CAR_Public/050819.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 19, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 164

                         Headlines

AMERUS GROUP: Faces Consumer Lawsuits in CA, PA, KS, FL Courts
AVON PRODUCTS: CA Woman Sues Over Deceptive Anti-Aging Products
BANK OF AMERICA: Motion Disputes Pension Plan's Retirement Age
BEAZER HOMES: Finalizes Settlement of IN Homeowners' Litigation
CANADA: IBC Concerned Over Suit to Revamp of Fatal Accidents Act

CCC INFORMATION: IL Court Preliminarily Approves Fraud Suit Pact
CCC INFORMATION: Court Affirms GA Consumer Fraud Suits Dismissal
CCC INFORMATION: Dismissed From Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
ENHANCED SERVICES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 21, 2005
FLORIDA: Court Hears Oral Arguments In Pinellas System Lawsuit

LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Named As Defendant in Manganese Injury Suits
MIRANT CORPORATION: Dismissed As Defendant in CA Ratepayer Suits
MISSOURI: Judge Agrees to Temporarily Stop New Foster Care Law
MYLAN LABORATORIES: Faces $12M Verdict For Antitrust Violations
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge OKs Settlement Over January Train Wreck

PHILIP MORRIS: MO Court Upholds Ruling in "Light" Cigarette Case
PRAXAIR INC.: Faces Manganese Injury Lawsuits In Various Courts
PREMCOR INC.: Even With Plant's Demolition Suits Still Pending
PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: TN Judge Decides Car Loan Discrimination Case
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Honors Request For Freeze on Suits

ROHM AND HAAS: Suit Seeks Medical Monitoring of Workers in PA
SECOND CHANCE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 23, 2005
UNITED AIRLINES: Settles IL ERISA Class Action Suit For $5.25M
UNITED TITLE: CA Residents Commence RESPA Violations Lawsuit

                     Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WABTEC, Affiliates Face Rising Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Named in 588 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Products Faces 3,900 Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Records US$68M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Coastal, RESCO Settles US$1.33 Million

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Defends 16,000 Pending Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Energy Defends 831 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Subsidiaries Battle More Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Named in Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Water Pik Notes Increase of Asbestos Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Declares 199 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Pays UK Court for Health Violation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JJZ Subsidiary Posts Lower Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Posts Lower Sales in 2Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Signs up for 1986 Asbestos Convention

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman LLC Tagged as "Premises Defendant"
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constar Wary of Claims From CC&S Creditors
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Lawsuits Increase to 123 in 2Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Faces NY Suit, IL Case Dismissed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Faces 300 Claims, 1,490 Plaintiffs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Faces 112,000 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CGM Discloses 7.7% Sales Drop, 2Q05 Report
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Group Posts Reserve Adjustments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Posts Asbestos, Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oglebay Norton Faces 53,537 Liability Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp Posts 564 Asbestos Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CCOM, Subsidiary Face Lawsuits in NJ Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BNS Holding Inc Notes 584 Claims in 2Q 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reports A&E Reserves, Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd Reports More on its A&E Reserves

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Corp. Claims Drop Slightly to 1,460
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Co Rakes in 1,010 New Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Faces Seven Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Lists Asbestos Liability at US$50.2M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Files Government Chapter 11 Relief

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BUCA INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
BUCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
HOST AMERICA: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
RED ROBIN: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
RED ROBIN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO

RED ROBIN: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Files NY Securities Suit
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                        *********

AMERUS GROUP: Faces Consumer Lawsuits in CA, PA, KS, FL Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmerUs Group Co. and/or certain of its subsidiaries are
defendants in nationwide class action lawsuits brought in
federal courts in California, Pennsylvania and Kansas as well as
a lawsuit by the attorney general and the insurance commissioner
of California and a lawsuit by the attorney general of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of insurance products. A
nationwide class action lawsuit was also filed in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against a subsidiary of AmerUs Group
Co. on behalf of purchasers of insurance products.

The lawsuits relate to the use of purportedly inappropriate
sales techniques and products for the senior citizen market.
Some of the complaints allege, among other things, that the
defendants engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, claims
related to the suitability of the products for, and the manner
in which they were sold to, the senior citizen market, pretext
sales and other violations of state insurance laws. The
plaintiffs seek civil penalties, restitution, injunctive relief,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief and damages.

The Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries are also
defendants in statewide class actions in California,
Pennsylvania and a recently filed case in Florida based on
claims and seeking relief similar to the claims and relief in
the nationwide class actions.  The Florida case was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on July 7, 2005 against a subsidiary of the Company on behalf of
purchasers of insurance products.

On May 12, 2005, in one statewide class action, Cheves v.
American Investors Life Insurance Company, Family First Advanced
Estate Planning and Family First Insurance Services et al.,
filed on October 20, 2003 in California state court, class
certification was granted by the court.


AVON PRODUCTS: CA Woman Sues Over Deceptive Anti-Aging Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Diego, styled
"Scheufler v. Estee Lauder, Inc."

The action names the Company and other defendants and seeks
injunctive relief and restitution for alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California False
Advertising Law, and for negligent and intentional
misrepresentation. The purported class includes individuals "who
have purchased skin care products from defendants that have been
falsely advertised to have an "anti-aging" or youth inducing
benefit or effect."

The Company has filed a demurer to the complaint asserting that
the complaint does not state a viable cause of action.  While it
is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, management
believes that there are meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted and that this action should not have a material adverse
effect on the Consolidated Financial Statements, the Company
said in a regulatory filing.


BANK OF AMERICA: Motion Disputes Pension Plan's Retirement Age
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation's pension plan uses an unusual
retirement age to calculate pension benefits that could be
costing employees tens of millions of dollars, according to a
recent motion in a lawsuit against the company, The Charlotte
Observer reports.

In the suit, current and former employees allege the Charlotte
bank violated federal pension rules in an effort to make profits
at the expense of its workers. The suit specifically, contends
that the bank improperly handled almost $2.7 billion in employee
401(k) and pension plans to make arbitrage-like profits in the
late 1990s and early 2000s, an accusation that BofA has
vehemently denied.

The recently filed motion targets the retirement age used by the
"cash-balance" plan the bank launched in 1998, shortly after
NationsBank Corporation merged with Bank of America Corporation.
The disputed plan uses a retirement date of five years of work
at the bank, instead of what the motion calls a "normal"
retirement date of age 65.  Plaintiffs are arguing that the date
violates federal law and allows Bank of America to boost profits
by paying workers less than they would receive with a later
retirement date.

However, the plan is designed to give employees more diversified
investment options and meets applicable law, Spokesman Terry
Francisco told Charlotte Observer.

The case, which was originally filed last year in federal court
in Illinois, moved in May to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte. The motion asks
U.S. District Judge Bob Conrad to rule on the legality of the
retirement age, calling it the "single-most important question"
in the case.

The motion argues that the nation's No. 2 bank by assets could
owe tens of millions of dollars now and in the future to tens of
thousands of current and former employees. Bank of America
employs about 178,000, including 13,000 in the Charlotte area.
In a counter filing though, the bank asked the court to stay the
plaintiffs' motion until decisions on class action certification
and other matters, arguing that the plaintiffs are trying to
"pluck one issue out of sequence ... and test the waters before
moving forward with their other claims."

As previously reported in the June 30, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the federal lawsuit, which accused Bank of
America of mishandling employees' retirement plans, was moved to
a North Carolina court.

Eli Gottesdiener, the plaintiffs' attorney who filed the case,
stated that though he opposed the move he is not concerned with
trying the case in BofA's backyard. He also said, "This is an
important case for the thousands of bank retirees and employees
who live in North Carolina."  Mr. Gottesdiener, who is seeking
to have the case certified a class action on behalf of all BofA
employees affected by the plans said, "At a time when Social
Security and retirement benefits are front-page news, it is
crucial that large employers like the bank be held to their
promises and not be allowed to pull the retirement safety net
from under their employees and retirees." He adds, "That's what
the bank tries to do here, and we're confident the courts will
protect the interests of North Carolina workers."

In February, BofA filed a motion to move the case to the Western
District of North Carolina, which is were the bank is based. The
bank argued that it would be more convenient for witnesses, many
of who could include executives and vendors at BofA.  Mr.
Gottesdiener though objected to the move arguing that
convenience was not an important issue because the case could
involve witnesses from all over the country.  Judge G. Patrick
Murphy, chief district judge in the Southern District of
Illinois, ordered the case moved to North Carolina's Western
District with the filings being transferred to the clerk's
office in Charlotte.


BEAZER HOMES: Finalizes Settlement of IN Homeowners' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes Investment Corporation and its subsidiary Trinity
Homes, LLC is finalizing the settlement of a class action filed
in the Hamilton County Superior Court in Indiana.

The suit alleges construction defect claims from water intrusion
in homes constructed by the Company and Trinity.  In October
2004, the court approved a settlement agreement between the
parties.  No appeals of the Court's order were received and, on
December 17, 2004, the Company sent claims notices requiring
potential class action members to respond by February 15, 2005
or be prohibited from future legal action.

The settlement class includes, with certain exclusions, the
current owners of all Trinity homes that have brick veneer,
where the closing of Trinity's initial sale of the home took
place between June 1, 1998 and October 31, 2002.  The settlement
agreement establishes an agreed protocol and process for
assessment and remediation of any external water intrusion
issues at the homes which includes, among other things, that the
homes will be repaired at Trinity's expense.  The settlement
agreement also provides for payment of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and for Trinity to pay an agreed amount for engineering
inspection costs for each home for which a claim is filed under
the settlement.

Under the settlement, subject to Trinity's timely performance of
the specified assessments and remediation activities for
homeowners who file claims, each homeowner releases Trinity,
Beazer Homes Investment Corp. and other affiliated companies,
including Beazer Homes, from the claims asserted in the class
action lawsuit, claims arising out of external water intrusion,
claims of improper brick installation, including property damage
claims, loss or diminution of property value claims, and most
personal injury claims, among others.

A total of 1,311 valid claims were filed (of the 2,161 total
class members), of which 613 complaints had been received prior
to the Company's receipt of the claim notices.  Class members
who did not file a claim by February 15, 2005 are no longer able
to file a class action claim under the settlement or pursue an
individual claim against Trinity.


CANADA: IBC Concerned Over Suit to Revamp of Fatal Accidents Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Money-hungry adults who are estranged from their parents could
inflate auto insurance rates if a lawsuit that seeks to revamp
the Fatal Accidents Act is successful, according to a spokesman
for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, The Edmonton Sun reports.

IBC vice-president Jim Rivait told The Edmonton Sun that the Act
is being systematically stripped of its ability to define "close
personal relationships," opening the door to insincere claims.
Currently, the Act allows children of parents killed by
negligent drivers to sue for up to $45,000 each in bereavement
damages, but excludes children who are married or of common-law
status, a stipulation a Calgary law firm alleges to be
discriminatory.

According to Mr. Rivait, "The courts will be unable to define a
close personal relationship. (The law is) meant to compensate .
people who suffer a legitimate loss. The proposed changes could
see us compensating people who haven't seen their parents in 20
years." Mr. Rivait added that the insurance companies would be
forced to raise premiums in response to increased claim amounts.

Mr. Rivat also told The Edmonton Sun, "It's the policy holder
that pays for this. People think there's a magic pot of money
somewhere, but it's very simple insurance companies use the
premiums paid by many to pay claims made by few."

However, attorneys at the Calgary firm of McNally Cuming
Raymaker, who are pursuing the class action, say their argument
is based on findings of the Provincial Court of Appeals. In that
case, an October 2004 ruling by the court found that a 57-year-
old man whose mother was killed by another driver was
discriminated against when he was denied grief damages because
he married.  Attorney Craig Gillespie told The Edmonton Sun,
"The ruling stated that the denial of compensation represented
'a classic example of self-interests trumping Charter values.'"

Andre Kho, 46, is a local man who plans to contact Mr. Gillespie
and join the class action. His mother was killed last November
while crossing 114 Avenue and Groat Road in a crosswalk. Mr. Kho
is married and ineligible for compensation. Breaking into tears
Mr. Kho told The Edmonton Sun, "How can this Act say my mother's
life was of no value? Her life was far more valuable to me than
the price of car insurance."


CCC INFORMATION: IL Court Preliminarily Approves Fraud Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of several class actions
filed against CCC Information Services, Inc., styled:

     (1) LANCEY v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INS. CO., AND CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 113 (filed January 29,
         2001);

     (2) KMUCHA v. COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY AND CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 03 L 1267 (filed
         September 18, 2003)

     (3) JACKSON v. ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY, INFINITY PROPERTY
         & CASUALTY CORPORATION AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES
         INC., Case No. 03 L 1266 (filed September 18, 2003)

In connection with the settlement, the Company was added as a
party to the following additional cases, which assert claims and
seek relief substantially similar to the above cases, namely:

     (i) BORDONI v. CGU INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLNOIS AND CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 157;

    (ii) SCHOENLEBER v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
         INSURANCE COMPANY AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC.,
         Case No. 01 L 99;

   (iii) RICHARDSON V. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF
         ILLINOIS AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01
         L 149,

    (iv) KNACKSTEDT v. ECONOMY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY,
         METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
         AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 153;

     (v) HUFF AND MADISON v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF
         ILLINOIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST AND
         CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 158;

    (vi) JACKSON v. NATIONALGENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 02 L 628;

   (vii) PARCHMENT v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE
         COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
         COMPANY, AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 02
         L 1135; and

  (viii) CARTER, VANOVER AND URKE v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
         NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS AND
         CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 02 L 717

The proposed settlement class consists of all customers of the
settling carriers who had a total loss claim from January 28,
1989 to July 18, 2005, for which the Company provided a
valuation to the carrier. This settlement includes no admission
of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or its customers. Upon
final approval of the settlement, the above-described cases will
be dismissed and the Company will receive releases with respect
to the matters raised in the lawsuits.  The Company, in turn,
has agreed to pay for all costs of settlement administration and
certain other costs associated with the settlement. The Company
estimates that these costs will total approximately $8.0
million.  The Company also has agreed to engage the services of
an independent third party as a Court-appointed monitor to
periodically review its Valuescope's methodology for five years
following settlement and to oversee the performance of various
product validation studies. Other settlement costs, including
the payment of claims made by class members, will be paid by the
insurance companies that are participating in the settlement.

On July 18, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement, and a final approval hearing is scheduled for
December 20, 2005.


CCC INFORMATION: Court Affirms GA Consumer Fraud Suits Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of the charges in
three class actions filed against CCC Information Services,
Inc., namely:

     (1) McGOWAN v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. CO., PROGRESSIVE
         INS. CO., and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No.
         00VS006525 (filed June 16, 2000);

     (2) DASHER v. ATLANTA CASUALTY CO. and CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 00VS006315 (filed June 16,
         2000);

     (3) WALKER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. and CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 00VS007964 (filed
         August 2, 2000)

The Plaintiffs in these three cases, initially filed in the
Superior Court in Fulton County, Georgia, seeks to represent a
nationwide class of insureds against the Company and the named
insurance company defendant and alleges that CCC's Valuescope
valuation service provides values that do not comply with
applicable state regulations governing total loss claims
settlements.  Plaintiffs assert various common law and statutory
claims against the Company and the insurance company defendants,
including claims under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses.  Each Plaintiff's claims were
dismissed with prejudice by the trial court.  Plaintiffs
appealed the rulings in February 2004.  On July 15, 2005, the
Court of Appeals affirmed those dismissals and no further
appeals have been filed to date.


CCC INFORMATION: Dismissed From Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services, Inc. reached a settlement for the
class action filed against it in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, styled "ROGAN v. FARMERS
INSURANCE GROUP, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and CCC INFORMATION
SERVICES INC., Case No. SC076462."

Plaintiff asserts various common law and statutory claims
against his insurance company and against the Company, including
a claim under California Business & Professions Code Section
17200, et seq.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of unspecified damages,
an accounting, restitution and disgorgement, on his own behalf
and on behalf of the general public, punitive damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees.

Early last year, the court sustained the Company's demurrer to
all but one claim against it in the lawsuit.    The Company
later forged a settlement for the suit and the claims against it
and its co-defendant were dismissed with prejudice on May 19,
2005.


ENHANCED SERVICES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 21, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division,
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter Dr. Leonard Saltzman v. Enhanced Services Billing, Inc.,
Case No. 98 CH 2278, on behalf of all Illinois consumers who did
not authorize but paid for Infodex Net Listing services that
appeared on Illinois telephone bills that the consumers received
on or after January 20, 1995.

The fairness hearing which will take place before Judge Julia M.
Nowicki on October 21, 2005 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2510 of the
Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, IL 60602.

For more details, contact Daniel A. Edelman, James O. Latturner
or Heather Piccirilli of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, 120 South LaSalle St., Suite 1800, Chicago, IL, 60603
Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail:
edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://www.edcombs.com.


FLORIDA: Court Hears Oral Arguments In Pinellas System Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pinellas school system is trying to close the achievement
gap between black and white students but can go only so far,
according to the district, which recently argued their case
before three appellate judges, The St. Petersburg Times reports.

In the hearing, Hala A. Sandridge, a lawyer with the firm of
Fowler White Boggs Banker, which is handling the case for the
district told the Second District Court of Appeal in Tampa that
if forced into a trial over a lawsuit that blames the school
system for fostering the gap, the district would defend itself
by citing a variety of "societal factors over which we have no
control." She added, "That is going to devolve into a series of
mini-trials for thousands of students." For example, Ms.
Sandridge cited that the district might want to show that
individual students do poorly in school because of poverty, poor
parental involvement or too much television watching, while
other students do well, arguing that race is not a factor.

The suit contends that race is the primary reason for the gap
and that Pinellas suffers from a system wide failure to educate
students of African descent, in violation of the state
Constitution's equal protection clause, and thus asks the
district to craft a solution.

As previously reported in the July 6, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge James Case granted
class action status to the suit charging Pinellas County schools
in Florida with failing to adequately educate black students.
That decision virtually expands the complaint to 21,000 current
students and all black children who will attend the county's
public schools in the future.  The suit was filed in October
2000, just a week after a federal judge approved a settlement
between the district and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, declaring
the schools discrimination-free -- on behalf of William Crowley
and his son Akwete Osoka, who was then a second-grader at
Sawgrass Lake Elementary School.

The district appealed the class action ruling, which thus
resulting in the recent hearing. It is unclear though when the
appellate court will make a ruling on the matter.

According to Guy Burns, the Tampa attorney representing the
plaintiffs, to overturn Judge Case's ruling, the appellate court
must find that he abused his discretion. As of the moment though
Ms. Sandridge, citing other cases has only urged the court to
consider how unwieldy the case would be if allowed to go to
trial.

The Crowley case, if successful, would bring that multifaceted
national discussion into a Pinellas courtroom, where its goal
will be to compel the district to find the silver bullet that so
far has eluded other school systems.  If the recent arguments
were any indication, a trial would zero in on some of the core
issues in the gap debate, namely: Why it exists and who is
responsible for closing it.

Mr. Burns said, "We are saying that the school board needs to
address this on a system wide basis. If something is happening
that causes this hugely wide disparity, I think it's fair to say
the opportunity is not equal" for black students. He was
referring to Florida's constitutional promise of a "quality
education" for all students.

Ms. Sandridge though countered that the state promises students
"the opportunity" to get a quality education but can't guarantee
success for each student. She also adds that it remains "a bit
of a mystery" what remedies a court might prescribe. She added,
"There is a program" to alleviate the disparity and continues,
"We are concerned about this achievement gap. We are not
ignoring it."

As the hearing both sides used food analogies to argue their
case. Mr. Burns for his part likened the education system to a
cafeteria where each student gets a scoop of "educational hash."
Black students, he argued, don't digest it "in the same way as
white students," and it's up to the school system to find out
why.

In an interview after the hearing, school superintendent Clayton
Wilcox compared the system to a banquet table. He told The St.
Petersburg Times, "We set it, but at some level you've got to
lift your arm and lift your fork and go for the nourishment."

The suit is currently pending in the Second District Court of
Appeal in Tampa. Guy Burns of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel &
Burns, LLP, 403 East Madison St., Suite 400, P.O. Box 1100,
Tampa, FL, 33602, (Hillsborough Co.), Phone: 813-225-2500,
Telecopier: 813-223-7118 is representing the Plaintiffs. Hala
Ayoub Sandridge of Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 East Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 1700, P.O. Box 1438, Tampa, FL, 33601,
(Hillsborough Co.), Phone: 813-228-7411 is representing the
Defendant, the Pinellas school district.


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Named As Defendant in Manganese Injury Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. faces, as of June 30, 2005, cases
alleging manganese induced illness, involving claims by
approximately 11,563 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 956
from those previously reported.  On July 25, 2005, 3,293 claims
in state court in Mississippi were dismissed without prejudice,
reducing the number of claimants in these cases to 8,270. In
each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants.

The claimants in cases alleging manganese-induced illness seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums. The claimants allege that exposure to manganese contained
in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse
neurological conditions, including a condition known as
manganism. Many of the cases are single plaintiff cases but some
multi-claimant cases have been filed, including alleged class
actions in various states.

At June 30, 2005, cases involving 5,183 claimants were filed in
or transferred to federal court where the Judicial Panel on
MultiDistrict Litigation has consolidated these cases for
pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Ohio (the JPMDL
Court).

Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 5,435 of
those claims were dismissed, 7 were tried to defense verdicts in
favor of the Company, 2 were tried to hung juries, 1 of which
resulted in a plaintiff's verdict upon retrial, and 1 of which
resulted in a defense verdict and 12 were settled for immaterial
amounts. The Company has appealed the 1 case tried to a
plaintiff's verdict.  In addition, class action claims in 10
cases transferred to the MDL Court that were originally filed as
purported class actions have been dropped.  However, plaintiffs
have filed new class actions seeking medical monitoring in seven
state courts, five of which have been removed to the JPMDL
Court.

The coordinated federal proceeding is styled "Valdays v. A.O.
Smith Corporation et al, case no. 1:05-cv-18034-KMO," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, under Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Scott R. Bickford, Spencer R. Doody of Martzell &
Bickford, 338 Lafayette Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:
504-581-9065, Fax: 504-581-7635, E-mail: usdcndoh@mbfirm.com;
and Sarah Ranier Kearney, Brett M. Powers, Drew Ranier, of
Ranier, Gayle & Elliot, 1419 Ryan Street, P.O. Box 1890, Lake
Charles, LA 70602-1890, Phone: 337-494-7171, Fax: 337-494-7218,
E-mail: bp@brettpowers.com and dranier@rgelaw.com.  Representing
the Company are Celeste R. Coco-Ewing, Mark J. Fernandez, Neely
Sharp Griffith, Stephen H. Kupperman and Richard E. Sarver of
Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, 1800 LL&E Tower, 909
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-589-9725, Fax:
504-589-9925, E-mail: ccoco-ewing@barrassousdin.com or
rsarver@barrassousdin.com.


MIRANT CORPORATION: Dismissed As Defendant in CA Ratepayer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the six rate payer lawsuits filed in California
Superior Court against energy marketers and owners of electric
generation facilities in California dismissed Mirant Corporation
from the suit.

Various lawsuits are pending that assert claims under California
law based on allegations that certain owners of electric
generation facilities in California and energy marketers,
including the Company, Mirant Americas Energy Marketing and
several Mirant Americas Generation subsidiaries, engaged in
various unlawful and anti-competitive acts that served to
manipulate wholesale power markets and inflate wholesale
electricity prices in California.

Six such suits were filed between November 27, 2000 and May 2,
2001 in various California Superior Courts. Three of these suits
seek class action status, while two of the suits are brought on
behalf of all citizens of California.  One lawsuit alleges that,
as a result of the defendants' conduct, customers paid
approximately $4 billion more for electricity than they
otherwise would have and seeks an award of treble damages as
well as other injunctive and equitable relief.  One lawsuit also
names certain of the Company's officers individually as
defendants and alleges that the state had to spend more than $6
billion purchasing electricity.  The other suits likewise seek
treble damages and equitable relief. One such suit names Mirant
itself as a defendant.  A listing of these six cases is as
follows:

     (1) People of the State of California v. Dynegy, et al,
         filed January 18, 2001, Superior Court of California,
         San Francisco County;

     (2) Gordon v. Reliant Energy, Inc., et al., filed November
         27, 2000, Superior Court of California, San Diego
         County;

     (3) Hendricks v. Dynegy Power November 29, 2000, Superior
         Court of California San Diego County;

     (4) Sweetwater Authority, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al.,
         January 16, 2001, Superior Court of California, San
         Diego County;

     (5) Pier 23 Restaurant v. PG&E Energy Trading, et al.,
         January 24, 2001, Superior Court of California, San
         Francisco County;

     (6) Bustamante, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al., filed May
         2, 2001, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
         County

These six suits (the "Six Coordinated Suits") were coordinated
for purposes of pretrial proceedings before the Superior Court
for San Diego County. In the spring of 2002, two of the
defendants filed crossclaims against other market participants
who were not parties to the actions.  Some of those crossclaim
defendants then removed the Six Coordinated Suits to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to have the actions
remanded to the California state court, and the defendants filed
motions seeking to have the claims dismissed.

On December 13, 2002, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion
seeking to have the six cases remanded to the California state
court.  The defendants that filed the crossclaims appealed that
decision remanding the Six Coordinated Suits to the California
state courts to the Ninth Circuit.  On December 8, 2004, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand decision.
These actions are stayed with respect to the Mirant entities
that are defendants by the filing of the Chapter 11 proceedings
of those entities, but are proceeding with respect to the other
defendants.  On June 29, 2005, the plaintiffs filed to dismiss
the Company as a defendant.

Two plaintiffs in the Six Coordinated Suits, Oscar's Photo Lab
and Mary L. Davis (the "Claimants"), filed proofs of claim (the
"Oscar Claims") in the bankruptcy proceedings against the
Company, Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, Mirant Americas
Generation and other subsidiaries of Mirant on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of all persons or entities in
California who purchased electricity or natural gas for purposes
other than resale or distribution at any time since January 1,
1999.  Claimants alleged that various misconduct by Mirant and
several of its subsidiaries caused inflated prices in the
California wholesale power markets. Claimants listed the damage
amount of their claims as "unliquidated."  On October 18, 2004,
the Mirant Debtors filed an objection to the Oscar Claims.  On
November 5, 2004, the Mirant Debtors filed a motion requesting
that the Bankruptcy Court strike the portions of the Oscar
Claims that purported to have been filed on behalf of unnamed
absent members of a purported class.

On January 26, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
embodying a ruling made orally on December 1, 2004 granting this
motion and disallowing the Oscar Claims with prejudice to the
extent they sought to recover on account of any claims other
than the claims of Oscar Photo Labs and Mary L. Davis in their
individual capacities.  The Claimants have filed a motion to
amend their claims to add allegations of improper conduct by
Mirant entities with respect to the reporting of information
about natural gas transactions to trade publications that
publish price indices, and the Mirant Debtors have also filed a
motion to disallow the Oscar Claims. The Bankruptcy Court has
not acted upon either motion.

The Mirant Debtors have entered into a stipulation with the
Claimants entitling each plaintiff to receive an allowed,
general, prepetition unsecured claim against Mirant Americas
Energy Marketing in the amount of $1,000 without the Mirant
Debtors' admission of the validity of the Oscar Claims or any of
the factual or legal assertions of these Claimants and with a
full reservation of any rights, claims and defenses any of the
Mirant Debtors may have against any person asserting the same or
similar factual or legal assertions as those contained in the
Oscar Claims.  On March 9, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered
the order and approved the stipulation.


MISSOURI: Judge Agrees to Temporarily Stop New Foster Care Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Kansas City agreed to temporarily stop a new
Missouri law that would limit monthly support checks for certain
families who adopt foster children, The Associated Press
reports.

U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright told lawyers for the state
and the plaintiffs by phone that he would grant a temporary
restraining order blocking, for now, the law limiting adoption
subsidies. The order, given orally, and following a telephone
conference of oral argument by the two sides with Judge Wright,
is not final until a written order is filed with the federal
court clerk.

The order comes after a class action lawsuit filed in U.S.
District Court in Kansas City accused Gov. Matt Blunt and Gary
Sherman, director of the Missouri Department of Social Services,
of failing to protect the interests of abused and neglected
children. It says the cuts are illegal.  As reported in the
August 17, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was filed on behalf of 16 children, claims that budget
cuts approved earlier this year stipulated that monthly checks
were eliminated for families earning more than 250 percent of
the poverty level, or about $48,375 for a family of four. In
most cases, the payments are $225 a month per child.  The suit
argues that the state cannot legally end the payments without
violating contracts signed at the time of adoption and that the
cuts are unconstitutional, since they treat different classes of
adopted children differently.

John Ammann, law professor and director of the St. Louis
University Law Clinic, one of several groups that filed the suit
told said, "They're trying to balance the budget on the backs of
these children." The national advocacy group Children's Right
Inc. is also supporting the suit.

Gov. Blunt repeatedly stated that the cuts are necessary to
sustain a program that adds hundreds of families each year. The
governor's spokesman even issued a statement describing
remaining adoption benefits as generous. "In addition to
generous subsidies, taxpayers spent tens of millions of dollars
last year alone paying for free health care and child care for
Missouri's adopted children, a generous program by any
standard," said Spence Jackson, the governor's communications
director.

After the judge's decision was handed down, the governor's
spokesman, Spence Jackson, told The Associated Press, "We look
forward to the opportunity to discuss in greater detail our
efforts to stabilize Missouri's generous adoption subsidy
program."

Mr. Ammann, withheld comment, saying only that lawyers for the
plaintiffs anticipate a formal order from the judge soon.  Scott
Holste, spokesman for the Missouri Attorney General's office,
which is representing the state, confirmed the oral order, but
declined to comment as well.

A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which is scheduled for
September 8, would determine whether to bar the state in the
future from implementing the law limiting adoption subsidies.
The law is to take effect August 28.


MYLAN LABORATORIES: Faces $12M Verdict For Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia jury rendered a $12 million verdict
against Mylan Laboratories, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., ruling that the defendants willfully violated
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws, in
connection with the Company's 1998 price increases for lorazepam
and clorazepate.

The jury's June 1,2005 ruling, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, means that the
amount of the verdict could be trebled, and an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation costs could be made to the
plaintiffs.  The case was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the
Company in 2001, and represents the last remaining claims
relating to the lorazepam and clorazepate price increases.

The Company has filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law,
which remains pending before the court.  If the Company's post-
verdict motion is denied, the Company intends to appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit.

The suit is styled "BLUE CROSS/SHIELD MN, et al v. MYLAN
LABORATORIES, et al, case no. 1:02-cv-01299-TFH," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia under
Thomas F. Hogan, presiding.  Plaintiffs BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
OF MASSACHUSETTS, BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA and
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by Sharon
Cummings Giles, ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, L.L.P., 1801 K
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 775-0725, Fax:
202-223-8604, E-mail: scgiles@rkmc.com.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge OKs Settlement Over January Train Wreck
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in South Carolina approved a class action
settlement for damages from a January train wreck that killed
nine people as it spread a toxic cloud over the nearby mill town
of Graniteville, The Associated Press reports.

The settlement outlines how residents and businesses should be
reimbursed for property damages and lost wages and profits after
a Norfolk Southern train crashed into parked railroad cars. The
resulting train wreck ruptured a car carrying chlorine and
released the poisonous cloud, killing nine and injuring 250
people.

As previously reported in the January 18, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a week after the train crash spilled a
toxic chemical, killing nine people and sickening hundreds in
South Carolina, the evacuated residents of Graniteville, some
not yet able to returns to their homes filed lawsuits against
Norfolk Southern, claiming negligence and nuisance.  About 5,400
residents were evacuated from a one-mile radius of the crash
site after the train wreck ruptured a railcar carrying chlorine
and released a toxic cloud over the town of Graniteville,
killing nine people, injuring hundreds and forcing the
evacuation of thousands.

Under the settlement, Norfolk Southern agreed to compensate
residents fully for property damage and lost wages and
businesses for lost profits. The company also is paying for the
inconvenience of the evacuation and minor personal injuries.
Specifically, the settlement requires Norfolk Southern to pay
$2,000 per household within one mile of the crash site for
inconvenience as well as $200 per day, per person for those who
didn't seek medical attention within 72 hours after the crash.
It is unclear though how much money the railroad will spend on
the settlement. Company spokesman Robin Chapman previously
stated that Norfolk Southern expects to spend $35 million for
cleanup costs, legal claims and other expenses from the wreck.

Joe Rice, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys who had wanted to
extend the original August 15 claims deadline to September 15
previously told The Associated Press that the families of those
killed and anyone injured seriously enough to go to the hospital
is excluded from the settlement and can sue the railroad company
on their own. He pointed out that anyone else evacuated must opt
out of the settlement to be able to sue Norfolk Southern
individually. Mr. Rice stated that approximately 500 people have
opted out so far, but half of them live outside the evacuation
zone and wouldn't have been included in the class action suit
anyway.


PHILIP MORRIS: MO Court Upholds Ruling in "Light" Cigarette Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Missouri appeals court ruled that a lower court appropriately
certified as a class action case a lawsuit accusing Philip
Morris USA of misleading smokers about the health risks of its
so-called "light" cigarettes, The Associated Press reports.

Attorneys who pressed a similar lawsuit in Illinois against the
cigarette maker, which in that case was ordered to pay a $10.1
billion consumer-fraud judgment, cheered the ruling by the
Missouri Court of Appeals. Philip Morris, which is now part of
Altria Group Inc., has appealed that case to the Illinois
Supreme Court.

The recent ruling upheld St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael David's
decision last year to let the Missouri lawsuit's original
plaintiffs represent potentially thousands of other smokers of
light cigarettes. Both Missouri rulings essentially found a
class action format appropriate in dealing with claims that
Philip Morris misled smokers into thinking light cigarettes were
less harmful than regular ones, violating Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act.

In a written statement regarding the ruling, William Ohlemeyer,
Philip Morris' vice president and associate general counsel said
that the company will ask Missouri's Supreme Court to review the
ruling, contending that "for a variety of reasons, the company
believes the law doesn't allow cases like this to be treated as
a class action."

Messages left by The Associated Press with attorneys for the
Missouri plaintiffs, who filed their lawsuit in St. Louis
Circuit Court in February 2000, were not returned.

Among other things, that lawsuit accused Philip Morris engaged
in unfair, deceptive trade practices by falsely representing
that light cigarettes, when smoked under normal use, contained
lower tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes.  Originally,
Judge David ruled in 2003 that the class of Missouri consumers
who could be included in the lawsuit were those who bought
Marlboro Lights in the state since 1971 but who have no smoking-
related injury claim. Last September, the judge limited the
class to those who had bought the cigarette brand in the five
years before the lawsuit was filed.


PRAXAIR INC.: Faces Manganese Injury Lawsuits In Various Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc. continues to face claims brought by welders
alleging that exposure to manganese contained in welding fumes
caused neurological injury.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company was a co-defendant with many
other companies in 1,538 lawsuits alleging personal injury
caused by manganese contained in welding fumes. The cases were
pending in state and federal courts in Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. There were a
total of 11,314 individual claimants in these cases.

Six of the cases are proposed statewide class actions seeking
medical monitoring on behalf of welders. None of the class
actions have been certified.  All of the cases filed in or
removed to federal courts have been (or are in the process of
being) transferred by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory and, in most instances, punitive
damages.

In the past, the Company has either been dismissed from the
cases with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal
amounts.  In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Company said that it has never manufactured
welding consumables. Such products were manufactured prior to
1985 by its predecessor company.

The coordinated federal proceeding is styled "Valdays v. A.O.
Smith Corporation et al, case no. 1:05-cv-18034-KMO," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, under Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Scott R. Bickford, Spencer R. Doody of Martzell &
Bickford, 338 Lafayette Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:
504-581-9065, Fax: 504-581-7635, E-mail: usdcndoh@mbfirm.com;
and Sarah Ranier Kearney, Brett M. Powers, Drew Ranier, of
Ranier, Gayle & Elliot, 1419 Ryan Street, P.O. Box 1890, Lake
Charles, LA 70602-1890, Phone: 337-494-7171, Fax: 337-494-7218,
E-mail: bp@brettpowers.com and dranier@rgelaw.com.  Representing
the Company are Celeste R. Coco-Ewing, Mark J. Fernandez, Neely
Sharp Griffith, Stephen H. Kupperman and Richard E. Sarver of
Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, 1800 LL&E Tower, 909
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-589-9725, Fax:
504-589-9925, E-mail: ccoco-ewing@barrassousdin.com or
rsarver@barrassousdin.com.


PREMCOR INC.: Even With Plant's Demolition Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Although Premcor Inc.'s Blue Island refinery will soon be
demolished, part of the plant's legacy lives on in a pending
class action lawsuit, The Daily Southtown reports.

The lawsuit against Premcor, which is a amalgamation of two
separate lawsuits, one filed more than 10 years ago for
releasing pollution into the air over nearby Blue Island and one
filed in 2000 after an accident released catalyst dust into the
air still has not been settled.

Even with the promise that the oil processing plant at 13100 S.
Kedzie Ave., in unincorporated Worth Township, will be gone for
good, those who filed the complaint want to conclude the lawsuit
soon. Joan Silke, one of the hundreds of people suing Premcor
told The Daily Southtown, "I want it over. I think that the
community of Blue Island deserves closure."

In October 1994, an accident at the plant dumped 15 tons of
catalyst dust into the air, sending 48 students from Eisenhower
High School to hospitals with complaints of respiratory
problems.

School District 218 Supt. Kevin Burns was in his second month as
principal when the release happened. He told The Daily
Southtown, "We knew we were sitting on a little bit of a time
bomb with an aging plant right next to the school. It was
probably our worst fears realized." He added that dozens of
ambulances left the school taking students and faculty to area
hospitals with complaints varying from respiratory concerns to
nausea and headaches.

The suit, which is pending in Cook County Circuit Court, seeks
unspecified damages and claims the dust particles released
"degrade the quality of life."  Individuals affected by the 1994
release are grouped in one subclass of the hundreds of people
suing the company. The second complaint on the other hand
includes residents affected in some way by the plant between
1991 and 2000.

Many joined the lawsuit after the plant accidentally spewed
nearly 24 tons of catalyst (a white powdery material) from the
refinery's catalytic converter over two days in June 2000,
spreading the substance over a 1-square-mile area.  The court
set the boundaries of the suing class from 119th Street on the
north, 135th on the south, Kedzie Ave. on the West and Hoyne
Ave. on the East.

According to Ald. Jim Deiter (5th), "We didn't want the business
closed. We wanted them to straighten things out and be a good
neighbor." However, the plant eventually shut down in January
2001.

To settle a lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa
Madigan's office in February 2004, the company agreed to tear
down the plant and clean up the more than 100,000 gallons of
petroleum and petroleum products in the soil on the 72-acre
site.  As previously reported in the January 19, 2001 edition of
the Class Action Reporter, environmental activists hoped that
the lawsuits, safety violations and shutdowns by state and
federal environmental officials would force improvements at the
Premcor Blue Island Refinery to benefit workers and the
surrounding community.

However, the announcement that the plant would close and 297
workers would lose their jobs posed a different kind of threat:
an economic downturn that few can afford.

According to Joan Silke, president of the Blue Island Good
Neighbor Committee, which had fought for improvements since
1992, "Our contention was that (Premcor) needed to fix problems
at the plant because it needed to be safe. Unfortunately, they
took the position this morning to no longer run the plant. Our
hearts go out to the workers and their families because our
fight was with the corporate decisions, not the workforce. But I
would rather see 297 workers alive than 297 dead employees,
because everyone was at risk."

Workers said the closing was a blow to them and the community.
"Hey, I sympathize with people. I wouldn't want to breathe that
stuff, either," said Joe Glowaski of Beecher. "But instead of
having 300 people who pay taxes, now you have 300 people
collecting unemployment." Another worker Daniel Grossheider of
Tinley Park said, "I don't think it's really sunk in yet. Some
of us figured the plant would be sold--not closed. Now we're
looking for jobs."

During a news conference in Chicago, Premcor officials said the
closing was based strictly on economic factors, particularly the
high cost of upgrading the plant to meet government mandates for
cleaner-burning gasoline. "For the sake of our employees and the
local business community, we wish a different conclusion could
be reached," said William C. Rusnack, CEO of Premcor Refining
Group. "However, given the economic factors I have mentioned,
continuing to refine oil at Blue Island does not make business
sense for Premcor."

The abrupt closing of the plant ends the tumultuous relationship
between Premcor, formally known as Clark Oil, and the community.
The situation came to a head when a faulty valve at the plant
caused the release of more than 23 tons of chemical-laden dust
across the city.

Shortly afterward, two class action and three civil lawsuits
were filed on behalf of local residents who said the plant has
caused them emotional and financial harm. Also, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois attorney
general's office have each filed lawsuits against the company
since 1997, accusing it of long-standing non-compliance with
regulations.


PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: TN Judge Decides Car Loan Discrimination Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
After five months of talks to settle an auto loan discrimination
lawsuit recently stalled, a federal judge will decide the case,
The Associated Press Reports.

In a hearing in U.S. District Court in Tennessee, Judge Aleta
Trauger gave the plaintiffs and Primus Automotive Financial
Services a month to file proposed orders in the case, which was
tried in March. She set a November 4 hearing to allow lawyers a
final chance to state their positions before she issues a
ruling.  At the recent hearing, Judge Trauger asked both sides,
"Is there anything else we can do this afternoon that's
productive? Lock you up in a room somewhere?"

Tom Byrne, the attorney that is representing Primus, which is an
affiliate of Ford Motor Credit Corporation, responded, "We've
spent an unnatural amount of time together already."

Thus at the end of the trial, Judge Trauger told both sides from
the bench that they had proved their claim that Primus' practice
of "marking up" loan interest rates was discriminatory toward
black consumers. She urged the parties to try to reach a
settlement.

Marking up a loan is a practice in which dealers add percentage
points of interest to a loan and, in agreement with the finance
company, get to keep most of the extra interest money. The
plaintiffs though claimed that with Primus the loans of black
customers were marked up more often and by higher amounts than
financing for whites. The case was later declared a class action
lawsuit with thousands of plaintiffs.

On May 4 Judge Trauger ordered the two sides to enter into
mediation after they failed to reach a settlement on their own.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs and Primus met in San Francisco for
several days in July and earlier this month with federal
mediator Edward Infante without being able to agree on
settlement terms.

Following the recent hearing both Mr. Byrne and lead plaintiff
lawyer Clint Watkins declined to reveal what the sticking points
in their negotiations have been.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Honors Request For Freeze on Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer honored a prosecutor's
request to freeze class action suits against former executives
at Qwest Communications International Inc. so that the
Securities and Exchange Commission could focus on a criminal
investigation, The American City Business Journals reports.  The
federal judge in essence delayed lawsuits against former Qwest
CEO Joseph Nacchio and other former executives until September
30.

As previously reported in the August 5, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, U.S. Attorney William Leone asked Judge
Shaffer to suspend class action suits against the defendants,
arguing that pending lawsuits could jeopardize a criminal
investigation.

In a federal court filing in Denver District Court, Mr. Leone
stated that Mr. Nacchio, billionaire Qwest Chairman Philip
Anschutz and more than two dozen former executives "possess core
knowledge about the central subject of the government's
investigation." He further stated in the filing, "Permitting
civil discovery to go forward may result in the premature
disclosure of sensitive information that is important to the
(government's) criminal case investigation."

Though Mr. Leone asked the judge to suspend investor lawsuits
against Mr. Nacchio and other former Qwest executives while the
criminal probe is underway, he did not disclose whether Mr.
Nacchio or the others were targets of the probe.

The Denver-based phone company fraudulently reported about $3
billion in revenue while excluding $231 million in expenses,
according to Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuits filed
in March against Mr. Nacchio and other former executives. In
court filings though, Mr. Nacchio denied any wrongdoing. The SEC
also alleges that some of the defendants personally profited
from selling stocks based on the artificial value of the
company.

Court documents revealed that once the restated revenue figures
reflecting the company's actual worth were released, scores of
shareholders -- including several large pension funds -- sued
Qwest and its executives, claiming investors lost millions of
dollars in the scheme. In the lawsuits, shareholders allege
Qwest executives deliberately inflated the company's earnings.


ROHM AND HAAS: Suit Seeks Medical Monitoring of Workers in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Rohm and Haas Co. worker initiated a class action lawsuit
against the chemical company, alleging that he and thousands of
fellow employees should be tested for brain tumors because of a
cluster of deadly cases, The Associated Press reports.

According to court papers, Rohm and Haas Co. conducted its own
study in 2004 and found no significant links among 15 workers
who developed brain tumors at its research campus in Spring
House, Pennsylvania since 1973 with all but one, who has died.

Nearly 6,000 chemists, technicians and others have worked at the
campus since it opened in 1963, including about 1,000 people who
work there now. Scientists work on chemicals used in household
and industrial products, from shampoos to paints to plastic
dashboards.  The suit, which was filed in a Pennsylvania court,
seeks periodic MRIs and neurologic testing for the workers.

Company attorney Aaron J. Freiwald told The Associated Press,
"there is evidence enough to establish a workplace link to these
cancers."


SECOND CHANCE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 23, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the Mayes County, State of Oklahoma will
hold d fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: Lemmings, et al. v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., et
al., Case No. CJ-2004-62, which was filed on behalf of all
entities that purchased or possess a Second Chance Ultima,
Ultimax or Triflex Bullet Proof Vest.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on September 23,
2005 at 10 a.m. at the Mayes County Courthouse, located at 1
Court Place, Pryor, OK, 74361-2448.

The suit is styled, Lemmings, et al. v. Second Chance Body
Armor, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-2004-62. The case is being
heard in the District Court for Mayes County, State of Oklahoma.
Allan Kanner, Esq. of Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C., 701
Camp St., New Orleans, LA, 70130 is the Lead Class Counsel and
Notice Counsel for the Class. Arvin Maskin, Esq. of WEIL,
GOTSHAL & MANGES, L.L.P. 767 Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10153 is
the Lead Counsel for Toyobo and Toyobo America and Notice
Counsel for Toyobo and Toyobo America.

For more details, contact the Settlement Administrator, Phone:
1-877-567-2754, Web site: http://www.zylonvest-classaction.com.


UNITED AIRLINES: Settles IL ERISA Class Action Suit For $5.25M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class Plaintiffs and the United Airlines Corporation Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) Committee reached a settlement in
the class action lawsuit entitled Summers et al v. UAL
Corporation ESOP Committee, et al, No. 03 C 1537.

Under the settlement agreement, the ESOP Committee's insurer
will pay $5.25 million to the ESOP participants (minus Court-
approved attorneys' fees and expenses), to be divided among the
Class members. The settlement was submitted recently for
preliminary approval in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The ESOP Committee consisted of six employee members: one
appointed by United Airlines, two by the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and three by
the Air Line Pilots Association. The ESOP Committee members deny
any liability or wrongdoing.

"Throughout their service to the UAL ESOP participants, the ESOP
Committee members discharged their duties in the best interests
of participants and in accordance with law. This settlement does
not constitute any finding of wrongdoing or liability on behalf
of the Committee," said Rene E. Thorne of Proskauer Rose,
attorneys for the ESOP Committee.

"We believe this ERISA class action settlement is in the best
interests of the ESOP participants," said Andrew Volk of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, counsel for Class Plaintiff members.
"Under this settlement, Plaintiffs will obtain almost all of the
available insurance proceeds covering the Committee members, and
they can now proceed to trial against the remaining Defendant,
State Street Bank & Trust Company." Class Plaintiff members are
participants of the United Airlines Corporation ESOP during the
period July 19, 2001 through June 30, 2003. Trial of the
Plaintiffs Class members' claims against State Street is
scheduled for October 17, 2005.

The suit is styled, Jerry Summers, et al. v. UAL Corporation
ESOP Committee, et al., No. 03 C 1537, which was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division. Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, LLP represents the Plaintiffs. Josh Epstein of
Linden Alschuler & Kaplan, Inc. represents the Defendants.

For more details, contact Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, LLP, Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com OR
Josh Epstein of Linden Alschuler & Kaplan, Inc., Phone:
212-575-4545, E-mail: jepstein@lakpr.com.


UNITED TITLE: CA Residents Commence RESPA Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit was launched against a California RE/MAX
branch and United Title Co. alleging illegal kickbacks, fraud
and unfair competition, The Inman Real Estate News reports.

The suit, filed last May in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of California, specifically alleges that
United Title and the RE/MAX branch violated the anti-kickback
protections of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, known
as RESPA.  According to court papers, the suit is a class action
suit on behalf of everyone who sold or purchased a home in
California using RE/MAX as their agent or broker "and were
induced by RE/MAX to use the services of United Title."

The plaintiffs in the suit are seeking for damages of up to
three times the fees they paid as well as an injunction barring
all defendants from giving or getting kickbacks and failing to
disclose they are in affiliated business arrangements.  The six
plaintiffs named in the legal papers are San Diego residents
Felix and Linda Rodriguez, Laura Willis, Rosario and Susan
Villareal and Ruth Warren. According to six plaintiffs, when
they bought San Diego homes using RE/MAX sales agents, their
agents recommended United Title for either title or escrow
services or both.

The suit alleges that United Title paid a "bonus" to RE/MAX for
referrals in violation of RESPA, which states, "No person shall
give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of
value pursuant to any agreement or understanding.that business
incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service.shall
be referred to another person."  Additionally, the suit alleges
that United Title and RE/MAX violated RESPA's disclosure
provisions. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Kevin Young
told Inman Real Estate News, "They (the six) either were not
told there was a business relationship between RE/MAX and
United, or the disclosure was not sufficient."

The suit, Rodriguez v. United Title, is unusual because past
anti-kickback lawsuits, as well as enforcement actions have
centered on title agencies. Industry sources told Inman Real
Estate News that this is because it is illegal under RESPA for
title insurers to offer kickbacks, but not for real estate
brokerages or other professionals to accept them. Mr. Young also
said, "The broker (RE/MAX) is included for unfair business
practices under California's business and professions code."



                           Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WABTEC, Affiliates Face Rising Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (NYSE: WAB) and
some of its affiliates defend actions filed by plaintiffs
claiming bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products in various courts across the United States.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, and
are based on a product sold by RFPC before the Company acquired
American Standard, Inc.'s 50% interest in RFPC in 1990 and the
remaining interest in 1992.

These claims include a suit against RFPC and its insurers
seeking coverage under RFPC's insurance policies.  On April 17,
2005, the claim against the Company contending that it assumed
ASI's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to
RFPC's products was resolved in the Company's favor.  Most of
these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to
insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-
affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

The Company cannot assure that all these claims will be fully
covered by insurance or that the indemnitors will remain
financially viable.  The Company's ultimate legal and financial
liability with respect to these claims cannot be estimated.

The Wilmerding, PA-based Company, which does business as Wabtec,
manufactures braking equipment and other parts for locomotives,
freight cars, and passenger railcars.  Major customers include
GE Transportation Systems, Bombardier, and Burlington Northern
Santa Fe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Named in 588 Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation (NYSE: TOD) 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 cases generally include as defendants, other than the
Company, other ship builders 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, analyzes them in two different categories based on
severity of illness.  The Company categorizes certain diseases
including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed
asbestosis as "malignant" claims.  All others of a less
medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant".
The Company is currently defending about 27 "malignant" claims
and about 561 "non-malignant" claims.

As of July 3, 2005 the Company has recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$7.4 million and a bodily injury
insurance receivable of US$5.5 million.  This compares to a
previously recorded bodily injury reserve and insurance
receivable of US$7.3 million and US$5.3 million, respectively,
on April 3, 2005.

The Seattle, WA-based Company, through subsidiary Todd Pacific
Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government-
owned and commercial vessels.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Products Faces 3,900 Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. (NYSE: SMP) reported that as of
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004 about 3,900 cases and 3,700
cases, respectively, were outstanding for which the Company is
responsible for any asbestos-related liabilities.

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

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

As of December 31, 2001, about 100 cases were outstanding which
holds the Company responsible for any related liabilities.  As
of December 31, 2002, the number of cases outstanding for which
the Company was responsible for related liabilities increased to
about 2,500, which include about 1,600 cases filed in December
2002 in Mississippi.

The Long Island City, NY-based Company expects the outstanding
cases to increase gradually due to recent legislation in certain
states mandating minimum medical criteria before a case can be
heard.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Records US$68M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, a subsidiary of Edison Mission Energy,
recorded a US$68 million asbestos-related liability as of June
30, 2005 subject to a prior supplemental agreement.

The Chicago, IL-based Company is potentially liable for between
130 and 170 cases that had not been settled or dismissed as of
June 30, 2005.

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

Commonwealth Edison and Midwest Generation apportioned
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the
number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations
or Midwest Generation locations.

Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Rosemead, CA-based Edison
International's (NYSE: EIX) merchant energy business, Edison
Mission Energy.  Edison has created a cosmopolitan image through
Edison Mission, which markets energy and has non-regulated power
plant interests internationally.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Coastal, RESCO Settles US$1.33 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 6, 2005, California Coastal Communities, Inc. and RESCO
Holdings, Inc. settled litigation with Dresser Industries, Inc.
California Coastal paid US$1.33 million, its share of the
settlement, which is the amount of the Company's litigation
accrual as of December 31, 2004.

In May 2002, Dresser filed a lawsuit, Dresser Industries, Inc.
vs. California Coastal Communities, Inc. and RESCO Holdings,
Inc., a former affiliate, in the 58th Judicial District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas.  Dresser sought a declaratory judgment
regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under a
January 1988 purchase agreement.

Dresser's indemnity claims related 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.  California Coastal denied Dresser's
allegations and vigorously defended itself in this case and
related matters.

California Coastal and RESCO did not admit fault or liability
with respect to Dresser's claims, but settled the matter in
order to avoid the continued cost and uncertainty of litigation.

Irvine, CA-based California Coastal Communities, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CALC) engages in residential land development and homebuilding
mainly in southern California.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Defends 16,000 Pending Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of July 1, 2005, Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) records
about 16,000 asbestos liability cases pending against the
Company and its subsidiaries, according to its 2nd quarter
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The majority of these cases have been filed against subsidiaries
in Healthcare and Engineered Products and Services.  Most of the
cases involve product liability claims, based on allegations of
past distribution of heat-resistant industrial products
incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of industrial
valves that incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets or packing.
A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property.

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

In first half of 2005, the Company undertook a detailed study of
its pending asbestos claims and also developed an estimate of
asbestos claims that were incurred but not reported, as well as
related insurance and indemnification recoveries.

The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded
related to these matters and that the final outcome of all known
and anticipated future claims will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Domiciled in Bermuda but ran primarily from Princeton, NJ, Tyco
International Ltd.'s major business areas include electronic
components, health care, fire safety, security, and fluid
control.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Energy Defends 831 Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Potomac Edison Company and other Allegheny Energy Inc.
(NYSE: AYE) subsidiaries have been named as defendants in
pending asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and
defendants.

As of July 9, 2005, 831 asbestos cases were pending against
Allegheny.  Asbestos and other regulated substances are, and may
continue to be, present at Allegheny-owned facilities where
suitable alternative materials are not available.

Allegheny's management believes that any remaining asbestos at
Allegheny-owned facilities is contained.  However, the continued
presence of asbestos and other regulated substances at
Allegheny-owned facilities could result in additional actions
being brought against Allegheny and its subsidiaries, including
Potomac Edison.

Greensburg, PA-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is a utility holding
company that has both regulated and unregulated operations. Its
regulated utilities, doing business as Allegheny Power, are West
Penn Power Company (Pennsylvania); Monongahela Power Company
(Ohio and West Virginia); The Potomac Edison Company (Maryland,
Virginia, and West Virginia); and Mountaineer Gas Company (West
Virginia).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Subsidiaries Battle More Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation (NYSE: AEE) and its subsidiaries; United
Electric Co (UE), Central Illinois Public Service Co (CIPS),
Ameren Energy Generating Co (Genco), Central Illinois Light Co
(CILCO), and Illinois Power Co (IP) have been named in lawsuits
that have been filed by certain plaintiffs claiming varying
degrees of injury from asbestos exposure.

The number of total defendants named in each case is significant
with as many as 166 parties named in some pending cases and as
few as five in others.  However, the average number of parties
is 56 in the cases that were pending as of June 30, 2005.  Most
cases have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois.

From April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, four additional
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and
IP; one lawsuit was dismissed and 13 were settled.

As of June 30, 2005, four asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc (EEI). The general liability
insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to
liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims.

The claims filed against Ameren and its subsidiaries allege
injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs' activities
at our present or former electric generating plants.  Genco now
owns former CIPS plants, and Ameren Energy Generating Co (AERG)
now owns most former CILCO plants.  Most of IP's plants were
transferred to a Dynegy subsidiary prior to Ameren's acquisition
of IP.

As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO
generating plants, CIPS or CILCO has contractually agreed to
indemnify Genco or AERG for liabilities associated with
asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the
transfer.  Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of
US$50,000, which, if proved, typically would be shared among the
named defendants.

St. Louis, MO-based Ameren Corporation, through its
subsidiaries, engages in rate-regulated electric generation,
transmission, and distribution; rate-regulated natural gas
distribution; and non-regulated electric generation businesses
in Missouri and Illinois.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Named in Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years, CompuDyne Corporation (NASDAQ:
CDCY) has been named in lawsuits involving asbestos related
personal injury and death claims in which the Company,
individually and as an alleged successor, is a defendant.

The Annapolis, MD-based Company has advised the insurers of each
case, which in turn are providing a defense pursuant to
agreement with the Company, subject to reservation of rights by
the insurers.

The insurers have advised that claims in such litigation for
punitive damages, exemplary damages, malicious and willful and
wanton behavior and intentional conduct are not covered.  One of
the carriers has given notice that asbestos related claims are
excluded from certain of these policies.

The insurers have additional coverage defenses, which are
reserved, including that claims may fall outside of a particular
policy period of coverage.  Litigation costs to date have not
been significant and the Company has not paid any settlements
from its own funds.

Founded in 1952, CompuDyne Corporation is a leading provider of
products and services to the Public Security market.  The
Company operates in four segments: Attack Protection, Federal
Security Systems, Institutional Security Systems and Public
Safety and Justice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Water Pik Notes Increase of Asbestos Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Water Pik Technologies Inc. (NYSE: PIK) states an increase in
asbestos-related lawsuits against multiple defendant companies,
some of which historically may have manufactured or sold
products that had asbestos-containing components, in the recent
report submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In many of these suits, the alleged ties to the Company's
products are either unclear or the Company has been able to
demonstrate that the identified product did not contain
asbestos.  The Company does not expect to incur any material
liabilities in connection with these lawsuits.

Moreover, the Company's historic insurance coverage, including
that of its predecessors, may not cover asbestos claims or the
defense of such matters, as coverage depends on the year of
purported exposure and other factors.

All asbestos-related lawsuits pending against the Company as of
June 30, 2005 were transferred to Bradford White Corporation, a
water heater manufacturer, as part of the sale of Heating
Systems.

However, there is no assurance that the Company will not be
served with asbestos-related lawsuits in the future or that it
will continue to be successful in defending asbestos claims.

The Newport Beach, CA-based Company makes oral irrigators,
showerheads, and water filters under the Water Pik name.  It
sells its swimming pool and spa products under the Laars and
Jandy brands.  The company also makes residential and commercial
water-heating systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Declares 199 Pending Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics and consumer products manufacturer, Rogers
Corporation (NYSE: ROG), has been named in asbestos litigation
primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi.

As of July 3, 2005, as stated in the Company's quarterly report
to the Securities and Exchange Commission, there were about 199
pending claims compared to 232 pending claims at January 2, 2005
and 211 pending claims at April 3, 2005.

The rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits
against a number of defendants, including the Company, increased
in 2001, 2002 and the first half of 2003 because of increased
activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those companies
that sold asbestos containing products, but which did not
directly mine, mill or market asbestos.

The number of open claims during a certain time can fluctuate
significantly from period to period depending on how successful
the Company has been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled.  Most of these lawsuits exclude specific dollar claims
for damages, and many include a number of plaintiffs and
multiple defendants.  Therefore, the Company cannot provide any
meaningful disclosure about the total amount of the damages
sought.

A significant increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily
injury cases arose in Mississippi beginning in 2002 and extended
through mid-year 2003.  This increase in the volume of claims in
Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform
legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which
became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a
large number of claims being filed in Mississippi by plaintiffs
seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the law in
effect prior to the passage of tort reform.

The Rogers, CT-based Company manufactures and markets specialty
polymer and electronic materials for targeted applications,
focused on communication and computer markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Pays UK Court for Health Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC, a Salt Lake City, UT-based
chemicals and commodities manufacturer, states that it has
indemnified the UK Cambridge Magistrates Court for health
violations committed by its subsidiary, following a story
reported in the July 27, 2005 CAR Edition.

The Company reports in its 2nd quarter report filed to the
Securities and Exchange Commission that Huntsman Advanced
Materials (UK) Ltd, its subsidiary, appeared at a UK Court
hearing last July 2005 with regard to charges filed following an
investigation by the UK Health and Safety Executive.

The charges arose from alleged failure to follow applicable
regulations for the management of asbestos contamination caused
by construction activity at the Duxford, UK Advanced Materials
facility between November 2002 and January 2003.

Huntsman Advanced Materials (UK) Ltd was fined GBP20,000
(US$36,000 at the June 30, 2005 exchange rate) for allegedly
violating Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and
GPB5,000 (US$9,000) for allegedly violating Regulation 11 of the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations.  The Company
was also ordered to pay GBP8,500 (US$15,000) for prosecution
costs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JJZ Subsidiary Posts Lower Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacuzzi Brands Inc. (NYSE: JJZ), a manufacturer and distributor
of bath and plumbing products to various markets worldwide,
notes in its SEC quarterly report that Zurn Industries Inc., a
subsidiary, received fewer asbestos claims period over period.

About 2,600 and 9,200 new claims, respectively, were filed
against Zurn in the 3rd quarter and nine months ended 2005.  In
the same period last year, about 6,700 and 21,800 new claims,
respectively, were filed against Zurn.

As of June 30, 2005, asbestos claims pending against Zurn were
about 71,000 compared to 75,500 as of September 30, 2004.  The
pending claims against Zurn as of June 30, 2005 were included in
about 7,700 lawsuits, in which Zurn and an average of 100 other
companies are named as defendants, and which cumulatively allege
damages of about US$16.5 billion against all defendants.

During the third quarter and nine months ended 2005 and as of
the end of such periods, about 12,800 and 16,000 claims,
respectively, were paid or pending payment.  About 5,100 and
11,800 claims, respectively, were dismissed or pending
dismissal.

During the third quarter and nine months ended 2004 and as of
the end of such period, about 15,400 and 24,100 claims,
respectively, were paid or pending payment.  About 2,300 and
3,200 claims, respectively, were dismissed or pending dismissal.

Since Zurn received its first asbestos claim in the 1980s, Zurn
has paid or dismissed or agreed to settle or dismiss about
113,600 asbestos claims including dismissals or agreements to
dismiss of about 21,200 of such claims through June 30, 2005.

Zurn is a co-defendant in asbestos related lawsuits pending in
the US Plaintiffs' claims that allege personal injuries caused
by asbestos exposure used in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn that has been considered as a
discontinued operation.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased it from suppliers.

The West Palm Beach, FL-based Jacuzzi Brands Inc. acquired Zurn
in June 1998, which, at the time of acquisition, had owned
various subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Posts Lower Sales in 2Q05
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wellesley Hills, MA-based American Biltrite Inc. (AMEX:ABL), a
global manufacturer of various products particularly flooring,
reports its 2005-second quarter results.

Net sales for the three months ended June 30, 2005 were US$109.5
million, down 2.6% from US$112.5 million for the 2004-second
quarter.  The net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2005
was US$14.7 million, which includes a US$15.5 million charge by
its 55% owned consolidated subsidiary Congoleum Corporation
(AMEX:CGM) for asbestos-related reorganization costs.

This compares with net income of US$1.7 million for the three
months ended June 30, 2004.  The net loss per share in the
second quarter of 2005 was US$4.27 compared with net income per
share of US$0.50 in the second quarter of 2004.

For the first half of 2005, the net loss was US$14.1 million, or
US$4.09 per share, on sales of US$217.0 million, compared with a
net loss of US$0.3 million, or US$0.09 per share, on sales of
US$211.9 million for the same period last year.

Net income in the first quarter of 2005 included a gain of
US$887 thousand (net of taxes and non-controlling interest), or
US$0.26 per share, on the sale of a property from a former
operation.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "Were it not
for the asbestos-related charge, Congoleum would have shown a
modest profit for the second quarter despite a large inventory
reduction by a major distributor and high raw material costs.
Although the reorganization has been frustratingly expensive, we
are pleased that Congoleum is moving ahead with its latest plan,
and we anticipate a confirmation hearing this December. "

Through June 30, 2005, the Company has recognized a cumulative
US$35.9 million of Congoleum's losses in excess of Congoleum's
equity in its consolidated financial statements.  However,
Congoleum is separately financed and American Biltrite neither
guaranties nor is otherwise obligated for any of Congoleum's
debts.

American Biltrite owns 55% of the common stock outstanding of
Congoleum.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Signs up for 1986 Asbestos Convention
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva, Switzerland hosts Japan's ratification on the 1986
Asbestos Convention that bans certain asbestos forms, amid
rising concerns over exposure to the hazardous substance, The
Associated Press reports.

The Convention provides clear restrictions on any use, disposal
and demolition of asbestos-containing products, such as roof
tiles or insulation.

Japan banned in 1995 highly carcinogenic asbestos types, the so-
called blue and brown asbestos.  However, the common white
asbestos was not outlawed until last October and a loophole
still exists allowing the material to be used when there are no
substitutes.

The treaty will help promote efforts to protect workers here
against the effects of the substance, the Foreign Ministry said
in a statement.

More than 400 people died from asbestos-related cancers in the
five years through March 2005, according to government figures.

The 1986 Asbestos Convention has been criticized as a weak
agreement and ignored by many of the world's key asbestos-
producing countries, including the US and Russia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman LLC Tagged as "Premises Defendant"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman LLC, a subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation (NYSE: HUN),
has been named as a "premises defendant" in a number of asbestos
exposure cases, typically a claim by a non-employee of exposure
to asbestos while at a certain facility, according to the
Company's 2005-second quarter report to the SEC.

These cases typically involve multiple plaintiffs bringing
actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints do not
indicate which plaintiffs are making claims against which
defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred, or what
injuries each plaintiff claims.

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

Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, the Company
tenders it to the prior owner or operator.  None of the
complaints in these cases state the amount of damages being
sought.  The prior owner or operator accepts responsibility for
the conduct of the defense of the cases and payment of any
amounts due to the claimants.

The Salt Lake City, UT-based Company has not made any payment
with respect to any tendered asbestos cases.  The Company
believes that the prior owners or operators have the intention
and ability to continue to honor their indemnities, although the
Company cannot assure that the previous owners will continue to
do so or that the Company will not be liable for these cases if
they do not.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of about US$5,000
during the six months ended June 30, 2005.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company accrued reserves of US$1.2
million relating to these cases.  The Company cannot assure that
its liability will not exceed its accruals or that its liability
associated with these cases would not be material to its
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constar Wary of Claims From CC&S Creditors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Creditors of Crown Cork and Seal, a leading packaging company,
may issue claims against Constar International Inc. (NASDAQ:
CNST) if Crown is unable to meet its financial obligations,
including obligations to its lenders, pension plan obligations
and payments to settle asbestos-related claims.  If these claims
are successful, they may result in significant liabilities to
the Company.

Crown is highly leveraged and, as of December 31, 2004 and June
30, 2005, the aggregate amount of its outstanding indebtedness
was about US$3.9 billion and US$3.7 billion, respectively.  A
significant portion of Crown's operating cash flow is used for
the payment of principal and interest, funding pension plan
obligations and for payments to settle asbestos-related claims
brought against Crown.

Crown may not be able to access the capital markets in the
future, or successfully repay, refinance or restructure its
debt.  Crown's own creditors have asserted no claims against the
Company, and asbestos-related claims against Crown have not
involved the Company's business.

The Philadelphia, PA-based Company may also have joint liability
with Crown for certain taxes, pension obligations and other
similar statutory obligations.

Spun off by Crown Cork & Seal in 2002, the Company is one of the
largest suppliers of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic
containers for conventional applications throughout North
America and Europe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Lawsuits Increase to 123 in 2Q05
--------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation, formerly Selas Corporation of America,
disclosed that it defends, along with a number of other parties,
about 123 lawsuits as of June 30, 2005 (about 123 lawsuits as of
December 31, 2004), in its 2005 2nd quarter report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The claims allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.

The Company does not know whether any of the complaints state
valid claims against it.  The lead insurance carrier has
informed the Company that the primary policy for the period July
1, 1972 - July 1, 1975 has been exhausted and that the lead
carrier will no longer provide a defense under that policy.

The Company has requested that the lead carrier substantiate its
position.  The Company has contacted representatives of the
Company's excess insurance carrier for some or all of this
period.  It does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of the
primary insurance coverage for this period will have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results
of operations.

Based in Arden Hills, Minnesota, IntriCon Corporation (AMEX:
IIN), through its subsidiaries, engages in the design,
development, engineering, and manufacture of microminiaturized
medical and electronic products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Faces NY Suit, IL Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. (AMEX: BTN) is a defendant in an
asbestos liability case seeking monetary damages, entitled Bercu
v. BICC Cables Corporation, et al., filed June 27, 2003 in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York.

At this time, the case has not progressed to a stage where
either the likely outcome or the amount of damages, if any, for
which the Company may be liable can be determined.  An adverse
resolution of this matter could have a material effect on the
financial position of Ballantyne.

On May 18, 2005, the plaintiffs in another asbestos liability
case, entitled Julia Crow, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Smith, deceased v. A.W.
Chesterston, Inc., et al in Madison County, Illinois dismissed
the suit without prejudice.

There was no settlement reached and it is possible that the
plaintiffs may re-file the suit but their intentions are unknown
at this time.

The Omaha, Nebraska-based Company is a leading supplier of
motion picture theater equipment, such as film projectors and
sound systems that are used by major theater chains.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Faces 300 Claims, 1,490 Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc. (NASDAQ: BUCY) has been named as a
defendant in about 300 personal injury liability cases alleging
damages due to exposure to asbestos and other substances,
involving about 1,490 plaintiffs and pending in courts in nine
states.

In all of these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are
expected to accept defense.  These cases are in various pre-
trial stages.  The Company does not believe that costs
associated with these matters will have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations or cash flows,
although no assurance to that effect can be given.

Based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Company formerly known as
Bucyrus-Erie Co provides replacement parts and services to the
surface mining industry.  The Company also makes large
excavation machinery used for surface mining.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Faces 112,000 Pending Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation has been one of many
defendants in a number of lawsuits, some of which involve claims
of multiple persons, in which the plaintiffs allege that their
injuries were caused by asbestos exposure during, or as a result
of, their employment or association with KACC or exposure to
products containing asbestos produced or sold by KACC.

The lawsuits generally relate to products KACC has not sold for
more than 20 years.  About 112,000 asbestos-related claims were
pending.  KACC has also previously disclosed that other personal
injury claims had been filed in respect to alleged exposure to
silica and coal tar pitch volatiles (about 3,900 claims and 300
claims, respectively).

Due to the cases, holders of asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch
volatile claims are stayed from continuing to prosecute pending
litigation and from commencing new lawsuits against Kaiser
Aluminum Corp. (OTC: KLUCQ) and its subsidiaries, including
KACC.

KACC does not expect to make any asbestos payments in the near
term.  KACC continues to pursue insurance collections in respect
of asbestos-related amounts paid prior to the dates KACC filed
its cases and to negotiate insurance settlements and prosecute
certain actions to clarify policy interpretations in respect of
such coverage.

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation is a Foothills Ranch, CA-based
Company that produces fabricated products for aerospace and high
strength, general engineering, automotive, and custom industrial
applications.  The Company's 11 fabrication plants typically
produce and ship more than 400 million pounds of products
annually.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CGM Discloses 7.7% Sales Drop, 2Q05 Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation (AMEX: CGM) reported its financial results
for the second quarter ended June 30, 2005, in a report the
Company submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sales for the three months ended June 30, 2005 were US$58.1
million, compared with sales of US$63.0 million reported in the
second quarter of 2004, a decrease of 7.7%.  The net loss for
the second quarter of 2005 was US$14.6 million, which included a
US$15.5 million charge for asbestos liabilities, compared with
net income of $1.4 million in the second quarter of 2004.  The
net loss per share was US$1.77 for the second quarter of 2005,
compared with diluted net income per share of US$0.16 in the
second quarter of 2004.

Sales for the six months ended June 30, 2005 were US$115.7
million, compared with sales of US$115.0 million reported in the
first six months of 2004, an increase of 0.6%.  The net loss for
the six months ended June 30, 2005 (after the asbestos related
charge of US$15.5 million) was US$15.0 million, or US$1.81 per
share diluted, versus net income of US$0.9 million, or US$0.11
per share, in the first six months of 2004.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "We would
have had a slight profit in the quarter were it not for the
asbestos charge.  While our operating results trailed the second
quarter of last year, I consider them satisfactory in light of
the challenges we faced.  The most significant of these was that
as part of a broader reduction initiative, our largest
distributor reduced its inventory of our products by US$4.4
million, which negatively affected our gross profit in the
quarter by over US$1 million."

Mercerville, NJ-based Congoleum Corporation is a leading
manufacturer of resilient flooring, serving both residential and
commercial markets.  Congoleum is a 55% owned subsidiary of
American Biltrite Inc. (AMEX: ABL).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Group Posts Reserve Adjustments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group Limited (NYSE: RE)
reports its reserve adjustments for the 2005-second quarter, in
the Company's report submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

For the three months ended June 30, 2005, the net unfavorable
reserve adjustments included net catastrophe development of
US$48.8 million and net unfavorable asbestos and environmental
(A&E) adjustments of US$6.6 million, partially offset by pre-
1995 non-A&E favorable development.  The reserve adjustments for
the three months ended June 30, 2004 included A&E adjustments of
US$48.2 million, and non-A&E adjustments, primarily on casualty
business, of US$14.9 million.

The US Reinsurance segment accounted for US$28.8 million of net
unfavorable prior period reserve adjustments for the three
months ended June 30, 2005, which included US$23.6 million of
unfavorable non-A&E prior period reserve adjustments as compared
to net unfavorable non-A&E prior period reserve adjustments of
$21.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004.
Asbestos exposures accounted for US$5.2 million and US$3.0
million of unfavorable reserve adjustments for the three months
ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The US Insurance segment reflected US$6.1 million and US$6.5
million of net unfavorable prior period reserve adjustments for
the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
These prior period reserve adjustments were principally due to
liability classes relating to accident years 2000 through 2003.

A&E reserve development at US$18.7 million, related to exposures
assumed through the September 19, 2000 loss portfolio transfer
from Mt. McKinley, was partly affected by favorable development
of US$13.5 million assumed through this portfolio transfer with
respect to pre-1995 reserves.  The development in the six months
ended June 30, 2004 was the result of US$104.2 million of
asbestos reserve development, partially offset by US$40.8
million of net favorable development on other pre-1995
exposures.

In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley, which has
significant exposure to A&E claims, LM provided reinsurance to
Mt. McKinley covering 80% (US$160.0 million) of the first
US$200.0 million of any adverse development of Mt. McKinley's
reserves as of September 19, 2000 and The Prudential guaranteed
LM's obligations to Mt. McKinley.  Cessions under this
reinsurance agreement exhausted the limit available under the
contract at December 31, 2003.

Everest Re was formed in 1973 but was not fully engaged in
underwriting casualty business, under which asbestos and
environmental exposures generally arise, until 1974, and it
effectively eliminated exposures through contract exclusions
effected in 1984.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Posts Asbestos, Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corporation (NYSE: ORH) states in its 2005-
second quarter report that it has exposure to asbestos,
environmental pollution and latent injury damage claims and
exposures.

The Company's survival ratio for environmental and asbestos
related liabilities as of June 30, 2005 is nine years,
reflecting full utilization of remaining indemnifications.  The
Company's underlying survival ratio for environmental related
liabilities is six years and for asbestos related liabilities is
11 years.

The survival ratio represents the environmental impairment and
asbestos related illness reserves, net of reinsurance, on June
30, 2005, plus indemnifications, divided by the average paid
environmental and asbestos claims, net of reinsurance, for the
last three years.  The Company expects to complete its regularly
scheduled annual review of environmental and asbestos
liabilities during the fourth quarter of 2005.

Included in the estimate of ultimate losses and loss expense
liabilities is the Company's exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims, which are considered to have a long
reporting tail.  Its reserve for gross unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses for asbestos claims as of June 30, 2005 was
US$232.8 million.  The Company's provision for gross unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses for environmental claims as
of June 30, 2005 was US$34.4 million.

Net of reinsurance and indemnifications, unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses for asbestos and environmental claims were
US$50.7 million and US$10.9 million, respectively, as of June
30, 2005.

The Company expects to complete its regularly scheduled annual
review of environmental and asbestos liabilities during the
fourth quarter of 2005.

Based in Stamford, CT, Odyssey Re Holdings Corp writes treaty
reinsurance through its London Market (including Lloyd's of
London syndicate Newline), EuroAsia, and Americas divisions.
Its casualty lines include general and auto liability,
professional liability, and accident and health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oglebay Norton Faces 53,537 Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2005, Oglebay Norton Company (Pink Sheets: OGLEQ)
is a co-defendant in about 53,357 asbestos-related product
liability claims, in its 10-Q report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company received some new claims during bankruptcy even with
the automatic stay on litigation, and has experienced an
increase in filings since emergence.

As of June 30, 2005, 12,937 filed and un-filed asbestos-related
product liability claims were submitted and approved for
payment.  The total settlement amount for these 12,937 claims is
US$39.681 million.  Separate from the settlements, about 4,800
claims were dismissed without payment.

During the second quarter of 2005, discussion of federal and
state asbestos and silica tort reform continued.  The Company
has closely monitored both federal and state legislative
actions, and has participated in the Coalition for Asbestos
Reform on the federal level and with the National Industrial
Sands Association in efforts to impact legislation.

On December 31, 2004, the Company has about US$294 million of
insurance coverage available with respect to any asbestos
liability claims.  Management believes that multiple layers of
insurance policies from multiple sources and an insurance trust
cover asbestos and silica product liability claims.

The Cleveland, OH-based Company has had an average of 13,750
asbestos claims asserted against it each year for the past five
years.  The average cost per claim for settlement or other
resolution for the past five years prior to the most recent
settlements was about US$1,000; the average cost per claim of
the most recent settlements was about US$3,000.

The length of time to resolve claims varies on a case-by-case
basis and can be affected by decisions of management and
opposing counsel.  If there are no developments that reduce the
impact of asbestos litigation or its costs to the Company, its
available insurance may be insufficient to cover all future
claims, and there could be a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations, liquidity and financial
condition.

Established in 1854, Oglebay Norton Company mines, processes,
transports and markets industrial minerals and aggregates.  The
Company owns strategically located, proven long-life reserves of
high-quality limestone and industrial sand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp Posts 564 Asbestos Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation (Pink Sheets: ENTX), an asbestos abatement
firm, declares that, as of June 30, 2005, it defends 564 pending
asbestos-related claims, in the Company's 2005-second quarter
report to the SEC.

The past 5 years noted a decrease in claims.  As of December 31,
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 there were, respectively, about
1,009, 988, 853 and 710 cases pending.  Of the decrease from 710
cases pending at December 31, 2004 to 564 at June 30, 2005, were
80 cases that had been previously counted in error, so that the
actual decrease over that six-month period was 66 cases.

The number of asbestos-related cases initiated naming the
Company, primarily its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, as a defendant had increased from about 254 in
1999, to 527 in 2000 and to 725 in 2001.  The number of cases
filed decreased from 2001, to about 590 in 2002, to 351 in 2003,
and to 265 in 2004.  There were 111 new claims made in the first
six months of 2005, compared to 149 in the first six months of
2004.

Metalclad continues to be engaged in lawsuits involving
asbestos-related injury or potential injury claims.  The 265
claims made in 2004 were down from the 725, 590 and 351 claims
made in 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively, although the average
payment on these claims increased from US$15,105 in 2002 to
US$21,760 in 2003, they decreased to US$15,605 in 2004.

These claims are currently defended and covered by insurance.
The Company has projected that it has sufficient insurance to
provide coverage for the next three to four years.  This
projection assumes that there is not a significant increase in
the annual number of new claims and that the severity of each
claim does not increase significantly.

Several affiliated insurance companies have brought a
declaratory relief action against Metalclad, as well as a number
of other insurers, to resolve certain coverage issues.  Whether
the Company will be able to continue in business when its
insurance coverage runs out is subject to a significant number
of variables, which are impossible to predict.

In addition, the Company paid about US$304,000 and US$175,000 in
2004 and 2003, respectively, and US$41,000 and US$67,000 during
the three and six months ended June 30, 2005, respectively, in
legal fees to assess and monitor the asbestos-related claims,
and to assess and monitor its insurance coverage and insurance
company activities involving the defense and payment of these
claims.

Originally established as Metalclad Corporation in 1947, the
Minneapolis, MN-based Company provides insulation and asbestos
abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad Insulation.
Operating primarily on the West Coast, it installs insulation on
pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CCOM, Subsidiary Face Lawsuits in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. (Pink Sheets: CCOM) submitted a filing
to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating that its
subsidiary, Universal Supply Group, has been joined as a
defendant with predecessors and many other companies in 43
separate active lawsuits by 146 active plaintiffs in numerous
product liability lawsuits brought in the Superior Court of New
Jersey (Middlesex County) that allege asbestos-induced injury.

Claims in these lawsuits relate to alleged sales of asbestos
products, or products containing asbestos, by the Predecessor.
The Company never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the active cases, four were filed in 2005, 39 were filed in
2004, 31 in 2003, and 44 in 2002.  Twenty-four other cases have
been dismissed and six other cases had been settled as of March
2005 for a total of US$56,000.  The Company's Universal
subsidiary was named in ten of these cases; of these, six were
filed in 2001, one in 2003 and three in 2005.  No case that
names the Universal subsidiary has been settled or dismissed.

The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims,
and insurance companies are defending the interests of the
Company and its predecessors in these cases.

Universal Supply Group has not engaged in the sale of asbestos
products since its formation in 1997.  Its product liability
policies since 1998 exclude asbestos claims.

The Hicksville, NY-based Company, through its subsidiaries,
supplies HVAC products, climate-control systems, and plumbing
fixtures to more than 5,000 customers (mostly builders and HVAC
contractors) in New York and New Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BNS Holding Inc Notes 584 Claims in 2Q 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
BNS Holding Incorporated states that, since 1994, its subsidiary
BNS Co has been named as a defendant in a total of 584 known
claims (as of July 22, 2005) relating to asbestos-containing
pumps sold by its former pump division.  In many cases these
claims involve more than 100 other defendants.

Fifty-four of those claims were filed prior to December 31,
2001.  In 2002, BNS Co was named in 98 additional claims; in
2003 there were a total of 193 new claims filed; and BNS Co has
received notice of another 178 claims in 2004.  As of July 22,
2005, BNS Co has received notice of another 54 claims.

In 2002, 42 claims were settled for an aggregate of about
US$30,000 exclusive of attorney's fees.  In September 2004 three
Pennsylvania claims were granted Summary Judgment and have been
closed.  In February 2005 the Company was notified that five NJ
claims were granted summary judgment in November 2004 and are
now closed.  In March 2004, 68 of the MI claims were settled or
dismissed, with only one claimant receiving money (US$500).

In April 2004 three MI claims were dismissed.  In October 2004
one claim was dismissed.  Twenty claims were dismissed in
November 2004.  In December 2004, fifty-six claims were
dismissed with seven of these claims settling for US$500 each
for a total of US$3,500.

In May 2005 seven claims were dismissed.  In June 2005, 55
claims were dismissed.  There were 313 known claims open and
active as of July 22, 2005.  However, under certain
circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened.

The Company believes BNS Co has significant defenses to any
liability for toxic tort claims on the merits.  It should be
noted that none of these toxic tort claims have gone to trial
and therefore there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail.

As of August 12, 2005, no known toxic tort or asbestos claims
have been filed against the Company, which came into existence
in December 2004 and has never conducted any active business
operations.  There can be no assurance, however, that monies
received by the Company from its wholly owned subsidiary by way
of reimbursement for  "public company reporting costs" that were
formerly the responsibility of BNS Co or by way of dividends or
otherwise might not under some circumstances be subject to
claims against BNS Co.

Based in Middletown, RI, the Company became a holding company
for BNS Co in December 2004.  BNS Co was engaged in the
metrology business and the design, manufacture, and sale of
precision measuring tools and instruments, and manual and
computer controlled measuring machines.  BNS Co sold its
remaining assets in June 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reports A&E Reserves, Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2005, ACE Ltd announced net additions to its Asbestos
& Environment (A&E) and other run-off reserves of US$364 million
exclusive of the provision for bad debts of US$95 million, in
the Company's amended annual report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The net additions comprised A&E reserve increases of US$453
million and favorable prior period development of US$89 million
in other run-off reserves.  ACE Overseas General had gross and
net A&E additions of US$6 million resulting in a total A&E
charge of US$459 million for 2004.

The Company's A&E reserves, and its range of estimates are not
discounted and do not reflect any anticipated changes in the
legal, social or economic environment, or any benefit from
future legislative reforms.  Accordingly, the Company's A&E
reserves make no allowance for future state or federal asbestos
reforms, such as those currently being contemplated.

The majority of the Company's reserve increase in the fourth
quarter of 2004 arose with the strengthening of a core group of
major accounts impacted by changes in the asbestos industry
landscape.  In particular, its estimates of future liability
were impacted by the continued negative effect of bankruptcies
and an increase in defense costs to litigate cases.

The total pending asbestos counts as of December 31, 2004 are
1,374 claims.  In the Company's January 6, 2005 disclosure on
asbestos, it noted a total of 1,276 direct policyholders.  The
differences between the two numbers are as follows:

 The prior disclosure counted each policyholder only once
regardless of whether there are multiple asbestos causes of
action.

 The first category in that prior disclosure, 60 major asbestos
manufacturers/producers, included closed accounts as well as a
few accounts where ACE never had exposure.

In 2004, the number of newly reported asbestos counts declined
to 190 versus 320 new claims in 2003.  The fourth quarter charge
for asbestos was primarily a result of increases in costs for a
small number of major asbestos defendants and to a lesser extent
newly reported counts.

Through its various operating subsidiaries, the Hamilton,
Bermuda-based ACE Limited (NYSE: ACE) provides a range of
insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide through
operations in the US and other countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd Reports More on its A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd's (NYSE: ACE) exposure to Asbestos & Environment (A&E)
claims principally arises out of liabilities acquired when the
Company purchased Westchester Specialty in 1998 and the P&C
business of CIGNA in 1999, as reported in the Company's amended
2005-second quarter report submitted to SEC.

In 1996, prior to the Company's acquisition of the P&C business
of CIGNA, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner approved a
plan to restructure INA Financial Corporation and its
subsidiaries that included the division of Insurance Company of
North America (INA) into two separate corporations:

An active insurance company that retained the INA name and
continued to write P&C business and
An inactive run-off company now called Century Indemnity
Company.

As a result of the division, the A&E liabilities of INA were
allocated to Century and extinguished, as a matter of
Pennsylvania law, as liabilities of INA.  As part of the
Restructuring, the A&E liabilities of various US affiliates of
INA were reinsured to Century, and Century and certain other
run-off companies housing A&E liabilities were contributed to
Brandywine Holdings Corporation.  As part of the 1999
acquisition of the P&C business of CIGNA, the Company acquired
Brandywine and its various subsidiaries.

An internal, ground-up review of the Company's consolidated A&E
liabilities conducted during the second half of 2004 identified
recent trends resulting in revised indications at that time.
During this same period, a team of external actuaries performed
an evaluation as to the adequacy of the reserves of Century and
its two US insurance subsidiaries, ACE American Reinsurance
Company, and Century Reinsurance Company, both Pennsylvania
insurers.

The studies were completed early in 2005 and adjustments were
recorded as of December 31, 2004.  Activity in the period since
completing the studies has not indicated a need to further
adjust ultimate A&E reserves.  The Company's A&E reserves are
not discounted and do not reflect any anticipated changes in the
legal, social or economic environment, or any benefit from
future legislative reforms.

Through its various operating subsidiaries, the Hamilton,
Bermuda-based ACE Limited (NYSE: ACE) provides a range of
insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide through
operations in the US and other countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Corp. Claims Drop Slightly to 1,460
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation reports that, as of July 31, 2005, the
Company is a party to about 1,460 pending cases involving about
19,000 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets
manufactured or distributed by some of its subsidiaries.

The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to
locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 13 years ago, have been
about US$3.0 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos cases
is monetary in nature.  The Company does not have significant
primary insurance to cover its settlement and defense costs.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought does not bear a
reasonable relationship to the Company's potential liability.

Furthermore, the Company does not believe that these cases will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or
future results of operations.

Bloomfield Hills, MI-based TriMas Corporation is a leading
manufacturer of high quality transportation accessories,
packaging systems, fastening systems and industrial specialty
products for the commercial, manufacturing, and consumer
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Co Rakes in 1,010 New Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aearo Company I revealed that it is a defendant in lawsuits by
plaintiffs alleging that they suffer from respiratory medical
conditions relating to asbestos and silica exposure, and that
such conditions result, in part, from the use of respirators
that, allegedly, were negligently designed or manufactured.

As of June 30, 2005, the number of open claims where the Company
was named as a defendant in silica and asbestos related matters
was 12,739 and 4,095, respectively.

As of September 30, 2004, the number of open claims where the
Company was named as a defendant in silica and asbestos related
matters was 11,087 and 4,282, respectively.

For the nine months ended June 30, 2005, the increases in number
of claims where the Company was named as a defendant in silica
and asbestos related matters was 2,122 and 1,010 respectively.
The 1,010 new asbestos claims include 114 claims that allege
exposure from clothing, which the Company never manufactured.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2005, Aearo paid a total
of US$1.67 million for settlement, administrative and defense
costs resulting in the settlement of 4,325 silica and asbestos
claims that were settled between October 1, 2002 and September
30, 2004 involving both claims in which Aearo was named as a
defendant.

During the period October 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 Aearo paid a
total of US$164.72 million for three additional claims that were
settled during that time period and paid a total of US$0.4
million for administrative and defense costs involving both
claims in which Aearo was named as a defendant.

Through subsidiary Aearo Company, Aearo Corporation makes and
sells personal protection equipment in more than 70 countries.
Based in Indianapolis, IN, the firm also sells safety
prescription eyewear and makes energy-absorbing foams that
control noise, vibration, and shock for use in its own and other
manufacturers' products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Faces Seven Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. (NYSE: KT) has recently been named as a
defendant in seven lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a
total of about 62 individual plaintiffs.  There are over 100
defendants named in each case.

In all seven cases, the plaintiffs claim that they were exposed
to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former US
Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted
mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness.  They
claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the
plant, which were manufactured by each defendant.  In five of
the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered over 1,800 cases
pending in Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi,
Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and California to the
Company for defense and indemnification.  With respect to one
case, Sterling has demanded that Katy indemnify it for a
US$200,000 settlement.  Sterling bases its tender of the
complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase
Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased the
LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company.
Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against Katy in connection with
these matters.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.
LaBour Pump Company, a former subsidiary of the Company, has
been named as a defendant in over 290 similar cases in New
Jersey.  These cases have also been tendered by Sterling.

While the ultimate liability of the Company related to the
asbestos matters above cannot be determined at this time, the
Company has recorded and accrued amounts that it deems
reasonable for prospective liabilities with respect to this
matter.

The Middlebury, CT-based Company generates nearly two-thirds of
its sales from its maintenance products (cleaning supplies,
abrasives, stains).  Katy also makes electric-corded products
(extension cords, surge protectors, garden lighting), through
its Woods Industries business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Lists Asbestos Liability at US$50.2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. (NYSE: CYT) posts its asbestos liability
claims at US$50.2 million and US$50.4 million at June 30, 2005
and December 31, 2004, respectively and the related insurance
receivable was US$34.8 million at June 30, 2005 and US$34.2
million at December 31, 2004, in the Company's 2005-second
quarter report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, the aggregate self-
insured and insured contingent liability was US$68.9 million and
US$68.4 million, respectively, and the related insurance
receivable was US$37.1 million at June 30, 2005 and US$37.9
million at December 31, 2004.

It should be noted that the ultimate liability and related
insurance recovery for all pending and anticipated future claims
cannot be determined with certainty due to the difficulty of
forecasting the numerous variables that can affect the amount of
the liability and insurance recovery.

These variables include but are not limited to:

(1) Significant changes in the number of future claims;
(2) Significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims;
(3) Changes in the nature of claims received;
(4) Changes in the laws applicable to these claims; and
(5) Financial viability of co-defendants and insurers.

Headquartered in West Paterson, NJ, the Company produces the
building block chemicals from which it makes engineered
materials (composites and adhesives for the aerospace industry),
performance products (coatings for metal, plastic, and wood),
and specialty chemicals and additives used in treating water and
in industrial processes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Files Government Chapter 11 Relief
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix, AZ-based ASARCO Incorporated, a major copper mining
firm, filed for governmental Chapter 11 relief after facing an
extended strike at all operations and massive environmental
cleanup lawsuits.

Nearly 1,500 workers went on strike at units in Arizona and
Texas, claiming that ASARCO officials were unfair during all
negotiations.  Officials and workers tried unsuccessfully to
hammer out a new deal.

According to a United Steelworkers official, the company was
once again not clear about their real intentions, and just
wanted the workers to return without an extended contract.

Around 750 workers at the Ray mine in Kearny and the Hayden
concentrator walked out of their jobs as soon as the contracts
became null on June 30.  Some 780 workers at other Arizona
plants and as well as workers at a Texas refinery followed suit.

Environmental payouts for the Company could exceed US$1 billion
and the asbestos lawsuits could total as much as US$900 million.
Some of the environmental claims are being paid out of a US$100
million trust fund established by ASARCO's parent company, Grupo
Mexico.

Grupo Mexico purchased ASARCO in 1999, and was almost dragged
down by the US Company when copper prices dipped soon after.

The Justice Department forced Grupo Mexico to set up trusts,
after accusing it of stripping ASARCO of lucrative Latin
American assets and leaving the US taxpayers with cleanup bills.

The 106-year-old Company operates in 21 states.  ASARCO
officials are now trying to sift through hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of environmental claims, soon after its Chapter 11
filing in Corpus Christi, Texas.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BUCA INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Buca, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BUCA) between February 6, 2001 and March 11, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


BUCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota against BUCA, Inc. (Nasdaq: BUCA).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


HOST AMERICA: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Host America Corporation
(NasdaqSC: CAFE) between July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Host America provides food service management, energy management
conservation, and pre-employment background screening. The
company operates in four divisions: Host America Business
Dining, Lindley Food Service (Lindley), SelectForce, and
GlobalNet Energy Investors (GlobalNet). The GlobalNet division
markets, sells, and installs control panels and other electrical
energy saving devices to commercial and industrial users.

From May 12, 2004 to June 15, 2005, the Company often announced
agreements to install their LightMasterPlus product or perform
other energy saving services for various companies. The Company
claims that the LightMasterPlus ``efficiently runs your lighting
systems by reducing kilowatt consumption yet maintaining visible
light. It also allows for fully automated dimming or accent
lighting throughout your building.''

On July 12, 2005, the first day of the Class Period, Host
America filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, and issued a press
release titled ``Host America's Energy Division Announces Wal-
Mart Transaction Ten Store First-Phase for LightMasterPlus.''
Market reaction to this announcement, unlike reactions to
previous announcements in 2004 and 2005 regarding potential
contracts for installing LightMasterPlus, was drastic. Trading
volume increased from 41,000 trades on July 11, 2005, to
13,813,100 on July 12, 2005. Furthermore, the Company's stock,
which opened at $4.25 on July 12, 2005 prior to the
announcement, closed at $6.35, after reaching a high of $7.47.
Over the next eight trading days, volume reached a high of
approximately 32,569,600 shares on July 18, 2005, and the
Company's stock price reached a high of $16.88 on July 19, 2005.

The above statements in the July 12, 2005 Form 8-K and press
release were false and misleading because they misrepresented
the nature of the ``Wal-Mart Transaction'' as one whereby the
Company had a firm commitment by Wal-Mart to purchase the
Company's LIGHTMasterPlus for installation in Wal-Mart stores.
The true facts which were not disclosed are that Wal-Mart was
not a customer of the Company's in connection to purchasing the
LightMasterPlus and that the ``Wal-Mart Transaction'' was
limited to a test installation unrelated to any commitment by
Wal-Mart to install the LightMasterPlus in any of its facilities
on a permanent basis. In fact, Wal-Mart had made no commitment
to purchase or install the LightMasterPlus outside of the test
installation. As a result, defendants had no basis for stating
that the test installation was a ``first-phase roll-out'' or
that ``the next phase will involve a significant number of
stores.'' Moreover, defendants lacked any basis for stating that
the Wal-Mart test installation was a ``major event for our
company.'' In fact, such test installations in the past had
resulted in no future customer relationship and no actual
purchases of the LightMasterPlus by the party solicited for the
test demonstration.

On July 22, 2005, trading of Host America securities was halted,
pending SEC review. In halting trading, the SEC cautioned
brokers, dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that
they should carefully consider the foregoing information along
with all other currently available information, and any
information subsequently issued by the company,`` the SEC
statement read. At the time trading was halted, Host America
stock was priced at $13.92 per share, down from $16.88 on July
19, 2005.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


RED ROBIN: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers,
Inc. (NASDAQ: RRGB) ("Red Robin" or the "Company") between
November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

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 Red Robin
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


RED ROBIN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers, Inc. ("Red Robin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RRGB)
between November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Red Robin,
Michael J. Snyder and James P. McCloskey ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements to
the market regarding the Company's business and prospects. In
particular, Defendants concealed improper self-dealing by the
Company's CEO.

On August 11, 2005, Red Robin announced that its second quarter
2005 financial results would be worse than expected due to
charges and financial adjustments and that its Chairman,
President and CEO had resigned after the Company conducted an
internal investigation into his personal use of Company assets.
In reaction to this news, shares of Red Robin fell dramatically,
from a close of $59.79 on August 11, 2005 to close at $45.55 on
August 12, 2005, a one-day decline of 23.8%.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


RED ROBIN: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers,
Inc. (NASDAQ: RRGB) common stock during the period between
November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Red Robin and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Red Robin, together with its subsidiaries, operates a
casual dining restaurant chain that serves gourmet burgers in
the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Red Robin's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by
concealing improper self dealing by the Company's CEO. This
caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $62.38 per share.
Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or
otherwise disposing of 320,000 shares of their Red Robin stock
then valued at more than $17 million. On August 11, 2005, Red
Robin reported that Q2 2005 results would be worse than
expectations due to charges and adjustments to various accounts
and that its Chairman, President and CEO had resigned in light
of an investigation into his personal use of Company assets. On
this news, Red Robin's stock collapsed to as low as $44.13 per
share before closing at $45.55 per share on volume of 9.8
million shares.

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

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls and
         corporate governance procedures to safeguard the
         Company from abuse by the CEO of his position at the
         Company;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth
         and profitability, the Company was actually on track
         for lower results than represented;

     (3) the Company lacked the necessary personnel to issue
         accurate financial reports and projections; and

     (4) as a result of (1)-(3) above, the Company's projections
         for fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Files NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL) between May 10, 2004 and August
1, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant Symbol and one or
more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL) securities during the period
between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Symbol and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Symbol engages in the design, development, manufacture,
and service of products and systems used in enterprise mobility
solutions.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements about the
Company's performance and future prospects. As alleged in the
Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, which were known, or recklessly
disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) that Symbol had inadequate and deficient internal and
         financial controls;

     (2) that Symbol's reported expenses were understated;

     (3) that Symbol had massive overcapacity, inefficient
         operations and obsolete assets;

     (4) that Symbol was experiencing declining demand for its
         products; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
         concerning the Company's financial prospects were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

As the market learned the true information about Symbol, the
inflation caused by Defendants' misrepresentations was removed
and the price of Symbol common stock fell by nearly 50% from its
Class Period high.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-
660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol" or the "Company") (NYSE:SBL)
between May 10, 2004 to August 1, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP is seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Symbol, William R. Nuti, and Mark T. Greenquist.

Symbol engages in the design, development, manufacture, and
service of products and systems used in enterprise mobility
solutions. Following major accounting scandals from 1998 to
2003, Symbol settled government and private litigation and, as
set forth in the complaint, promised a "new" Symbol
Technologies, one which in the two years prior to the start of
the Class Period had "implemented various initiatives intended
to materially improve its internal controls and procedures,
address the systems and personnel issues raised in the course of
the restatement and help ensure a corporate culture that
emphasizes integrity, honesty and accurate financial reporting.
These initiatives address Symbol's control environment,
organization, staffing, policies, procedures, documentation and
information systems."

Contrary to these reassurances, Symbol's internal controls and
financial systems were inaccurate. During the Class Period,
Symbol was required to: revise financial statements for the
first three quarters of 2004; revise financial projections for
much of fiscal 2005 by understating expenses requiring massive
charges against earnings; and acknowledge, finally, that its
financial and internal controls were defective and inadequate
for the purpose of any meaningful and accurate financial
projections when it replaced defendant Greenquist as chief
financial officer. In addition, Defendants failed to disclose
that demand for the Company's products was materially declining
such that its earnings guidance was lacking in a reasonable
basis and therefore materially false and misleading.

After the market learned the true information about Symbol, the
inflation caused by Defendants' misrepresentations was removed
and the price of Symbol common stock fell by nearly 50% from its
Class Period high.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Bradley P. Dyer of
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:
SBL) ("Symbol") between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all those who
acquired Symbol's shares through its acquisition of Matrics,
Inc.

The Complaint alleges that Symbol, and certain of its officers
and directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing
misleading public statements. Specifically, throughout the Class
Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements about the
Company's performance and future prospects. The complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts:

     (1) that Symbol had inadequate and deficient internal and
         financial controls;

     (2) that Symbol's reported expenses were understated;

     (3) that Symbol had massive overcapacity, inefficient
         operations and obsolete assets;

     (4) that Symbol was experiencing declining demand for its
         products; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
         concerning the Company's financial prospects were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more details, contact Justin S. Kudler, Wayne T. Boulton or
Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


                            *********


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 Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  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  * * *