will never be held accountable."

     Lawsuit Targets Cingular Practices in Merger with AT&T

When Cingular bought its rival cell phone company AT&T in 2004,
it promised regulators and the public that AT&T customers would
continue to enjoy the same quality service.

However, according to the lawsuit filed in July 2006, after the
merger, Cingular deliberately degraded the quality of the AT&T
network in order to force AT&T customers to move to Cingular's
network, pay an $18 "upgrade fee," buy brand new phones and sign
up for new two year plans. Dissatisfied consumers who wanted to
move to a different company were required to pay Early
Termination Fees of $150 or more.

         Defendants Say Arbitration Clause Bars Lawsuit

After the suit was filed, AT&T asked the court to dismiss the
case on the grounds that all AT&T customers had agreed as a
condition of obtaining service that any disputes had to be
handled on an individual, one-on-one basis by private
arbitration firms paid for by AT&T.  While AT&T has made various
changes to its arbitration clause over the past few years, the
critical ban on class actions has remained unchanged.  In a
lengthy investigation into the arbitration clause that included
the deposition of numerous AT&T witnesses, lawyers for AT&T
customers learned that:

     1. The arbitration clause to which consumers allegedly
        agreed was contained in the fine print in the back of a
        booklet packaged in a box with their cell phones.  In
        other transactions, it was mentioned but not explained.

     2. The actual rules that govern the arbitration process
        consume over 12,000 words.  They do not appear on AT&T's
        web site.  They can only be found through following a
        link to the site of a company hired by AT&T to
        administer the arbitrations, which are conducted through
        private "judges."

     3. According to reports published by AT&T's arbitration
        provider, only 10 consumer arbitrations have been held
        against AT&T since October 2006, proving that the class
        action ban exculpates the company from liability.

After the lawsuit was filed, AT&T changed the arbitration clause
to try to make it more likely that the court would uphold it.
Indeed, it was changed a second time during a deposition in the
case when a lawyer for consumers got a witness for AT&T to
acknowledge a loophole, at which point Cingular's lawyer got up
and made a phone call to dictate a change in the agreement.

In their opposition to individual arbitration filed with the
court, lawyers for AT&T customers said that the class action ban
was unlawful under state contract law because it would
effectively prevent customers from obtaining justice.  They also
pointed out that numerous courts have invalidated AT&T's (and
other cell phone companies') class action bans on the same
grounds.

"AT&T makes much of the window-dressing terms it has tacked on
to its arbitration clause to hide the impact of its class action
ban," said Leslie Bailey of Public Justice.  "But we're
confident that once the court looks at all the evidence, it will
recognize that without a class action, these customers would not
be able to hold the company accountable."

                   Recent Federal Court Ruling

On May 26, 2009, the court denied the company's request to quash
the case on the grounds that its service agreements mandated
that customers submit their complaints to arbitration, saying
that arbitration would be too expensive for individual customers
to pursue, according to The Associated Press report.

The suit is "Coneff et al v. AT&T Corporation et al., Case No.
2:2006-cv-00944," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Leslie A. Bailey, Esq. (lbailey@publicjustice.net)
          Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (Oakland)
          555 Twelfth St
          Ste 1620
          Oakland, CA 94607-3616
          Phone: 510-622-8150

               - and -

          Lincoln Beauregard, Esq. (lincolnb@connelly-law.com)
          Connelly Law Offices
          2301 N 30th St
          Tacoma, WA 98403
          Phone: 253-593-5100
          Fax: 253-593-0380

Representing the defendants are:

          Neal S. Berinhout, Esq. (neal.berinhout@cingular.com)
          Cingular Wireless LLC
          5565 Glenridge Connector
          Ste 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Phone: 404-236-5571

               - and -

          William F. Cronin, Esq. (wcronin@corrcronin.com)
          Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece
          1001 4th Ave
          Ste 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Phone: 206-625-8600


DELTA AIR: Faces Ga. Litigation Over First Bag Fee Collusion
------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Airways, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging that they colluded to
charge a $15 first-bag fee, Jacqueline J. Holness of The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on May 22, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, under the caption, "Avery
et al v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-01391-
TCB."

According to the plaintiffs, Brent Avery and David Watson, both
airlines, which are each other's principal competitors, began
charging the fee in fall 2008.  Before then, "competition
between Delta and AirTran prevented either airline from charging
a first-bag fee for fear of losing sales to the other," they
claimed, The Courthouse News Service reported.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d4d

For more details, contact:

          Cale Howard Conley, Esq. (cale@conleygriggs.com)
          Conley Griggs LLP
          4400 Peachtree Rd., N.E
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Phone: 404-467-1155


DIRECTTV GROUP: Pension Fund Leads Del. Suit Over Liberty Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives of the Key West Police and Fire Pension Fund, on
behalf of The DirectTV Group, Inc.'s thousands of shareholders,
are leading a class-action lawsuit against the satellite
television giant, Sean Kinney of KeysNet reports.

They are attempting to block a planned merger between DirecTV
and Liberty Media Corp., which holds majority interest in cable
channels Starz and Encore, along with sports and game show
networks, according to the KeysNet report.

The Courthouse News Service previously reported that Liberty
Media Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
that it is cheating shareholders by spinning off its Liberty
Entertainment, Inc. subsidiary to merge with The DirectTV Group,
Inc., in a deal that will enrich Liberty Chairman John C.
Malone, who also is a director of DirecTV (Class Action
Reporter, May 18, 2009).

The suit is captioned, "Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund and
The City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, et al., v.
The DirectTV Group, Inc., Liberty Media Corp.,John C. Malone,
Chase Carey, Neil R. Austrian, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Mark D.
Carleton, Charles R. Leem Peter A. Lund, Greg Maffei, Nancy S.
Newcomb, and Haim Saban, Case No. 4581," which was filed on May
12, 2009 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The named plaintiffs in the matter are two pension funds, the
Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund and The City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System.

They say the spun-off division will contain Liberty's majority
stockholding in DirecTV, and that "far from being 'entirely
fair' to DTV and its public shareholders, the proposed
transaction provides a windfall to Liberty and its largest
shareholder, John C. Malone, a DTV director and Liberty's
chairman, according to The Courthouse News Service report.

The Courthouse News Service reported that the $14 billion all-
stock deal was proposed on May 3, 2009.  According to the
plaintiffs, the deal is intended to "wrest voting control over
DTV from the company's public shareholders for inadequate
consideration."

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cf1

For more details, contact:

          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: +1.302.622.7000
          Fax: +1.302.622.7100
          Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/


DYNAKOR PHARMACAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynakor Pharmacal LLC is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
claiming that the company defrauds consumers by claiming its
"Akavar" diet pill enables you to "eat all you want and still
lose weight.  We couldn't say it in print if it wasn't true,"
The Courthouse News Service reports.

According to the suit, the company's claim isn't true, nor is
the claim that the drug produces "clinically proven weight loss
of 1,603% without changing eating or exercise habits," reports
The Courthouse News Service.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 26, 2009 under the caption,
"Nicole Forlenza et al v. Dynakor Pharmacal, LLC et al., Case
No. 2:2009-cv-03730."

The plaintiffs, who are represented by attorneys from the law
firms of Call Jensen and Ferrell APC and Robinson Calcagnie &
Robinson, Inc., are Nicole Forlenza and Shaiden Monroe.

Aside from Dynakor Pharmacal, others named in the lawsuit are
The Carter-Reed Company, LLC, PC Mgmt, Inc., Basic Research,
LLC, Joseph Bode, Sheila Erickson, Walgreen Company, General
Nutrition Corporation, Drugstore.com, Western Holdings, LLC,
Dennis Gay, Daniel B. Mowrey, Mitchell K. Friedlander and
several Doe Defendants.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d4c

For more details, contact:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. (sferrell@calljensen.com)
          Call Jensen and Ferrell APC
          610 Newport Center Drive Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: 949-717-3000
          Fax: 949-717-3100

               - and -

          Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Esq. (kcalcagnie@rcrlaw.net)
          Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson, Inc.
          620 Newport Center Drive 7th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: 949-720-1288
          Fax: 949-720-1292


FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Judge Moves Fairness Hearing to July 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court has moved
to continue the fairness hearing over the proposed settlement in
the matter, "Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health
Center, P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care,
Inc. and First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055" to July, Amelia Flood of
The St. Clair Record reports.

After three hours of argument at a fairness hearing held on May
26, 2009, Judge Stack told attorneys, "My brain hurts."  He
added, "I've had just about all I can take," according to The
St. Clair Record report.

Judge Stack was referring to arguments over the settlement of a
suit against First Health Insurance Co.  While both parties
reached a settlement back in 2008, the settlement has yet to be
approved due to an objection filed by a class member with a
similar lawsuit pending in St. Clair County, The St. Clair
Record reported.

The judge has continued the hearing until July 15 at 10 a.m.  He
will hear the remainder of the objector's arguments and
responses from plaintiff and defense counsel, reports The St.
Clair Record.

Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record previously reported that a
fairness hearing is set for May 26, 2009 to determine whether a
charitable contribution of more than $1.2 million is a fair end
to a 2004 chiropractor class-action suit against insurer First
Health Group Corp. over claims adjustments (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2009).

Previously, it was reported that the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois, will hold a
fairness hearing on May 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center,
P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and
First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055," (Class Action Reporter, April 6,
2009).

This lawsuit was filed Sept. 24, 2004.  In the suit, plaintiffs
claim that CCN Managed Care, Inc. (f/k/a Community Care Network,
Inc.), and First Health Group Corp., (collectively First
Health), operated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) networks
through which healthcare payors improperly discounted the bills
of Illinois healthcare providers who treated workers'
compensation claimants and Illinois automobile accident policy
claimants.

Granite City chiropractor Lawrence Shipley and Glen Carbon
chiropractor Richard Coy settled the class-action suit against
First Health in Madison County in January, reports The St. Clair
Record.

In the settlement, First Health did not admit to any wrongdoing.
It was to give $1.25 million to a charity.  The company would
pay $650,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Wood River attorney
Brad Lakin's law firm and a $10,000 incentive award to the class
representatives, according to The St. Clair Record report.

For more details, contact:

          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Ave,
          PO Box 229,
          Wood River, IL
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          e-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com
          Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com

               - and -

          PPO Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 1971
          Fairbault MN 55021-6167
          Phone: 1-866-680-6562
          Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Bid Opposing Class Status Fraud Suit Due June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification
in a securities fraud class-action lawsuit styled "In Re:
Juniper Securities Litigation" is due on June 1, 2009.

Initially, on July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint,
captioned "Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-
4327 MJJ," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  The plaintiff filed a corrected
complaint on July 28, 2006.

The Garber lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003, and May
22, 2006.

On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint,
captioned "Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06
5303 JW," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The "Peters" lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Juniper Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003, and Aug.
10, 2006.

Both purported class-action lawsuits allege that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to
coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading
statements including, among others, incorrect financial
statements due to the improper accounting of stock option
grants.

Both suits were later consolidated.  On Nov. 20, 2006, the court
appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiff, who
filed a consolidated class action complaint in January 2007.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper
Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003,
through and including Aug. 20, 2006.  It alleges violations of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

In February 2007, the parties agreed in a court-approved
stipulation that the plaintiffs may file an amended consolidated
complaint within 30 days after the company files its restated
financial statements with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.
In March 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' dismissal motion.

Specifically, the Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claim to the extent it was based on challenged
statements made before July 14, 2001.  The order also dismissed,
with leave to amend, the plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim against
Pradeep Sindhu.  All of the plaintiffs' other claims were
upheld.

The plaintiffs did not amend their complaint.  The defendants
filed their answer on June 23, 2008.

On March 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification for a modified plaintiff class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-
traded securities from July 11, 2003, through Aug. 10, 2006.
The defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification
is due on June 1, 2009, according to the company's May 8, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-04327-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@ldbs.com)
         Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C.
         White Plains Plaza
         1 North Broadway, 5th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10601-2310
         Phone: 914-997-0500

              - and -

         William M. Audet, Esq. (waudet@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-982-1776
         Fax: 415-576-1776

Representing the defendants is:

         Joni L. Ostler, Esq. (jostler@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Beary" Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services Inc., National Life Insurance Co.,
and Nationwide Retirement Solutions Inc. continue to defend the
lawsuit in the matter "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK," according to the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2009.

The Beary suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a class of all sponsors
of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had
variable annuity contracts with NFS, NLIC and NRS.  It was filed
on Nov. 15, 2006, by Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County,
Florida, in his official capacity, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

Sherrif Beary seeks to represent a class of all sponsors of
457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable
annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during the
class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b)
deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity
contracts with the defendants during the class period.

The class period is from Jan. 1, 1996, until the class notice is
provided.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by arranging for and retaining service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a
permanent injunction and disgorgement or restitution of the
service fee payments allegedly received by the defendants,
including interest.

On Jan. 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss
the case. On Sept. 17, 2007, the court granted the motion to
dismiss.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment
and for leave to file an amended complaint.  On Oct. 25, 2007,
NFS, NLIC and NRS filed their opposition to the plaintiff's
motion.

On Oct. 15, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's Sept.
15, 2008 ruling denying their motion to vacate judgment and for
leave to file an amended complaint.

On March 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed their brief.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Haddock" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., and its subsidiary,
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., continue to defend the suit
styled "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-
01552-SRU."

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
suit, entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die,
Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company," alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Currently, the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint, filed on
March 21, 2006, purports to represent a class of qualified
retirement plans under ERISA that purchased variable annuities
from NLIC.

The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in
their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached
ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.  To date, the District Court has rejected the plaintiffs'
request for certification of the alleged class.

On Sept. 25, 2007, a motion by NFS' and NLIC's to dismiss the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint was denied.

On Oct. 12, 2007, NFS and NLIC filed their answer to the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint and amended their
counterclaims.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss NFS'
and NLIC's amended counterclaims.  They later filed a motion for
class certification.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss the amended counterclaim, with the exception that it was
tentatively granting the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with
respect to NFS' and NLIC's claim that they could recover any
"disgorgement remedy" from plan sponsors.

On April 25, 2008, NFS and NLIC filed their opposition to the
plaintiffs' request for class certification.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their reply to NFS' and
NLIC's opposition to class certification.

On Feb. 27, 2009, the Court heard oral argument on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Bieder, Esq. (rbieder@koskoff.com)
          Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
          350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport
          CT 06604
          Phone: 203-336-4421
          Fax: 203-368-3244

          Gregory G. Jones, Esq. (greg@gjoneslaw.com)
          603 S. Main, Suite 200
          Grapevine, TX 76051
          Phone: 871-424-9001
          Fax: 817-424-1665

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq. (rmandel@smi-law.com)
          Stanley, Mandel & Iola
          3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Phone: 214-443-4300
          Fax: 214-443-0358

Representing the defendants are:

          Jessica A. Ballou, Esq. (jballou@llgm.com)
          LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
          Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St.
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-293-3535
          Fax: 860-293-3555

               - and -

          Sam Broderick-Sokol, Esq.
          (sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr-LLP-DC
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6000
          Fax: 202-663-6363


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Defends Appeal to Dismissed Woodbury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services Inc.'s subsidiary, National Life
Insurance Co., defends the plaintiff's appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court on the dismissal of the class-action lawsuit
entitled Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company.

On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in a class-action lawsuit
filed in Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, entitled Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance
Company.  NLIC removed this case to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.

On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland and included in the multi-
district proceeding entitled In Re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation.

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed the first
amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain
exceptions, a class of all persons who held (through their
ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any
NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect
to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub-
accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement,
failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection
with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or
units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found
with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its
annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, to
have failed to disclose any material fact or to have used or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance,
then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain
exceptions, of all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue
statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held (through
their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units
of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included
foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing activity.

The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and
seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or
class member, including all compensatory damages and costs.  On
June 1, 2006, the District Court granted NLIC's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed that dismissal.  On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs
filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to
National Financial Services, Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2009.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
A June 23, 2009 fairness hearing has been set for approval of
the proposed settlement in several purported class-action suits
brought by Nationwide Financial Services Inc. shareholders
against NFS; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; Nationwide Mutual
Fire Insurance Co.; Nationwide Corp.; and the directors of NFS.

The memorandum of understanding is still conditioned upon the
plaintiffs receiving satisfactory confirmatory discovery and
upon court approval of the proposed settlement.

The lawsuits arose following the announcement of the joint offer
by NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp. to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of NFS' Class A common stock.

The lawsuits are pending in multiple jurisdictions and allege
that the offer price was inadequate, that the process for
reviewing the offer was procedurally unfair and that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the holders
of the NFS Class A common stock.

The defendants have deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing
and have defended these lawsuits.

On Aug. 6, 2008, NFS and NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp.
announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement for
the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of NFS' Class A
common stock for $52.25 per share by Nationwide Corp, subject to
the satisfaction of specific closing conditions.

Simultaneously, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding for the settlement of these
lawsuits.  The memorandum of understanding provides, among other
things, for the settlement of the lawsuits and release of the
defendants and, in exchange for the release and without
admitting any wrongdoing, defendant NMIC shall acknowledge that
the pending lawsuits were a factor, among others, that led it to
offer an increased share price in the transaction.

NMIC shall agree to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the
costs of notifying the class members of the settlement.

The court has scheduled the fairness hearing for approval of the
proposed settlement for June 23, 2009.

NFS continues to defend these lawsuits, according to the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2009.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Unit Defends Appeal to Junked ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services Inc.'s subsidiary, National Life
Insurance Co., continues to defend the plaintiff's appeal from
the dismissal of the lawsuit entitled Jerre Daniels-Hall and
David Hamblen, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. National Education Association, NEA Member
Benefits Corporation, Nationwide Life Insurance Company,
Security Benefit Life Insurance Company, Security Benefit Group,
Inc., Security Distributors, Inc., et. al.

On July 11, 2007, NLIC was named in a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current or
former National Education Association (NEA) members who
participated in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time
between Jan. 1, 1991 and the present (and their heirs and/or
beneficiaries).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) by
failing to prudently and loyally manage plan assets, by failing
to provide complete and accurate information, by engaging in
prohibited transactions, and by breaching their fiduciary duties
when they failed to prevent other fiduciaries from breaching
their fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to
the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to
participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of
service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to
plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On May 23, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  This case has been fully briefed, according to National
Financial Services, Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2009.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Units Defend Lawsuit by ASEA Plan Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services Inc.'s subsidiaries, National Life
Insurance Co., and Nationwide Retirement Solutions Inc.,
continue to defend a class action lawsuit entitled Ruth A. Gwin
and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated
individuals v Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc., Alabama State Employees Association,
PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z.

On Nov. 20, 2007, NLIC and NRS were named in the lawsuit filed
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

On Dec. 2, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs claim to represent a class of all participants in
the Alabama State Employees Association (ASEA) Plan, excluding
members of the Deferred Compensation Committee, members of the
Board of Control, ASEA's directors, officers and board members,
and PEBCO's directors, officers and board members.  The class
period is from Nov. 20, 2001, to the date of trial.

In the amended class action complaint, the plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duty, wantonness and breach of contract.
The amended class action complaint seeks a declaratory judgment,
an injunction, an appointment of an independent fiduciary to
protect Plan participants, disgorgement of amounts paid,
reformation of Plan documents, compensatory damages and punitive
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other
equitable and legal relief to which plaintiffs and class members
may be entitled.

Also, on Dec. 2, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring periodic
payments made by NRS and/or NLIC to ASEA or PEBCO to be held in
a trust account for the benefit of Plan participants.  This
motion was denied on April 25, 2009.

On Dec. 4, 2008, the Alabama State Personnel Board and the State
of Alabama by, and through the State Personnel Board, filed a
motion to intervene and a complaint in intervention.  On Dec.
16, 2008, the Companies filed their Answer.  On Feb. 4, 2009,
the court provisionally agreed to add the State of Alabama, by
and through the State Personnel Board as a party.

On April 28, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction, according to the company's May 8, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2009.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: June 5 Hearing Set for "Carr" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the proposed $6 million settlement for the
purported class-action lawsuit "Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Co.," is scheduled for June 5, 2009.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC, a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc., was named in a class-action lawsuit filed with
the Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company" (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 2, 2009).

The plaintiff claims that the total of modal payments that
policyholders paid per year exceeded the guaranteed maximum
premium provided for in the policy.

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.

It also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of
all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum premium and
attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The court certified a class consisting of all
residents of the United States and the Virgin Islands who,
during the class period, paid premiums on a modal basis to NLIC
for term life insurance policies issued by NLIC during the class
period that provide for guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding
certain specified products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of
NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of
Ohio who may hear the case.

The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990 through Feb. 2, 2006, the
date the class was certified.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On April 30, 2007, NLIC filed a motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the Court entered its ruling on the parties'
pending motions for summary judgment.  The Court granted NLIC's
motion for summary judgment for some of the plaintiffs' causes
of action, including breach of contract claims on all decreasing
term policies, plaintiff Carr's individual claims for fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and all unjust enrichment claims.

On May 16, 2008, the parties filed their briefs on NLIC's motion
for summary judgment on the voluntary payment doctrine or, in
the alternative, decertification.

Additional briefs were filed on June 20, 2008.

A hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for June 5,
2009, according to National Financial Services, Inc.'s May 8,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2009.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


SEQUENOM INC: June 30 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Status
------------------------------------------------------------
     Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") announces that investors
have only until June 30, 2009 to apply for lead plaintiff in a
securities fraud class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Sequenom, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SQNM) between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009,
inclusive.  No class has yet been certified in this action.

     Sequenom and certain of its officers and directors are
charged with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period.  On April 29, 2009, the Company
revealed significant problems related to its Down syndrome test
"SeQureDx," including the mishandling of test data and
associated results, which would cause it to be unable to bring
SeQureDx to the market timely.  As a result of this news,
Sequenom's shares fell by over $11, a one day decline of over
75%, on high volume of over 85 million shares.

For more details, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com)
          Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal to "Galura" Suit Ruling Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. continues to appeal and defend the matter
"Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc.," according to the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

In this action, originally filed on Dec. 30, 2002, in the
Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, the plaintiffs
allege that the company and its Florida dealerships sold an
anti-theft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the anti-theft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in the
lawsuit.

Sonic subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's class
certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals partially affirmed
the trial court's class certification, and overruled a portion
of the trial court's class certification.

The company intends to continue its defense of this lawsuit,
including the appeal of the trial court's class certification
order, and to assert available defenses.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts,
financing and insurance and other aftermarket products for its
automotive customers.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Opposes Class Status Bid in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. continues to oppose the claimants' Motion
for Class Certification as a national class action including all
of the states in which the company operates dealerships,
excluding California and Florida, according to its May 8, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Several private civil actions have been filed against the
company and several of its dealership subsidiaries that purport
to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and
make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.

One of these private civil actions has been filed in South
Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of
its South Carolina subsidiaries.

This group of plaintiffs' attorneys has filed another private
civil class-action lawsuit in state court in North Carolina
seeking certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs.

The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina
state court action have since been consolidated into a single
proceeding in private arbitration.

Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.

On Nov. 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class-
action lawsuit including all of the states in which Sonic
operates dealerships, excluding California and Florida.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S. Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts,
financing and insurance and other aftermarket products for its
automotive customers.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a shareholder class-action lawsuit
against Sprint Nextel Corp., alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging
that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and
misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent
they described new employment agreements with certain senior
executives without disclosing that, according to the
allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable.

These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and
certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to
recover any decline in the value of the company's tracking
stocks during the class period.

The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class
action.

All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend to
defend this matter vigorously, according to the company's Nov.
7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims
against the same defendants and the company's former independent
auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004.

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
denied, and the parties are engaged in discovery (Class Action
Reporter, March 11, 2009).

The company did not provide further updates on the case in its
May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Easements Cases v. Unit Remain Pending in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cases filed against Sprint Nextel Corp.'s subsidiary, Sprint
Communications Company L.P., for alleged failure to obtain
easements for fiber optic network installations remain pending
in Tennessee.

A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications failed to
obtain easements from property owners during the installation of
its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been filed in various
courts.  Several of these cases sought certification of
nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide class was
certified.

In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the
settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  The parties proceeded with litigation and/or
settlement negotiations on a state by state basis, and
settlement negotiations have been coordinated in all cases but
those pending in Louisiana and Tennessee.  The Louisiana claims
have been separately settled for an amount not material to the
company, and that settlement was given final approval by the
Court, and the time to appeal that approval has expired.

The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claims in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an
amount not material to the company.  The Court issued its
preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2008, and the
Court is in the process of considering objections to the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, March 11, 2009).

No further developments on the matter were reported in the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


SPRINT NEXTEL: To Defend Kansas Fraud Suit Over Nextel Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. intends to defend a class-action suit that
alleges it misrepresented its business and financial results
surrounding the Nextel merger in ways that pushed its stock
artificially high, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On March 10, 2009, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class-action suit has been commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of
purchasers of Sprint Nextel Corp. common stock during the period
between Oct. 26, 2006 and Feb. 27, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
March 12, 2009).

The complaint charges Sprint and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Sprint stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

In December 2004, Sprint Corporation and Nextel Communications
("Nextel") announced that they would merge.  The merger was
completed on Aug. 12, 2005, with Sprint Corp. buying Nextel for
$37.8 billion.  The merger, the complaint alleges, turned out to
be a disaster, as the Company has had difficulties in combining
the resources of the two companies due to culture clashes and
technological issues.

However, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly assured
the market that the Company was poised for a turnaround and was
focused on improving its core operations.  As late as the summer
of 2007, defendants continued to play down and conceal Sprint's
problems with its network and with its customer service issues
and subscriber base.  Beginning in early Fall 2007, Sprint
finally began to acknowledge that its initiatives were not
working and that the Company was experiencing a serious
deterioration in its subscriber base, due both to a slow down in
new growth and a massive defection of its current subscribers to
its competitors.

On Feb. 28, 2008, before the market opened, the Company reported
disappointing fourth quarter and full year 2007 financial
results, including a net loss for the quarter of $29.5 billion
or $10.36 diluted loss per share.  On this news, Sprint's stock
collapsed $0.86 per share to close at $8.09 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- the Company's CDMA business was not as healthy as
          represented;

       -- the Company would be unable to complete its migration
          of its entire customer base to a uniform billing
          platform by 2007 from the multiple legacy platforms,
          thus continuing to cause customer service problems and
          having a negative effect on the Company's voluntary
          churn rate;

       -- the Company had not taken the proper steps to address
          its customer service issues;

       -- the Company failed to disclose known trends and
          uncertainties as required by SEC regulations
          concerning the loosening of its credit standards for
          its CDMA network and its failure to take the proper
          steps to address customer service issues, which would
          have a negative effect on the Company's operations in
          the future;

       -- the Company was not adequately reserving for its
          impaired goodwill associated with Nextel or its
          allowance for bad debts related to subprime
          subscribers in violation of GAAP, causing its
          financial results to be materially misstated;

       -- the Company had far greater exposure to liquidity
          concerns and ratings downgrades than it had previously
          disclosed;

       -- the Company was failing to integrate the CDMA network
          and the iDEN network; and

       -- given the increased volatility in the subprime market,
          the intense competition in the wireless industry and
          the problems facing Sprint due to its failure to
          integrate legacy Sprint and legacy Nextel operations,
          the Company's projections issued during the Class
          Period about its earnings for 2007 and 2008 were at a
          minimum reckless.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Sprint's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period.  However,
after the above revelations seeped into the market, the
Company's shares fell more than 65% from their Class Period
high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Sprint common stock during the Class Period.

The Class Action Reporter dated May 11, 2009, cites Phil Kabler
of the Charleston Gazette as saying that members of West
Virginia's Investment Management Board are milling whether to
join a securities class-action lawsuit against Sprint Corp.,
which contends that company officials fraudulently
misrepresented its 2005 merger with Nextel Communications.

For more details, contact:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
         Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/sprintnextel/


TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Faces Buyers' Suit Over Fla. Hotel Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trump Organization LLC and severals others face a purported
class-action lawsuit in connection to the Trump International
Hotel & Towers on Fort Lauderdale Beach, Fla., bizjournals.com
reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 26, 2009, under the caption, "Trilogy
Properties LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-21406."  It is seeking class action status on behalf
of buyers of the project.

Named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Trilogy Properties LLC,
Gaetano Salerno and Joseph Salerno, who are repeesented by Miami
attorney Jared Beck, Esq.

Besides Trump Organization, other defendants named in the
lawsuit are, SB Hotel Associates LLC, Bayrock Group L.L.C., Roy
Stillman, Donald J. Trump, Trump Florida Management LLC, Corus
Bank, N.A., and Chicago Title Insurance Company.

In general, the suit claims that the Trump Organization has
notified local developers it will pull the Trump name off the
project.  It also said buyers were notified by letter on May 13,
2009 that they have to close by May 28, 2009, and none of the
contracts may close if 50 percent of buyers don't close,
according to the bizjournals.com report.

"Now we have a developer setting a very short clock on their
heads, and making several startling revelations," Mr. Beck told
bizjournals.com.  "We also will be seeking interim relief to
enjoin closings and defaults being declared."

The suit asks that deposits be returned and calls for punitive
damages, bizjournals.com reported.

For more details, contact:

          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. (elizabeth@beckandlee.com)
          Beck & Lee Business Trial Lawyers
          28 W Flagler Street
          Suite 555
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-789-0072
          Fax: 786-664-3334


TYSON FOODS: Ill. Judge Give Final OK to Chicken Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn of the Madison County Circuit
Court gave final approval to a proposed settlement of a class
action-lawsuit against Tyson Foods, Inc., Sanford J. Schmidt of
The Telegraph reports.

Steve Korris of St. Clair Record previously reported Tyson Foods
tentatively settled a purported class-action suit in Madison
County Circuit Court that accuses it of reaping unjust profit by
selling soggy chickens.

Stephen Tillery, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs, and Tyson
Foods notified Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn
on Jan. 27, 2009 that they reached agreement.

The St. Clair Record reported that Judge Mendelsohn then set a
Feb. 5, 2009 hearing on a joint motion for preliminary approval.

Timothy Rogers sued Tyson in 2001, claiming it purposely soaked
chickens in water to add weight.  The suit claimed that
customers paid the same price per pound for the extra water as
they paid for the bird itself, according to the St. Clair Record
reports.

In general, the case accuses Tyson Foods of artificially
inflating the weight of poultry products sold to consumers
between 1997 and 2003 through a cold-water immersion chilling
process, which inevitably results in the absorption and
retention of water under the skin and muscle tissues of the
birds, according to The Telegraph report.

As part of the settlement, Tyson Foods will donate 1.7 million
pounds of chicken to food banks in Illinois.

Court records indicate Judge Mendelsohn approved attorneys' fees
of $750,000, a $2 million fund to settle claims by individual
class members and the donation to the food pantries, The
Telegraph reported.

Overall, the retail value of the donation is approximately $2.3
million, reports The Telegraph.


W.R. GRACE: Continues to Face ZAI-Related Property Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WR Grace & Co. continues to face class-action claims pertaining
to the company's attic insulation product Zonolite Attic
Insulation (ZAI).

Approximately 4,300 property damage claims were filed against WR
Grace in addition to 380 asbestos property damage cases filed
against it prior to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date
established in the company's bankruptcy proceedings (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 8, 2007).

The bar date did not apply to claims against ZAI, a former Grace
attic insulation product. As of Oct. 31, 2006, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims,
approximately 640 property damage claims remain outstanding.

Eight of the ZAI-related complaints were filed as purported
class actions in 2000 and 2001.  In addition, 10 lawsuits were
filed as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect
to persons and homes in Canada.  These cases seek damages and
equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and
disposal of all such insulation.

The plaintiffs assert that the product is in millions of homes
and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars
per home.  As a result of the filing, the eight U.S. cases have
been transferred to the Bankruptcy Court.

Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these
lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and
others, Grace believes that the product was and continues to be
safe for its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to
human health.

The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on
the safety of ZAI.  In July 2002, the Bankruptcy Court approved
special counsel to represent, at Grace's expense, the ZAI
claimants in a proceeding to determine certain threshold
scientific issues regarding ZAI.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions
filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and
factual issues regarding the ZAI claims.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos
and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no
unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.

The ZAI claimants sought an interlocutory appeal of the opinion
and order with the District Court in Delaware but that request
was denied.

The ZAI claimants have indicated they still intend to appeal
such opinion and order when it becomes a final order.

The Debtors have asked the Bankruptcy Court to establish a bar
date for ZAI claims and approve a related notice program that
would require persons with a ZAI claim to submit individual
proofs of claim.

At the same time, the ZAI Claimants have asked the Bankruptcy
Court for various forms of relief:

       -- to take such actions as would finalize the Dec. 14,
          2006 order and permit an appeal to be taken;

       -- to allow the ZAI claims to return to the state court
          tort system;

       -- to appoint an expert to estimate the number of homes
          containing ZAI; and

       -- to certify a class claim on behalf of Washington state
          residents (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2008).

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a
related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
Oct. 31, 2008.  Approximately 16,200 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the Oct. 31, 2008 claims bar date and, as of
March 31, 2009 an additional 3,045 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the
Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, approved the Minutes of Settlement
that would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims on the terms of the
Joint Plan.  On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established
Aug. 31, 2009 as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity
Committee reached an agreement in principle designed to resolve
all present and future U.S. ZAI PD Claims.  The terms of the
U.S. and Canadian ZAI agreements in principle have been
incorporated into the terms of the Joint Plan and related
documents, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

W.R. Grace & Co. -- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts
and silica products, especially construction chemicals and
building materials, and container products globally.


W.R. GRACE: Settlement of ERISA Lawsuit Pending Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act class-action suit relating to W.R. Grace & Co.'s
401(k) Savings and Investment Plan, also known as the S&I Plan,
is pending court approval.

In June 2004, a purported class action complaint (Evans v. Akers
et al.) was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Grace Board of Directors, certain
current and former Grace officers and employees, and others,
relating to the Grace 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan, also
known as the S&I Plan.

The Evans complaint alleges that the decline in the price of
Grace common stock from July 1999 through February 2004 resulted
in significant losses to S&I Plan participants.  It further
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, or ERISA, by failing to sell or take other appropriate
action with regard to Grace common stock held by the S&I Plan
during that period, and by failing to disclose to S&I Plan
participants the risk of investing in Grace common stock.

The Evans complaint seeks compensatory damages for the S&I Plan
from the defendants.

The company expects that it would have an obligation to
indemnify the other defendants for any liability resulting from
this litigation.  Grace has $50 million of employers' fiduciary
liability insurance coverage that Grace believes would be
available to pay liabilities arising out of the Evans action.

On April 20, 2009, Grace entered into a settlement agreement,
the Evans Settlement, that would resolve all claims set forth in
the Evans complaint within the limits of Grace's employers'
fiduciary liability insurance coverage.  Under the Evans
Settlement, Grace would expect to pay less than $100,000 to
cover certain expenses related to the Evans Settlement that are
not covered by insurance.  To become effective, the Evans
Settlement must be approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware and the District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

W.R. Grace & Co. -- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts
and silica products, especially construction chemicals and
building materials, and container products globally.


WIZARD OF CLAWS: Fla. Court Allows Suit Over Puppies to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Broward County Circuit Court refused to dismiss several
defendants from a class-action lawsuit against puppy dealer
known as "Wizard of Claws," according to a posting by Daphne
Sashin at http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com.

The court's order allows plaintiffs to proceed with their claims
against three entities sharing common ownership with Wizard of
Claws -- Celebrity Kennels, Inc., Dog Breeder Kennel, Inc. and
Puppies for Sale, Inc. -- and also directs the defendants to
turn over records regarding the puppies they have sold to the
public.  The court also ordered the owners of Wizard of Claws to
sit for depositions concerning their business practices,
according to the posting.

Lynne Marek of The National Law Journal previously reported that
the law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges, on behalf of The Humane
Society of the United States, filed what they believe to be the
first class-action lawsuit against the south Florida-based
Wizard of Claws (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2007).

The suit, filed in Broward County Circuit Court, alleges the
company sold puppies with genetic defects and contagious
parasitic infections and failed to reimburse customers for the
sick animals or their medical problems.

The lawsuit so far represents about 100 class members, said
Jonathan Lovvorn, who heads up the Humane Society's litigation
department.  Each representative will have damages of $2,000 to
$5,000, making the lawsuit worth hundreds of thousands of
dollars, he said.

The sale of sick and dying puppies to customers who were unable
to receive reimbursement for either the price of the sick dogs
or veterinary treatments that sometimes cost thousands of
dollars violated Florida animal and consumer protection laws,
the Humane Society said.

According to The National Law Journal, the lawsuit seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and injunctive relief against
the further sale of puppies by Wizard of Claws.

Plaintiffs' counsel, who filed the lawsuit on a pro bono basis,
can be contacted at:

          Paul A. Ferrillo, Esq.
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone: (212) 310-8372
          Fax: (212) 310-8007
          Web site: http://www.weil.com


ZYNEX INC: June 8, 2009 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Zynex, Inc. (OTCBB:ZYXI) (formerly Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc.)
between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009 have only 12 days until
the June 8, 2009, deadline to move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit.

     The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and
captioned, "Manandik v. Zynex, Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-00829-
REB-KMT," has been assigned to the Honorable Robert E.
Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of
Colorado.

     Previously, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a federal
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Zynex, Inc. (OTC BB:ZYXI) (formerly
Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc.) between May 21, 2008 and March 31,
2009, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2009).

     The Complaint charges Zynex and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5,
and further alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements
concerning the Company's financial performance were materially
false and misleading.

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

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


ZYNEX INC: June 8, 2009 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC reminds investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Zynex, Inc. common stock between May 21,
2008 and March 31, 2009 of the upcoming June 8, 2009 Lead
Plaintiff Deadline of a purported securities fraud lawsuit
against the company.

     Previously, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
shares of Zynex, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYXI) (BERLIN: YU5) which was
formerly known as Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc., between May 21,
2008 and March 31, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, April 15, 2009).

     The complaint alleges that Zynex and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company made false and misleading statements to the
public regarding its financial statements for the first three
quarters of 2008.  On April 1, 2009, the Company announced its
unaudited financial statements could not be relied upon and that
Zynex would have to issue restatements.

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

For more details, contact:

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Akeena Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKNS)
between December 26, 2007 and March 13, 2008, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Akeena and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's sales, financial performance and condition.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following
facts:

       -- the backlog number the Company had previously reported
          was unreliable;

       -- Akeena's gross profit margins were declining;

       -- the Company's net losses were dramatically increasing;
          and

       -- the $17.5 million "increase" in Akeena's credit line
          announced on December 26, 2007 was merely a cash
          collateralization agreement which simply increased the
          Company's restricted cash.

     When the truth was finally revealed, Akeena's common stock,
which had traded as high as $16.80 on January 7, 2008, fell to a
close of $6.15 per share on March 13, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 17, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


SEQUENOM INC: Holzer Holzer Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf all persons or entities who purchased
shares of Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQNM) between June 4, 2008 and
April 29, 2009.

     The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Sequenom
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's Down syndrome test under development.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain officers
and directors of the Company failed to properly disclose that
Sequenom employees mishandled test data and results regarding
the Down syndrome test.

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


For more details, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited anticipates that it will continue to be
subject to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the
ordinary course of business, including litigation generally
related to the scope of coverage with respect to asbestos and
environmental claims.

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

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Enstar Group Limited was formed to
acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-
off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to
the insurance and reinsurance industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Cites $500,000 Income at March 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc.'s condensed consolidated statements of
operations, for the nine-month period ended March 29, 2009
included, US$500,000 of income from the Federal-Mogul
Corporation asbestos settlement trust in income from
discontinued operations.

The Company has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations previously acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's
ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-
containing products.

The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and has also
tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers for the
companies from which the Company acquired the businesses. The
Company also filed claims in the Federal-Mogul Corporation
bankruptcy proceedings to recover attorney's fees for defense of
these claims.

In May 2007, the Company and Federal-Mogul entered into a
settlement agreement under which the Company was entitled to
receive amounts from a settlement trust established under
Federal-Mogul's reorganization plan and funded by insurance
proceeds.

The Company was entitled to receive 15 percent of the first
US$20 million and 10 percent of the next US$25 million of
insurance proceeds, up to a maximum of US$5.5 million, in
exchange for withdrawing its bankruptcy claims and objections to
the reorganization plan and execution of certain releases.

In January 2009, the Company received a payment of US$1 million
under the settlement agreement, which brought the total proceeds
received to date under the settlement agreement to US$5.5
million, the maximum amount to which the Company is entitled.

The condensed consolidated statements of operations for the
nine-month period ended March 30, 2008 include US$1.4 million of
income from the settlement trust in income from discontinued
operations.

Several insurance carriers filed a declaratory judgment action
relating to insurance coverage for those previously acquired
businesses, seeking a determination that no coverage is
available under the policies.

Federal-Mogul, the Company and other defendants filed responsive
pleadings and motions relating to the case, and the court
granted the motions to stay the declaratory judgment action.
Some of these insurers appealed such ruling and in November
2008, the ruling was upheld on appeal.

Based in Menomonee Falls, Wis., Magnetek, Inc. provides digital
power control systems that are used to control motion and power
primarily in material handling, elevator, and energy delivery
applications. Systems consist primarily of programmable motion
control and power conditioning systems used in: overhead cranes
and hoists; elevators; coal mining equipment; and alternative
energy applications, including wind turbines and photovoltaic
systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ashland Drop to 106T at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 106,000 open asbestos claims during the six
months ended March 31, 2009, compared with 117,000 claims during
the six months ended March 31, 2008.

Asbestos claims against the Company dropped to 109,000 during
the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008 from 115,000 claims during
the year ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13,
2009)

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in
1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a
former subsidiary.

During the six months ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted
1,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 9,000 claims
dismissed. During the six months ended March 31, 2008, the
Company noted 2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and
18,000 claims dismissed.

Asbestos reserve was US$552 million during the six months ended
March 31, 2009, compared with US$589 million during the six
months ended March 31, 2008.

At March 31, 2009, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$470 million, of which US$71 million relates to
costs previously paid.

Receivables from insurers amounted to US$458 million at Sept.
30, 2008 and US$473 million at March 31, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Still Faces 27T Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules Incorporated, faced 27,000
open asbestos claims, during the six months ended March 31,
2009, the same as for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Hercules faced 27,000 claims as of Nov. 13, 2008.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims typically arise
from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated
pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules'
former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.

Asbestos reserve was US$332 million as of March 31, 2009,
compared with US$233 million as of Nov. 13, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $627M March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation's liability for asbestos-related
matters was US$627 million at March 31, 2009, US$648 million at
Dec. 31, 2008 and US$628 million at March 31, 2008.

The Company has been subject to asbestos-related claims in
recent years. While it has resolved many of the asbestos-related
cases over the years and continue to do so for strategic
litigation reasons such as avoiding defense costs and possible
exposure to excessive verdicts, the Company said it believes
that a small proportion of the claimants has or will develop an
asbestos-related physical impairment.

A small percentage of the claims pending against the Company
allege causation of a disease associated with asbestos exposure.

Based in Detroit, General Motors Corporation produces and
markets cars and trucks. The Company develops, manufactures and
markets vehicles worldwide through its four automotive segments
which consist of GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Middle East and GM Asia Pacific.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 103,900 Cases Ongoing v. EnPro at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Of about 103,900 open asbestos cases at March 31, 2009, EnPro
Industries, Inc. is aware of about 5,800 that involve claimants
alleging mesothelioma.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company faced 104,100 open asbestos-
related cases, of which it was aware of about 4,600 cases
involve claimants alleging mesothelioma. (Class Action Reporter,
April 3, 2009)

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are among a
large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by
plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers.

Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial
sealing products, including gaskets and packing products. The
damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases
plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any
punitive damage awards. Liability for compensatory damages has
historically been allocated among responsible defendants.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments,
settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers,
have paid almost US$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and
over US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims
of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about seven
percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging lung or other
cancers, and about 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs
alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant
impairment of the respiratory system.

About 1,100 new claims were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in the first quarter of 2009, down from the 1,400
claims filed in the first quarter of 2008. The number of new
actions filed against the Company's subsidiaries in 2008 (5,500)
was about five percent higher than the number filed in 2007
(5,200) but was significantly lower than the number filed in
2006 (7,700).

Garlock's product defenses have enabled it to be successful at
trial. Garlock won defense verdicts in three of the six cases
tried to verdict in 2008, and in seven of 12 cases tried to
verdict in the three-year period 2006 through 2008.

In the successful jury trials, the juries determined that either
Garlock's products were not defective, that Garlock was not
negligent, or that the claimant was not exposed to Garlock's
products.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Garlock Sealing Trials Commenced in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, during the first quarter of 2009, began two
asbestos trials involving two plaintiffs.

In a Kentucky mesothelioma case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$2.1 million. Garlock's share of this verdict was US$525,000;
Garlock will appeal. In California, Garlock received a dismissal
in a mesothelioma case during trial.

In 2008, Garlock began 11 trials involving 13 plaintiffs.
Garlock received three jury verdicts in its favor, one in an
Ohio case and two in a Pennsylvania trial involving two
plaintiffs. A lawsuit in California was dismissed during trial.

In South Carolina, Garlock obtained a dismissal in one case
during trial because there was insufficient evidence of exposure
to Garlock products. In a Kentucky lung cancer case, the jury
awarded the plaintiff US$1.52 million. Garlock's share of this
verdict was about US$682,000; Garlock has appealed.

In a Pennsylvania lung cancer case, the jury awarded the
plaintiff US$400,000. Garlock's share was US$200,000, about 50
percent of the total verdict. Garlock paid this verdict in the
first quarter of 2009.

In an Illinois case, the jury awarded US$500,000 against Garlock
to a plaintiff with asbestosis. Garlock has appealed. Also in
Pennsylvania, four lawsuits involving five plaintiffs settled
during trial before the jury reached a verdict.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites 5 Pending Appeals at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, at March 31, 2009, five
asbestos appeals of its subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, were pending from adverse verdicts totaling
US$2.7 million, up from US$2.2 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and
US$1.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Garlock has historically enjoyed success in a majority of its
appeals. The Company said it believes that Garlock will continue
to be successful in the appellate process.

In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned an US$800,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. In March 2006, a
three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial. The case
subsequently settled.

On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied
Garlock's appeal from a 2005 verdict in a mesothelioma case in
Baltimore and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment
interest, in 2006. In a separate Baltimore case in 2006, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from
another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was
also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in 2007.

In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the
form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the
verdicts. The Company has been required to provide cash
collateral or letters of credit to secure the full amount of the
bonds, which can restrict the use of a significant amount of the
Company's cash for the periods of those appeals.

At March 31, 2009, the Company had about US$1.7 million of
appeal bonds secured by letters of credit.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $22.5M Settlement Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies,
LLC's new asbestos settlement commitments in the first quarter
of 2009 were US$22.5 million, up from US$8.2 million in the
first quarter of 2008.

Garlock settles and disposes of actions on a regular basis.
Garlock's historical settlement strategy was to settle cases in
advanced stages of litigation.

In 1999 and 2000, however, Garlock employed a more aggressive
settlement strategy. The purpose of this strategy was to achieve
a permanent reduction in the number of overall asbestos claims
through the settlement of a large number of claims, including
some early-stage claims and some claims not yet filed as
lawsuits.

Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999. In
2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and
focused on reducing settlement commitments.

As a result, Garlock reduced new settlement commitments from
US$180 million in 2000 to US$94 million in 2001 and US$86
million in 2002. New settlement commitments have continued to
decline gradually and totaled US$71 million in 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $302.2MM Coverage at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, at March 31, 2009, had available US$302.2
million of insurance and trust coverage that the Company said it
believes will be available to cover future asbestos claims and
certain expense payments.

In addition, at March 31, 2009, Garlock classified US$18.3
million of otherwise available insurance as insolvent. Garlock
collected about US$100,000 from insolvent carriers in 2008, and
the Company said it believes that Garlock will collect some
additional amounts from insolvent carriers in the future.

Of the US$302.2 million of collectible insurance and trust
assets, the Company considers US$292 million (97 percent) to be
of high quality. The Company considers US$10.2 million (three
percent) to be of moderate quality.

Of the US$302.2 million, about US$233.6 million is allocated to
claims that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its
insurance companies for reimbursement and the remainder is
allocated to pending and estimated future claims.

The Company's liability as of March 31, 2009 was US$465.8
million (the Company's estimate of the liability of US$456.4
million plus US$9.4 million of accrued legal and other fees
already incurred but not yet paid). The liability as of March
31, 2009, included US$96.4 million classified as a current
liability and US$369.4 million classified as a noncurrent
liability.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company had remaining insurance and
trust coverage of US$302.2 million which is reflected on its
balance sheet as a receivable (US$75 million classified in
current assets and US$227.2 classified in non-current assets)
and which it believes will be available for the payment of
asbestos-related claims.

Included in the receivable is US$233.6 million in insured claims
and expenses that the subsidiaries have paid out in excess of
amounts recovered from insurance. The remaining US$68.6 million
will be available for pending and future claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Incurs No Material Amounts at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of March 31, 2009, has not incurred
and does not expect to incur material amounts related to
asbestos-related claims not subject certain arrangements
(Remaining Claims).

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC. Substantially all of these
contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third
parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related
claims.

As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and does not
expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to
these matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses,
all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988
sale, those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-
containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named,
typically along with 10 to as many as 100 or more other
companies, as a defendant in various personal injury lawsuits
claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter. In
connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
Friction Guarantor) assumed all liability for substantially all
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement. Under
the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI
substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the
assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace
Division (Aerospace) and certain contingent liabilities and the
related assets, including its historical insurance and
indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not
transfer.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement, all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for
asbestos-related claims.

New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding company that
conducts its operations through its indirect wholly owned
subsidiaries, Harland Clarke Holdings and Mafco Worldwide. The
Company's businesses are organized along four business segments:
Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and
Licorice Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Still Subject "Premises" Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to be a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for and
to indemnify the Company against asbestos exposure claims.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded six new such cases tendered during period, 10 cases
resolved during period, and 1,136 unresolved cases at end of
period. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the
Company recorded five cases tendered during period, 24 cases
resolved during period, and 1,173 unresolved cases at end of
period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of March 31, 2009, the Company had an accrued
liability of US$16 million relating to these cases and a
corresponding receivable of US$16 million relating to its
indemnity protection with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded two such cases resolved during period and 41 unresolved
at the end of the period. During the three months ended March
31, 2008, the Company recorded one case filed, one case
resolved, and 39 cases resolved at end of the period.

Based in Salt Lake City, Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer
of differentiated organic chemical products and of inorganic
chemical products. Its products are used in applications,
including those in the adhesives, aerospace, automotive,
construction products, durable and non-durable consumer
products, electronics, medical, packaging, paints and coatings,
power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textile chemicals
and dye industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Subject to Damage, Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. is still a defendant in property damage and
personal injury lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-
containing products.

As of the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date, the Company was
a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving
claims for property damage (one of which has since been
dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims for
personal injury.

Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors. The PI and PD
Committees, representing the interests of asbestos personal
injury and asbestos property damage claimants and the PI FCR and
PD FCR, representing the interests of future asbestos personal
injury and property damage claimants have been appointed in the
Chapter 11 Cases.

Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the Filing Date, 16,354 asbestos personal
injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 PI Claims were dismissed
without payment of any damages or settlement amounts (primarily
on the basis that the Company's products were not involved) and
about 55,489 lawsuits involving about 163,698 PI Claims were
disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a total of
US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI claims for personal injury
were pending against the Company. The Company said it believes
that a substantial number of additional PI Claims would have
been received between the Filing Date and March 31, 2009 had
those PI Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 415 Damage Claims at April 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 415 asbestos property damage claims (following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims) remain
outstanding against W. R. Grace & Co.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally
seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing,
containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the
affected buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the April 2, 2001
bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of
any damages or settlement amounts; judgments after trial were
entered in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases
settled following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company);
judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1
million; 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the
one on appeal). Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to ZAI
(Zonolite Attic Insulation) and eight relate to a number of
former asbestos-containing products (two of which also are
alleged to involve ZAI).

About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March
31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.
The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 360 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$93 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed
as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to
persons and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and
equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and
disposal of all such insulation.

The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes
and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars
per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have
been stayed.

In October 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions
filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and
factual issues regarding the ZAI claims. In December 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that,
although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release
asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of
harm from ZAI.

The ZAI claimants sought an interlocutory appeal of the opinion
and order with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, but that request was denied. In the event the Joint
Plan is not confirmed, the ZAI claimants have reserved their
right to appeal such opinion and order if and when it becomes a
final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a
related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
Oct. 31, 2008. About 16,200 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior
to the Oct. 31, 2008 claims bar date and, as of March 31, 2009
an additional 3,045 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the
Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, approved the Minutes of Settlement
that would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims on the terms of the
Joint Plan. On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established
Aug. 31, 2009 as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity
Committee reached an agreement in principle designed to resolve
all present and future U.S. ZAI PD Claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $923M Excess Coverage at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co., as of March 31, 2009, recorded about US$923
million in remaining asbestos excess coverage from 53 presently
solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts
paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount available under these settlement agreements is about
US$440 million.

Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers
with respect to about US$483 million of excess coverage. In
addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess
insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of
US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of
the holders of claims for which the Company was provided
coverage under the affected policies. The escrow account balance
at March 31, 2009 was US$97.2 million, including interest earned
on the account.

Funds will be distributed from this account directly to
claimants at the direction of the escrow agent under the terms
of a confirmed plan of reorganization or as otherwise ordered by
the Bankruptcy Court. The settlement agreement provides that
unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31,
2008, at the option of the insurer, exercisable at any time
prior to April 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be
returned to the insurer.

On April 22, 2009, the Company entered into an agreement to
extend the period for the insurer to exercise its right to the
return of the escrow amount with interest until June 30, 2009.
Due to the open contingencies for the release of such amount,
the Company has not recorded the amount in the escrow account or
reduced its asbestos insurance receivable balance. Under the
Joint Plan, the amount in the escrow account would be assigned
to the PI Trust.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Cites $47.7M March 31 Libby Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont. (including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby), was US$47.7 million at March
31, 2009 and US$48.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

As a result of a 2002 U.S. District Court ruling, the Company is
required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million
(plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for
all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-related
remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining
and processing activities in Libby.

These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs.

In June 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved an agreement (EPA
Cost Recovery Agreement), between the Company and the U.S.
Department of Justice to settle the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's cost recovery claims for all past and future
remediation costs with respect to the Company's former Libby
operations, except for those relating to the Grace-owned Libby
vermiculite mine, for a payment by the Company of US$250 million
(which amount includes the US$54.5 million).

In addition, EPA has agreed to take no action against the
Company with respect to the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site.
During 2008, the Company paid US$250 million plus accrued
interest of about US$2 million in satisfaction of its
obligations under the EPA Cost Recovery Agreement.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $24.6Mil for Libby at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total expense for W. R. Grace & Co. and certain of its current
and former employees, over an environmental crimes action in
Libby, Mont., was US$24.6 million for the quarter ended March
31, 2009 and US$3 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In February 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and
seven former senior level employees (one of whom is now deceased
and two of whom have been dismissed from the case) (United
States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al.) relating to the
Company's former vermiculite mining and processing activities in
Libby.

The indictment accuses the defendants of (1) conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and
(3) obstruction of justice. The Company categorically denied any
criminal wrongdoing.

The trial began Feb. 19, 2009. On May 8, 2009, the Company and
its former employees were found not guilty on all counts of the
indictment.

The Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's request to
advance legal and defense costs to the employees involved in
this case, subject to a reimbursement obligation if it is later
determined that the employees did not meet the standards for
indemnification set forth under the appropriate state corporate
law.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJDEP Appeal in Grace Case Filed April 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a case
involving W. R. Grace & Co., was filed in April 2009.

In 2005, the NJDEP filed a lawsuit against the Company and two
former employees, which was removed at the Company's request to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J.
Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al.).

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations
and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the NJDEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial
Site Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of the Company's former vermiculite expansion plant in
Hamilton Township, N.J. In 2005, the Bankruptcy Court stayed
this lawsuit.

In April 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling stating that
the lawsuit filed by the NJDEP was in violation of the automatic
stay and enjoining further pursuit of all claims in the lawsuit.
In March 2009, the Delaware District Court upheld the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling.

In April 2007, New Jersey filed a motion for leave to file a
late proof of claim in the amount of US$31 million with respect
to substantially the same claims set forth in the lawsuit. In
August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied this motion and the
Delaware District Court affirmed this ruling on appeal in March
2008.

In April 2008, New Jersey appealed this ruling to the Third
Circuit, which appeal is still pending.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 69 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameren at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries, as of March 31, 2009,
faced 69 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company and its subsidiaries, as of Dec. 31, 2008, faced 67
asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, March 27,
2009)

These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Company, Central Illinois
Public Service Company, Ameren Energy Generating Company,
Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power Company.

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit
Court of Madison County, Ill. The total number of defendants
named in each case is significant. As many as 192 parties are
named in some pending cases and as few as six in others.
However, in the cases that were pending as of March 31, 2009,
the average number of parties was 71.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric
generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco,
and former CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company.

Most of IP's plants were transferred to a former parent
subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP.

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at
trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.
As of March 31, 2009, six asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc.

At March 31, 2009, the Company had liabilities of US$12 million
(UE had US$3 million, CIPS had US$3 million, CILCO had US$1
million, and IP had US$5 million) recorded to represent their
best estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims, subject to the following terms. Beginning in
2007, about 90 percent of cash expenditures in excess of the
amount included in base electric rates are recovered by IP from
a trust fund established by IP. At March 31, 2009, the trust
fund balance was about US$23 million, including accumulated
interest.

If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, IP
will contribute 90 percent of the difference to the fund. Once
the trust fund is depleted, 90 percent of allowed cash
expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through
charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Ameren Corporation distributes
electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost
one million customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility
subsidiaries: Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public
Service Company, Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois
Power Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Dillingham Ship's Review Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, denied Dillingham Ship
Repair's petition for review of a decision by the Benefits
Review Board in an asbestos case filed by Bernice Schuchardt on
behalf of her late husband, Lawton F. Schuchardt.

The case is styled Dillingham Ship Repair; eet al., Petitioners,
Bernice Schuchardt, (Widow of Lawton F. Schuchardt), Claimant-
Respondent v. United States Department of Labor; et al.,
Respondents, Zidell Marine Corporation; et al., Real Parties in
Interest.

Circuit Judges Susan Graber, Fisher, and M. Smith entered
judgment in Case No. 07-73611 on March 25, 2009.

Dillingham Ship Repair petitioned for review of a decision by
the Board under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act.

The Court reviewed the Board's decision for "errors of law and
for adherence to the statutory standard governing the Board's
review of the administrative law judge's [ALJ's] factual
determinations." Finding no error, the Court denied the petition
for review.

This case concerned which employer is liable for causing an
asbestos-related disease and the ultimate death of the
claimant's husband. This circuit has adopted the "last employer
rule," whereby "the employer during the last employment in which
the claimant was exposed to injurious stimuli, prior to the date
upon which the claimant became aware of the fact that he was
suffering from an occupational disease arising naturally out of
his employment, [is] liable for the full amount of the award."

Dennis R. Vavrosky, Esq., of Vavrosky Maccoll Olsen & Pfeifer
P.C. in Portland, Ore., represented Petitioners.

James S. Coon, Esq., of Swanson Thomas & Coon in Portland, Ore.
Represented Claimant-Respondent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $58M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities
were US$58 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$54
million as of Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$53 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
13, 2009)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$14
million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$15 million as of
Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$45
million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$44 million as of
Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries were US$8
million as of March 31, 2009, the same as for the year ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Based in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 30T at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos claims against ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Maremont Corporation, dropped from about 35,000 at both Dec. 31,
2008 and Sept. 30, 2008 to 30,000 at March 31, 2009.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Although Maremont has
been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has
been alleged, very few claimants have established that a
Maremont product caused their injuries.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or
thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named
defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves for pending and future
claims were US$53 million at both March 31, 2009 and Sept. 30,
2008.

Maremont's asbestos-related recoveries were US$36 million at
both March 31, 2009 and Sept. 30, 2008.

Based in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $17M for Rockwell Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. has recorded a liability for defense and
indemnity costs associated with Rockwell Automation, Inc.
asbestos legacy claims of US$17 million at March 31, 2009 and
US$16 million at Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products many years ago.
Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor from
Rockwell in 1997.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company, together with many other companies, as defendants.

Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management said it
believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above
self-insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The Company
has initiated claims against these carriers to enforce the
insurance policies.

Although the status of one carrier as a financially viable
entity is in question, the Company expects to recover the
majority of defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to date,
over and above self-insured retentions, and a substantial
portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going
forward.

Accordingly, the Company has recorded an insurance receivable
related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$17
million at March 31, 2009 and US$16 million at Sept. 30, 2008.

Based in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Cites $1.019B Carolinas Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amounts recognized as asbestos reserves related to Duke Energy
Corporation subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled about US$1.019 billion as of
March 31, 2009 and US$1.031 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company has experienced numerous claims for indemnification
and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention
of US$476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments
began to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance
policy during the second quarter of 2008.

Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the
Company's third party insurance carrier. The insurance policy
limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.074
billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of about US$1.007 billion as of March 31,
2009 and US$1.032 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008 related to this
policy are classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets in
Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. have also
been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations.

The Company has recorded reserves, including reserves related to
asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of about US$1
billion as of March 31, 2009 and US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31,
2008. The Company recognized about US$1.007 billion as of March
31, 2009 and US$1.032 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008 of probable
insurance recoveries related to these losses.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation has 3.9
million electricity customers and about 500,000 gas customers in
the U.S. South and Midwest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Still Facing 114 Actions at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indiana Power & Light
Company, still faced 114 asbestos lawsuits as of both March 31,
2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a
"premises defendant" in that IPL did not mine, manufacture,
distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products.

These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked
for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has
insurance which may cover some portions of these claims.

Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

Based in Indianapolis, IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. is a holding
company that generates, transmits, distributes and sells
electric energy to about 470,000 retail customers in the city of
Indianapolis and neighboring areas within the state of Indiana.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation, BGE Face 512 Ongoing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and subsidiary Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company face 512 asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.

About 512 individuals who were never employees of BGE or the
Company have pending claims each seeking several million dollars
in compensatory and punitive damages.

Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.

To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a minority has
been resolved for amounts that were not material to the
Company's financial results.

Based in Baltimore, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an
energy company that conducts its business through various
subsidiaries including a merchant energy business and Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company (BGE).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Bull Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, issued
split rulings in the case styled Paul Bull, Plaintiff v.
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered judgment in Case
No. 1:05-CV-1232 (LEK/RFT) on March 25, 2009.

This matter came before the Court following a Report-
Recommendation filed on March 5, 2009, by the Honorable Randolph
F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge of the Northern District of New
York.

In this action, Paul Bull moved for review of a decision by the
Commissioner of Social Security denying his applications for
Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). This Court recommended that the Commissioner's
decision denying Social Security benefits be affirmed.

Born on May 28, 1970, Mr. Bull was 31 years old when he applied
for disability benefits. He completed the 11th grade, but did
not graduate from high school. He previously worked as a
landscaper, cook, warehouse worker, mason handler, and asbestos
remover. He alleged a disability due to Buerger's disease,
amputation of part of his left foot, and a learning disability.

On Oct. 4, 2001, Mr. Bull filed for DIB and SSI alleging a
disability onset date of Dec. 24, 2000. The applications were
initially denied. On Dec. 30, 2002, April 29, 2003, and March
8, 2004, a Hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Thomas P. Zolezzi, and, on April 19, 2004, the ALJ issued
an unfavorable decision against Mr. Bull.

On Aug. 3, 2005, the Appeals Council concluded that there was no
basis under the Social Security Regulations to grant Mr. Bull's
request for review, thus rendering the ALJ's decision the final
determination of the Commissioner. Mr. Bull now brought this
appeal.

This Court recommended that the Commissioner's decision denying
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income
be affirmed; and it is further ordered that the Clerk of the
Court serve a copy of this Report-Recommendation and Order upon
the parties to this action.

Erwin, McCane Law Firm (Thomas C. Erwin, Esq.) in Albany, N.Y.,
represented Mr. Bull.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prime Group Has $7.6M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Group Realty Trust recorded a liability of US$7.6 million
and an asset of US$8.6 million related to asbestos abatement as
of March 31, 2009.

The Company's 330 N. Wabash Avenue office property currently
contains asbestos in the form of spray-on insulation located on
the decking and beams of the building. The Company has been
informed by its environmental consultants that the asbestos in
330 N. Wabash Avenue is being properly maintained and no
remediation of the asbestos is necessary.

A conditional asset retirement obligation for the removal of
asbestos at the 330 N. Wabash Avenue property was estimated to
be US$7.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

For the three months ended March 31, 2009, this obligation
decreased as follows:

-- Payments of US$1 million were made for asbestos abatement;

-- Partially offset by an increase in the Company's cost
   estimate of US$600,000 due to the increased probability of
   abatement as lease terminations moved closer; and

-- A US$200,000 increase in the liability based on the increased
   present value of anticipated future abatement expenditures as
   the estimated date of abatement comes closer.

As a requirement of its lenders, the Company maintains escrow
accounts and restricted cash balances for particular uses. At
March 31, 2009, these accounts totaled US$32.9 million.

These escrows consist of US$6.9 million for capital and tenant
improvements, US$5 million for lease obligations, US$7.6 million
for real estate taxes and insurance, US$5.9 million for
depository accounts, US$2.2 million for environmental
remediation and asbestos abatement, and US$5.3 million for
various other purposes.

Based in Chicago, Prime Group Realty Trust is a real estate
investment trust (REIT), which owns, manages, leases, develops
and redevelops office and industrial real estate, primarily in
the Chicago metropolitan area. As of March 31, 2009, the
Company's portfolio of properties consists of nine office
properties, containing an aggregate of 3.5 million net rentable
square feet.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nevamar Claims Settlement Paid in Nov. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panolam Industries International, Inc., in November 2008, paid a
settlement amount over asbestos claims of its subsidiary,
Nevamar Holding Corp.

During 2006, Nevamar was named a defendant in numerous workers
compensation claims filed on behalf of current and former
employees at the Hampton, S.C. facility alleging injury in the
course of employment due to alleged exposure to asbestos and
unidentified chemicals.

Under the ownership of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the
Hampton, S.C., facility manufactured asbestos-based products
until 1975. In 2004 and 2005, Nevamar, Westinghouse and
International Paper Company (IP) settled 10 workers'
compensation claims related to alleged asbestos exposure.

Under a 2005 agreement with IP, Nevamar's liability for workers
compensation claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos
brought by employees hired before July 1, 2002, was capped at 15
percent of any damages it shares with IP until Nevamar has paid
an aggregate of US$700,000 at which point the Company would have
no responsibility for any additional shared damages.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with IP to settle all of these workers' compensation
claims for a cash sum including any related claims that are
filed by any person who was previously employed, is currently
employed or becomes employed by Nevamar on or before Dec. 31,
2008 for a cash payment in an amount that had been fully
reserved for by the Company.

Employees hired by Nevamar after Dec. 31, 2008 and who filed
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos are not covered
by this settlement agreement.

Based in Shelton, Conn., Panolam Industries International, Inc.
designs, manufactures, and distributes decorative laminates in
the United States and Canada. Its products, which are marketed
under the Panolam, Pluswood, Nevamar and Pionite brand names,
are used in commercial and residential indoor surfacing
applications, including kitchen and bath cabinets, furniture,
store fixtures and displays, and other specialty applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premix-Marbletite Facing Five Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite
Manufacturing Co., is a defendant in five asbestos-related
claims (two of which include the Company as a defendant).

These claims allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos
contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago.

The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers that have provided product liability coverage to the
Company including potential coverage for alleged injuries
related to asbestos exposure. Several of these insurance
carriers are providing a defense to Premix and the Company under
a reservation of rights in all of these asbestos cases.

Further, although certain of these underlying insurance carriers
have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that
certain exclusions preclude coverage under the subject insurance
policies, the Company said it believes that Premix and the
Company have more than adequate insurance coverage for these
asbestos claims and such policies are not subject to  "self-
insured retention" requirements (S.I.R).

Further, the Company and Premix have substantial umbrella/excess
coverage for these claims in addition to the underlying
insurance. None of Premix's or the Company's currently
manufactured products contain asbestos.

Based in Pompano Beach, Fla., Imperial Industries, Inc.
manufactures and sells exterior and interior finishing wall
coatings and mortar products for the construction industry, as
well as, purchases and resells building materials from other
manufacturers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Still Party to Bodily Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America continues to be
involved in asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating to
the inhalation of asbestos fibers contained in products sold by
its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc., or its predecessors.

In connection with its formation, the Company contractually
assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of
liabilities of G-I Holdings for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber contained in
products sold by G-I Holdings or its predecessors. As of March
30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed liabilities for
Asbestos Claims.

In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due
to Asbestos Claims. Most Asbestos Claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought, and the value of the Asbestos Claims
asserted against G-I Holdings is a contested issue in that
bankruptcy, which remains pending.

Claimants in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy, including judgment
creditors, might seek to satisfy their claims by asking the
Bankruptcy Court to require the sale of G-I Holdings' assets,
including its holdings of BMCA Holdings Corporation's common
stock and its indirect holdings of the Company's common stock.
That action could result in a change of control of the Company.
In addition, those creditors may attempt to assert Asbestos
Claims against the Company.

About 1,900 Asbestos Claims were filed against the Company prior
to Feb. 2, 2001. On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining any existing or future claimant from bringing or
prosecuting an Asbestos Claim against the Company. On June 22,
2001 and Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the
temporary restraints into a preliminary injunction prohibiting
the bringing or prosecution of any such Asbestos Claims against
the Company.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability
for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action). One of the parties to
this matter, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants
(creditors' committee), subsequently filed a counterclaim
against the Company seeking a declaration that the Company has
successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and
that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings.

On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court. On
May 30, 2008, the District Court dismissed the BMCA Action
without ruling on the merits of BMCA's position that it has no
successor liability for Asbestos Claims.

A Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings was filed with
the Bankruptcy Court on Aug. 21, 2008, and a First Amended Joint
Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court on Oct. 30, 2008. G-I Holdings filed a Second
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings with the
Bankruptcy Court on Dec. 3, 2008.

Based in Wayne, N.J., Building Materials Corporation of America
manufactures and markets asphalt and polymer-based roofing
products and accessories for the residential and commercial
roofing markets. The Company also makes specialty building
products and accessories for the professional and do-it-yourself
remodeling and residential construction industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $176.5M Adjustment at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s asbestos adjustments were
US$176.5 million during the quarter ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$182.3 million during the quarter ended March
31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated May 20,
2009.

On May 20, 2009, the Company announced a US$7.2 million net
operating profit, excluding asbestos, ASIC expenses, asset
impairments and tax adjustments, for the quarter ended 31 March
2009, a decrease of 57 percent compared with the same period
last year.

For the quarter, net operating loss including asbestos, ASIC
expenses, asset impairments and tax adjustments was US$129.6
million (mainly due to the change in the actuarial estimate of
the company's asbestos liability), compared with US$146.9
million for the same quarter last year.

Full year net operating profit (excluding asbestos, ASIC
expenses, asset impairments and tax adjustments) decreased 44
percent to US$96.9 million from US$173.8 million. Including
asbestos, ASIC expenses, asset impairments and tax adjustments,
net operating profit increased from a loss of US$71.6 million to
a profit of US$136.3 million.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $78.2M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s current asbestos liability was
US$78.2 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$78.7 million during the fiscal year ended March
31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$1.206 billion
during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, compared with
US$1.498 billion during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Asbestos workers' compensation under current liabilities was
US$600,000 during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, compared
with US$6.9 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.
Asbestos workers' compensation under long-term liabilities was
US$73.8 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$78.5 million during the fiscal year ended March
31, 2008.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$12.3 million during
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$14.1
million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008. Long-term
asbestos insurance receivable was US$149 million during the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$194.3 million
during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Current asbestos restricted cash and cash equivalents were
US$45.4 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$37.4 million during the fiscal year ended March
31, 2008.

Current asbestos restricted short-term investments were US$52.9
million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, compared
with US$77.7 million during the fiscal year ended March 31,
2008. Current deferred asbestos income taxes were US$12.3
million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, compared
with US$9.1 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Long-term deferred asbestos income taxes were US$333.2 million
during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, compared with
US$397.1 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records 534 Open Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. had 534 open asbestos claims during
the year ended March 31, 2009, compared with 523 open claims
during the year ended March 31, 2008.

During the year ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted 607 new
claims and 596 closed claims. The average settlement amount per
settled claim was US$151,300 and the average settlement amount
per case closed was US$133,530.

During the year ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted 552 new
claims and 519 closed claims. The average settlement amount per
settled claim was US$128,096 and the average settlement amount
per case closed was US$109,832.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Occidental Petroleum Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Repsol YPF, S.A. says that claims have been brought against
Occidental Petroleum Corporation claiming damages for exposure
to vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), asbestos, and other chemical
products, as well as alleged for environmental damage.

Occidental has informed Maxus Energy Corporation that in the
aggregate, these claims should not exceed US$7 million (EUR5
million).

In 1986, Occidental acquired Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company
from Diamond Shamrock Corporation (later called Maxus Energy
Corporation), and the sale contemplated certain indemnity
clauses that have affected Maxus Energy Corp. (a company later
acquired by YPF, S.A. in 1995 before this was acquired by Repsol
YPF).

The company Tierra Solutions Inc. (Tierra), a subsidiary of the
North American company YPF Holdings, has assumed the actions of
Maxus in environmental matters.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Repsol YPF, S.A.
Paseo de la Castellana, 278
28046 Madrid, Spain

Description:
The Company is a fully integrated oil and gas company, which
operates in Latin America, the Middle East, and North Africa.
The Company operates five refineries in Spain and four in Latin
America and produces chemicals, plastics, and polymers. It sells
gas under the brands Campsa, Petronor, and Repsol at more than
6,500 service stations in Europe and Latin America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Eldorado-Reno Hotel Rooms
----------------------------------------------------------------
NGA HoldCo, LLC says that asbestos has been determined to be
present in the acoustic ceilings of about 216 of the original
Eldorado Hotel and Casino's older hotel rooms.

The Eldorado Hotel and Casino is located in Reno, Nev.

Removal of the asbestos will be required only in the event of
the demolition of the affected rooms or if the asbestos is
otherwise disturbed. At this time, management has no plans to
renovate or demolish the affected rooms in a manner that would
require removal of the asbestos.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 22, 2009.

The Company has had no revenue generating business since
inception. Its current business plan consists of its
acquisition, through a wholly owned subsidiary, of a 17.0359
percent equity interest in Eldorado Resorts, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company, which occurred on Dec. 14, 2007.

Resorts was formed in 1996 and became the successor to a
predecessor partnership that constructed the original Eldorado-
Reno, which opened for business in 1973.


COMPANY PROFILE:
NGA HoldCo, LLC
22 Waterway Avenue, Suite 150
The Woodlands, Tex. 77380
Tel. No.: 713-559-7400

Description:
The Company was formed on Jan. 8, 2007 for the primary purpose
of holding equity, directly or indirectly through affiliates, in
one or more entities related to the gaming industry. The Company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries, NGA Blocker, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company, and AcquisitionCo, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company, each of which was formed on Jan. 8,
2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harbinger To File Asarco LLC Reorganization
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Harbinger Capital Partners affiliate, on May 26, 2009, won
court approval to try to reorganize Asarco LLC, making the
hedge-fund manager the third group trying to take over the
bankrupt copper miner, Bloomberg reports.

On May 26, 2009, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Richard Schmidt said he
would allow Harbinger to compete against Asarco's parent, Grupo
Mexico S.A.B. de C.V., and Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. with
a proposal to spend US$500 million to reorganize the mining
company and pay creditors. Judge Schmidt overruled objections
from Asarco and from an attorney for asbestos creditors allied
with Grupo Mexico.

Referring to Harbinger's US$500 million opening price, Asarco's
attorney Shelby Jordan, Esq., said, "This is clearly a bottom
fishing value."

Harbinger said Citigroup Global Markets Inc. would also
participate in its reorganization plan. Harbinger and Citigroup
together are owed about US$300 million, according to court
records.

Harbinger attorneys said the hedge fund was hoping another
entity would offer more by Aug. 31, the deadline to reorganize
the Tucson, Ariz.-based Asarco set by all sides in the case.

The case is In re Asarco LLC, 05-21207, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln County to Get $6Mil for Health Care
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Max Baucus says that the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services is giving Lincoln County in Montana US$6 million
to fund health care for people with asbestos-related diseases
and there may be more help on the way, The Western News reports.

The Lincoln County Health Department will receive the US$6
million grant as early as August 2009.

The county health department will work with community health-
care entities to decide how to distribute the funds, said Brad
Black, Lincoln County health officer and director of the Center
for Asbestos Related Disease.

The grant's effectiveness will be maximized, Mr. Black said,
because the local government will decide where each dollar goes.
He said, "This money doesn't have to go through any agencies. It
goes directly to the county health department. Local
administration of this grant money is tremendously powerful."

A consortium of Libby-based health-care entities, like the CARD
clinic, Lincoln County Community Health Center, St. John's
Lutheran Hospital and the Montana Department of Public Health
and Human Services, will work together to write up a proposal
for the funds, Mr. Black said.

HHS delivered official paperwork on May 22, 2009 to the county
health department to get the funding underway. In its letter,
HHS called the situation in Libby "a serious public health
problem" and said the grant money will help create a program to
"screen and treat those adversely affected by asbestos-related
diseases."

Senator Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,
which has jurisdiction over HHS, and is a senior member of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has
jurisdiction over the EPA.

Senator Baucus said, "I've talked with the head of HHS, Kathleen
Sebelius, and the head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, and they both
know how important it is to help the folks in Libby."

Ms. Jackson promised Senator Baucus in January 2009 that upon
confirmation she would reconsider the EPA's prior decision to
not declare a public health emergency in Libby.

Baucus released a report in 2008 detailing a 2002 attempt by the
EPA to declare a public health emergency that was thwarted by
the previous administration's Office of Management and Budget.
The broader financial implications of the declaration appeared
to be a major reason.

Zonolite, used as attic insulation and in soil, was produced at
the Libby vermiculite mine but was not only used in Libby.
Zonolite was shipped nationwide and used in up to 52 million
homes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baggett Suit v. 33 Firms Filed in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Dale Baggett McLemore, Larry Donald Baggett and Hazel
Baggett (on behalf of Lawrence Baggett) filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 33 defendant corporations in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., on May 20, 2009, The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

The defendants include A.O. Smith Corp., A.W. Chesterton Co.,
Bechtel Corp., Certainteed Corp., Crane Co., Exxon Mobil, Fluor
Enterprises, Foster Wheeler AG, Garlock, General Electric
Company, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, Lockheed Martin
Corporation, 3M Company, Owens-Illinois Inc., Union Carbide
Corporation, Uniroyal, Goodrich Corporation, and Zurn
Industries.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs allege the defending
companies failed to adequately warn Mr. Baggett of the dangers
of asbestos exposure. They claim the companies also negligently
failed to test the products to determine hazards associated with
them and failed to remove their products from the market.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and exemplary damages,
plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to
which they are entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of
Provost Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represent the
plaintiffs.

Case No. E184-127 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Point to Pay $815 for Safety Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
handed the City of Central Point, Ore., a penalty of US$815 for
violating several asbestos-related regulations, Asbestos.com
reports.  

Though a small amount of asbestos was found in the debris
remaining from the demolition of a 100-year-old house in
February 2009, the city was given three multipart citations for
issues ranging from not informing employees of the potential
presence of asbestos to not providing adequate training and
clothing to workers handling asbestos-contaminated materials.

Oregon OSHA spokesperson Melanie Mesaros said, "Basically, they
were supposed to have told the employees there was potentially
asbestos there or that the material could have contained
asbestos. They were then supposed to have actually tested for it
before they started working."

According to Public Works Director Bob Pierce, rules for the
Department of Environmental Quality and OSHA were reviewed prior
to demolition by city officials who noted that the site was
exempt from most regulations according to DEQ standards.

Employees involved in the demolition were instructed to sprinkle
water over the site if dust was present. The site was also
examined by a city building official who determined the
structure was unlikely to contain asbestos-contaminated
materials.

Inspectors visited the site and found minimal debris remaining
for testing as most had already been buried.

Mr. Pierce said, "They tested for three types of stuff -
roofing, tile and linoleum - and one sample had less than 1
percent (asbestos). So we didn't expose anybody to asbestos from
what I can determine here, but there were other steps we should
have taken."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Fell Runner's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 71-year-old fell runner,
James Tyson, was linked to exposure to asbestos during his
working life, the North-West Evening Mail reports.

Mr. Tyson died in January 2009 of asbestos-related lung cancer.

Mr. Tyson's son, Neil Tyson, told the inquest that his father
was a champion fell runner until his health began to
deteriorate.

Giving evidence at the inquest at Barrow Town Hall in Barrow,
England, on May 26, 2009, the younger Mr. Tyson said that his
father had many jobs, including one at a chemicals factory. He
said, "He mentioned working with asbestos when he was employed
at Sovereign Chemicals. He referred to working with a lot of
dust.

"My dad did not smoke. He was a champion fell runner and led a
very healthy lifestyle."

Dr. Nic Mapstone, consultant pathologist for University of
Morecambe Bay Hospitals Trust, carried out a post-mortem on the
elder Mr. Tyson on Jan. 6, 2009.

Dr. Margaret Stewart, who represented Dr. Mapstone at the
inquest, said both doctors were satisfied that it was "more
likely than not" that exposure to asbestos had led to the lung
cancer which killed the elder Mr. Tyson.

Deputy coroner for South and West Cumbria, Alan Sharp, ruled
that the elder Mr. Tyson senior died as a result of industrial-
related disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers Seek to Overturn New Exposure Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance firms, on May 28, 2009, went to the Court of Session
in Edinburgh in a bid to overturn a new law affecting victims of
negligent exposure to asbestos, The Herald reports.

Some leading insurance firms are against giving victims of
pleural plaques the right to seek damages.

The industry argues that the law, which is set to come into
force on June 17, 2009, breaches the European Convention on
Human Rights and which resulted from an "unreasonable and
irrational" process.

The insurers went to the Court for a first hearing in a judicial
review of the legislation. The case is expected to sit for at
least six days between now and the middle of June 2009.

The legal challenge has been raised by AXA, Norwich Union, RSA
Insurance Group plc, and Zurich Insurance Company after
legislation was passed by MSPs in March 2009.

The law overturned in Scotland a landmark House of Lords ruling
that people with pleural plaques - a thickening of the lung
membranes - could not seek compensation.

The new Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act
will restore the right to seek damages.

Supporters of the new law have argued that the benign scarring
on lungs proved past exposure to asbestos and increased the risk
of fatal disease.

Insurers involved in the legal action oppose paying out
compensation because the condition is symptomless and does not
cause pain.

The hearing before Judge Lord Emslie comes a month after another
judge turned down a plea by the insurers for an order preventing
the new legislation from coming into force until the full-scale
legal challenge could be heard in court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harron, Cassoff to Answer Questions in CSX
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Seibert, on May 14, 2009, decided
that physicians Ray Harron and Richard Cassoff must answer CSX
Transportation Inc.'s questions about their roles in helping
Peirce, Raimond and Coulter of Pittsburgh sue the railroad, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

In the case involving asbestos ongoing in Wheeling, W.Va., Dr.
Harron improperly withheld answers at a March 11, 2009
deposition and Dr. Cassoff did likewise on April 24, 2009, Judge
Seibert ruled in separate orders.

Judge Siebert wrote that Dr. Harron's lawyer, Elizabeth Johnson,
Esq., expressly violated rules of civil procedure when she
instructed him not to answer questions. In a third order, Judge
Siebert ruled that Dr. Harron must produce letters from the
Peirce firm asking for chart reviews.

On May 14, 2009, the firm objected to production of the letters
and asked District Judge Frederick Stamp to stay Judge Seibert's
order. Judge Stamp presides over CSX's claim that the Peirce
firm and Dr. Harron conspired to fabricate asbestos claims.
Judge Seibert handles pretrial procedures.

Judge Stamp dismissed broad claims but allowed one against the
firm on a case involving client Ricky May and one against Dr.
Harron on a case involving client Earl Baylor.

CSX deposed Dr. Cassoff because he examined Mr. Baylor at the
firm's request.

Judge Seibert held a hearing about Dr. Cassoff's deposition on
May 1, 2009, and on May 4, 2009, he held one on Dr. Harron's
deposition.

In refusing to produce the chart review letters, Judge Seibert
wrote, Dr. Harron intentionally and willfully failed to comply
with national and local rules. By failing to comply, he wrote,
Dr. Harron waived attorney client privilege and work product
protection.

The Peirce firm waived them too, he wrote, by failing to respond
to the motion.

For the Peirce firm, Walter DeForest, Esq., of Pittsburgh
responded on May 14, 2009 that Judge Seibert's decision was
"factually and legally unsupportable."

Mr. DeForest asked Judge Stamp to stay the order, arguing that
the rules did not obligate the firm to object to the motion
because CSX addressed it to Dr. Harron and not to the firm.

Mr. DeForest wrote that at the time the discovery was filed, no
one at the firm was aware that Dr. Harron possessed responsive
documents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trinity to Seek EPA Decision on 1515 Tower
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Development Group, the owner of a waterfront condominium
at 1515 S. Flagler Drive in West Palm Beach, Fla., has opted to
seek a decision from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
over an asbestos matter concerning the 30-story structure,
PalmBeachPost.com reports.

In a meeting with Trinity on May 20, 2009, the county health
department declared the hurricane-damaged 1515 Tower too riddled
with asbestos to implode it without first taking expensive steps
to remove the exterior.

Trinity plans to build a US$150 million condo on the site.

The department insisted the entire stucco shell be removed from
the 35-year-old building. Trinity offered to remove some
exterior panels, but it disputed that test results demanded the
more extensive measures called for by the department.

As a result, Trinity is seeking a determination by the EPA
regional office in Atlanta, "due to the ambiguous and
conflicting results received from tests conducted by the Palm
Beach Health Department and Trinity independently and
collectively and evaluated by four independent laboratories,"
the release said.

Timothy O'Connor, health department spokesman, said he expects
the EPA to make a quick decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Give $250,000 Check to St. John's
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says it is giving a check worth US$250,000 to
St. John's Lutheran Hospital in Libby, Mont., for the 10th
consecutive year, the Billings Gazette reports.

The Company operated a Libby vermiculite mine, which closed in
1990, and is being sued over sickness the plaintiffs blame on
exposure to asbestos from the mine.

The Company's checks to the hospital have been used to establish
a clinic for people with asbestos-related disease, train
personnel, buy equipment and subsidize medical care.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jones Kin Seeks Justice in Compensation Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sewell Jones' daughter, Wendy Jones, is seeking justice for her
father, who died of asbestos-related mesothelioma in February
2007 at the Hospice of St. Francis in Berkamsted, Hertfordshire,
England, the Watford Observer reports.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Mr. Jones worked as a laborer mostly
based at the Nash Mills Paper Factory of Belswain Lane in Kings
Langley.

Ms. Jones is appealing for others employed at the factory, which
has since closed, at the time her father was working there to
come forward.

Mr. Jones' job involved taking out the old paper machines and
working in a part of the site called the pulp house. It was here
that his family claimed he was exposed to asbestos.

Family solicitor Susan Dawson of Fentons Solicitors said, "It
takes many years after exposure to asbestos before any asbestos
related diseases become apparent."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.M. Workers Injured During Hazard Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two men were injured on May 26, 2009 during an asbestos removal
job at the Hotel Clovis in Clovis, N.M., the Mesothelioma &
Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

Closed since 1983, the hotel is currently receiving a US$13
million renovation that will transform the aging hotel into a
modern apartment complex.

According to City Manager Joe Thomas, the two men have been
identified as a city building inspector and a worker for the
contractor who is removing asbestos-laden debris from the hotel.
One man is recovering at Plains Regional Medical Center. The
other was transferred to a separate facility in Amarillo where
he underwent some surgical procedures.

Both men have been reported to have non-life threatening
injuries, and are both expected to make full recoveries.

The company in charge of the cleanup project at the hotel is
Grancor, which is removing both asbestos and toxic pigeon
droppings that have accumulated for many years.

Grancor is also in the process of removing a boiler in the
basement, a process that should be completed within the next two
weeks.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashton Widow Gets Payout for Wrongful Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Whitworth, a 71-year-old widow from Ashton, Manchester,
England, won an eight-year legal battle for justice over her
husband's death stemming from exposure to asbestos, the Tameside
Advertiser reports.

Mrs. Whitworth said she never expected any money and just wanted
someone to admit responsibility for her husband's cancer. The
66-year-old John Whitworth died after an illness caused by
cutting asbestos sheets at building materials suppliers Atlas
Trading Sales years before. The company has since ceased
trading.

Atlas directors said compensation should be paid by Royal and
Sun Alliance, who insured the firm when Mr. Whitworth worked
there in the 1960s. However, the insurer needed official proof
they insured Atlas before any payout - evidence which had long
been lost.

A court made a "judgment by consent" against Atlas Trading Sales
in November 2006 in Mr. Whitworth's case but insurance documents
were still missing and Mrs. Whitworth gave up on any
compensation claim. However, her solicitors pursued the case.

Mrs. Whitworth said, "I got a call from Pauline Chandler at
Pannone and she asked, 'Are you sitting down?' She told me about
the compensation and I couldn't believe it."

Pauline Chandler said, "I would call it a case of a long lost
check! I know how much of a surprise it was when I rang her
about the money."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Rules on East Reading Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 62-year-old Malcolm Leslie,
who was from East Reading, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos, The Reading Chronicle reports.

Mr. Leslie was born in Australia and worked in an asbestos mill
there for three months in 1965 when he was 18.

In July 2008, Mr. Leslie started suffering chest discomfort and
a persistent cough. Three months later he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma. He died on Jan. 24, 2009.

Mr. Leslie, who owned a freight company based at Heathrow, had
been married to his wife Ann, a primary school teacher, for 25
years. The couple had lived in Reading for 20 years and had
three children: Samantha (28), Rusell (24), and Mervyn (22).

Mrs. Leslie said, "In the mill they had to wear searchlights
because the air was so thick with asbestos dust - they did have
some kind of protection but it was really very basic."

Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford told the Reading Civic Centre
inquest on May 12, 2009, "What is so frightening is it's dormant
for 30 or 40 years, but once symptoms appear it's untreatable.
It's like a time bomb, ticking away."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Councilor Has Retrospective Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Les Lauder, a councilor from Fremantle, Western Australia, who
replaced an asbestos warehouse roof without authorization, was
given retrospective approval, The Sunday Times reports.

Mr. Lauder told The Sunday Times that he was not aware he needed
permission and his architect regarded the work as "essential
maintenance." He later said he was away overseas and was not
aware the work had been done.

A new iron roof has since been fixed over the building in Blinco
Street, Fremantle, which has a total area of about 2,152 square
meters.

An amendment by Councilor Bill Massie was carried asking council
officers to prepare a detailed report on exactly what work had
been carried out without council permission.

During public question time, Mr. Lauder's contractor said some
areas of the asbestos had been "flaking" and posed a potential
risk. He said the asbestos was stored and wrapped and left in a
roadside skip.

However, ratepayer Terry Gabriel fumed that everyone was missing
the point and Mr. Lauder, a former planning committee chairman,
had carried out the work without the necessary approvals.

It is not certain whether Mr. Lauder faces a fine, given that he
has been granted retrospective approval.

Councilor Jon Strachan said, "I support this without fear or
favor."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Barrow Asbestos Conference Held Last May 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors, hospice workers and members of the public turned out to
the third annual Barrow Asbestos-Related Disease Support
Conference on May 22, 2009, the North-West Evening Mail reports.

Speakers at the event were keen to convey the number of
asbestos-related deaths will increase before they fall. The
conference also called for government action to rid schools of
asbestos and stressed the need for support groups such as BARDS.

Barrow man Dr Derrick Gould, a rocket scientist, who was
diagnosed with mesothelioma around 12 months ago, gave the
opening speech.

Dr. Derrick Gould, a rocket scientist diagnosed with
mesothelioma, praised the work of BARDS in providing support to
the people who have been affected by the industrial-related
disease.

The event, held at the Nan Tait Centre, was organized by Dr.
Helen Clayson, medical director at St. Mary's Hospice, Ulverston
and founder of BARDS.

Other speakers included Willie Whalen, of construction union
UCATT and Tony Whitston, of the Asbestos Victims Support Group
Forum UK.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cambria Awarded $34.1M Remediation Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Development, on May 21, 2009, awarded a US$34.1
million contract to Cambria Contracting Inc. in Lockport, N.Y.,
to remove asbestos from Midtown Plaza, the Democrat and
Chronicle reports.

Empire State also awarded a separate US$1.69 million contract to
Rochester, N.Y.-based Paradigm Environmental for air quality
monitoring through the asbestos abatement and demolition.

The contracts account for the bulk of the US$55 million
earmarked to clean and raze the Midtown complex, making way for
PAETEC Holding Corp.'s new world headquarters and other
redevelopment. The awards are about US$3 million more than
initial estimates.

Work could begin as soon as June 2009.

At its peak, state officials estimate, the asbestos removal will
involve 200 people, working double shifts, over the span of six
months. The total project could take nearly a year to complete.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Cadlo Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California,
affirmed a trial court's ruling, which favored Metalclad
Insulation Corporation and John Crane Inc., in an asbestos case
filed by Maxlyn Cadlo on behalf of Anthony Cadlo.

The case is styled Maxlyn Cadlo, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
Metalclad Insulation Corporation et al., Defendants and
Respondents.

In September 2002, the Cadlos filed a complaint against
Metalclad and John Crane for Mr. Cadlo's asbestos-related
personal injury and Mrs. Cadlo's loss of consortium.

On Nov. 19, 2002, the Cadlos served Metalclad with a 998 offer
in the amount of US$149,998. On Oct. 29, 2003, the Cadlos served
Crane with a 998 offer in the amount of US$112,498. Respondents
rejected the 998 offers and the case proceeded to trial.

On March 22, 2005, the jury returned a special verdict in favor
of the Cadlos. The jury awarded Mr. Cadlo US$87,304.74 in past
medical expenses, US$174,000 in future medical expenses,
US$1,412,400 in nonmedical economic damages and US$4 million in
noneconomic damages. It also awarded Mrs. Cadlo US$3 million in
loss of consortium damages.

The jury allocated three percent of the fault for the Cadlos'
injuries to Crane and four percent of the fault to Metalclad. On
March 25, 2005, the court executed a judgment on the special
verdict.

Mr. Cadlo died on March 24, 2005. On Sept. 6, 2005, the court
entered judgment nunc pro tunc to March 23 in favor of the
Cadlos. The judgment awarded Mr. Cadlo US$1,673,704.74 in
economic damages against respondents jointly and severally,
US$120,000 in noneconomic damages against Metalclad severally,
and US$160,000 in noneconomic damages against Crane severally.

The judgment awarded Mrs. Cadlo US$120,000 in noneconomic
damages against Metalclad and US$90,000 in noneconomic damages
against Crane.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court credited respondents for Mrs.
Cadlo's settlements with other defendants and for the Veterans
Administration benefits paid to Mr. Cadlo prior to his death.

On Nov. 15, 2007, respondents each moved for a determination on
the final judgment and for entry of satisfaction of judgment.

Mrs. Cadlo filed a timely appeal of the court's Nov. 29, 2007
order granting respondents' motions for determination of final
judgment and for satisfaction of judgment.

Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Esq., Lloyd F. LeRoy,
Esq., and David W. Fermino, Esq., represented Mrs. Cadlo.

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Lisa L. Oberg, Esq., and Sara M.
Parker, Esq., represented Metalclad Insulation Corporation.

Hassard Bonnington LLP and Philip S. Ward, Esq., represented
John Crane Inc.


                            *********

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  * * *