CAR_Public/041112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, November 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 225

                          Headlines

ACCESS CARDIOSYSTEMS: Recalls AED's Due To Unforeseen Defects
AK STEEL: AK RAPP, AK BPAC Seek Dismissal of Claim in ERISA Suit
ALLIED WASTE: Faces Three AZ Suits For Securities Act Violations
AMERICAN MEDICAL: FL Court Approves Policyholder Suit Settlement
AVERY DENNISON: Faces Label Stock Antitrust Lawsuits in CA Court

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces ERISA Suit in CT, IRS Tax Returns Audit
BRISTOL-MYERS: SEC Opens Inquiry On German Units, Gives Updates
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Seeks Settlement For Employee Lawsuit in CA
CATERPILLAR INC.: IL Judge Allows EEOC TO Pursue Sex-Bias Suit
CFM CORPORATION: Recalls 12T Barbecue Grills Due To Fire Hazard

CONVERIUM HOLDING: Shareholders Lodge Suit Over Misinformation
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Reaches $29M Augmentin Settlement With NYSUT
FIRSTWORLD COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches $25.9M Settlement in IPO Suit
FLORIDA: Ex-Lee County Safety Director Wins $440T Verdict
GOLDEN CHANNELS: Proposed Settlement Filed With Tel Aviv Court

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: WI Court Refuses To Reopen Cam Bearing Lawsuit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in CT Court
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Three ERISA Violations Lawsuits in CT
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Racketeering, Antitrust Lawsuit in NY
METROCALL HOLDINGS: Settles DE Shareholder Suits V. Arch Merger

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Says Residual Antitrust Exposure At $950M
NEW HAMPSHIRE: SEC Launches Civil Contempt Charges V. Koji Goto
NEW YORK: Counties Set To File Suit V. Medicaid Reimbursed Drugs
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: CA Court Approves Engineers Lawsuit Settlement
OSF INC.: SEC Lodges TX Suit Over Illegal Distribution Of Stock

UNITED STATES: PCI Vice President Seeks November Vote On S. 2062
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 488 Motorcycles Due To Fire Hazard
PRG SCHULTZ: Stock Suit Fact Discovery To Be Completed Nov. 2004
SANDISK CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Stock Suit Dismissal
SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court

THERAGENICS CORPORATION: GA Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
VOLVO CARS: Recalls 97,000 Passenger Cars, SUVs For Crash Hazard
WILD OATS: Canada Court Nixes Appeal of Lawsuit Certification
ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Frankfurters for Possible Undercooking

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Family Takes Test Case V. Cape to Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Posts Long-term Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Sets Aside Reserves for Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Named as Defendant by LA Site Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Circor Int'l Subsidiaries Named in Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miller Family Claims Compensation for Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX's 3Q Asbestos Reserve Tagged at US$332M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Sued in Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Energy Involved in 1,490 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Receives US$4.5MM Insurance Recovery

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Faces Claims as Coltec's Successor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Defends Itself Against 36,400 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Posts 3Q Reserves at $78,329,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Coastal Reaches Agreement with Dresser
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Posts $8MM Liability Reserve

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas & Betts Faces Lawsuits in Six States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E Cites US$750,000 Expected Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Study Reveals Underestimation of Deaths
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Libby Council Funds Asbestos Study Center
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NT Ponders Change in Licensing Guidelines

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CG&E, PSI Pending Lawsuits Increase to 100
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Cites Lower Asbestos Legal Fees
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Claims No Basis For Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metlife Posts 19,100 Injury Claims in 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Faces 141,400 Asbestos Injury Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records Abex Claims Totaling 47,068
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Accrues US$209MM For Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Has 4 Overpayment Suits Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Altria, Phillip Morris Face 2 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Faces 460 Lawsuits, 10,000 Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Goulds Named in Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp, Subsidiaries Have 49 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MSA Named in 2,125 Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Deals With NARCO, Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Faces Direct and Third-Party Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hundreds Report Exposure to Asbestos in MN
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Meets $3.4MM Obligation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp Posts 3Q Claims Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Involved in 485 Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMPCO Pittsburgh Posts 3Q $65T Income Loss

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Company Deals with Various Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Relates Claim Activity in 3Q
ASBESTOS ALERT: Cooper Ex-Worker Seeks GBD150,000 Compensation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Michigan Bell Moves to Dismiss Class Action Suit
ASBESTOS ALERT: ENSCO Int'l Faces Multi-Party Lawsuits in MS

ASBESTOS ALERT: Allen Construction Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Union Calls for HSE to Probe Carpets Int'l.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Case V. Brush Engineered Materials Inc Dismissed

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MA
EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Stock Suit in CA
JAKKS PACIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CT

UNITED RENTALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT

                        *********

ACCESS CARDIOSYSTEMS: Recalls AED's Due To Unforeseen Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Access CardioSystems, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts, in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration initiated
a voluntary recall of all of its Automated External
Defibrillators (AED's). Additionally, for reasons beyond its
control, the Company is no longer doing business.

Two potential problems with certain AED's that warrant immediate
attention:

     (1) Potential Failure of the Shock Delivery Circuit:

         The Company is aware of a situation involving certain
         of its AEDs in which the device may experience a
         catastrophic failure of the shock delivery circuit. The
         Company's investigation indicates to date that this
         failure mode is restricted to a specific batch of one
         device component. To date, the Company has received 11
         complaints of this occurrence in devices containing the
         component shown to be associated with this failure mode
         (representing a 0.8% complaint rate within the affected
         units). When this potential problem occurs, it is not
         possible to deliver additional defibrillation shocks.

         Although the investigation of this issue is still
         ongoing, the Company has determined that AEDs with the
         following serial numbers may have this problem: 075690
         - 077140.

     (2) Potential of the AED to Turn on Unexpectedly:

         The Company is aware of a situation involving certain
         of its AEDs in which the "ON/OFF" button of the device
         may become inoperative after the device turns on
         unexpectedly. The Company's investigation indicates to
         date that this failure mode is related to a specific
         manufacturer of a specific device component. To date,
         the Company has received 33 complaints of this
         occurrence in devices containing the component
         (representing a 0.3% complaint rate within the affected
         units), none of which have involved a patient
         treatment. If this potential problem occurs, the device
         may not defibrillate.

         Although the investigation of this issue is still
         ongoing, the Company has determined that AEDs with the
         following serial numbers may have this problem: 075180
         - 084760.

The Company discontinued manufacturing and marketing ALL models
of its AEDs and discontinued supporting its AEDs that are
currently in service. The Company cannot accept orders for new
AEDs, for consumable components (specifically disposable battery
packs and electrode sets) used with its AEDs, and cannot
service, repair or answer technical questions for existing AEDs.

For units not affected by the recall Access Cardiosystems is no
longer accepting orders for disposable parts used with our AEDs.
Therefore, when your supply of disposable parts is depleted,
please immediately discontinue use of and remove from service
all of the Company's AEDs that you have in your possession.
Customers should consider replacing the AED's as soon as
possible. It is your responsibility to equip yourself with AEDs
that meet your medical needs.

Access CardioSystems, Inc. has notified affected customers on
November 3, 2004 by registered mail return receipt requested
mail. All interested parties with any questions should contact
the Recall Coordinator at 1 978 405-1057.

In order to obtain the most updated information you may e-mail
the Company at recall@accesscardiosystems.com or visit the
Company's website at http://www.accesscardiosystems.com


AK STEEL: AK RAPP, AK BPAC Seek Dismissal of Claim in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan
(AK RAPP) and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee (AK BPAC) asked for the dismissal of
some claims in a class action filed by former employee John D.
West in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio

The plaintiff claims that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and
results in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class
members.

On April 8, 2004, the trial Court granted the plaintiff's motion
for partial summary judgment and held that the manner in which
the plaintiff's lump sum disbursements were calculated under the
AK RAPP violated ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.  The Court
further denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and
held that the matter will proceed to trial on the issue of
damages.

On September 9, 2004, however, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in an unrelated
case not involving the AK RAPP or AK BPAC in which it dismissed
claims like those asserted by the plaintiff in the West
litigation on the ground that ERISA does not authorize suits for
monetary damages to redress statutory violations of ERISA.  On
October 6, 2004, the AK RAPP and AK BPAC filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims in the West litigation on the
same ground.  The trial Court has not yet ruled on their motion.
No trial date has yet been set.


ALLIED WASTE: Faces Three AZ Suits For Securities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Waste Industries, Inc. and four of its current and former
officers face three putative class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

The complaints assert claims against all defendants under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and claims against the officers
under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The complaints allege that from February 10, 2004, to July 27,
2004, the defendants caused false and misleading statements to
be issued in our public filings and public statements regarding
the Company's anticipated second quarter 2004 results.  The
complaints further allege that the statements were false and
misleading because the defendants knew, but did not disclose,
that the Company could not meet its financial projections
because:

     (1) the Company's growth was lagging due to poor execution
         and the loss of a large contract,

     (2) the Company failed to successfully implement its best
         practices initiatives, and

     (3) an anticipated cyclical pickup in trash volume was not
         materializing.

The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: FL Court Approves Policyholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Circuit Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the class action filed against American Medical
Security Group, alleging that the Company failed to follow
Florida law when in 1998 it discontinued writing certain health
insurance policies and offered new policies to insureds.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company wrongfully terminated
coverage, improperly notified insureds of conversion rights and
charged improper premiums for new coverage.  Plaintiffs also
allege that the Company's renewal rating methodology violated
Florida law.

In 2002, a Circuit Court Judge ruled against the Company and
ordered the question of damages be tried before a jury, at a
later date.  In September 2004, the Company entered into an
agreement to settle with the plaintiffs.  The settlement has
received preliminary approval by the Circuit Court.

If the settlement receives final approval, all claims of
participating class members will be dismissed and the litigation
terminated in exchange for settlement consideration.  The
Company expects final approval of the settlement by the Circuit
Court in December 2004.


AVERY DENNISON: Faces Label Stock Antitrust Lawsuits in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison faces four class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of label stock in California and Arizona
state Courts.  The suits also name as defendants UPM-Kymmene and
UPM's subsidiary Raflatac.

The suits seek treble damages and other relief for alleged
unlawful competitive practices, essentially repeating the
underlying allegations of the Department of Justice's complaint
against the Merger of UPM-Kymmene and the Morgan Adhesives
division of Bemis Co., Inc.

Four suits were initially filed in California Courts.  In
November 2003, on petition from the parties, the California
Judicial Council ordered the three cases filed the cases be
coordinated for pretrial purposes. The cases were assigned to a
coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco
County on March 30, 2004.

A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
Maricopa County, Arizona on November 6, 2003.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice on
October 4, 2004.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces ERISA Suit in CT, IRS Tax Returns Audit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed in U.S. District Court in
Connecticut against Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) over
FleetBoston Financial Corp.'s cash retirement plan, the Triad
Business Journal reports.  The suit was filed on behalf of
former and current FleetBoston employees who were under the age
of 50 and had 15 years of vesting service on Dec. 31, 1996,
among others.

The suit alleges FleetBoston, which had recently acquired BofA
(NYSE: BAC) in April for nearly $48 billion, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by amending a cash-
balance plan without notifying plan participants that their
benefits would be significantly reduced. The suit further
alleges that FleetBoston reduced the rate of benefit accruals
based on age and failed to inform participants of the correct
amount of their pensions and related claims. The suit is seeking
remedial relief, unspecified benefit payments, attorneys' fees
and interest.

Separately, the Internal Revenue Service is auditing BofA's 1998
and 1999 tax returns for its retirement plans. According to a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the IRS is
examining the bank's pension and 401(k) plans. The SEC filing
further states that the audit includes a review of whether
401(k) plan participants who voluntarily transferred assets to
the pension plan did so legally.


BRISTOL-MYERS: SEC Opens Inquiry On German Units, Gives Updates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an informal
inquiry on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. connected to some of the
pharmaceutical Company's German units, according to its most
recently quarter filing, the Associated Press reports.

According to the Company, it believes the inquiry may encompass
matters under investigation by a prosecutor in Munich and that
both the SEC inquiry and the German investigation "may concern
potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and/or
German law." Bristol-Myers also said it was notified of the SEC
inquiry on October 25 and that it can't estimate the final
outcome or potential loss related to the matter.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, enforced by the U.S.
Department of Justice and the SEC, makes it unlawful to bribe
foreign government officials to obtain or retain business.

Bristol-Myers further disclosed in its quarterly filing that the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas has
requested records related to the Company's pricing, sales and
marketing practices and various other regulators have requested
similar records from Bristol-Myers and other pharmaceutical
companies.

Furthermore, the New York-based Company also disclosed that it
has agreed to settle litigation related to Platinol, a drug the
Company markets. The class action filed in a federal Court in
Washington alleged Bristol-Myers violated federal antitrust laws
by maintaining a monopoly on the drug in the United States. The
Company states that it stands to pay $50 million into a
settlement fund for class members in the litigation, pending
approval by the Court.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Seeks Settlement For Employee Lawsuit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen is working to settle the class action
filed against it in the Orange County Superior Court in
California, alleging that the Company failed to give its food
servers, bussers, runners and bartenders rest and meal breaks as
required by California law.

Under the California Labor Code, an employer must pay each
employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular
rate of compensation for each workday that the required meal or
rest period is not provided.  The plaintiff also alleges that
additional penalties are owed as a consequence of the Company's
resulting failure to pay all wages due at the time of
termination of employment and under theories characterizing
these alleged breaches as unfair business practices.

The Company has informally exchanged information and engaged in
numerous meetings and telephone conferences with opposing
counsel in furtherance of settlement, and significant and
encouraging progress has been made between the parties.


CATERPILLAR INC.: IL Judge Allows EEOC TO Pursue Sex-Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer reversed a previous
decision in September and allowed the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to pursue a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of all women allegedly harassed sexually at Caterpillar
Inc.'s Aurora facility, the Chicago Tribune reports.

In a statement, the EEOC applauded the reversal and said it
"significantly improves EEOC's position in this case and
confirms an important principle of law."  However, lawyers for
Peoria-based Caterpillar, who had opposed the EEOC's effort to
have the federal judge, reconsider her prior decision, accused
the EEOC of seeking a "fishing expedition."

The lawsuit, which was filed in Federal Court in Chicago last
year, alleged that Caterpillar permitted the sexual harassment
of female workers at its Aurora facility. The women contend they
were the victims of sexually offensive propositions and
comments, as well as unwelcome and inappropriate physical
touching, according to the EEOC. They also contend that when
they complained, they were fired.

According to the EEOC, Judge Pallmeyer in comments from the
bench stated that the law empowers the EEOC to bring any claims
justified by its investigation and prohibits Courts from sifting
through the agency's findings to limit such claims. She further
states that the EEOC's determination that there was class wide
harassment wasn't limited to victims of any particular harasser,
the Court held, and therefore the claims in the lawsuit wouldn't
be limited.

Upon reaching the ruling, John Hendrickson, EEOC's regional
attorney in Chicago, stated, "The Court has once again put
employers on notice that if the EEOC determines that there has
been wide-scale sexual harassment and then decides to litigate,
all of the victims are ultimately going to have their day in
Court."


CFM CORPORATION: Recalls 12T Barbecue Grills Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
CFM Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 12,000 Five-burner Vermont Castings
barbecue grills.

Gas leak and fire hazard. The burner tubes may not fit fully
into the gas valves. If a consumer pulls on the console, the
metal may flex and the gas valves may disconnect from the
burners, releasing gas and creating a fire risk that could cause
injury and property damage. CFM Corporation has received 38
reports involving gas leaks. No injuries or property damage have
been reported.

The recalled grills have five burners and a label on the back of
the cabinet with the model number on the left side. Models
CF9086 and VCS5000 are equipped with a side burner. Model CF9085
is not equipped with a side burner. Grills that do not have five
burners and grills sold before 2004 are not affected by this
recall. All of the affected grills were listed by Canadian
Standards Association.

Manufactured in China, the Model VCS5000 barbecue grills were
sold at Vermont Castings dealers and distributors in Canada and
the U.S. from January 2004 through September 2004 for between
$899 and $1249. Models CF9085 and CF9086 were sold at The Home
Depot in Canada and the U.S. from January 2004 through September
2004 for between $899 and $1249.

Consumers are advised to stop using the grill and immediately
contact CFM Corporation toll-free at (866) 333-4833 Monday
through Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET or visit the firm's
Web site at www.cfmcorp.com to schedule a free, in-home repair
or to make arrangements to receive a consumer-installed safety
retrofit kit. CFM Corporation already notified known purchasers
about this recall.


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Shareholders Lodge Suit Over Misinformation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Troubled Swiss reinsurer Converium Holding AG has been targeted
with another class action lawsuit in the United States that was
filed by shareholders, who accused the Company of not disclosing
the extent of the crisis in its North American subsidiary, the
NZZ, Switzerland reports.

According to a statement that was recently released by New York
law firm Murray, Frank and Sailer, Converium, which was formed
from Zurich Re, "gave erroneous information concerning
activities in US indemnity insurance". The law firm also placed
an advertisement inviting those who invested in Converium
between December 11, 2001 and July 20, 2004 to join the action
before December 3 this year.

The second class action suit that was filed against Converium
this year, plaintiffs further allege that "contrary to
representations", Converium failed to maintain adequate reserves
to cover claims by North American policyholders. The suit also
states that reserve increases announced by Converium were
insufficient and, as a result of the understatement of loss
reserves, earnings and assets were consistently overstated.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Reaches $29M Augmentin Settlement With NYSUT
-------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay approximately $29 million to
settle a class action lawsuit that was filed by New York State
United Teachers and other plaintiffs on behalf of consumers
forced to pay more for the Company's antibiotic drug Augmentin,
the New York Teacher reports.

The suit accused British-owned GlaxoSmithKline of illegally
maintaining a monopoly over Augmentin, an oral antibacterial
commonly prescribed for ear and strep infections. Without a
generic equivalent, consumers were forced to pay more for the
drug.

According to NYSUT Executive Vice President Alan Lubin, who
chaired the state AFL-CIO Task Force on Prescription Drugs, the
suit virtually forced the generic equivalent of Augmentin to
become available to the public. He further adds, "This has set a
powerful precedent, lowered costs and saved welfare benefit
funds, workers and retirees millions. The tide is turning
against pharmaceutical companies who are choosing profits over
people."

Under the terms of the settlement, an individual may be eligible
for funds if he or she purchased Augmentin from Jan. 4, 2000,
through April 30, 2004. The settlement terms also stipulated
that consumers or third-party payors, which include self-insured
union health and welfare funds, and self-insured employer health
benefit plans, might be eligible for reimbursement. The terms
also stated that proof-of-claim forms must be postmarked no
later than December 16.

NYSUT joined the class-action suit in 2002, said NYSUT Chief
Counsel James Sandner. Other major plaintiffs included the
Welfare Fund of the United Federation of Teachers, NYSUT's
affiliate in New York City schools, represented by Arthur
Pepper.

Though elated at reaching the settlement, Mr. Lubin stated that
the union will still keep up the pressure for fairer prices by
pushing for reimportation of American-made drugs from other
countries such as Canada.

For more details, contact Augmentin End-Payor Settlement
Administration, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc. by Mail: P.O.
Box 24771, West Palm Beach, Fla., 33416 by Phone: (866) 404-0129
or visit their Web site: http://www.augmentinlitigation.com


FIRSTWORLD COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches $25.9M Settlement in IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit involving the 2000 initial public
offering of FirstWorld Communications, which later became known
as Verado Holdings Inc., was officially settled for $25.9
million, according to recently filed Court documents, the Denver
Post reports.

Filed in March 2003, the lawsuit claims that Greenwood Village
Company's stock was artificially inflated and that the Company's
performance was misrepresented to the plaintiffs. It named as
defendants, Denver financier Donald Sturm and other Company
executives, who have unilaterally denied any wrongdoing.

FirstWorld, which stored digital information in its data
centers, raised $181.8 million with its IPO in March 2000, the
peak of the Internet boom. The stock rose as high as $38.75 a
share, but turmoil in the technology sector cut the price
quickly. Within eight months of the IPO, the stock lost 95
percent of its value.

According to attorneys for both parties, of the $25.9 million
settlement, Old Republic Insurance Co., Zurich American
Insurance Co. and other insurance companies, will pay $22.1
million. While, the underwriters, including Lehman Brothers,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Bear, Stearns & Co., will chip
in the remaining $3.8 million.


FLORIDA: Ex-Lee County Safety Director Wins $440T Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Viles & Beckman, P.A. recently won a $400,000
verdict for Ernie Scott, former safety director for Lee County
schools. Mr. Scott filed his complaint in May 2003 after being
phased out of his position for openly criticizing the district
on fire safety, asbestos, and air quality problems.

Mr. Scott testified during trial that the district
administration interfered with his safety concerns for Lee
County schools and discouraged him from citing contractors for
flaws he felt would have had harmful effects on the safety of
the faculty, staff and students with claim that this would only
lead to higher costs and delayed projects.

Soon after James Browder replaced Scott in March 2003, Scott
launched a federal lawsuit against the district claiming that
his First Amendment right to free speech had been violated for
speaking out on safety issues. Jurors agreed with Mr. Scott and,
furthermore, found that the district had violated Florida's
Whistle Blower act by eliminating Scott's position after he
filed a safety report with the EPA. In the end, jurors found
that Mr. Scott's concern for the safety of the students
attending schools in Lee County resulted in his termination and
that the district administration was more concerned with cutting
costs, placing profits over people.

Mr. Scott was awarded $300,000 in lost wages and benefits, and
another $100,000 for mental anguish. He is currently suing the
district in a different lawsuit for being subjected unknowingly
to asbestos and toxic mold.

For more details, contact Viles & Beckman, P.A. by Phone:
1-800-648-4537 or visit their Web site:
http://www.vilesandbeckman.com


GOLDEN CHANNELS: Proposed Settlement Filed With Tel Aviv Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A draft agreement between Golden Channels (Arutzei Zahav) and a
plaintiff representing a class action lawsuit was recently filed
and awaiting approval from the Tel Aviv District Court, the
Haaretz Daily reports.

According to the deal, subscribers who joined Golden Channels
between July 2001 and July 2002 will be eligible to receive an
extra socket free of charge for one year. Some 40,000
subscribers are eligible for the service, which is worth NIS 132
per year, making the total settlement worth NIS 5-6 million.

The originally seeking NIS 10 million, the lawsuit charged that
the Golden Channels had offered new subscribers during the
period an extra socket at no charge, but neglected to mention
that the deal was valid only for one year, and began charging
subscribers NIS 11 per month as of July 2002.

Golden Channels had then argued that the deal was a limited-time
offer from the start, but the attorney general pointed out that
the deal's time limit deal was not properly presented, and
therefore, was misleading.

As part of the proposed settlement, Golden Channels has agreed
that it will inform customers by mail, and offer them other
services free of charge should they not be interested in the
extra socket. The Company further stated that customers would
also be eligible to disconnect their extra socket free of charge
during the coming year.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: WI Court Refuses To Reopen Cam Bearing Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' refusal to
allow them to reopen the class action filed against Harley-
Davidson, Inc., over its rear cam bearing products.

In January 2001, the Company, on its own initiative, notified
each owner of 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson
motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines
that the Company was extending the warranty for a rear cam
bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles.

Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a putative nationwide class
action was filed against the Company in state Court in Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, which was amended by a complaint filed
September 28, 2001.

The lawsuit was brought by California resident Steven C.
Tietsworth and four residents of Wisconsin. All are Harley-
Davidson motorcycle owners with 1999 or early-2000 models
equipped with Twin Cam 88 or Twin Cam 88B engines. Plaintiffs
allege that the TC-88 engine was defectively designed and
potentially dangerous due to a propensity for premature cam
failure, which causes sudden and total engine failure. This
failure could allegedly result in economic and physical
injuries, including out-of-pocket repair costs, property
damages, and serious injury or death.

It is estimated that over 100,000 model year 1999 and early-2000
Harley-Davidson motorcycles were sold with the alleged defective
TC-88 engine. These motorcycles include the Dyna Glide series
(including the FXDX Dyna Super Glide Sport, FXD Dyna Super
Glide, FXDL Dyna Low Rider, and FXDS-Conv Dyna Convertible), the
FL Touring series (including the FLHT Electra Glide Standard,
the FLHTC/FLHTCI Electra Glide Classic, the FLHTCUI Ultra Class
Electra Glide, the FLHRCI Road King Classic, and the FLTR/FLTRI
Road glide), and the Softtail series models.

Plaintiffs allege that Harley-Davidson knew and knows about the
defect in the engines, and even sells a $500.00 "fix kit"
designed to remedy the problem with the engines.  The complaint
sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for
affected owners, an order compelling the Company to repair the
engines, and other relief.

On February 27, 2002, the Company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint was granted by the Court and the amended
complaint was dismissed in its entirety.  An appeal was filed
with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

On April 12, 2002, the same attorneys filed a second putative
nationwide class action against the Company in state Court in
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin relating to this cam bearing issue
and asserting different legal theories than in the first action.
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, an order
compelling the Company to repair the engines and other relief.
On September 23, 2002, the Company's motion to dismiss was
granted by the Court, the complaint was dismissed in its
entirety, and no appeal was taken.

On January 14, 2003, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the
trial Court's February 27, 2002 dismissal of the complaint in
the first action, and the Company petitioned the Wisconsin
Supreme Court for review.  On March 26, 2004, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the
remaining claims in the action.  On April 12, 2004, the same
attorneys filed a third action in the state Court in Milwaukee
County, on behalf of the same plaintiffs from the action
dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  This third action was
dismissed by the Court July 26, 2004.

In addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved to reopen
that matter and amend the complaint to add new causes of action,
which motion was denied on August 23, 2004.  A notice of appeal
to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from the latter dismissal has
now been filed.

The suit is styled "STEVEN C. TIETSWORTH, DAVID BRATZ,
JOHN W. MYERS, GARY STREITENBERGER AND GARY WEGNER, PLAINTIFFS-
APPELLANTS, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., AND HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR
COMPANY."  Representing the plaintiffs are Jonathan D. Selbin
and Lisa J. Leebove of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, San Francisco, California; David J. Bershad, Michael M.
Buchman and Michael R. Reese of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
Lerach, LLP, New York, New York; Ted W. Warshafsky and Frank T.
Crivello, II of Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhardt & Bloch,
S.C., Milwaukee; Shpetim Ademi, Guri Ademi and Robert K.
O'Reilly of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, Cudahy.  Lawyer for the
defendants are W. Stuart Parsons, Patrick W. Schmidt and Kelly
H. Twigger of Quarles and Brady LLP, Milwaukee and Robert L.
Binder of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in CT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Financial Services, Inc. and five of its executive
officers face two securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging
claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5.

The complaints allege on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders that the Company and the five named individual
defendants, as control persons of the Company, "disseminated
false and misleading financial statements" by concealing that
"the Company was paying illegal and concealed `contingent
commissions' pursuant to illegal `contingent commission
agreements.'"

The class period alleged is November 5, 2003 through October 13,
2004, the day before the New York Attorney General filed a civil
complaint against Marsh Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc.  The NY AG complaint alleged, among other things, that
certain insurance companies, including the Company, participated
with Marsh in arrangements to submit inflated bids for business
insurance and paid contingent commissions to ensure that Marsh
would direct business to them.  The Company is not joined as a
defendant in the action.

Since the filing of the NYAG Complaint, the Company has become
aware of several private actions against it asserting claims
arising from the allegations of the NYAG Complaint.  The
complaints seek damages and attorneys' fees.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Three ERISA Violations Lawsuits in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Financial Services, Inc. faces three putative class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan.  The suits also name as defendants:

     (1) Hartford Fire Insurance Company,

     (2) the Company's Pension Fund Trust and Investment
         Committee,

     (3) the Company's Pension Administration Committee,

     (4) the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and

     (5) John/Jane Does 1-15

The suits assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), alleging that the
Company and the other named defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to plan participants by, among other things, failing to
inform them of the risk associated with investment in the
Company's stock as a result of the activity alleged in the NYAG
Complaint.  The class period alleged is November 5, 2003 through
the present.  The complaints seek restitution of losses to the
plan, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Racketeering, Antitrust Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Financial Services, Inc. faces in an amended class
action filed on October 19, 2004 by OptiCare Health Systems,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of a putative class of
policyholders, against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., other
brokers and consultants, and the insurers named in New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's complaint, including certain of
their respective writing companies.

The putative class action was filed in August 2004 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
originally asserted only claims against the broker/consultant
defendants.  The amended complaint alleges additional claims
against both the broker/consultant defendants and the insurer
defendants.

These claims include a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) alleging that the insurer
defendants are co-liable with the broker/consultant defendants
for alleged misrepresentations or non-disclosures of contingent
commission agreements and the solicitation or submission of
inflated bids.  The amended complaint also asserts claims under
the Sherman Act and state antitrust and unfair competition laws
alleging that the insurer defendants acted in concert with the
broker/consultant defendants to restrain trade.  The class
period alleged is August 26, 1994 through the date of class
certification, which has not yet occurred.  The amended
complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, and attorneys' fees.


METROCALL HOLDINGS: Settles DE Shareholder Suits V. Arch Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metrocall Holdings, Inc. reached a settlement for the two
shareholder class actions in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County, over its proposed merger with
Arch Wireless, Inc.  The suits also name as defendants USA
Mobility, Inc., Arch and the Metrocall Board of Directors.

The suits seek to obtain compensatory relief and to enjoin the
merger. The suits allege that the Metrocall directors violated
their fiduciary duties to Metrocall shareholders in connection
with the proposed merger.  In addition, the suits assert that
Arch and USA Mobility aided and abetted the Metrocall directors'
alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (August 28,2004) states.

On October 21, 2004, the parties to the two lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding setting forth the parties'
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuits.  The parties to
the lawsuits have agreed to use good faith efforts to agree upon
and execute as soon as practicable a stipulation of settlement
of all the claims asserted in the two purported class action
complaints.  The settlement is subject to the approval of the
Court and would result in the dismissal of the lawsuits with
prejudice.  If the merger is not completed or if the Court does
not approve the settlement, the settlement will be null and
void.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Metrocall and Arch
agreed to make additional disclosures that were set forth in a
supplement first mailed to the stockholders of Metrocall and
Arch on October 22, 2004, to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus dated October 6, 2004, and to use their
commercially reasonable best efforts to issue on or before noon
on November 5, 2004, press releases, which would be filed as an
exhibit to their respective current reports on Form 8-K,
announcing their respective operating results for the fiscal
quarter ended September 30, 2004, or to file on or before that
time their respective Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004, reporting their respective
operating results for that quarter.

If the parties to the lawsuits obtain final approval of the
settlement from the Court and dismissal of the actions by the
Court, with prejudice, in accordance with the contemplated
stipulation of settlement, plaintiffs' counsel of record in the
actions will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses not to exceed $275,000, and defendants will not
oppose such application.

The memorandum of understanding also provides for the plaintiffs
to conduct confirmatory discovery.  The cost of providing notice
of the settlement to stockholders and any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Court will be paid solely by Metrocall
and Arch.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Says Residual Antitrust Exposure At $950M
----------------------------------------------------------------
With more than a dozen antitrust cases settled, Microsoft
Corporation believes that it can now estimate that it will incur
an additional exposure of up to $950 million for remaining
antitrust claims, according to a recently released statement by
the Company's attorneys, the ENT News reports.

The figure also includes $200 million, which is above an amount
the Company previously described in its most recent 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to
resolving remaining class action overcharge cases.

The lawyers further stated that Microsoft made the estimate "in
light of recent progress in addressing antitrust litigation and
claims that have been made against Microsoft, including the
recent developments with Novell." According to the Company, this
week alone, it settled antitrust claims with Novell for $536
million as well as reach an agreement with the longtime critic,
the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which
follows the blockbuster settlement with Sun Microsystems in
April that cost them nearly $2 billion in up-front payments.

Furthermore, software giant's lawyers stated that also this
year, the Company settled class-action lawsuits with New Mexico,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Arizona and Minnesota. While in 2003,
the Company settled class-action lawsuits with Tennessee, South
Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Washington, D.C. and Montana.

That Microsoft lawyers feel they have a handle on total
antitrust exposure is not surprising, given the Company's
decision to start returning its $60 billion in cash to
investors. Microsoft in July announced a special one-time
dividend of $3 per share (approved by shareholders this week), a
four-year stock buyback plan and a move to quarterly dividends.
All together, the steps will return an estimated $75 billion to
investors. At the July announcement, Microsoft attorneys said
progress in settling cases allowed it to start drawing down its
cash reserves.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: SEC Launches Civil Contempt Charges V. Koji Goto
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a motion with the
Federal District Court in New Hampshire seeking entry of a civil
contempt order against defendant Koji Goto for violating a
Court-imposed asset freeze entered in the Commission's
enforcement action against Mr. Goto. The Commission's contempt
motion alleges that Mr. Goto violated the asset freeze order and
a subsequent modification of the asset freeze by filing a
voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code.

The Commission's complaint, filed on November 14, alleges that
Mr. Goto misappropriated more than $5 million of investor funds
by falsely stating that the money would be invested in a Boston-
based hedge fund and in a food services business. Instead of
investing the funds in the businesses he purported to represent,
Goto diverted investor funds to his own bank accounts for his
own personal gain.

In its contempt motion, the Commission alleges that the asset
freeze order and a subsequent modification of the asset freeze
order, which subject all of Goto's assets to the jurisdiction of
the federal district Court, prohibited Goto from seeking
protection of his assets in bankruptcy Court. Defendant Goto's
assets have been frozen since November 14, when the Court
entered a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against
Goto and his wife, a relief defendant in the Commission's
action. On Dec. 3, 2003, the Court entered a preliminary
injunction and asset freeze against Mr. Goto and his wife. The
asset freeze was modified by the Court on Sept. 13, 2004, to
allow two creditors to conduct a foreclosure sale of Goto's
house.

In a related criminal action, on Sept. 27, 2004, Mr. Goto was
found guilty by a jury in New Hampshire Superior Court,
Hillsborough County, North, on 23 counts of theft by deception,
theft by misapplication, and unlawful securities practice. The
case was prosecuted by the New Hampshire Attorney General. Mr.
Goto's sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 9, 2004. The action is
titled, SEC v. Koji Goto, Civ. A. No. 03 CV 00490-JR (D.N.H.).


NEW YORK: Counties Set To File Suit V. Medicaid Reimbursed Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Association of Counties on behalf of a
growing number of its members, including Chemung and Schuyler
counties is expected to file a nationwide class action lawsuit
challenging the high cost of prescription drugs reimbursed by
Medicaid by the end of the year, The Leader, NY reports.

The lawsuit alleges that pharmaceutical companies set
artificially high prescriptive drugs prices for Medicaid
patients. Current Medicaid practices do not allow physicians to
prescribe low-cost generic drugs for their low-income patients.

According to published reports, the lawsuit calls for a judgment
that the companies engaged in intentionally fraudulent conduct.
The lawsuit calls for restitution and financial penalties, and
an injunction against overcharging in the future.

Already legislatures in Schuyler and Chemung counties have
passed resolutions opting to join the lawsuit, which could
include counties and states as far west as California. According
to State Association General Counsel Stephen Acquario, the
response from counties to the proposed lawsuit during the past
weeks has been overwhelmingly supportive. He further adds, "what
we are working on is the real possibility of fraudulent posting
of drug prices. If the (posted) price is higher than the actual
price, that's fraud, and that's wrong and the deception should
be punished."

Furthermore, Mr. Acquario points out that state Attorney Elliott
Spitzer has already filed separate lawsuits against three major
pharmaceutical companies for posting drugs prices higher than
the actual costs and that a number of states, including
California and Montana, are also engaged in the class action
lawsuit.

Officials though caution that the lawsuit is just another step
in their overall efforts to contain runaway Medicaid costs and
reform the state's health care entitlement system.


NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: CA Court Approves Engineers Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the settlement of the class actions filed
against Novellus Systems, Inc. on behalf of its field service
engineers.

On April 4, 2003, Thomas Graziani and others filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon.  On August 1, 2003, David
Robinson and others filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.

Both lawsuits sought collective and/or class action status for
field service engineers who work for the Company and both
lawsuits allege that field service engineers are entitled to
compensatory damages in the form of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

At a mediation held on March 1, 2004, the parties to both
lawsuits agreed to a settlement to be documented on or before
April 2, 2004.  Subsequently, the parties have agreed to the
material terms of a settlement, including a cap on exposure to
the Company of $2.5 million.  On May 3, 2004, a fully executed
agreement resolving these matters was filed with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Court approved the settlement on June 7, 2004.


OSF INC.: SEC Lodges TX Suit Over Illegal Distribution Of Stock
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an injunctive
action against OSF, Inc. (OSF), two of its officers, Lloyd P.
Broussard, and Winfred Fields, as well as Broussard's daughter,
Monyette Preciado and two companies with which she was nominally
affiliated, Raven Interests, Inc. (Raven) and Tenn-Stone, Inc.
(Tenn-Stone). The Commission's complaint alleges that between
August 2003 and June 2004, Broussard and Fields, with the
assistance of their nominee Preciado, orchestrated an illegal
distribution of approximately 22.2 million shares of OSF stock
to the public for total proceeds of approximately $531,238.
According to the complaint, Broussard and Fields effected the
distribution both personally and through Raven and Tenn-Stone,
which they secretly controlled. The complaint further alleges
that to facilitate the distribution, Broussard and Fields issued
a series of false OSF press releases from June 2003 to September
2003 concerning business relationships with third parties,
corporate revenues, and imminent Nasdaq listing. Moreover, the
complaint alleges that as recently as January 2004, Broussard
and Fields arranged for the dissemination of large numbers of
unsolicited junk faxes and spam e-mails, which republished
information contained in the false releases.

The Commission's complaint alleges that OSF, Broussard, Fields,
Preciado, Raven and Tenn-Stone violated Sections 5(a), and 5(c)
of the Securities Act of 1933. Further, the complaint alleges
that OSF, Broussard and Fields violated 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks preliminary
and permanent injunctions, disgorgement and prejudgment
interest, and civil penalties as to all of the defendants;
officer and director bars against Broussard and Fields; and
penny stock bars against Broussard, Fields and Preciado. The
action is titled, SEC v. OSF, Inc., et al., No. H-04-4291, USDC,
SDTX.


UNITED STATES: PCI Vice President Seeks November Vote On S. 2062
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Parks, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
Senior Vice President for Government Affairs in a recent letter
to Senate leaders urged the passage of class action reform
legislation before Congress adjourns for the year, the Insurance
Journal reports.

According to Mr. Parks, S. 2062, the Class Action Fairness Act,
sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), would decrease the
monetary burden the current civil justice system imposes on
American consumers and businesses. The number of class action
lawsuits grew by more than 1,000 percent in the past decade,
marking an explosion in what is quickly becoming a lawsuit
industry.

In his letter Mr. Parks wrote "class action reform legislation
is urgently needed to help curtail forum shopping and frivolous
lawsuits by allowing defendants to move large national class
action cases to federal courts. The legislation also includes
provisions to better protect consumer class members, such as
judicial scrutiny and limitations on coupon settlements." He
further wrote, "We commend Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.),
Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and the chief sponsors
of the bill, Sens. Grassley and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), on the
development of bipartisan class action reform legislation. We
understand that the compromise bill has the support of 62
Senators, and Republican and Democrat supporters of the
legislation favor approving the compromise bill this year. A
conference committee will be unnecessary if both Houses approve
the compromise Senate bill. On behalf of PCI, we thank you for
your leadership on this important issue, and we urge you to
approve S. 2062 now."

A recent Winston Group Survey of 1,000 registered votes
reportedly found that 80% of Americans believe there is too much
litigation in the United States and 74% believe lawsuits cost
consumers money in the form of higher prices.

The letter was written to Senator Frist, Senate Majority Whip
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Senate Republican Conference
Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). It can also be viewed in the
spotlight section of PCI's Web site: http://www.pciaa.net.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 488 Motorcycles Due To Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 488 motorcycles, namely:

     (1) VICTORY / KINGPIN, model 2005

     (2) VICTORY / NESS KINGPIN, model 2005

     (3) VICTORY / VEGAS, model 2005

     (4) VICTORY / VEGAS 8-BALL, model 2005

On certain motorcycles, the clamp that secures the high pressure
fuel hose to the fuel rail may be loose.  A loose clamp may
allow fuel to leak from the fuel rail fitting, increasing the
risk of a fire.

Dealers will reposition and tighten the clamp.  The recall began
on November 1,2004.  For more details, contact the Company by
Phone: 1-763-417-8650 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


PRG SCHULTZ: Stock Suit Fact Discovery To Be Completed Nov. 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery in the consolidated securities class action filed
against PRG-Schultz International, Inc. and certain of its
present and former officers in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division is set to
be completed on November 17,2004.

Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its present and
former officers.  These cases were subsequently consolidated
into one proceeding styled: "In re Profit Recovery Group
International, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action File No. 1:00-CV-
1416-CC.

On November 13, 2000, the Plaintiffs in these cases filed a
Consolidated and Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Company, John M. Cook, Scott L. Colabuono, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, and Michael A. Lustig, the Company's
former Chief Operating Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by allegedly disseminating false and
misleading information about a change in the Company's method of
recognizing revenue and in connection with revenue reported for
a division.

Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19, 1999
and July 26, 2000.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and expenses,
and equitable and/or injunctive relief.  On January 24, 2001,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure
to state a claim under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4 et seq.  The Court denied Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2001.  Defendants served their
Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June 19, 2001.  The Court
granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on December
3, 2002.  Expert discovery is scheduled to be completed by mid-
April 2005.  These dates are subject to change.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the securities class action
filed against Sandisk Corporation, in its role as a shareholder
and director of Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of United States holders of
ordinary shares of Tower as of the close of business on April 1,
2002.  The suit, captioned "Philippe de Vries, Julia Frances
Dunbar De Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et
al., Civil Case No. 03 CV 4999," was filed against Tower and
certain of its shareholders and directors, including the Company
and Eli Harari, the Company's President and CEO and a Tower
board member.

The suit asserts claims arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated there under. The lawsuit alleges that Tower
and certain of its directors made false and misleading
statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower shareholders
regarding a proposed amendment to a contract between Tower and
certain of its shareholders, including the Company.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.

On August 19, 2004, the judge granted the Company and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with
prejudice.  On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The appeal will likely be decided sometime in 2005.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation and a number of other manufacturers of
flash memory products face a consumer class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and
County of San Francisco captioned Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane
Electric Corp. USA, et al.

The suit alleges false advertising, unfair business practices,
breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act.  The
lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.
The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an
unspecified amount.


THERAGENICS CORPORATION: GA Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Theragenics
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors.

In January 1999, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in certain securities actions
alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including
Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  These actions were later
consolidated.

The complaint, as amended, purports to represent a class of
investors who purchased or sold securities during the time
period from January 29, 1998 to January 11, 1999.  The amended
complaint generally alleges that the defendants made certain
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the
performance of the Company during the class period and seeks
unspecified damages.

On May 14, 1999 a stockholder of the Company filed a derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on
behalf of the Company, alleging that certain directors breached
their fiduciary duties by engaging in the conduct that is
alleged in the consolidated federal class action complaint.  The
derivative action has been stayed by the agreement of the
parties.

On July 19, 2000, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated federal class action complaint for
failure to state a claim against the Company, and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  On August 21, 2000,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and on March 30,
2001, the Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint.  The Court also denied the
Company's motion for reconsideration.  Subsequently, the Court
certified the class and the parties commenced discovery.
Discovery in the case is complete.  The Company filed a motion
for summary judgment on September 30, 2003.

On July 1, 2004, while the summary judgment motion was pending,
the Company, the Company's directors and officers' liability
insurance carrier, and the plaintiffs' counsel reached an
agreement to settle the consolidated federal class action for an
amount within the remaining limits of the Company's directors
and officers' liability insurance.  The plaintiffs will dismiss
their lawsuit against the defendants and, on behalf of the
settling class, release defendants from any and all liability
arising from the incidents alleged in the second amended
complaint.  The Company will not be required to make any
financial contribution toward the settlement.

On September 29, 2004, the Court gave final approval to the
settlement, with no objectors and no requests for exclusion.
The final approval allows the right to appeal the final order
until November 1, 2004.  Barring any appeal of the final order,
the case will be over as of that date.  The derivative lawsuit
is still pending.  Its status is currently being reevaluated in
light of the settlement of the securities class action lawsuit.

The suit is styled "In RE: Theragenics Corporation Securities
Litigation," and is pending under the Honorable Thomas W.
Thrash.  The plaintiff firms in this suit are:

     (1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, Mail: 212 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY, 10016, Phone: 212.889.3700, E-mail:
         info@abbeygardy.com

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         Mail: 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
         2900 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:
         888.873.3999,

     (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP

     (5) Hoffman & Edelson, Mail: 45 West Court Street,
         Doylestown, PA, 18901-4223, Phone: 215.230.8043

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
         1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (7) Starr & Hollman LLP

     (8) Wechsler Harwood LLP, Mail: 488 Madison Avenue 8th
         Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-
         mail: info@whhf.com

     (9) Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato & Goldman, Mail: 1608
         Walnut Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA, 19103,
         Phone: 215.545.7200, Fax: 215.545.6535, E-mail:
         info@wksg.com

    (10) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the securities class action
filed against Tower Semiconductor Ltd. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants certain of Tower's directors (including
N. Damodar Reddy), and certain of Tower's shareholders
(including the Company).

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated there
under, and also alleges that certain defendants (including N.
Damodar Reddy and the Company) have liability under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The lawsuit was brought by
plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of persons who were
ordinary shareholders of Tower at the close of business on April
1, 2002, the record date for voting on certain matters proposed
in a proxy statement issued by Tower.

On January 30, 2004, all of the defendants, including the
Company, filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  On August 19,
2004, Judge Kimba Wood granted defendants' motions and dismissed
the complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  On September 29,
2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The appeal will likely
be decided some time in 2005.


VOLVO CARS: Recalls 97,000 Passenger Cars, SUVs For Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo Cars of N.A., LLC is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
97,000 passenger and sport utility vehicles, namely:

     (1) VOLVO / C70, models 1998-2000

     (2) VOLVO / S70, models 1998-2000

     (3) VOLVO / V70, models 1998-2000

     (4) VOLVO / V70XC, models 1998-2000

On certain passenger and sport utility vehicles, over an
extended period of time, the headlight switch may cease to
function.  The headlights may not operate properly which could
result in an intermittent or no headlight function.  This could
impair a driver's visibility, increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will replace the headlight switch.  The manufacturer has
not yet provided an owner notification schedule for this
campaign.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-458-1552 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


WILD OATS: Canada Court Nixes Appeal of Lawsuit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court for British Columbia, Canada refused Wild Oats
Markets Canada, Inc.'s appeal of the class certification granted
to a lawsuit filed against it, as successor to Alfalfa's Canada,
Inc., a Canadian subsidiary of the Company, styled "Helen Fakhri
and Ady Aylon, as Representative Plaintiffs v. Alfalfa's Canada,
Inc.

The suit alleges to represent plaintiffs who contracted
Hepatitis A allegedly through the consumption of food purchased
at a Capers Community Market in the spring of 2002, and those
who were inoculated against Hepatitis A as a result of news
alerts by Capers and the Vancouver Health Authority.

In the fourth quarter of 2003, the suit was certified as a class
action by the Court.  The Company filed an appeal and a
hearing was held in September 2004.


ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Frankfurters for Possible Undercooking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zemco Industry, Inc., a Buffalo, N.Y., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 50,000 pounds of frankfurters due to
possible undercooking, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

All frankfurters are sold in one-to five-pound packages and bear
the establishment code "EST. 5222" or "EST. 2701" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  The products subject to recall are:


     (1) "JORDAN'S NATURAL CASING Frankfurters." Each product
         bears the code "87374" or "87373" and the sell by date
         "DEC 14."

     (2) "JORDAN'S NATURAL CASING Beef Knockwurst." Each product
         bears the code "602509" and the sell by date "DEC 15."

     (3) "JORDAN'S NATURAL CASING Beef Franks." Each product
         bears the code "87371" and the sell by date "DEC 15."

     (4) "JORDAN'S NATURAL CASING Frankfurters, PICNIC PACK."
         Each product bears the code "87370" and the sell by
         date "DEC 14."

     (5) "Deutschmacher Brand, NATURAL CASING KNOCKWURST." Each
         product bears the code "619319" and the sell by date
         "DEC 14."

     (6) "Deutschmacher Brand, INDIVIDUAL CELLOPHANE WRAPPED
         FRANKFURTERS." Each product bears the code "619305" and
         the sell by date "DEC 15."

     (7) "Deutschmacher Brand, NATURAL CASING BEEF KNOCKWURST."
         Each product bears the code "619310" and the sell by
         date "DEC 15."

     (8) "ESSEM, FRANKFURTS." Each product bears one of the
         following codes: "606142," "606117," "606140." Each
         package also bears the sell by date "DEC 14" or "DEC
         15."

     (9) "ESSEM, FRANKFURTS, Natural Casing." Each product bears
         one of the following codes: "606142," "606117,"
         "606140." Each package also bears the sell by date "DEC
         14" or "DEC 15."

    (10) "Kirschner, NATURAL CASING FRANKFORTS." Each product
         bears the code "600051" and the sell by date "DEC 14"
         or "DEC 15."

    (11) "STOP & SHOP PREMIUM NATURAL CASING Beef Franks." Each
         product bears the code "619416" and the sell by date
         "DEC 14" or "DEC 15."

    (12) "STOP & SHOP, PREMIUM NATURAL CASING Franks." Each
         product bears the code "619417" and the sell by date
         "DEC 15."
    (13) "FERRARO'S FOOD CENTER, Skinless Franks." Each product
         bears the code "619432" and the sell by date "DEC 15."

    (14) "FERRARO'S FOOD CENTER, Natural Casing Franks." Each
         product bears the code "619430" and the sell by date
         "DEC 15."

    (15) "Hofmann SKINLESS WIENERS." Each product bears the code
         "619457" and the sell by date "DEC 15."

    (16) "Hofmann GERMAN BRAND FRANKS." Each product bears the
         code "619452" and the sell by date "DEC 15."

    (17) "Hofmann GERMAN BRAND FRANKS." Each product bears the
         code "619491" and the sell by date  "DEC 15"

The frankfurters were produced on Oct. 5 and Oct. 6, 2004, and
were distributed to retail establishments in Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and
Vermont.  The problem was discovered by the Company following a
consumer complaint. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses
from consumption of the product.

Media with questions about the recall may contact Libby Lawson,
Company media relations representative, at 479-290-3486 or 479-
236-7983. Consumers with questions about the recall may contact
the Company consumer services hotline at 1-800-544-1427.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at l-800-535-4555. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


                         Asbestos Alert



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Family Takes Test Case V. Cape to Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of a 73-year-old asbestos victim is taking on a
former Calderdale asbestos factory to the High Court in a high-
profile test case.

Doreen Ellis was exposed to asbestos dust by washing her
husband's overalls when he worked at Cape Asbestos, Acre Mill,
Hebden Bridge. Nearly 50 years later she contracted
mesothelioma, a terminal lung condition caused by inhaling
asbestos fibers. She died in January, three months after being
diagnosed with the deadly disease.

Mr. Ellis was a laborer at Acre Mill for 18 months in the 1950s,
moving raw bales of asbestos. He would return home in the same
overalls and Doreen would wash them.

With hopes for a landmark ruling, Mr. Ellis and their three
children vowed to take Cape Asbestos to Court in her name. Mr.
Ellis, who remains asymptomatic, said that the autopsy revealed
three types of asbestos in his wife's lungs. He said that his
wife's last wish was for this Court case to prosper.  "She
wanted the publicity so that other people would know exactly
what happened and how she got the disease," added the husband.

Solicitor Paul Glanville, of John Pickering & Partners, Halifax,
said it was a test case, to his knowledge the first of its kind
since the exposure took place between 1951 and 1953. He said,
"The argument is that her exposure to asbestos is comparable to
that of having worked at the mill."

Before 1965, experts were unaware that secondary exposure
presented a risk. But in a High Court case earlier this year,
the "date of knowledge" was overturned for the first time.

Teresa Maguire developed mesothelioma after being exposed to
asbestos from the work clothes of her husband who worked at
Harland and Wolff's shipyard in Liverpool. The High Court ruled
the employers could have foreseen that wives who washed the
clothes of their employees could also be at risk. Providing
changing rooms where employees could hand in contaminated
clothing for laundering could have reduced the risk.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Posts Long-term Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actuaries of Columbus McKinnon Corp, a leading designer and
manufacturer of material handling products, have estimated the
Company's asbestos-related liability to range from US$2.8
million to US$12.3 million through March 31, 2034.

The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related liability that
is probable and estimable through 2013 ranges from US$2.8
million to US$4 million as of October 3, 2004.  The range of
probable and estimable liability reflects uncertainty in the
number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to
resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of
factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based
settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to
resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.

The New York-based Company concluded that no amount within that
range is more likely than any other, and therefore has reflected
US$3.3 million as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements in accordance with U.S. accounting principles.  The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation such as the "FAIR Act."

Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs
for claims will not have a material after-tax effect on the
financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although
the net after-tax effect of any future liabilities recorded
could be material to earnings in a future period.

The Company will continue to study the variables in light of
additional information in order to identify trends that may
become evident and to assess their impact on the range of
liability that is probable and estimable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Sets Aside Reserves for Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corp, the Philadelphia-based holding Company,
reports that at December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, gross reserves
for asbestos-related losses were US$37.8 million, US$42.1
million and US$59.9 million, respectively (US$17.8 million,
US$25.8 million and US$28.6 million, net of reinsurance,
respectively).

Of the net asbestos reserves, about US$14.9 million, US$22.9
million, and US$26.6 million related to IBNR losses at December
31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively. At December 31, 2003,
2002 and 2001, gross reserves for environmental-related losses
were US$14.2 million, US$18.2 million and US$29.6 million,
respectively (US$8.8 million, US$14.3 million and US$16.0
million, net of reinsurance, respectively).

Of the net environmental reserves, about US$3.7 million, US$7.9
million and US$9.2 million related to IBNR losses at December
31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively. All incurred asbestos and
environmental losses were for accident years 1986 and prior.
The Company states that effects of emerging claims and coverage
issues on its business are uncertain.

The Company also cites that its reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims may be insufficient. As industry practices
and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions
change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and
coverage may emerge. These issues may harm the business by
either extending coverage beyond the underwriting intent or by
increasing the number or size of claims.

PMA Capital Corp is engaged in selling property & casualty
insurance and reinsurance in the mid-Atlantic and southern US.
Through the companies operating under the PMA Insurance Group
trade name, the Company underwrites workers' compensation and
commercial insurance. CEO John W. Smithson and Chairman
Frederick W. Anton resigned in the third quarter of 2003, after
PMA Capital reported huge losses, losing 60% of the Company
stock value.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Named as Defendant by LA Site Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In several lawsuits, Cleco Corporation has been named as a
defendant by individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos while working at sites in central Louisiana. Most of
the claimants were workers who participated in the construction
of various industrial facilities, including power plants, and
some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by Cleco.

Cleco's management regularly analyzes current information and,
as necessary, provides accruals for probable liabilities on the
eventual disposition of these matters. The management believes
that the disposition of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Registrants' financial condition, results
of operations, or cash flows.

Operating expenses decreased US$2.9 million, or 1.5%, in the
third quarter of 2004 compared to the same period in 2003. Other
operations expense decreased US$0.7 million, or 3.7%, primarily
due to lower pension and retirement benefit costs, the absence
of asbestos abatement work performed during 2003, and the
reclassification of legal fees associated with the pending
settlement of Cleco Power's 2001-2002 fuel audit. Partially
offsetting these decreases in other operations expense were
higher professional fees, higher property and liability
insurance costs, and higher economic development incentives.

The holding Company's utility unit, Cleco Power, generates,
transmits, and distributes electricity to more than 260,000
residential and business customers in more than 100 communities
in Louisiana. Cleco Power has a generating capacity of nearly
1,400 MW from its interests in fossil-fueled power plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Circor Int'l Subsidiaries Named in Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, Circor
International has been named as a defendant in a growing number
of product liability actions brought on behalf of individuals
who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to airborne
asbestos fibers. In particular, its subsidiaries, Leslie,
Spence, and Hoke, collectively have been named as defendants or
third-party defendants in asbestos related claims brought on
behalf of about 22,000 plaintiffs typically against anywhere
from 50 to 400 defendants.

In some instances, the Company has also been named individually
or as successor in interest to one or more of these
subsidiaries. These cases have been brought in state Courts in
Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming with the vast majority of claimants
having brought their claims in Mississippi. The cases brought on
behalf of the vast majority of claimants seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants in the
aggregate. However, the complaints filed on behalf of claimants
who do seek specified compensatory and punitive damages
typically seek millions or tens of millions of dollars in
damages against the aggregate of defendants.

The Company believes that any components containing asbestos
formerly used in Leslie, Spence and Hoke products were entirely
internal to the product and would not give rise to ambient
asbestos dust during normal operation or during normal
inspection and repair procedures. Moreover, to date, the
insurers have been paying the vast majority of the costs
associated with the defense of these actions, particular with
respect to Spence and Hoke for which insurance has paid all
defense costs to date.

Due to certain gaps in historical insurance coverage, Leslie had
been responsible for in excess of 40% of the defense costs
associated with asbestos actions. However, during 2003 the
Company discovered evidence of additional policy coverage. As a
result, during the first quarter of 2004 the Company negotiated
a revised cost sharing understanding with Leslie's insurers
which results in a lowering of Leslie's responsibility to 29% of
defense costs. In light of the foregoing, Circor believes that
it has minimal, if any, liability with respect to the vast
majority of these cases.

Circor International Inc. designs, manufactures, and supplies
valves, related products and services to OEMs, processors,
manufacturers, and the military. Circor was spun off from Watts
Industries (now Watts Water Technologies) in 1999.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miller Family Claims Compensation for Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of retired painter and decorator, Gordon Miller, who
died from years of exposure to deadly asbestos, is seeking
compensation from his past employers. Daughter Janice Pearson
stated that they did not want anyone else to suffer from the
same tragedy.

Mr. Miller, 68 years old, of Greenbank, Whitehaven, died last
July from the industrial disease mesothelioma. A pathologist
found many traces of lethal asbestos fibers in his body.

An inquest into Mr. Miller's death heard how he regularly came
into contact with asbestos as a painter and decorator for Parker
Brothers in Whitehaven, the then Whitehaven Council (now
Copeland Borough) and at Sellafield, where he worked until
suffering a heart attack in 1989.

The Millers' solicitor, Neil Wilkinson, is now appealing for Mr.
Miller's colleagues to give evidence about their working
conditions for the compensation case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX's 3Q Asbestos Reserve Tagged at US$332M
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX's reserve for asbestos and other occupational claims on an
undiscounted basis amounted to US$332 million at September 24,
2004, compared to US$357 million at December 26, 2003.

CSX increased its reserve for asbestos and other occupational
claims by a net US$206 million during the third quarter of 2003
to cover the estimate of incurred but not reported claims.
Reflecting the additional provisions, CSX's reserve for asbestos
and other occupational claims on an undiscounted basis amounted
to US$350 million at September 26, 2003.

About 5,600 of the open claims at September 24, 2004 are
asbestos claims against the Company's previously owned
international container-shipping business, Sea-Land. Because the
Sea-Land claims are claims against multiple vessel owners, the
Company's reserves reflect its portion of those claims. The
remaining open claims have been asserted against CSXT. The
Company had about US$13 million reserved for the Sea-Land claims
at September 24, 2004 and December 26, 2003.

Operating income was US$264 million for the quarter ended
September 24, 2004, as compared to a loss of US$98 million for
the prior year comparable quarter. Operating expenses decreased
US$264 million to US$1.7 billion for the quarter ended September
24, 2004. A discussion of operating expenses by business segment
follows.

The Company recorded a charge of US$232 million in the third
quarter of 2003 to increase its provision for casualty reserves.
The decline was primarily the result of the Company's recording
a charge in conjunction with changing its estimate of casualty
reserves to include an estimate of incurred but not reported
claims for asbestos and other occupational injuries to be
received over the next seven years.

Provision for casualty claims decreased US$229 million for the
third quarter 2004 compared to the third quarter 2003. This is
due to a third quarter 2003 charge of US$229 million that was
recorded in conjunction with the Company's change in estimate
for its casualty reserves to include an estimate of incurred but
not reported claims for asbestos and other occupational
injuries.

CSX Corporation is the parent Company of a number of
subsidiaries that provide freight transportation services across
America and around the world. Formed in 1980, CSX Transportation
operates the largest rail network in the eastern United States.
CSX Intermodal provides transportation services across the
United States and into key markets in Canada and Mexico. CSX
Corporation subsidiaries also perform maritime operations,
including an international terminal services Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Sued in Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX and nine of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related
personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

The Illinois-based Company, known as the world leader in fluid-
handling technologies, claims that such components were acquired
from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of
the subsidiaries. To date, all of the Company's settlements and
legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration,
insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have
been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable
deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to
what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover
such settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to
claims that are tendered to them.

Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Most of the claims resolved
to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance has
been settled for reasonable amounts. Only one case has been
tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit.

No provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and IDEX does not currently believe the asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business or financial position.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Energy Involved in 1,490 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Inc. reports in its latest regulatory filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that as of December
2003, 1,490 asbestos-related cases were open against the
Company.

Between September 30, 2004 and November 4, 2004, the Company was
served with a complaint filed on behalf of one additional
plaintiff. While the Company believes that all of the cases are
without merit, it cannot predict the outcome of the litigation.

The distribution companies have also been named as defendants,
along with multiple other defendants, in pending asbestos cases
alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and
multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal
contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of either
the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing
products by Allegheny. The asbestos suits arise out of
historical operations and are related to the removal of
asbestos-containing materials at Allegheny's power plants.

Various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of
London, insured Allegheny's historical operations. Asbestos-
related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed in full
by recoveries from these historical insurers, and the Company
believes that it has sufficient insurance to respond fully to
the asbestos suits. Certain insurers, however, have contested
their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement
costs relating to the asbestos suits.

Allegheny is currently involved in two asbestos insurance-
related actions that were commenced in 2003, Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc.
et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), and
Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action
No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.). The parties in the
asbestos suits are seeking an allocation of responsibility for
historic and potential future asbestos liability.

The Company believes that it has established adequate reserves,
net of insurance receivables and recoveries, to cover existing
and future asbestos claims.

The Company's Allegheny Power unit provides electricity to more
than 1.5 million customers in five states and natural gas to
230,000 customers through regulated utilities Monongahela Power,
Potomac Edison, and West Penn Power. Subsidiary Allegheny Energy
Supply provides power to AE's utilities and sells electricity to
wholesale and retail customers.



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Receives US$4.5MM Insurance Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, the major operating subsidiary of
Armstrong Holdings Inc., received asbestos-related insurance
recoveries of US$4.5 million and US$14.0 million, respectively,
during the first nine months of 2004 and 2003. During the third
quarter of 2003, AWI paid US$9.0 million for asbestos-related
property damage claims and received US$9.0 million of insurance
proceeds related to these claims.

During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Case, AWI does not expect
to make any further cash payments for asbestos-related claims,
but AWI expects to continue to receive insurance proceeds under
the terms of various settlement agreements. Management estimates
that the timing of future cash recoveries of the recorded asset
may extend beyond 10 years.

Historically, workers' compensation claims against AWI or its
subsidiaries have not been significant in number or amount, and
AWI has continued to honor its obligations with respect to such
claims during the Chapter 11 Case. Currently, AWI has four
pending workers' compensation claims and its UK subsidiary has
four employer liability claims involving alleged asbestos
exposure. Management believes neither AWI nor its subsidiaries
or other affiliates is subject to asbestos-related personal
injury claims.

About 1,100 proofs of claim totaling about US$1.3 billion are
pending with the Bankruptcy Court that are associated with
asbestos-related personal injury litigation, including direct
personal injury claims, claims by co-defendants for contribution
and indemnification, and claims relating to AWI's participation
in the Center for Claims Resolution.

AWI has a US$75.0 million debtor-in-possession credit facility
that currently is limited to issuances of letters of credit.
This facility is scheduled to mature on December 8, 2004. The
Company is pursuing extending this maturity to December 8, 2005
and anticipate that this will be approved.

Due to the filing, holders of asbestos-related personal injury
claims are stayed from continuing to prosecute pending
litigation and from commencing new lawsuits against AWI. In
addition, AWI ceased making payments to the CCR with respect to
asbestos-related personal injury claims, including payments
pursuant to the outstanding SSP agreements. A creditors'
committee representing the interests of asbestos-related
personal injury claimants and an individual representing the
interests of future claimants have been appointed in the Chapter
11 Case. AWI's present and future asbestos-related liability
will be addressed in its Chapter 11 Case.

AWI has recorded liability amounts for claims that can be
reasonably estimated and which it does not contest or believes
are probable of being allowed by the Bankruptcy Court. The final
value of all the claims that will ultimately be allowed by the
Bankruptcy Court is not known at this time. Management will
continue to review the recorded liability in light of future
developments in the Chapter 11 Case and make changes to the
recorded liability if and when it is appropriate.

Armstrong Holdings Inc. is the parent Company of Armstrong World
Industries Inc., which designs and manufactures flooring,
ceilings and cabinets.  Based in Lancaster, PA, Armstrong has 44
plants in 12 countries and around 15,300 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Faces Claims as Coltec's Successor
----------------------------------------------------------------
A leading global supplier of systems and services to the
aerospace and defense industry, Goodrich Corporation is a
defendant in a limited number of asbestos-related claims, which
have been asserted against the Company as "successor" to Coltec
or one of its subsidiaries.

The Company believes that the assertion of claims against it was
based on the idea that as the former corporate parent of Coltec
Industries Inc, it bears some responsibility for the asbestos-
related liabilities of Coltec and its subsidiaries, or that
Coltec's dividend of its aerospace business prior to the EnPro
spin-off was made at a time when Coltec was insolvent or caused
Coltec to become insolvent

The Charlotte, NC-based Company believes that it has substantial
legal defenses against these claims, as well as against any
other claims that may be asserted against the Company. In
addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that was
used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering, among other things, these
liabilities. The success of any such asbestos-related claims
would likely require, as a practical matter, that Coltec's
subsidiaries were unable to satisfy their asbestos-related
liabilities and that Coltec was found to be responsible for
these liabilities and was unable to meet its financial
obligations. The Company believes any such claims would be
without merit and that Coltec was solvent both before and after
the dividend of its aerospace business to the Company.

The Company believes that it has substantial insurance coverage
available to it related to any remaining claims. However, the
primary layer of insurance coverage for some of these claims is
provided by the Kemper Insurance Companies. Kemper has indicated
that, due to capital constraints and downgrades from various
rating agencies, it has ceased underwriting new business and now
focuses on administering policy commitments from prior years.
Kemper has also indicated that it is currently operating under a
"run-off" plan approved by the Illinois Department of Insurance.
The Company cannot predict the impact of Kemper's financial
position on the availability of the Kemper insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Defends Itself Against 36,400 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global provider of high-value industrial services and engineered
products, Harsco Corporation has been named as one of around 90
or more defendants in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades. The plaintiffs have named as defendants many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. Most of
these complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20
million or more against the named defendants. The Company has
not paid any amounts in settlement of these cases, with the
exception of two settlements totaling less than US$10,000 paid
by the insurance carrier prior to 1998.

During the third quarter of 2004, there was little change in the
total number of pending cases with the current number of pending
asbestos personal injury claims filed against the Company
approximating 36,400. About 26,440 of these cases were pending
in the New York Supreme Court for New York County; about 260
cases were pending in the New York Supreme Court for various
counties in New York State; and about 9,670 of the cases were
pending in state Courts of various counties in Mississippi.
Other claims totaling about 30 are filed in various counties in
a number of state Courts, and in U.S. Federal District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and those complaints
assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York cases or do
not state any amount claimed.

As of September 30, 2004, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in all cases
that have proceeded to trial. To date, the Company has been
dismissed from about 4,100 suits.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or
processor of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company
product, which may have contained asbestos, would have been
purchased from a supplier. Based on scientific and medical
evidence, the Company believes that any asbestos exposure
arising from normal use of any Company product never presented
any harmful airborne asbestos exposure, and moreover, the type
of asbestos contained in any component that was used in those
products is protectively encapsulated in other materials and is
not associated with the types of injuries alleged. Finally, in
most of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the
litigation against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to
identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos
exposure.

The majority of the asbestos complaints have been filed in
either New York or Mississippi. Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million
or US$25 million against around 90 defendants, regardless of the
individual's alleged medical condition, and without identifying
any Company product as the source of plaintiff's asbestos
exposure. With respect to the Mississippi complaints, most
contain a standard claim for an unstated amount of damages
against the numerous defendants without identifying any Company
product as the source of plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

The Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal costs and
expenses to date. The Company has liability insurance coverage
available under various primary and excess policies that the
Company believes will be available if necessary to substantially
cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred on these
claims.

As of September 30, 2004, the Company was listed as a defendant
in about 200 pending cases in the New York Supreme Court for New
York County that have been designated as active or "In Extremis"
and assigned to trial groups. To date, the Company has been
dismissed as a defendant prior to trial in all New York cases
that have proceeded to trial. The number of these dismissals is
currently 1,080.

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these cases as they are listed for trial and expects
the insurance carriers to continue to pay the legal costs and
expenses. Management believes that the outcome of these cases
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Posts 3Q Reserves at $78,329,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the largest marine insurers in the world Navigators
Insurance Company reports that as of September 30, 2004,
asbestos claims reached ending reserves of US$78,329,000.

Headquartered in New York, the Company claims that its exposure
to asbestos and environmental liability principally stems from
marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during
the mid-1980s. In many instances the Company is one of many
insurers who participate in the defense and ultimate settlement
of these claims, and they are generally a minor participant in
the overall insurance coverage and settlement. Since most of
their policies were issued after the industry was apprised of
asbestos exposures, many of the policies on which they
participate have exclusions that may preclude coverage. In
addition, many of their asbestos and environmental claims have
been inactive for several years.

In the fourth quarter of 2003, Navigators Insurance increased
its gross and net asbestos reserves for losses by US$77.6
million and US$31.6 million, respectively. As a result, gross
and net incurred losses increased by the amount of the
respective reserve increase. The US$31.6 million of net asbestos
losses included US$25.7 million of uncollectible reinsurance.

The reserve action was the result of a review of asbestos-
related exposures conducted by the Company. The Company's
management was notified in late January 2004 that an asbestos
claim would likely have to be settled for a significantly
greater amount than previously anticipated. As a result of the
unexpected adverse development on this individual claim, the
Company retained a leading independent consulting firm in this
area to assist in the identification of its potential exposure
to asbestos claims from policies written directly as well as
those reinsured to Navigators Insurance Company from prior
members of the Company's insurance pools.

The Company's increased reserves relate primarily to policies
underwritten by the Navigators Agencies in the late 1970s and
first half of the 1980s on behalf of members of the pool,
consisting of excess liability on marine related business and
aviation products liability, including policies subsequently
assumed by Navigators Insurance Company pursuant to reinsurance
arrangements with pool members who exited the pool. Following
the Company's and the independent consulting firm's recent
review, the Company increased its gross and net loss reserves
for asbestos exposure to US$78.5 million and US$32.1 million,
respectively, at December 31, 2003. Loss development activity
for asbestos related exposures in the third quarter and first
nine months of 2004 has not been significant.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Coastal Reaches Agreement with Dresser
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2004, California Coastal Communities Inc. and RESCO
reached an agreement in principle with Dresser Industries Inc.
to settle asbestos-related litigation, subject to negotiation of
a definitive settlement agreement. The Company's share of the
settlement is US$1.33 million, which is included in the
Company's litigation accrual, reflecting its estimate for the
minimum costs that are probable and estimable at this time.

Dresser's indemnity claims relate to several hundred lawsuits
encompassing about 5,900 contested asbestos claims made by third
parties in connection with work in facilities in which the
Dresser-acquired engineering and construction business was
allegedly connected. In May 2002, Dresser Industries, Inc. filed
litigation, captioned Dresser Industries, Inc. vs. California
Coastal Communities, Inc. and RESCO Holdings, Inc. in the 58th
Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

Dresser seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the rights and
obligations of the parties under a January 1988 purchase
agreement. Under the agreement, Dresser acquired an engineering
and construction business from the M.W. Kellogg Company, a
corporation formerly affiliated with the Company. Kellogg and
its parent Company, Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., a former
affiliate of the Company, agreed to indemnify Dresser against
certain pre-closing claims. In a subsequent transaction,
Wheelabrator assigned certain assets and liabilities relating to
the January 1988 purchase agreement to the Company. Dresser also
seeks unspecified damages for breach of the 1988 purchase
agreement, along with attorney's fees and costs.

The Company denies Dresser's allegations and is vigorously
defending itself in this case and related matters. The Company
was not formed until September 1988 and, when it was spun-off
from Wheelabrator in December 1988, the Company agreed to
indemnify Wheelabrator for its potential liabilities under the
January 1988 purchase agreement with Dresser, to the extent that
any such liabilities are not covered by insurance. However, the
Company and RESCO contend that under the terms of the January
1988 purchase agreement, any contractual duty to indemnify
Dresser for any third-party asbestos claims expired in March
1991. The Company also believes that it has a number of other
meritorious defenses to this litigation.

However, in the event that final settlement is not accomplished
and the Company is required to provide indemnification to
Dresser, defense costs and damage awards in asbestos cases can
involve amounts that would have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, operations and financial condition.

California Coastal Communities, Inc. and its consolidated
subsidiaries is a residential land development and homebuilding
Company with properties located primarily in southern
California. The Company's principal activities include obtaining
zoning and other entitlements for land it owns or controls
through purchase options and improving the land for residential
development and designing, constructing and selling single-
family residential homes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Posts $8MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation has been named as a defendant in
civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to
toxic substances, generally asbestos, at closed former Company
facilities. The Company, which repairs, overhauls, and builds
commercial and military marine vessels through subsidiary Todd
Pacific Shipyards, is currently defending about 27 "malignant"
claims and about 561 "non-malignant" claims. Based on current
fact patterns, certain diseases including mesothelioma, lung
cancer and fully developed asbestosis are categorized by the
Company as "malignant" claims. All others of a less medically
serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant."

The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the
Company, other shipbuilders and repairers, ship-owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances. The
Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases
develop, analyzing them in two different categories based on
severity of illness.

During the first half of fiscal year 2005, the Company
experienced relatively minor changes in its bodily injury
liabilities and insurance receivables. As of October 3, 2004,
the Company has recorded a bodily injury liability reserve of
US$8.0 million and a bodily injury insurance receivable of
US$5.8 million.

This compares to a previously recorded bodily injury reserve and
insurance receivable of US$8.1 million and US$5.8 million,
respectively, at March 28, 2004. These bodily injury liabilities
and receivables are classified within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheets as environmental and other reserves, and
insurance receivables, respectively.

During the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, the Company
recorded a reserve of US$2.5 million related to the
unanticipated bankruptcy of one of its former workers'
compensation carriers. The reserve, which reflects the Company's
best estimate of the known liabilities associated with unpaid
workers compensation claims arising from the two-year coverage
period that commenced October 1, 1998, is subject to change as
additional facts are uncovered. These claims have reverted to
the Company due the liquidation of the insurance carrier.

Although the Company expects to recover at least a portion of
these costs from the liquidation and other sources, the amount
and the timing of any such recovery cannot be estimated
currently and therefore no estimate of amounts recoverable is
included in the current financial results.  Since establishing
the reserve during the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, the
Company has paid about US$0.3 million in claims, which have been
charged against the reserve.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas & Betts Faces Lawsuits in Six States
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thomas & Betts Corporation and two subsidiaries, Amerace
Corporation and L.E. Mason, acquired respectively in 1995 and
1999, are subject to asbestos lawsuits in Mississippi, New
Jersey and four other states, related to either undefined and
unidentified or historic products. In all cases, the Corporation
is investigating these allegations.

No product of Amerace, Red Dot or Thomas and Betts that has been
identified in these cases contains or contained asbestos. The
Memphis, TN-based corporation, which ventures on the electrical
market, has been dismissed in two of the lawsuits. In the
Amerace litigation, four lawsuits have already been dismissed.
Potential exposure at this time, if any, cannot be estimated.
Management believes, however, that there is no merit to these
claims; that damages, if any, are remote and believes that a
loss is not probable in any of these cases. Insurance coverage
is available in connection with these claims.

As of September 30, 2004, asbestos reserves were US$2.5 billion,
a decrease of US$1.3 billion compared to US$3.8 billion as of
December 31, 2003. The decrease in asbestos reserves is
primarily driven by the MacArthur settlement payment made in the
first quarter of 2004. The increase in environmental reserves is
a result of the environmental reserve analysis completed in the
third quarter 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E Cites US$750,000 Expected Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and the County of San Diego are
continuing to negotiate the remaining terms of a settlement
relating to alleged environmental law violations by SDG&E and
its contractors in connection with the abatement of asbestos-
containing materials during the demolition of a natural gas
storage facility that was completed in 2001. The expected
settlement would involve payments by SDG&E of less than
US$750,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Study Reveals Underestimation of Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
A public health research exposes that the proportion of
asbestos-related deaths in New Zealand may be higher than
recorded.

Dr. Pamela Smartt, senior research fellow at the Christchurch
School of Medicine Department of Public Health and General
Practice, said official mortality statistics were known to
underestimate the health impact of asbestosis, a lung disease
resulting from the inhalation of asbestos fibers.

The lung-disease asbestosis was previously blamed directly for
killing 44 men between 1988 and 1999. But research published in
the Medical Journal says it contributed to the deaths of 264 men
in those 12 years. Most of the deaths were blamed on lung or
pleural cancers, but such diseases can be caused by exposure to
asbestos fibers, often many years earlier. Dr. Smartt believes
even the larger figure vastly understates the seriousness of an
asbestos epidemic fuelled by widespread workplace exposure to
the deadly mineral between the 1940s and 1980s.

A former Auckland Medical School researcher with whom she co-
wrote an earlier paper, Dr. Tord Kjellstrom, has warned that
diseases from inhaling asbestos dust could eventually kill up to
12,000 New Zealanders. Dr. Smartt's research did not include the
asbestos disease mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining which
takes even longer to develop than asbestosis but is believed to
kill about 60 New Zealanders a year.

The most likely reason for the under-reporting of asbestos-
related lung cancer deaths was the high prevalence of smoking,
which comprised 80 to 85 percent in the occupations most likely
to be exposed to asbestos in the workplace and an assumption
lung cancer in smokers was most likely to be causally related to
tobacco. Smokers exposed to asbestos are 10 times more likely to
suffer lung cancer than non-smoking asbestos workers, and five
times more so than non-exposed smokers.

Association chairwoman Dr. Tricia Briscoe said 20 to 40 percent
of adult New Zealand males were likely to have had some form of
exposure to asbestos, but related diseases were hard for doctors
to diagnose without knowledge of patients' work histories. In
many current and ex-smokers, a clinical diagnosis of asbestosis
may be the first indication of the increased risk, she said.

"This level of exposure means it is important for doctors to be
aware of the risks when doing medical check-ups and
consultations," she said.

Immediate cessation of smoking, prompt treatment for respiratory
infections, and regular screening for lung cancer and related
malignancies were indicated as essential for all kinds of
asbestosis.

Dr. Smartt stated that asbestos was the cause of debilitating
occupational diseases for which sufferers and their families
deserved to be compensated. Adequate reporting was deemed vital
for holding its multinational producers accountable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Libby Council Funds Asbestos Study Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City Council in Libby has approved an asbestos research
center that has drawn interest from cancer clinics nationwide
and international scientists.

Councilors voted to allocate US$250,000 from what's left of a
US$8 million federal economic development grant toward the
center. The federal money was given to Libby in 2000 after the
government learned of the widespread disease and the nearly 200
deaths from asbestos exposure linked to a former vermiculite
mine.

The Center for Asbestos-Related Disease first proposed the
research center to the Libby Area Development Co., the group
charged with dispensing the US$8 million grant. City officials
disbanded the development group after they declined the research
request and suggested proponents for the center consider a loan
instead.

The research clinic has drawn interest from scientists as far
away as Australia, and many of the 38 National Cancer Institute
sites across the country, said Dr. Brad Black, a CARD clinic
physician. The University of Cincinnati, University of Montana
and Mount Sinai Hospital are also interested in studying the
health effects of asbestos found in Libby.

The US$250,000 grant will be used as seed money to begin work on
an extensive database that will store information for research
projects. A tissue bank that would primarily handle lung tissue
is also planned, Dr. Black said. A scientific advisory board
will oversee research projects and study new proposals, and the
center will be funded through grants from outside investigators.

"There are 30 to 40 million homes insulated with vermiculite, so
the government is interested in research here," Dr. Black added.
"Investigators from other sites around the world will submit
proposals to us, areas where there are common populations with
asbestos problems."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NT Ponders Change in Licensing Guidelines
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Territory's health and safety watchdog is
considering overhauling its asbestos licensing guidelines.

NT Worksafe's announcement comes at the same time as the
agency's request to a Darwin Company to show cause why its
asbestos removal license should not be cancelled. Concerns have
been raised about the lack of protective gear for the Company's
workers during the removal of asbestos from Old Customs House in
Darwin's central business district last year.

Worksafe Director Mark Crossin says the agency wants to set
tougher benchmarks. "We're talking with industry about a new
licensing regime both in the restricted and unrestricted
categories where we're looking at far greater skill and
competence than has perhaps been the case in the past," he said.

Meanwhile, a Darwin businessman suffering from asbestosis says
all buildings containing asbestos, including schools, in the
Territory should be pulled down and rebuilt. Harry Maschke, 69,
was diagnosed three years ago and believes he contracted the
illness while working on government buildings in the 60s and
70s. He says authorities knew of the dangers from asbestos
fibers but he was never told.

Mr. Maschke says it is irresponsible of governments to continue
exposing children and members of the public to asbestos. He is
demanding that all buildings containing asbestos be removed
totally.

But a Territory Government spokeswoman says asbestos left
undisturbed poses no health risk. She says if Mr. Maschke's
suggestion was carried out, the demolition of buildings could
disperse asbestos fibers and make the risk of asbestos exposure
real.

The spokeswoman says asbestos has been removed and will continue
to be removed, as part of upgrades to all government buildings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CG&E, PSI Pending Lawsuits Increase to 100
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of energy holding Company Cinergy, Cincinnati Gas &
Electric Co. and PSI Inc. have been named as defendants or co-
defendants in lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric
generating stations. Currently, there are about 100 pending
lawsuits. In these lawsuits, plaintiffs claim to have been
exposed to asbestos-containing products in the course of their
work at the CG&E and PSI generating stations.

The plaintiffs further claim that as the property owner of the
generating stations, CG&E and PSI should be held liable for
their injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty to warn
and protect them from any asbestos exposure. A majority of the
lawsuits to date have been brought against PSI.

Of these lawsuits, one case filed against PSI has been tried to
verdict. The jury returned a verdict against PSI in the amount
of about US$500,000 on a negligence claim and a verdict for PSI
on punitive damages. PSI received an adverse ruling in its
initial appeal of the negligence claim verdict, but the Indiana
Supreme Court accepted the transfer of the case, and heard oral
argument in June 2004.

In addition, PSI has settled a number of other lawsuits for
amounts, which neither individually nor in the aggregate, are
material to PSI's financial position or results of operations.
At this time, CG&E and PSI are not able to predict the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits or the impact on CG&E's and PSI's
financial position or results of operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Cites Lower Asbestos Legal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp., a leading global manufacturer of materials and
systems for packaging, stated in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the increase in their
net income for the first nine months of 2004 was due in part to
a decrease in legal and related fees for asbestos-related and
other legal matters of US$1.2 million. The Company's legal fees
amounted to US$1.3 million in 2004 compared to US$2.5 million in
2003.

Other income, net, was US$3.3 million in the third quarter of
2004 compared with US$3.2 million in the third quarter of 2003
and US$9.1 million in the first nine months of 2004 compared
with US$4.8 million in the first nine months of 2003.

In calculating diluted earnings per common share, the weighted
average number of common shares for the quarters and nine months
ended September 30, 2004 and 2003 assumes the issuance of nine
million shares of common stock reserved for the Company's
previously announced asbestos settlement and the exercise of
dilutive stock options, net of assumed treasury stock
repurchases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Claims No Basis For Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Automotive Inc. indicated in its latest Securities and
Exchange Commission filing that it is subject to a number of
lawsuits initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging
health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. However,
only a small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics who were allegedly exposed to the Company's
former muffler products and a significant number appear to
involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against it.

The Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it
is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by its
former muffler products and that, in any event, they would not
be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their
work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve
numerous defendants, with the number of each in some cases
exceeding 200 defendants from a variety of industries.

Additionally, the plaintiffs do not specify a jurisdictional
minimum dollar amount for damages. On the other hand, the
Company is experiencing an increasing number of these claims,
likely due to bankruptcies of major asbestos manufacturers. The
Company vigorously defends itself against these claims as part
of its ordinary course of business. To date, with respect to
claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial
process, the Company has regularly achieved favorable resolution
in the form of a dismissal of the claim or a judgment in its
favor. Accordingly, Tenneco presently believes that these
asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact
on its future financial condition or results of operations.

Tenneco Automotive Inc. is a US$3.5 billion global manufacturing
Company based in Lake Forest, Illinois, with 19,600 employees
worldwide. The Company is one of the world's largest designers,
manufacturers and distributors of automotive ride control and
emission control products and systems for the automotive
original equipment market, and the repair and replacement
market, or aftermarket.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metlife Posts 19,100 Injury Claims in 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the US's largest insurers, Metropolitan Life is a
defendant in thousands of lawsuits seeking compensatory and
punitive damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The
Company previously reported that it had received about 60,300
asbestos-related claims in 2003 and about 53,200 such claims in
the first nine months of 2003.

In the context of a change in Metropolitan Life's asbestos
claims administrator in the second half of 2003, there was a
minor overstatement of the Company's reported asbestos-related
claims in 2003 and the first half of 2004. Accordingly, The
Company now reports that it received about 58,650 asbestos-
related claims in 2003 and 19,100 of such claims in the first
nine months of 2004 (12,900 claims in the first six months of
2004), compared to about 53,000 in the first nine months of
2003.

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

These lawsuits have principally been based upon allegations
relating to certain research, publication and other activities
of one or more of the Company's employees during the period from
the 1920's through about the 1950's. They allege that the
Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized
or failed to disclose those health risks. The Company believes
that it should not have legal liability in such cases.

Legal theories asserted against the Company have included
negligence, intentional tort claims and conspiracy claims
concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Although
the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
claims, and has not suffered any adverse monetary judgments in
respect of these claims, due to the risks and expenses of
litigation, almost all past cases have been resolved by
settlements.

Metropolitan Life's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) to plaintiffs' claims include that:

(1) The Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs - it had no
special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs;

(2) Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate justifiable detrimental
reliance; and

(3) Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate proximate causation.

In defending asbestos cases, the Company selects various
strategies depending upon the jurisdictions in which such cases
are brought and other factors which, in the Company's judgment,
best protect its interests. Strategies include seeking to settle
or compromise claims, motions challenging the legal or factual
basis for such claims or defending on the merits at trial.

In 2002, 2003 and 2004, trial Courts in California, Utah, Texas
and Georgia granted motions dismissing claims against the
Company on some or all of the above grounds. Other Courts have
denied motions brought by the Company to dismiss cases without
the necessity of trial. There can be no assurance that the
Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the
future. The Company intends to continue to exercise its best
judgment regarding settlement or defense of such cases,
including when trials of these cases are appropriate.

Recent bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos
litigation, as well as advertising by plaintiffs' asbestos
lawyers, may result in an increase in the number of claims and
the cost of resolving claims, as well as the number of trials
and possible adverse verdicts the Company may experience.
Plaintiffs are seeking additional funds from defendants,
including Metropolitan Life, in light of such recent
bankruptcies by certain other defendants. In addition, publicity
regarding legislative reform efforts may result in an increase
in the number of claims.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements
for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-
related claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Faces 141,400 Asbestos Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2004, about 141,400 claims naming American
Optical Corp. (a former subsidiary of Warner-Lambert Co., with
which Pfizer merged) and numerous other defendants were pending
in various federal and state Courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to American Optical products
containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials.
Pfizer Inc. is actively engaged in defending, and will continue
to explore various means to resolve these claims.

As previously reported, there is a small number of lawsuits
pending in various federal and state Courts seeking damages for
alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly
owned by Pfizer or its other subsidiaries. Gibsonburg Lime
Products Company was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and sold
small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early
1970s. There are a small number of lawsuits pending against
Pfizer in various federal and state Courts seeking damages for
alleged personal injury from exposure to Gibsonburg Lime
products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous
materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records Abex Claims Totaling 47,068
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of Federal-Mogul's subsidiaries formerly owned by Cooper
Industries Inc., known as Abex is among many defendants named in
numerous Court actions in the United States alleging personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-related
products.

Based on information provided by representatives of Federal-
Mogul and recent claims experience, from August 28, 1998 through
September 30, 2004, a total of 131,844 Abex Claims were filed,
of which 84,776 claims have been resolved leaving 47,068 claims
pending at September 30, 2004, that are the responsibility of
Federal-Mogul. To the extent Cooper is obligated to Pneumo for
any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex product line,
Cooper has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance
for such claims.

During the three months ended September 30, 2004, 7,884 claims
were filed and 20,415 claims were resolved. Since August 28,
1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was
US$1,778 before insurance. A total of US$61.4 million was spent
on defense costs for the period August 28, 1998 through
September 30, 2004. Historically, existing insurance coverage
has provided 50% to 80% of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Accrues US$209MM For Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings' operating subsidiary, still known as Crown Cork
& Seal Company, a leading worldwide producer of consumer
packaging, is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. Company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.  About
ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S. Company sold its
insulation operations and was later merged into Crown Cork.

As of September 30, 2004, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims was US$209 million, a decrease of
US$30 million since December 31, 2003 due to payments made
during the first nine months of 2004. The 2004 payments included
US$2 million for claims settled in prior periods and US$16
million for claims settled in this period in accordance with the
terms of prior year agreements.  The Company estimates that its
probable and estimable asbestos liability for pending and future
asbestos-related claims will range between US$209 million and
US$376 million.  The accrual balance of US$209 million includes
US$122 million for unasserted claims and US$3 million for
committed settlements that will be paid over time.

Historically  (1977-2003), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964. However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to
date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification
of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury
by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual and range of potential
liability any amounts for settlements by persons alleging first
exposure to asbestos after 1964.

Assumptions underlying the accrual and the range of potential
liability include that claims for exposure to asbestos that
occurred after the sale of the U.S. Company's insulation
business in 1964 would not be entitled to settlement payouts and
that the Texas tort reform legislation and Pennsylvania asbestos
legislation described above are expected to have a highly
favorable impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend
against asbestos-related claims in those states, and other
states where Pennsylvania law may apply. The Company's accrual
includes estimates for probable costs for claims through the
year 2013. The upper end of the Company's estimated range of
possible asbestos costs of US$376 million includes claims beyond
that date.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Has 4 Overpayment Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of October 15, 2004, four lawsuits were pending against New
RJR Tobacco, as successor to the merger between RJR Tobacco and
Brown & Williamson, in which asbestos companies and asbestos-
related trust funds allege that they "overpaid" claims brought
against them to the extent that tobacco use, not asbestos
exposure, was the cause of the alleged personal injuries for
which they paid compensation.

On May 24, 2001, a Mississippi state Court judge dismissed all
such claims by Owens-Corning in Estate of Ezell Thomas v. RJR
Tobacco Co. Owens-Corning appealed the dismissal to the
Mississippi Supreme Court on August 15, 2001, which, on March
18, 2004, affirmed the trial Court's dismissal. In Fibreboard
Corp. v. R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in state Court
in California, Owens-Corning and Fibreboard asserted the same
claims as those asserted in the Mississippi case. Motions to
dismiss those claims have been stayed.

Most recently, in June 2004, the contribution claims in three
separate cases were voluntarily dismissed, leaving the cases
pending as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs only.
These cases are Kaiser Aluminum, Chemical Corp. v. R.J.R.
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., TN, Ltd., R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Co. and
Gasket Holdings f/k/a Flexitallic Inc. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Altria, Phillip Morris Face 2 Pending Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, two cases remain pending against the Altria Group,
the world's largest tobacco firm. These cases, which have been
brought on behalf of former asbestos manufacturers and
affiliated entities against PM USA and other cigarette
manufacturers, seek, among other things, contribution or
reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the
defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly
caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking. In certain of
these cases, the plaintiffs claim that cigarette smoking
exacerbated injuries caused by exposure to asbestos.

Altria operates its cigarette business through subsidiaries
Philip Morris USA and Philip Morris International, both of which
sell Marlboro - the world's largest-selling cigarette brand
since 1972. The Company controls about half of the US tobacco
market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Faces 460 Lawsuits, 10,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state Courts in
Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi primarily by contractor
employees in the 1950-1980 timeframe against Entergy Gulf
States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy
Mississippi, as premises owners of power plants, for damages
caused by alleged exposure to asbestos or other hazardous
material.

Generally, many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as
well. Presently there are about 460 lawsuits involving about
10,000 claims. Reserves have been established that should be
adequate to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations
continue with insurers to recover more reimbursement, while new
coverage is being secured to minimize anticipated future
potential exposures. Management believes that loss exposure has
been and will continue to be handled successfully so that the
ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in
the aggregate, to the financial position or results of operation
of the domestic utility companies involved in these lawsuits.

Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy Company engaged
primarily in electric power production, retail distribution
operations, energy marketing and trading, and gas
transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Goulds Named in Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A world leader in engineering and manufacturing, ITT Industries
and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc. have been joined as
defendants with numerous other industrial companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. The
Company's historic product liability insurance carriers have
managed these actions against it. These claims stem primarily
from products sold prior to 1985 that contained a part
manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which allegedly
contained asbestos. The asbestos was encapsulated in the gasket
material and was non-friable. In certain other cases, it is
alleged that former ITT companies were distributors for other
manufacturers' products that may have contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury
or do not identify any ITT or Goulds product as a source of
asbestos exposure. During 2003, ITT and Goulds resolved about
2,000 claims through settlement or dismissal. The average amount
of settlement per plaintiff has been nominal and substantially
all defense and settlement costs have been covered by insurance.
Based upon past claims experience, available insurance coverage,
and after consultation with counsel, management believes that
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.

The Company is involved in a matter, Cannon Electric, Inc. et
al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Company et al., Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, CA., Case No. BC 290354. A related suit
filed in New York, Pacific Employers Insurance Company et al. v.
ITT Industries, Inc. et al., Supreme Court, County of New York,
N.Y., Case No. 03600463 has been stayed in deference to the
California suit. The parties in both cases are seeking an
appropriate allocation of responsibility for the Company's
historic asbestos liability exposure among its insurers. The
California action is filed in the same venue where the Company's
environmental insurance recovery litigation has been pending
since 1991.

In April 2004, Goulds and Ace Property & Casualty Company
entered into an agreement resolving both cases as they relate to
Ace Property & Casualty Company. The Company will pursue similar
agreements with several of its other insurers. In addition,
Utica National, Goulds' historic insurer, filed an action in
Oneida County, New York (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Goulds
Pumps, Inc., Oneida County, New York, Case No. 00272103), to
allocate the Goulds asbestos liabilities between insurance
policies issued by Utica and those issued by others. The venue
for this matter has been changed to the County of Los Angeles
and consolidated with the above matter. The parties are
currently considering a settlement agreement similar to the Ace
agreement.

The Company is continuing to receive the benefit of insurance
payments during the pendency of these proceedings. The Company
believes that these actions will not materially affect the
availability of its insurance coverage and will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp, Subsidiaries Have 49 Pending Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, GenCorp Inc. and its subsidiaries have from time
to time been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal
injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building
materials or in manufacturing operations. The majority has been
filed in Madison County, Illinois and San Francisco, California.

Since 1998, more than 80 of these asbestos lawsuits have been
resolved, with the majority being dismissed and many being
settled for less than US$0.1 million each. As of August 31,
2004, there were 49 asbestos cases pending, including the Goede
case.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the
first nine months of fiscal 2004 were about US$0.9 million.
Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal
2003 and fiscal 2002 were about US$1.4 million and US$0.7
million, respectively. Fees for fiscal 2002 include costs
associated with the litigation of the Goede et al. v. A. W.
Chesterton Inc. et al. matter. However, aggregate settlement
costs and average settlement costs for fiscal 2002 do not
include the Goede matter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MSA Named in 2,125 Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits and claims are pending against the world's
largest manufacturer of safety equipment and systems, Mine
Safety Appliances Company. These lawsuits are primarily product
liability claims.

The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Company has been named as a
defendant in about 2,125 lawsuits involving primarily
respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold
by the Company. Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total
of about 30,200 plaintiffs. About 85% of these lawsuits involve
plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis, with the
remainder alleging they suffer from other or combined injuries,
including asbestosis. These lawsuits typically allege that these
conditions resulted in part from respirators that were
negligently designed or manufactured by the Company.

Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in
silica and asbestos-related litigation, there has been an
increase in the number of asserted claims that could potentially
involve the Company. Management cannot determine the Company's
potential maximum liability for such claims, in part because the
defendants in these lawsuits are often numerous and the claims
generally do not specify the amount of damages sought.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Deals With NARCO, Bendix Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., a diversified technology and
manufacturing leader mostly known for its aerospace products and
services, is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. The Company claims that it did not mine or produce
asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation products or other
construction materials that have been identified as the primary
cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of
claimants. Products containing asbestos previously manufactured
by Honeywell or by previously owned subsidiaries fall into two
general categories: refractory products and friction products.

Honeywell owned North American Refractories Company (NARCO) from
1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products, which were
sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than 2 percent of NARCO's products contained asbestos. When the
Company sold the NARCO business in 1986, its management agreed
to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale.

NARCO had resolved about 176,000 claims through January 4, 2002,
the date NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code, at an average cost per claim of US$2,200.
As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. Although the stay has remained in
effect continuously since January 4, 2002, there is no assurance
that such stay will remain in effect.

As a result of negotiations with counsel representing NARCO
related asbestos claimants regarding settlement of all pending
and potential NARCO related asbestos claims against Honeywell,
the Company has reached definitive agreements with about 260,000
claimants, which represents in excess of 90 percent of the
anticipated current claimants who are expected to file a claim
as part of the NARCO reorganization process. The Company
believes that a trust will be established pursuant to these
Trust Distribution Procedures for the benefit of all asbestos
claimants, current and future.

Honeywell developed an estimated liability for settlement of
pending and future asbestos claims and recorded a charge of
US$1.4 billion for NARCO related asbestos litigation charges,
net of insurance recoveries. This charge consisted of the
estimated liability to settle current asbestos related claims,
the estimated liability related to future asbestos related
claims through 2018 and obligations to NARCO's parent, net of
insurance recoveries of US$1.8 billion.

At September 30, 2004, a significant portion of this coverage is
with insurance companies with whom the Company has agreements to
pay full policy limits based on corresponding Honeywell claims
costs. This includes agreements with a substantial majority of
the London-based insurance companies entered into primarily in
the first quarter of 2004. In the second quarter of 2004, based
on the Company's ongoing evaluation of its ability to enforce
its rights under the various insurance policies, it was
concluded that Honeywell had additional probable insurance
recoveries of US$47 million, net of solvency reserves, which has
been reflected in insurance receivables.

The other source of asbestos-related liabilities involves
Honeywell's Bendix Friction Materials business, which
manufactured automotive brake pads that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form. There is a group of existing
and potential claimants consisting largely of individuals that
allege to have performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through September 30, 2004, the Company has resolved
about 70,000 Bendix-related asbestos claims including trials
covering 120 plaintiffs, which resulted in 115 favorable
verdicts. Trials covering five individuals resulted in adverse
verdicts; however, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal
and the remaining three claims were settled. In the third
quarter of 2004, the Company recognized a charge of US$24
million for Bendix related asbestos claims filed and defense
costs incurred during the third quarter of 2004, net of probable
Bendix related insurance recoveries.

Cash provided by operating activities decreased by US$209
million during the first nine months of 2004 compared with the
first nine months of 2003 due primarily to an increase in net
asbestos related liability payments of US$373 million as the
prior period included US$472 million in cash received from
Equitas related to a comprehensive policy buy-back settlement,
and an increase in working capital usage of US$237 million
principally related to higher sales. This decrease in cash
provided by operating activities was partially offset by
increased earnings and a decrease in voluntary U.S. pension
contributions of US$160 million.

The Company made asbestos related payments of US$424 million,
including legal fees, in the first nine months of 2004 and
expects to make additional asbestos related payments of about
US$180 million during the remainder of 2004. The Company had
US$61 million of asbestos related insurance recoveries during
the first nine months of 2004 and expects to receive about US$73
million in asbestos related insurance recoveries during the
remainder of 2004. These cash flow projections are consistent
with existing asbestos reserves and anticipated insurance
recoveries for asbestos related liabilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Faces Direct and Third-Party Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1993, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co, a subsidiary of the
Constellation Energy Group, has been involved in several actions
concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of
"premises liability," alleging that the Company, which is a
provider of electricity and natural gas utility services in
Baltimore and parts of central Maryland, knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard. The actions relate to two
types of claims.

The first type is direct claims by individuals exposed to
asbestos. BGE is involved in these claims with about 70 other
defendants. About 510 individuals that were never employees of
BGE each claim US$6 million in damages, US$2 million
compensatory and US$4 million punitive. These claims are
currently pending in state Courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
BGE does not know the specific facts necessary to estimate its
potential liability for these claims. The Company does not have
the information regarding the identity of its facilities at
which plaintiffs allegedly worked as contractors, the names of
the plaintiff's employers, and the circumstances relating to the
exposure.

To date, 339 asbestos cases were dismissed or resolved for
amounts that were not significant. About 20 cases are currently
scheduled for trial through the end of 2006.

The second type comprises claims by Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
against BGE and about eight others, as third-party defendants.
On April 17, 2000, PCC declared bankruptcy. These claims relate
to about 1,500 individual plaintiffs and were filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland in the fall of 1993.
To date, about 375 cases have been resolved, all without any
payment by BGE. BGE also professes to not knowing the specific
facts necessary to estimate its potential liability for these
claims.

Until the relevant facts for both types of claims are
determined, the Company is unable to estimate what
Constellation's or BGE's liability might be.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hundreds Report Exposure to Asbestos in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 650 people have reported playing as children on a
northeast Minneapolis factory's scrap pile of asbestos-tainted
vermiculite, a Minnesota Department of Health survey has found.

The preliminary findings show that about 41 percent, or 2,639 of
the 6,433 present and former neighborhood residents surveyed,
reported some form of asbestos exposure from the plant that
operated between 1938 and 1989.

But a senior health department official said that the degree of
exposures varied widely, and so do the residents' risks of
contracting asbestos-related diseases. People who played the
most frequently in the dusty scrap pile are believed to be among
those at highest risk of diseases that take decades to produce
symptoms.

The three-year survey was disclosed to neighborhood residents in
recent weeks. It also identified 49 former workers at the plant
that was last operated by the W.R. Grace & Co. A separate report
on exposure to the workers and their families has yet to be
released.

But the preliminary findings already released show: 837 people
reported direct contact with the waste, including 655 who said
they played on the scrap pile; 801 were found to have lived
within a block of the plant while it operated; and 1,735 people
reported living on a vermiculite-contaminated property.

The three-year survey provides the most complete picture to date
of the degree of asbestos exposures. But it leaves unanswered
most questions about residents' medical conditions. Health
Department officials hope now to obtain funding from the federal
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry so they can
answer some of those questions with a medical screening of those
who say they were exposed.

The follow-up study also would match the names of present and
former residents with data from the Health Department's
statewide cancer surveillance system. Between 1988 and 2002,
cancer survey data from the two zip codes surrounding the former
northeast Minneapolis Grace plant showed higher-than-expected
incidences of lung cancer among men and asbestos-linked
mesothelioma among women.

But these figures are "inconsistent," involve only a handful of
cases and may be meaningless because people in the neighborhood
come and go, said John Soler, an epidemiologist in the
department's cancer surveillance unit. A statewide match could
prove more useful.

The Minneapolis plant at 1720 E. Madison St. and a second plant
nearby that closed in 1971 processed contaminated Montana ore
for use in manufacturing vermiculite attic insulation, fire
retardant sprays and other products.

Public health officials see strong parallels between the
Minneapolis neighborhood and the asbestos-ravaged northwestern
Montana mining town of Libby, near the mountain where the
tainted ore was mined beginning in the 1920s. Libby is the scene
of the nation's worst community exposure to asbestos, a health
threat normally confined to the workplace. Grace bought the
Montana mine in 1963 and, shortly thereafter, purchased the
Madison Street plant from the Western Mineral Products Co. Grace
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001 and has been
fighting a federal judge's ruling that it must reimburse the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency US$54.5 million for cleanup
costs to date in Libby, as well as any future costs.

Rita Messing, a health department toxicologist who oversaw the
survey, said the agency needs about US$225,000 to conduct a
pilot medical screening study and examine death records for
former Grace plant workers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Meets $3.4MM Obligation
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the largest independent power producers in the United
States, Midwest Generation recorded a US$14.2 million liability
related to its obligation in compliance to a supplemental
agreement with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation. The
Company entered into this agreement on February 20, 2003 to
resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its reimbursement
obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental
indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement dated March
22, 1999. The Company had made US$3.4 million in payments
through September 2004.

Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of
specific existing asbestos claims and expenses less recovery of
insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing arrangement for
liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos related
claims as specified in the agreement. The obligations under this
agreement are not subject to a maximum liability. The
supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an automatic
renewal provision (subject to the right to terminate). Payments
are made under this indemnity upon tender by Commonwealth Edison
of appropriate proof of liability for an asbestos-related
settlement, judgment, verdict, or expense.

Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison International's
merchant energy business, Edison Mission Energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp Posts 3Q Claims Loss Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation on the latest filing submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission posted loss reserves at
September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, which included
significant amounts related to asbestos and toxic waste claims.

At September 30, 2004, asbestos and toxic waste claims loss
reserves amounted to US$1,117 million and reinsurance
recoverables totaled US$55 million; this can be compared to
asbestos and toxic claims loss reserves of US$1,295 million and
57 million at December 31, 2003.

The Company stated that the loss reserves related to these
claims are significant components of the Company's total loss
reserves, but they distort the growth trend in the loss
reserves. Adjusted to exclude such loss reserves, the loss
reserves, net of reinsurance recoverable, increased by US$1,942
million during the first nine months of 2004. The Company
continually reviews and updates its loss reserves.

In establishing such reserves, the Company considers facts
currently known and the present state of the law and coverage
litigation. However, given the judicial decisions and
legislative actions that have broadened the scope of coverage
and expanded theories of liability in the past and the
possibilities of similar interpretations in the future,
particularly as they relate to asbestos claims and, to a lesser
extent, toxic waste claims, additional liabilities may emerge in
future periods for amounts in excess of carried reserves. Such
increases in estimates could have a material adverse effect on
the Corporation's future operating results.

With more than 12,000 employees throughout North America,
Europe, South America, and the Pacific Rim, Chubb serves
property and casualty customers from more than 130 offices in 29
countries. Chubb works closely with 8,000 independent agents and
brokers worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Involved in 485 Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi Inc. reported in a recent regulatory filing that NL
Industries Inc. (NYSE: NL), of which it owns more than 80%, has
been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in a variety of
jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by
formerly owned operations of NL containing asbestos, silica
and/or mixed dust.

About 485 of these types of cases involving a total of around
25,500 plaintiffs and their spouses remain pending. Of these
plaintiffs, about 9,200 are represented by six cases pending in
Mississippi state Court and about 5,500 are represented by four
cases that have been removed to federal Court in Mississippi,
where they have been, or are in the process of being,
transferred to the multi-district litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

A CAR publication last June 11 reported that around 465 of these
cases involving a total of around 30,000 plaintiffs and their
spouses were pending in Courts.

NL has not accrued any amounts for this litigation because
liability that may result to NL, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. In addition, from time to time, NL has received
notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be
brought against former subsidiaries of NL, including notices
provided to insurers with which NL has entered into settlements
extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may
seek indemnification from NL.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMPCO Pittsburgh Posts 3Q $65T Income Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMPCO Pittsburgh Corporation income loss from continuing
operations for the three months ended September 30, 2004 and
2003 includes about US$65,000 and US$328,000, respectively, for
legal and case management costs associated with personal injury
claims litigation and insurance recovery litigation related to
asbestos-containing products and indemnity payments not expected
to be recovered from insurance carriers.

The corporation and its subsidiaries, which are involved in
forged and cast rolls and air and liquid processing, are
defendants in various claims and lawsuits incidental to their
businesses. In addition, claims have been asserted alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components
historically used in some products of certain of the
Corporation's subsidiaries. Those subsidiaries, and in some
cases, the corporation, are defendants (among a number of
defendants, typically over 50 and often over 100) in cases filed
in various state and federal Courts. Approximate open claims as
of September 30, 2004 totals 25,000. Gross settlement and
defense costs for the first nine months of 2004 amount to
US$2,203,000 while approximate claims settled or dismissed for
same period ended with 260 claims.

Of the 25,000 open claims, over 15,000 were six lawsuits filed
in Mississippi in 2002.  Substantially all settlement and
defense costs mentioned were paid by insurers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Company Deals with Various Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noland Company, a leading independent wholesale distributor of
mechanical equipment and supplies, continues to be a defendant
in personal injury claims based on alleged past exposure to
asbestos-containing products or materials produced by others and
allegedly distributed by the Company years ago. Since the early
1990s, the Company has been sued many times, along with a large
number of other companies, by one law firm in cases that allege
asbestos-related injuries to persons in the maritime industry.
In none of these suits has a link to the Company been
substantiated, and most of them already have been dismissed.

The Company also has been named as one of the defendants in
various other asbestos-related suits within its operating
footprint in which a connection to the Company was alleged. Some
of these suits have been dismissed with prejudice and several
have been settled through the Company's insurance carrier and
some are still pending and are being defended. Management does
not consider the foregoing suits, individually or in the
aggregate, to be material to the Company.

The Company has also been named as one of the defendants in
about 2,100 asbestos-related suits filed by one law firm in the
Circuit Court for Newport News, Virginia or in the Circuit Court
for Portsmouth, Virginia. At this time the Company states that
it is still not possible to fully evaluate the merits of these
new suits. The Company is not aware of any relationship between
the Company and any of the plaintiffs; nor does is have any
information as to the extent of any injury that may have been
suffered by any of them.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Relates Claim Activity in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Foster Wheeler's U.S. subsidiaries, along with many
other companies, are defendants in numerous asbestos-related
lawsuits and out-of-Court informal claims pending in the United
States. Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to
have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection
with work allegedly performed by the Company's subsidiaries
during the 1970s and prior.

The New Jersey-based Company reported a summary of claim
activity for the three months ended September 24, 2004, June 25,
2004 and September 26, 2003. The overall average combined
indemnity and defense cost per closed claim since 1993 was about
US$2,000, which the Company believes may increase in the future
in view of the uncertainties.

The amounts spent for the three months ended September 24, 2004
and September 26, 2003 on asbestos litigation defense and case
resolution, all of which was reimbursed from insurance coverage,
were US$21,400,000 and US$20,500,000, respectively.

The Company has recorded total liabilities of US$511,500,000,
comprised of an estimated liability relating to open
(outstanding) claims of about US$297,500,000 and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims of about
US$214,000,000. Of the total, US$75,000,000 is recorded in
accrued expenses and US$436,500,000 is recorded in asbestos-
related liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Total estimated defense costs and indemnity payments are
estimated to be incurred through the year 2018, during which
period new claims are expected to decline from year to year.
Recently received claims also suggest that the percentage of
claims to be closed without payment of indemnity costs should
increase as claims are resolved during the next few years.

The Company believes that it is likely that there will be new
claims filed after 2018, but in light of uncertainties inherent
in long-term forecasts, the Company does not believe that it can
reasonably estimate defense and indemnity costs. Historically,
defense costs have represented about 22% of total costs. Through
September 24, 2004, total indemnity costs paid, prior to
insurance recoveries, were about US$421,700,000 and total
defense costs paid were about US$116,300,000.

The number of new asbestos claims received during the first
three quarters of 2004 continues to be less than forecast at
year-end 2003. While the reduced number of new claims has been
relatively consistent throughout 2004, management does not
believe sufficient data exists at this time to warrant a
reduction in the projected asbestos liability.

The Company has recorded assets of US$494,000,000 relating to
probable insurance recoveries, of which about US$95,000,000 is
recorded in accounts and notes receivables, and US$399,000,000
is recorded as long-term.  The asset is an estimate of
recoveries from insurers based upon assumptions relating to cost
allocation and resolution of pending proceedings with certain
insurers, as well as recoveries under settlements with other
insurers.

As of September 24, 2004, the subsidiaries' insurers contested
the US$231,000,000 in ongoing litigation. The litigation relates
to the proper allocation of the coverage liability among the
subsidiaries' various insurers and the subsidiaries as self-
insurers.  The Company believes that any amounts that its
subsidiaries might be allocated as self-insurer would be
immaterial. Based on the nature of the litigation and opinions
received from outside counsel, the Company also believes that
the possibility of not recovering the full amount of the asset
is remote. The pending litigation and negotiations with other
insurers is continuing.

The Company's management, after consultation with outside
counsel, has considered the ongoing proceedings with insurers
and the financial viability and legal obligations of its
insurers and believes that, except for those insurers that have
become or may become insolvent for which a reserve has been
provided, the insurers or their guarantors will continue to
adequately fund claims and defense costs relating to asbestos
litigation.

In the first nine months of 2004, the Company entered into
settlement and release agreements that resolve coverage
litigation with certain asbestos insurance carriers. The Company
recorded an aggregate gain on the settlements of US$13,400,000
in the first nine months of 2004. The gain on the settlements
was recorded in other income.

A subsidiary of the Company in the U.K. has also received a
limited number of claims alleging personal injury arising from
exposure to asbestos. None of these claims has resulted in
material costs to the Company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Cooper Ex-Worker Seeks GBD150,000 Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A man suffering from a terminal cancer linked to asbestos has
launched a legal bid for compensation in London's High Court.
Barry Henry, 65, from Sandy who has the condition malignant
mesothelioma is taking legal action against his former employer
for damages of up to GBD150,000.

A writ issued in the High Court by solicitors for Mr. Henry
states he was negligently exposed to asbestos dust and fibers by
Cooper Shuttlework in Dunstable. He worked for the Company for
four years between 1968 and 1972 as a driver and then a sheet
metal worker. The writ states that his work included cutting
sheets of asbestos with a handsaw, drilling holes into asbestos
sheets, brushing up asbestos debris and working near others who
did the same.

Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos, which was widely
used for insulation and as a fire resistant from the 1950s to
1970s before it was banned. The cancer usually affects the chest
and abdomen but does not manifest itself until years after being
exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Michigan Bell Moves to Dismiss Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Bell's attorney Timothy Hayes will present arguments on
a motion to dismiss from an asbestos class action suit when he
goes before Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack on
November 12. Michigan Bell, a subsidiary of SBC headquartered in
San Antonio, Texas, will argue for dismissal due to lack of
personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Patricia Roberts is seeking at least US$250,000 in
damages on five counts, plus punitive damages in an amount to be
determined at trial and all legal and Court fees. She is the
special administrator for her husband, Thomas Roberts, who died
May 16, 2003, from pleural fibrous encasement and mesothelioma,
according to his death certificate from Williamson County,
Illinois. Marcus E. Raichle of the SimmonsCooper firm of East
Alton is representing Mrs. Roberts.

According to the complaint, Thomas Roberts was employed from
1957 to 1999 as an electrician at various locations throughout
Illinois and other states. Mrs. Roberts claims that during the
course of her husband's employment and non-occupational work
projects, such as home and automotive repairs, he was exposed to
and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of
asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working
with and around, which were sold by at least 100 defendants
named in the suit.

She further claims the defendants should have known that the
asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic,
poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of
people inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbing them. As a
result of the defendants' negligence, her husband was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in March 2003.

Count 4 of Roberts five-count suit alleges that the defendants
breached their duty to preserve material evidence by destroying
and disposing documents and information when they should have
known that information could have been used in potential
litigation.

Mrs. Roberts claims that the defendants had a duty to maintain
documents that contained the identification of asbestos-
containing products to which her husband was exposed.


Company Profile:

Michigan Bell Telephone Company
444 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: +1 800 2570902

Description:
Michigan Bell Telephone Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Ameritech Corporation. The Company provides a wide variety of
advanced communication services, including local exchange, toll
service, network access and communications products to business,
residential and communication customers. The customers of the
Company are located in an operating area comprised of five Local
Access and Transport Areas in Michigan.


ASBESTOS ALERT: ENSCO Int'l Faces Multi-Party Lawsuits in MS
------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2004, ENSCO International, a leading offshore drilling
contractor, and certain subsidiaries were named as defendants in
three multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi State Courts
involving numerous other companies as co-defendants. The
lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of about 120 named individuals alleging personal injury
or death, including claims under the Jones Act, purportedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and
associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

The lawsuits are in very preliminary stages and the Company has
not determined the number of plaintiffs that were employed by
the Company or its subsidiaries or otherwise associated with its
drilling operations during the relevant period. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against the litigation and, based
on information currently available, the Company does not expect
the resolution of these lawsuits to have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.  However, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits.


Company Profile:

ENSCO International Incorporated (NYSE: ESV)
500 N. Akard St., Ste. 4300
Dallas, TX 75201-3331
Phone: 214-397-3000
Fax: 214-397-3370
Toll Free: 800-423-8006
http://www.enscous.com/

Fiscal Year-End December
2003 Sales (mil.)    GBD444.7
1-Year Sales Growth    13.3%
2003 Net Income (mil.)   GBD60.9
1-Year Net Income Growth   82.6%
2003 Employees     3,600

Description:
ENSCO International Incorporated is one of the leading offshore
oil and gas drilling contractors in the world. ENSCO has 53
offshore rigs servicing domestic and international markets and
two rigs under construction. The Company's modern fleet serves
most of the major oil and gas provinces, including North
America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim, South
America, and the Caribbean.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Allen Construction Fined for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Bridgwater Company that failed to identify the presence of
asbestos at a building in Taunton on which it was contracted to
carry out work has appeared before Taunton Deane Magistrates'
Court. Allen Construction Management Ltd. was fined GBD2,500 and
ordered to pay GBD1,908.50 costs.

The Company, based at Crypton House, Bristol Road, was
contracted to carry out work for Albert Goodman Accountant's at
Mary Street House, Taunton. The Company pleaded guilty to the
charge relating to failure to ensure that people were not
exposed to asbestos, a part of the Health and Safety at Work
Act.

Prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive, Steve Frain
said, "Allen Construction Management was employed by Albert
Goodman Accountants to carry out refurbishment work in an older
part of the building between April 2003 and January 2004."

Mr. Frain said that it was revealed that the fire doors the
Company was tasked to remove did actually contain asbestos. The
men carrying out the work were not wearing any protective
clothing or respiratory equipment. He believes an asbestos
survey would have prevented such an error from being committed.

"The Company accepted the mistake, but it is a mistake that
could have very serious consequences," Mr. Frain added.

Allen Construction Management's defense solicitor said the job
the Company was carrying out was small compared to the projects
it was used to dealing with.

Mr. Pettingale, representing Allen Construction Management,
said, "Mr. Allen is very experienced in his trade and it is not
through a lack of knowledge or experience that this incident
occurred, but human error. The Company paid for all the
clearing-up work."

Chairman of the bench Helen Foster said, "We believe this was a
genuine mistake and an isolated incident."


Company Profile:

Allen Construction Management Ltd
Crypton Technology Business Park, Bristol Road, Bridgwater,
Somerset, TA6 4SY
Phone: +44 (0) 1278 437150
Fax:   +44 (0) 1278 456244
E-mail: midlands@allen.uk.com
http://www.allen.uk.com/

Description:
The Allen Group is one of the UK's fastest growing property and
construction consulting companies, delivering a range of
services to clients in a variety of industry sectors.


ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Union Calls for HSE to Probe Carpets Int'l.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens of deaths from asbestosis could be linked to Carpets
International, a former Bradford carpet factory, according to
union workers who are calling for an investigation into the
Company. Terry Britton, of the Transport and General Workers
Union, said he had been deluged with phone calls since the death
of former Associated Weavers worker Fred Benson was made public.

An inquest last week found Mr. Benson, of Fairweather Green,
Bradford, had died from the asbestos-linked cancer mesothelioma.
Coroner's officer Alan Pritchard said there had been several
similar cases relating to the Toftshaw Lane factory.

The union decided to set up an action group to lead the
investigation on the factory. Mr. Britton said the phone calls
he received from former workers included one from a woman
suffering from asbestosis now living in Canada. He said, "We
seem to have opened a can of worms, but it needed opening. A lot
of people are worried. There may be more than 50 cases."

Peter Booth, TGWU national organizer for manufacturing, said
that many of these workers worked in environments where machines
and steam pipes have been lagged with asbestos, very often in a
broken or decaying form. The union is urging anyone suffering
from shortness of breath who has worked in the factory to get
medical tests. They will represent anyone who is ill, or who has
lost a relative as a result of asbestos-related diseases and who
wishes to claim for compensation.

The claims are complicated by the fact that Associated Weavers,
later known as Carpets International, went into receivership
last year, with the loss of 300 jobs. The union is also calling
for an urgent investigation by the Health and Safety Executive
and is planning to lobby the All-Party Parliamentary Sub-
Committee on asbestos when it meets later this month.


Company Profile:

Carpets International
Bradford, West Yorkshire
UK
Phone: 01274 222136
http://www.carpetsintl.co.uk/

Description:
Carpets International manufactures 500,000 square meters of
tufted carpet a week, over 20 million square meters a year and
are the largest and leading manufacturer of tufted carpets in
the UK.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Case V. Brush Engineered Materials Inc Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Engineered Materials Inc., one of its subsidiaries, Brush
Wellman Inc., and the Brush Beryllium Co., were defendants in
Robert Schultz v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al., filed
in Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, case number 04-L-191 on May 14, 2004. There were 73
other named defendants.

Plaintiff alleged that he contracted asbestos-related diseases
as a result of working with and around the products of the
defendants. On September 24, 2004, defendants Brush Engineered
Materials Inc., Brush Wellman Inc., and the Brush Beryllium Co.
were dismissed. The case remains pending as to the other
defendants.


Company Profile:

Brush Engineered Materials Inc. (NYSE: BW)
17876 St. Clair Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44110 (Map)
Phone: 216-486-4200
Fax: 216-383-4091
http://www.beminc.com/

Fiscal Year-End December
2003 Sales (mil.) ú225.5
1-Year Sales Growth 7.6%
2003 Net Income (mil.) (ú7.4)
2003 Employees 1,833

Description:
Brush Engineered Materials Inc. is a global leader in high
performance engineered materials that enable customers to meet
superior levels of product strength, reliability,
miniaturization and weight savings, thermal dissipation,
electrical conductivity and reflectivity. The U.S. accounts for
about 70% of Brush Engineered Materials' sales.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all securities purchasers
of Aspen Technology Inc. (Nasdaq: AZPN) ("Aspen" or the
"Company") from January 25, 2000 through October 29, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Aspen, Lawrence Evans, David McQuillin,
Lisa W. Zappala, and Charles Kane, with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately recognized revenues
         from certain software license and service agreements
         entered into with certain alliance partners and other
         customers during fiscal years 2000-2002;

     (2) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On October 27, 2004, Aspen announced that its Audit Committee
had undertaken a detailed review of the accounting for certain
software license and service agreement transactions entered into
with certain alliance partners and other customers during fiscal
years 2000-2002. This news shocked the market. Shares of Aspen
fell $.20 per share, or 2.91 percent, on October 28, 2004, to
close at $6.68 per share. On October 29, 2004, Aspen said
federal prosecutors had launched a probe into the software
Company's accounting practices from 2000 through 2002. On this
news, Aspen's shares tumbled a further $.67 per share, or 10.03
percent, on October 29, 2004, to close at $6.01 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Embarcadero Technologies,
Inc. ("Embarcadero" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EMBT) between
April 20, 2004 and October 27, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Embarcadero and certain
officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued false and misleading forecasts for the second
fiscal quarter of 2004, which had the effect of artificially
inflating that value of Embarcadero's stock. Moreover,
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company had also
manipulated the financial reports at its U.K. unit to prop up
its income statement, that it lacked adequate internal controls
to ensure the financial statements would not be falsified, and
that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's accounting did
not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP").

On October 27, 2004, Embarcadero announced that it was delaying
the release of its financial results for the third quarter ended
September 30, 2004. It further announced that its Audit
Committee was investigating the revenue recognition policies of
its U.K. subsidiary as a result of discoveries related to the
Company's European resellers. In reaction to this news, shares
fell from $9.83 per share on October 27, 2004 to close at $7.81
on October 28, 2004, representing a percentage decline of 20.5%.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


JAKKS PACIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of JAKKS Pacific, Inc. (Nasdaq: JAKK)
("JAKKS") between February 17, 2004 and October 19, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, JAKKS
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading public statements. On October 19, 2004, JAKKS
announced that it was "engaged in discussions with WWE [World
Wrestling Entertainment] concerning the restructuring of its toy
license and with WWE and THQ with respect to the restructuring
of the JAKKS THQ Joint Venture video games license agreement
with WWE." In response to the announcement of the problems with
the WWE licenses, the price of JAKKS stock declined from $24.15
per share on October 18, 2004, to $18.81 per share on October
19, 2004. Then, after the market closed for trading, it was
reported that the WWE had just filed a lawsuit against JAKKS
which alleged that the videogame license and certain toy
licenses that WWE had previously granted to JAKKS were obtained
through a pattern of racketeering and commercial bribery and
seeking, among other things, that the licensing agreements be
declared void. Following this announcement, on the next day of
trading, the price of JAKKS common stock continued to fall to
close at $12.96 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the firm incorrectly stated that the suit
had been filed in New Jersey in a press release issued recently)
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Marsh &
McLennan Companies (NYSE: MMC) Stock Investment Plan.

The complaint alleges that defendants Marsh & McLennan Companies
and other Plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) by, among
other things:

     (1) failing to properly manage the Plan's assets by
         imprudently investing a significant amount of the
         Plan's assets in Marsh & McClennan stock;

     (2) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         participants and beneficiaries;

     (3) failing to monitor those Defendants who were charged
         with managing the Plan and its assets; and

     (4) failing to avoid conflicts of interest with respect to
         the Plan.

According to the Complaint, the alleged conduct was particularly
damaging for Plan participants and beneficiaries because, under
the Marsh & McLennan Companies Stock Investment Plan, matching
contributions were made in MMC Stock and MMC Stock was offered
as an investment alternative in the 401(k) component of the
Plan. As a result of Defendants' fiduciary breaches, the Plan
has suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of
hundreds of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and
anticipated retirement income of the Plan's participants. Under
ERISA, the breaching fiduciaries are obligated to restore to the
Plan the losses resulting from their fiduciary breaches.

Eliot Spitzer, the New York Attorney General, sued Marsh &
McLennan on Oct. 14 for allegedly rigging bids and accepting
improper commissions in return for steering business to favored
insurers. In the aftermath of the lawsuit, Marsh & McLennan
announced that it would lay off 3,000 employees, or 5 percent of
its work force. Earlier this week, the Company also announced
that, in the third quarter of 2004, net income dropped to $21
million from the $357 million of a year earlier, a 94% decline.
The drop was due to the creation of a reserve fund for potential
litigation and to the permanent loss of certain fee and
commission income.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott by Phone: 800-404-7770
(EST) or 800-332-2259 (PST) or 619-233-4565 (California) or by
E-mail: MarshERISALitigation@scott-scott.com or
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or acquired United Rentals, Inc. (NYSE: URI)
("United" or the "Company") securities (the "Class") between
October 23, 2003 and August 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Plaintiff alleges that United, Wayland R. Hicks, Bradley S.
Jacobs, John N. Milne, and Joseph B. Sherk violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material, adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company, in an effort to generate a more favorable
         stock price and raise capital, manipulated its
         financial results through the use of restructuring
         charges, asset writedowns, and debt refinancing;

     (2) the Company improperly delayed recognition of bad
         accounts receivable;

     (3) as a result of these manipulations, the Company's
         announced financial results were in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

     (4) the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated at all relevant times.

On August 30, 2004, United Rentals announced that it had
received notice that the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") was conducting a non-public, fact-finding inquiry of the
Company. The notice was accompanied by a subpoena requesting the
production of documents relating to certain of the Company's
accounting records. After this announcement, shares of United
Rentals fell $4.39 per share, or 21.53%, to close at $16.00 per
share on August 30, 2004 on unusually heavy trading volume.


UNITED RENTALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the common stock and other securities of United Rentals, Inc.
("United Rentals" or the "Company") (NYSE:URI), between October
23, 2003 and August 30, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of United Rentals
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


                            *********


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 researches,
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 Se§orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  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  * * *