CAR_Public/060310.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 10, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 50

                            Headlines

AT&T INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over U.S. Govt's Access to Records
AT&T INC: Faces Retiree Phone Concession Litigation in W.D. Tex.
BIG LOTS: Recalls Tea Light Candles Due to Fire, Burn Hazards
CENDANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Homestore Suit Dismissal
CENDANT CORPORATION: Settlement Talks Continue in ABI Litigation

DUN & BRADSTREET: Second Circuit Hears Appeal on Conn. Lawsuit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Wants Ill. "Finley" Case Transferred to N.J.
ELI LILLY: Facing Product Liability Lawsuits Over Zyprexa Drug
EL PASO: Tex. Court Orders Mediation in Shareholder Litigation
EL PASO: Paying $30M to Settle Oklahoma Lawsuits with Burlington

EL PASO: Fairhaven Natural Gas Commodities Suit Under Appeal
EL PASO: Awaits Ruling in "False Claims" Suit V. Midstream Units
FORD MOTOR: Faces State Lawsuits V. Crown Victoria Interceptors
FORD MOTOR: Faces Various State Lawsuits Over Explorer Rollovers
FORD MOTOR: Racial Discrimination Suit Settlement Trial Set May

FORD MOTOR: Trial in Illinois Consumer Fraud Suit Set Late 2006
FORD MOTOR: Trial in Oklahoma Hydroboost Brake Lawsuit Set 2007
ENRON CORPORATION: Securities Suit Certification Argued in Court
GAMBRO DASCO: Issues New Warning Over Renal Replacement Systems
GOOGLE INC: Settles Arkansas 'Click Fraud' Litigation for $90M

HONEYWELL INT'L: N.J. Court Approves ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
HANFORD PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Drug on Possible Health Risk
HANOVER DIRECT: Long Island Investor Files Suit Over Disposal
LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Md. State Lawsuits Over Cash Tender Offer
LAFARGE NORTH: Unit Faces Suit Over Faulty Concrete Foundations

LITTLE TIKES: Recalls Flashlights with Lead-Containing Paint
MANCO POWER: Recalls Go-Karts with Defective Control Mechanism
MPOWER HOLDING: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Violations Suit
NEW JERSEY: Counties Told to Refund Copy Fees Dating Back 1997
PFIZER INC: Celebrex, Bextra Suits Transferred to MDL in Calif.

PFIZER INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
PFIZER INC: Viagra Litigations Transferred to MDL in Minnesota
PFIZER INC: Lipitor Suits Dismissed, Another Pending in Canada
PFIZER INC: Stock, Fiduciary, ERISA Suits Moved to MDL in N.Y.
PENNSYLVANIA: Venango Seeks Dismissal of Tax Collectors' Suit

PPL CORPORATION: Court Admits River Group in Fly Ash Spill Suit
TRIBUNE CO: Court Dismisses Anti-trust Claims by Advertisers
UNITED STATES: Court Allays Spy Fears of 9/11 Detainees' Lawyers
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Told to Pay Students $33.8M in Damages

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chiquita Faces 6 Claims for Seamen's Injury
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire Reserves US$4.2M for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Intl, Units Bear Claims in 24 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Tags $516M for Defense Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Resolves 99,288 Pneumo Abex Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Spent US$16.8M in 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brunswick Named in Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Against Allegheny Energy Up to 935
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Awaits Court to Approve Quigley Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selective Insurance Deals With 2,089 Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Motor's Defense Costs Stabilize in `05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cinergy Subsidiaries Face 130 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp Mulls Further Compensation Acts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco's Claims Remain Stable at 200
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohm & Haas Braces for More Premises Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Washington Group Faces Third-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Reserves US$96.6M for A&E Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Steel Faces 401 Workplace-Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Says Costs to End Claims Immaterial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Notes $305.3M Gross Reserves in `05

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Corp. Units Named in Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Records 29,875 Claims in 4Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aviall Handles 4 Pending Liability Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves US$25.6M for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Water Battles 121 Suits in MS, NJ

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMETEK Claims to Receive No Adverse Rulings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenaris Resolves 20 of 21 Dalmine Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WW Grainger Identified by 1,300 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy's Suits Stem from Site Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Named in 300 Liability Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Suits in 22 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Tackles Multi-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star Steel Settles 22 of 47 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Texas Eastern Contends With Single Suit in LA
ASBESTOS ALERTS: Teledyne Wrongly Tied in Suits Because of Name

ASBESTOS ALERT: Anadarko Contends With 3rd-Party Liability Suits

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
GRAFTECH INT'L: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Del.
NVE CORPORATION: Seeger Weiss Files Stock Fraud Suit in Minn.
PROQUEST CO: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mich.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AT&T INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over U.S. Govt's Access to Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. and other companies face a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
over allegations that it and other firms allowed the U.S.
Government to access subscriber's telephone and Internet
records.

The suit is styled, "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc.
and Does 1-20."  Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of all
individuals in the U.S. that are current residential subscribers
or customers of defendants' telephone services or Internet
services, or that were residential telephone or Internet
subscribers or customers at any time after September 2001.  They
allege that the defendants provided and continue to provide the
U.S. Government with direct access to databases containing its
stored telephone and internet records, and have disclosed and
are currently disclosing to the U.S. Government records
concerning communications to which Plaintiffs and class members
were a party.

The suit seeks damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive
relief for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and other federal and
California statutes.  The complaint was not yet served on the
Defendants.


AT&T INC: Faces Retiree Phone Concession Litigation in W.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action
in relation to retiree phone concessions, which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

In May 2005, the suit, styled, "Stoffels v. SBC Communications,
Inc.," in which the plaintiffs, who are retirees of Pacific Bell
Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell, and Ameritech, contend
that the telephone concession provided by the Company is, in
essence, a "defined benefit plan" within the meaning of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of persons that are either
retirees of the former subsidiaries of SBC or a predecessor
thereof, who received the telephone concession benefit after
they retired or current or former employees of the former
subsidiaries of SBC with more than 5 years of service during the
time that they had a policy to provide employees with a
telephone concession benefit upon retirement.  They also seek
reformation of the out-of-region phone concession offered under
the post-employment benefits plan (the Plan) and the documents
governing it to comply with ERISA, an order requiring us to fund
the Plan as reformed, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary to administer the Plan, an order requiring the Plan to
pay benefits to plaintiffs and other class members consistent
with the terms of the plan and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to ERISA.

                         Trial Schedule

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim, which was denied by the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas on February 3, 2006.  The case is set for
trial on May 29, 2006.

The suit is styled, "Stoffels, et al v. SBC Communications, et
al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00233-WWJ," filed in the U.S District
Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge William
Wayne Justice.  Representing the plaintiff/s is Les Mendelsohn
of Les Mendelsohn & Associates, P.C., 110 Broadway, Suite 500,
San Antonio, TX 78205-1934, Phone: (210) 222-2271, Fax: 210/230-
8914.

Representing the defendant/s are, Bruce Allen Blefeld and John
L. Carter of Vinson & Elkins, Phone: (713) 758-3610 and
(713) 758-2124, Fax: (713) 615-5307.


BIG LOTS: Recalls Tea Light Candles Due to Fire, Burn Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Lots Stores Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, recalled 233,000 sets
of Harvest Brand Tea Light Candles.

The company said the recalled candles can burn with a high flame
and melt the plastic holders.  This poses a fire and a burn
hazard to consumers.  Big Lots and CPSC have received four
reports of incidents, three involve minor property damage.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled red tea light candles are apple scented and have
the brand name "Harvest" on the front packaging.  Item number
A5023 is written on the bottom of the packaging.  The candles
were sold in sets of six candles per package.  The tea light
candles measure 1-inches wide by 3/4-inch high.  Each of the
candles comes in a plastic holder.

The products were made in China and sold in Big Lots stores
exclusively nationwide from July 2005 through October 2005 for
about $1.

Consumers are advised to stop using the tea light candles
immediately and return them to the nearest Big Lots store for a
full refund.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06101.jpg

Consumer Contact: Big Lots, Phone: (800) 244-5687 (8 a.m. and 6
p.m. ET Monday through Friday); Web site: http://www.biglots.com


CENDANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Homestore Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
recently heard plaintiff's appeal regarding its decision to
dismiss a complaint filed against Cendant Corp. and Richard A.
Smith, one of the Company's officers, and others.

On November 15, 2002, the Company and Mr. Smith were added as
defendants in a purported class action, styled, "In Re
Homestore.com Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-11115 (MJP).
The 26 other defendants in the action included Homestore.com,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and its auditors.
Such an action was filed on behalf of persons who purchased
stock of Homestore.com (an Internet-based provider of
residential real estate listings) between January 1, 2000 and
December 21, 2001.

The complaint in this action alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on purported
misconduct in connection with the accounting of certain revenues
in financial statements published by Homestore during the class
period.

On March 7, 2003, the court granted our motion to dismiss lead
plaintiff's claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted and dismissed the complaint, as against the
Company and Mr. Smith, with prejudice.  On March 8, 2004, the
court entered final judgment, thus allowing for an appeal to be
made regarding its decision dismissing the complaint against the
Company, Mr. Smith and others.  Oral argument of the appeal took
place on February 6, 2006.

The suit is styled, "T. Jeffrey Simpson, et al. v.
Homestore.Com, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-11115-RSWL-CW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew with referral to Judge
Carla M. Woehrle.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Bruce L. Simon of Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy, San
         Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Rd., Ste.
         200, Burlingame, CA 94010, Phone: 650-697-6000, E-mail:
         bsimon@cpsmlaw.com;

     (2) Gary S. Soter of Wasserman Comden Casselman & Pearson,
         5567 Reseda Blvd., Ste. 330, P.O. Box 7033, Tarzana, CA
         91357-7033, Phone: 818-705-6800; and

     (3) Tracey L. Worthington of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
         Grossmann, 12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 150, San Diego,
         CA 92130, Phone: 858-793-0070.

Representing the defendant/s are, Jeffrey H. Dasteel, Samuel
Kader and Stephen P Warren of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
Phone: 213-687-5000 and 212-735-3000.


CENDANT CORPORATION: Settlement Talks Continue in ABI Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties involved in purported class actions filed against
Cendant Corporation over its cash tender offer for American
Bankers Insurance Group, Inc.'s (ABI) outstanding shares, are
currently engaged in talks to settle the matter.

In October and November of 1998, respectively, two class action
were initially filed:

     (1) "Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., et al., Civ. Action No.
          98-5384 (D.N.J.), and

     (2) "P. Schoenfield Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp.,
         et al., Civ. Action No. 98-4734 (D.N.J.)"

The suits (ABI Actions) were brought on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased securities of ABI between January
27, 1998 and October 13, 1998.  Named as defendants are the
Company, four former CUC officers and directors and Ernst &
Young.

The complaints in the ABI actions, as amended on February 8,
1999, assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(e) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shares of ABI common stock at prices artificially inflated by
the accounting irregularities after the Company announced a cash
tender offer for 51% of ABI's outstanding shares of common stock
in January 1998.  Plaintiffs also allege that after the
disclosure of the accounting irregularities, the Company
misstated our intention to complete the tender offer and a
second step merger pursuant to which the remaining shares of ABI
stock were to be acquired by the Company.  Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, unspecified compensatory damages.

On April 30, 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the complaints on motions of the
defendants.  In an opinion dated August 10, 2000, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's
judgment and remanded the ABI Actions for further proceedings.
On December 15, 2000, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
those claims based on ABI purchases after April 15, 1998, and
the District Court granted this motion on May 7, 2001.  The
plaintiffs subsequently moved for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint to re-allege claims based on ABI purchases between
April 16, 1998 and October 13, 1998.  That motion was denied on
August 15, 2002.

On January 27, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Company is engaged in settlement discussions
related to this matter.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Second Circuit Hears Appeal on Conn. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently heard
oral arguments on plaintiff's appeal on a ruling in the case
"McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-
00431-SRU."

The appeal is against the U.S. District Court of the District of
Connecticut's ruling that granted the motion to dismiss, the
motion for summary judgment, and the denial of leave to amend
their amended complaint in the case.

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the company in federal court in Connecticut on behalf of
46 specified former employees relating to the company's
retirement plans.  As noted below, during the fourth quarter of
2004, most of the counts in the complaint were dismissed.

The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth these
putative classes:

     (1) Current D & B employees who are participants in The Dun
         & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) Current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         Previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) Former employees of D & B or D & B's Receivable
         Management Services (RMS) operations who received a
         deferred vested retirement benefit under either The Dun
         & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun
         & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (4) Former employees of D & B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D & B was terminated after the sale of
         the RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC
         and who, during their employment with D & B, were
         Eligible Employees for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet
         Career Transition Plan.

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint.  Count 1 claims that the Company violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not paying
severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career Transition
Plan.  Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the firm's
sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination
of employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the
plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the
intentional purpose of interfering with their employment and/or
attainment of employee benefit rights, which they might
otherwise have attained.

Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the
company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a
summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and
beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans
and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case,
the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave D &
B before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be enforced
against them.  Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the
rate is actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early
retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a
prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought:

     (1) payment of severance benefits;

     (2) equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
         employment with D & B or restoration of employee
         benefits (including stock options);

     (3) invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to
         deferred vested early retirement benefits, including
         invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% (the actual rate
         is 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce former employees'
         early retirement benefits;

     (4) attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may
         deem just.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.  In September
2003, the firm filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of
the Amended Complaint on the ground that plaintiffs cannot
prevail on those claims under any set of facts, and in February
2004, the Court heard oral argument on the motion.   With
respect to Count 4, the court requested that the parties conduct
limited expert discovery and submit further briefing.

In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count
4, the Company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the
ground that an interest rate of 6.75% is reasonable as a matter
of law.  On November 30, 2004, the Court issued a ruling
granting the motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3.  Shortly after
that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to dismiss with
prejudice Count 2 (which challenged the sale of the RMS business
as an intentional interference with employee benefit rights, but
which the motion to dismiss did not address).

Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal with
prejudice of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to
forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim.
Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs
and to amend the Amended Complaint to add a new count
challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality
tables.  The Court granted the motion and the Company filed its
objections.

On June 6, 2005, the Court granted D & B's motion for summary
judgment as to Count 4 (the interest rate issue) and also denied
the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Amended Complaint to
add a new claim challenging the mortality tables.  On July 8,
2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal; they are
appealing the ruling granting the motion to dismiss, the ruling
granting summary judgment, and the denial of leave to amend
their Amended Complaint.  Oral Argument before the Second
Circuit took place on February 15, 2006.  A decision is expected
within six weeks.

The suit was styled, "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet, et
al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the U.S District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R.
Underhill.  Representing the plaintiff/s are, Thomas G.
Moukawsher and Ian O. Smith of Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd.,
Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
860-278-7000, Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail: ismith@mwlawgroup.com
and tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Sandra K. Lalli, Patrick W.
Shea and Carla R. Walworth of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
- CT, 1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901,
Phone: 203-961-7400 and 203-961-7465, Fax: 203-359-3031, E-mail:
sandralalli@paulhastings.com, patrickshea@paulhastings.com and
carlawalworth@paulhastings.com.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Wants Ill. "Finley" Case Transferred to N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to have the case, captioned,
"Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
05134," transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, was filed in
September 7, 2005, against the Company in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a current employee
relating to our retirement plans.  The complaint seeks
certification of these putative classes:

     (1) Current or former D & B employees (other than employees
         who on December 31, 2001, were at least age 50 with 10
         years of vesting service;

     (2) had attained an age which, when added to his or her
         years of vesting service, was equal to or greater than
         70; or

     (3) had attained age 65), who participated in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before January 1,
         2002 and who have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet
         Corporation Retirement Account at any time since
         January 1, 2002.

The Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over
1,000 individuals.  There are five counts in the Complaint.
Count 1 claims that the Company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) by reducing the rate of an
employee's benefit accrual on the basis of age.  Count 2 claims
a violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability requirement, because
the plan allegedly conditions receipt of cash balance benefits
on foregoing the early retirement benefits plaintiff earned
prior to the adoption of the cash balance amendment.  Count 3
claims that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's "anti-
backloading" rule.  Count 4 claims that D & B failed to supply
advance notice of a significant benefit decrease.  Count 5
claims that D & B failed to provide an adequate Summary Plan
Description.

In the Complaint, the plaintiff seeks:

     (1) a declaration that D& B's cash balance plan is
         ineffective and that the D & B Master Retirement Plan
         is still in force and effect, and plaintiff's benefit
         accrual under the cash balance plan must be
         unconditional and not reduced because of age,

     (2) an injunction prohibiting the application of the cash
         balance plan's reduction in the rate of benefit
         accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits
         due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable
         relief to determine plan participant losses caused by
         D & B's payment of benefits under the cash balance
         plan's terms and requiring the payment of additional
         benefits as appropriate,

     (3) attorneys' fees and costs,

     (4) interest, and

     (5) such other relief as the court may deem just.

A Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of New Jersey was
filed on January 27, 2006.  A decision is expected by the end of
March 2006.

The suit is styled, "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-05134," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Paul E. Plunkett.
Representing the plaintiff/s are, Paul William Mollica, Johanna
J. Raimond and Thomas R. Meites of Meites, Mulder, Burger &
Mollica, Phone: (312) 263-0272, Fax: (312) 263-2942, E-mail:
pwmollica@mmbmlaw.com, jraimond@mmbmlaw.com and
tmeites@mmbmlaw.com; and Thomas G. Moukawsher of Moukawasher &
Walsh, 21 Oak Street, Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
(860) 278-7000, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Michael P. Roche of Winston &
Strawn, 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601,
Phone: (312) 558-5600, E-mail: mroche@winston.com; and Patrick
W. Shea of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, 1055 Washington
Boulevard, 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone: (203) 961-7400,
E-mail: patrickshea@paulhastings.com.


ELI LILLY: Facing Product Liability Lawsuits Over Zyprexa Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. is working to settle litigation filed against
it, alleging a variety of injuries from the use of Zyprexa.

The Company was named as a defendant in approximately 230
product liability cases in the U.S. involving approximately 375
claimants.  Most of the cases allege that the product caused or
contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels.  The
lawsuits seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages and
typically accuse the company of inadequately testing for and
warning about side effects of Zyprexa.  Many of the lawsuits
also allege that the Company improperly promoted the drug.
Almost all of the federal cases, involving approximately 345
claimants, are part of a Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
proceeding before The Honorable Jack Weinstein in the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In addition, the company has entered into agreements with
various plaintiffs' counsel halting the running of the statutes
of limitation (tolling agreements) with respect to more than
5,875 individuals who do not have lawsuits on file and may or
may not eventually file suits.

Two cases requesting certification of nationwide class actions
on behalf of those who allegedly suffered injuries from the
administration of Zyprexa were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on April 16, 2004, and May
19, 2004, respectively.  Both cases sought damages for alleged
personal injuries and compensation for medical monitoring of
individuals who have taken Zyprexa.  The personal injury claims
in both of these lawsuits have been dismissed pursuant to
agreement of the parties.

A lawsuit was filed on May 4, 2004 that requests a personal
injury class action on behalf of Iowa residents who took
Zyprexa, and that case is pending before Judge Weinstein.  In
June 2005, another lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
New York purporting to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all consumers and third party payors, excluding governmental
entities, who have made or will make payments on account of
their members or insureds being prescribed Zyprexa.

The suit seeks a refund of the cost of Zyprexa; medical expenses
paid and to be paid as a result of persons taking Zyprexa;
treble damages under certain state consumer protection statutes;
punitive damages; and attorney fees.  In addition, in 2006 a
similar lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of New York on
similar grounds.  As with the product liability suits, these
lawsuits allege that the Company inadequately tested for and
warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the
drug.

In June 2005, the Company announced that it entered into an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs' attorneys involved in
the U.S. Zyprexa product liability litigation to settle a
majority of the claims against the Company relating to the
medication.  The parties are negotiating a final settlement
agreement.  When finalized, the settlement will resolve the
majority of Zyprexa claims pending in the U.S.  This includes:

     (1) a large number of the previously filed federal and
         state lawsuits;

     (2) the two nationwide medical monitoring class actions
         pending in the Eastern District of New York (neither of
         which has been certified by a judge); and

     (30 the majority of the claims subject to tolling
         agreements, as well as a large number of other
         potential claims.

At this time, the exact number of claimants that will be covered
by this settlement is unknown, but is estimated to be about
8,000, which represents approximately 75 percent of claims
identified to the Company to date, the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
agreement in principle provides us an option to renegotiate or
terminate the settlement if we do not receive full releases from
a specified number of the covered claimants.

According to the agreement, the Company will establish a fund of
$690 million for the claimants who agree to settle their claims.
Additionally, $10 million will be paid to cover administration
of the settlement.  The settlement fund will be overseen and
distributed by claims administrators appointed by the court.
The settlement covers claimants who asserted that they developed
diabetes-related conditions from their use of Zyprexa.
Claimants who are not covered by the final settlement are those
represented by attorneys who are not participating in the
agreement in principle.

In December 2004, the Company was served with two lawsuits
brought in state court in Louisiana on behalf of the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals, alleging that Zyprexa caused
or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels, and
that the Company improperly promoted the drug.  These cases were
removed to federal court and are now part of the MDL proceedings
in the Eastern District of New York.  In these actions, the
Department of Health and Hospitals seeks to recover the costs it
paid for Zyprexa through Medicaid and other drug-benefit
programs, as well as the costs the department alleges it has
incurred and will incur to treat Zyprexa-related illnesses.

In early 2005, the Company was served with five lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa. The allegations in these suits are similar to those in
the litigation pending in the U.S.


EL PASO: Tex. Court Orders Mediation in Shareholder Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Formal discovery in the consolidated lawsuit pending against
Houston, Texas-based El Paso Corp. since 2002 is currently
stayed.  The Court has ordered the parties to mediate this case
in April 2006.

The 28 purported shareholder class actions are consolidated in
federal court in Houston, Texas.  The lawsuit alleges violations
of federal securities laws against the company and several of
its current and former officers and directors.  It includes
allegations regarding the accuracy or completeness of press
releases and other public statements made by the firm during the
class period from 2000 through early 2004 related to alleged
wash trades, mark-to-market accounting, off-balance sheet debt,
the overstatement of natural gas and oil reserves and
manipulation of the California energy market.

A previous issue of Class Action Reporter (Nov. 22, 2005) states
that the purported shareholder class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, are:

     (1) Marvin Goldfarb, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         July 18, 2002;

     (2) Residuary Estate Mollie Nussbacher, Adele Brody Life
         Tenant, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise, and
         H. Brent Austin, filed July 25, 2002;

     (3) George S. Johnson, et al v. El Paso Corporation,
         William Wise, and H. Brent Austin, filed July 29, 2002;

     (4) Renneck Wilson, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 1, 2002;

     (5) Sandra Joan Malin Revocable Trust, et al v. El Paso
         Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney
         D. Erskine, filed August 1, 2002;

     (6) Lee S. Shalov, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 15, 2002;

     (7) Paul C. Scott, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 22, 2002;

     (8) Brenda Greenblatt, et al v. El Paso Corporation,
         William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine,
         filed August 23, 2002;

     (9) Stefanie Beck, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, and H. Brent Austin, filed August 23, 2002;

    (10) J. Wayne Knowles, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         September 13, 2002;

    (11) The Ezra Charitable Trust, et al v. El Paso
         Corporation, William Wise, Rodney D. Erskine and H.
         Brent Austin, filed October 4, 2002.

The purported shareholder class actions relating to the
Company's reserve restatement filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, which have
now been consolidated with the above referenced purported
shareholder class actions, are:

     (i) James Felton v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

    (ii) Sinclair Haberman v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., and William Wise;

   (iii) Patrick Hinner v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

    (iv) Stanley Peltz v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

     (v) Yolanda Cifarelli v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

    (vi) Andrew W. Albstein v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise;

   (vii) George S. Johnson v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, and D. Dwight Scott;

  (viii) Robert Corwin v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland,
         Brent Austin; Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and
         William Wise;

    (ix) Michael Copland v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

     (x) Leslie Turbowitz v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland,
         Brent Austin, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and
         William Wise;

    (xi) David Sadek v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott;

   (xii) Stanley Sved v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         and William Wise;

  (xiii) Nancy Gougler v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

   (xiv) William Sinnreich v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

    (xv) Joseph Fisher v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

   (xvi) Glickenhaus & Co. v. El Paso Corporation, Rod Erskine,
         Ronald Kuehn, Jr., Brent Austin, William Wise, Douglas
         Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

  (xvii) Haberman v. El Paso Corporation et al and Thompson v.
         El Paso Corporation et al.

The purported shareholder action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York is styled "IRA
F.B.O. Michael Conner et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
Wise, H. Brent Austin, Jeffrey Beason, Ralph Eads, D. Dwight
Scott, Credit Suisse First Boston, J.P. Morgan Securities, filed
October 25, 2002.


EL PASO: Paying $30M to Settle Oklahoma Lawsuits with Burlington
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. is named defendant, along with Burlington
Resources, Inc., in two class actions styled as:

     (1) Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural
         Gas Company, et al., and

     (20 Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., et
         al.

each filed in 1997 in the District Court of Washita County,
State of Oklahoma and subsequently consolidated by the court.
The consolidated class action has been settled pursuant to a
settlement agreement executed in January 2006.  A third action,
styled, "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas and
Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company," was filed in October
2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma asserting
similar claims as to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas
and New Mexico.  All the claims in this action have also been
settled as part of the January 2006 settlement.  The settlement
of all these claims is subject to court approval, after a
fairness hearing anticipated in the spring of 2006.

The Company filed an action styled "El Paso Natural Gas Company
v. Burlington Resources, Inc. and Burlington Resources Oil and
Gas Company, L.P." against Burlington in state court in Harris
County, Texas relating to indemnity issues between Burlington
and us.

That action was stayed by agreement of the parties and settled
in November 2005, subject to the underlying class settlements
being finalized and approved by the court.  Upon final court
approval of these settlements, our contribution will be
approximately $30 million, which has been accrued as of December
31, 2005.


EL PASO: Fairhaven Natural Gas Commodities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in August 2003, several lawsuits have been filed
against El Paso and El Paso Marketing L.P. (EPM), formerly El
Paso Merchant Energy L.P., our affiliate.

Plaintiffs in the suit alleged, in part, that El Paso, EPM and
other energy companies conspired to manipulate the price of
natural gas by providing false price information to industry
trade publications that published gas indices.  The first set of
cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York which included:

     (1) Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant Energy
         Services Inc., et al.;

     (2) Roberto E. Calle Gracey v. American Electric Power
         Company, Inc., et al.; and

     (3) Dominick Viola v. Reliant Energy Services Inc., et al.

In December 2003, those cases were consolidated with others into
a single master file in federal court in New York for all pre-
trial purposes.  The consolidated cases are styled, "in re: Gas
Commodity Litigation."

In September 2004, El Paso Corporation was dismissed from the
master case.  In September 2005, the court certified the class
to include all persons who purchased or sold NYMEX natural gas
futures between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2002.  EPM and
the remaining defendants have petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the
class certification order.

The second set of cases involves similar allegations on behalf
of commercial and residential customers.  These cases were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, which include:

     (1) "Texas Ohio Energy, Inc. v. CenterPoint Energy, Inc. et
         al." (filed in November 2003),

     (2) "Fairhaven Power v. El Paso Corporation et al." (filed
         in September 2004),

     (3) "Utility Savings and Refund Services, et al. v. Reliant
         Energy, et al." (filed in December 2004), and

     (4) "Abelman Art Glass, et al. v. Encana Corporation, et
         al." (filed in December 2004).

Each of these cases was transferred to a multidistrict
litigation proceeding (MDL), "In re Western States Wholesale
Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation", pending in the U.S. District
Court for Nevada.  These cases have been dismissed and have been
appealed.

The third set of cases also involves similar allegations on
behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas.  These include a
purported class action styled:

     (1) "Leggett et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation et al."
         (filed in Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005),

     (2) "Ever-Bloom Inc. v. AEP Energy Services Inc. et
         al." filed in June 2005),

     (3) "Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in
         state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in July 2005)
         and the purported class action Learjet, Inc. v.
         Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in Wyandotte County,
         Kansas in September 2005).

All four actions have been transferred to the MDL proceeding in
Federal District Court in Nevada.  Similar motions to dismiss
have either been filed, or are anticipated to be filed, in these
cases as well.


EL PASO: Awaits Ruling in "False Claims" Suit V. Midstream Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. expect plaintiff in the "False Claims" class
action to appeal should a district court adopt a recommendation
made by the court's representative in a May 2005 ruling.

In 1997, a number of our subsidiaries were named defendants in
actions brought by Jack Grynberg on behalf of the U.S.
Government under the False Claims Act.  Generally, these
complaints allege an industry-wide conspiracy to underreport the
heating value as well as the volumes of the natural gas produced
from federal and Native American lands, which deprived the U.S.
Government of royalties due to the alleged mismeasurement.  The
plaintiff seeks royalties along with interest, expenses, and
punitive damages.  The plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief
with regard to future gas measurement practices.  No monetary
relief has been specified in this case.

These matters have been consolidated for pretrial purposes "In
re: Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation," U.S. District
Court for the District of Wyoming, filed June 1997).  Motions to
dismiss were argued before a representative appointed by the
court.  In May 2005, the representative issued its
recommendation, which if adopted by the district court judge,
will result in the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of six of
the seven "Qui Tam" actions filed by Grynberg against El
Paso subsidiaries.  The seventh case involves only a few
midstream entities owned by El Paso, which have meritorious
defenses to the underlying claims.

If the district court judge adopts the representative's
recommendations, an appeal by the plaintiff of the district
court's order is likely.

The case is styled "Grynberg v. El Paso Natural Gas, et al.
(1:99-md-01609-WFD)" filed in the U.S. District of Wyoming under
Judge William F. Downes.  Representing the defendant(s) are:
David G. Palmer of Fognani Guibord Homey & Roberts, 555 17th
Street, 26th Floor, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303/382-6200; Fax:
382-6210; and Craig V. Richardson of Fognani Guibord Homey &
Roberts, 555 17th Street, 26th Floor, Denver, CO 80202, Phone:
303/382-6200; Fax: 382-6210.  Representing the plaintiff(s) is:
Kenton L Robinson of Grynberg Petroleum Company, 5299 DTC Blvd,
Suite 500, Greenwood Village, CO 80111-3321, Phone:
303/850-7490; Fax: 850-7498.


FORD MOTOR: Faces State Lawsuits V. Crown Victoria Interceptors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. continues to face various state class actions
filed over its Crown Victoria Police Interceptor cars, alleging
that the vehicles are defective in that fires can occur when the
vehicles are struck in the rear at high speed.

State courts in Illinois, Florida and Louisiana have certified
statewide classes of state and local governments that purchased
or leased Crown Victoria Police Interceptors.  The complaints
seek modifications to the fuel systems and other relief,
including punitive damages.

Trial in the Illinois case, styled, "St. Clair County v. Ford
Motor Company," in 2004 resulted in a defense verdict on all
counts submitted to the jury, from which plaintiffs have
appealed; three counts remain pending for decision by the judge.

The Company's appeal from the class certification order in
Louisiana is pending.  A class certification order granted in
Florida in 2004 was reversed on appeal in April 2005.

There are also 16 purported statewide class actions pending in
several states, which claim to represent state and local
governments that purchased or leased Crown Victoria Police
Interceptors, as well as seven purported class actions relating
to non-police Crown Victoria vehicles.  These suits raise
allegations similar to those raised in "St. Clair County," and
seek similar relief.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Various State Lawsuits Over Explorer Rollovers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. continues to face several state court class
actions on behalf of purchasers and lessees of 1990-2001 Ford
Explorers equipped with Firestone ATX or Wilderness Tires, over
alleged rollover accidents with the sport utility vehicles.

On of these suits is styled, "Rowan v. Ford Motor Company,"
wherein a state court in Illinois certified a statewide class of
purchasers and lessees of 1991-2001 Ford Explorers equipped with
Firestone ATX or Wilderness tires who have not experienced any
problems with either the tires or the vehicles.  The complaint
alleges that Explorers are unstable and that the Firestone tires
are defective.  Plaintiffs claim that the value of the vehicles
was diminished, because of the alleged defects and seek
unspecified actual and compensatory damages and other relief.
Trial is anticipated in late 2006 or 2007.

Another suit is, "Gray v. Ford Motor Company and four
coordinated cases," wherein a state court in California
certified a statewide class of purchasers and lessees of 1990-
2000 Ford Explorers.  The complaint alleges that Explorers are
unstable and that the Company concealed information about them.
Plaintiffs seek relief similar to that sought in Rowan.  Trial
is scheduled for late 2006.

Additionally, there are also 16 purported statewide class
actions pending in several states, raising allegations similar
to those raised in Rowan and in Gray, and seeking similar
relief.  Bridgestone-Firestone, Inc. ("Firestone") was a co-
defendant in most of these cases, but settled all claims against
it in these cases (including "Rowan").

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Firestone would
implement manufacturing improvements and fund a consumer
awareness program relating to tire use and maintenance.
Firestone's settlement would also require plaintiffs to dismiss
all class action claims against the Company that are based on
alleged defects in the tires.  A Texas trial court has approved
the Firestone settlement, but that ruling is currently on appeal
to the Texas Court of Appeals.  If the Firestone settlement is
approved on appeal, the only remaining claims against the
Company in "Rowan" and the purported class actions would be
allegations based on the Explorer's alleged rollover propensity.


FORD MOTOR: Racial Discrimination Suit Settlement Trial Set May
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval for the settlement in the suit styled, "Jones v.
Ford Motor Credit Company, Case No. 00 Civ. 8330," is slated for
May 31, 2006.

The class action, which is pending in Federal Court in New York,
allege that the Company's pricing practices discriminate against
African-Americans.  In the fourth quarter of 2005, the Company
and the plaintiffs submitted a proposed settlement agreement to
the court.  The court has preliminarily approved the settlement,
which resulted in a projected May 31, 2006 a fairness hearing.

The suit is styled, "Jones, et al. v. Ford Motor Credit, Case
No. 1:00-cv-08330-PAC-KNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Paul A. Crotty
with referral to Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are, Seth Richard Lesser of Locks Law Firm, PLLC,
110 East 55th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-3333,
Fax: 212-838-3735, E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com; and Samera
Syeda Ludwig of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.,
1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 554-1400.

Representing the defendant/s are, Thomas M. Byrne of Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan, LLP, 999 Peachtreet Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA
30309-3996, Phone: (404) 853-8000; and Rachel S. Janger of
O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 326-2000.


FORD MOTOR: Trial in Illinois Consumer Fraud Suit Set Late 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Ford Motor Co. on behalf
of owners of 1989-1996 model year vehicles that have experienced
paint peeling is scheduled for late 2006 in Madison County
Circuit court in Illinois.

The court certified a nationwide class of owners.  Plaintiffs
contend that their paint is defective in two respects.  First,
they allege that, because the Company did not use spray primer
between the high-build electro coat (HBEC) and the color coat in
some models, the color coat lost adhesion to the HBEC after
extended exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight.
Second, they allege that the clearcoat on some models
deteriorated prematurely.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages (in an amount
to cover the cost of repainting their vehicles and to compensate
for alleged diminution in value), punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and interest.  Trial is scheduled for late 2006.


FORD MOTOR: Trial in Oklahoma Hydroboost Brake Lawsuit Set 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Ford Motor Co. over its
sport utility vehicles with hydroboost hydraulic braking systems
is slated for 2007.

The suit was initially filed in Oklahoma state court.  The court
later certified a nationwide class of all purchasers of
1999-2002 F-250, F-350, F-450, and F-550 Ford Super Duty Trucks
and 2002 Excursions with hydroboost hydraulic braking systems.
The complaint alleges that these trucks are unsafe because they
suffer diminished power assist to the steering when the driver
is simultaneously braking and steering.  The complaint alleges
breach of warranty and fraud, and seeks the cost of retrofitting
the trucks to eliminate the alleged danger, compensation for
diminished resale value, and other amounts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
investigated a similar issue and closed the investigation,
finding that "diminished steering assist while braking is
present" in these trucks, but that the "associated injury and
property damage incidents are so rare that they do not present a
risk to vehicle safety."  Trial is scheduled for 2007.


ENRON CORPORATION: Securities Suit Certification Argued in Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank, one of the banks that has not settled in the
Enron Corp. class action, moved in a certification hearing on
Tuesday to exclude from the class the holders of Enron debt it
underwrote in overseas markets.

The bank said the debt was not traded in an "efficient market."
That's one of the conditions for any securities holder to have
their claims included in a class action, according to Chron.com.

Enron shareholders are suing the company to recover losses
estimated at more than $40 billion when the firm's stock fell in
late 2000 before it filed for bankruptcy.  The trial is set in
October, but many defendants have chosen to settle.

Recently, U.S. District Judge Melinda Hammon preliminarily
approved a $6.7 billion settlement by three banks accused of
helping bankrupt Enron Corporation defraud shareholders,
according to Reuters (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).
Under the settlement Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce will pay
$2.4 billion, JP Morgan Chase will pay $2.2 billion, and
Citigroup will pay $2.0 billion.

The $6.7 billion settlement includes interest accrued since
those proposed settlements were first announced last year, he
said.  It will bring the amount due for distribution to
shareholders to $7.2 billion after settlements with Lehman
Brothers, and Bank of America.  Plaintiffs in the case are led
by the University of California.  Lead attorney is Bill Lerach.

The suit is styled "In Re: Enron Corp Securitie, et al. v. , et
al. (4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.
Representing the defendant are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and
William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,
Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


GAMBRO DASCO: Issues New Warning Over Renal Replacement Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
The FDA updates its Preliminary Public Health Notification on
the safety of the Prisma continuous renal replacement system.

In August 2005, Gambro Dasco S.p.A notified healthcare
professionals and consumers of a safety alert for the Prisma
continuous renal replacement system (all catalog numbers).
Gambro Dasco said it had become aware of several serious
injuries and deaths resulting from excessive ultrafiltration
(fluid being removed from the patient's body).  This problem can
occur when the user does not address the cause of the "Incorrect
Weight Change Detected" alarm.  This alarm should never be
overridden without first identifying and removing the cause of
the alarm.  The device remains appropriate for use when these
directions are followed.


GOOGLE INC: Settles Arkansas 'Click Fraud' Litigation for $90M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Online search engine Google Inc. agreed to pay $90 million,
including lawyers' fees, to settle a 'click fraud' suit filed
against it by advertisers, Associated Press reports.

The suit was initially filed by Texarkana gift shop, Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles.  On Feb. 4, 2005, John C. Goodson and
Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg filed a suit against Google, Yahoo!
Inc., Overture Services Inc., America Online Inc., Ask Jeeves
Inc., Looksmart Ltd., Lycos Inc., Netscape Communication Corp.,
Buena Vista Internet Group, Findwhat.Com Inc. and Time Warner
Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 16, 2005).

The suit, which was filed in Arkansas state court, alleged that
Google overcharged thousands of advertisers for bogus sales
referrals through the "click fraud" strategy.  The scheme
involves sending fraudulent clicks to advertisers, effectively
increasing their accounts.

Under the settlement, eligible advertisers in Google's network
during the past four years will be granted an account credit
that could be used toward future ads distributed by Google.


HONEYWELL INT'L: N.J. Court Approves ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved
the settlement for a class action filed against Honeywell
International, Inc. and several of its current and former
officers and directors.

The complaint principally alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to participants in the Honeywell Savings
and Ownership Plan by purportedly making false and misleading
statements, failing to disclose material information concerning
Honeywell's financial performance, and failing to diversify the
Savings Plan's s assets and monitor the prudence of Honeywell
stock as a Savings Plan investment.

In September 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle this matter for $14 million plus an agreement to
permit Savings Plan participants greater diversification rights.
The Company's insurers will pay the settlement in full.  The
Court approved the settlement in July 2005.

The suit is styled, "In re Honeywell International ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 03-1214," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dickinson R.
Debevoise with referral to Judge Susan D. Wigenton.
Representing the plaintiff/s is LISA J. Rodriguez Of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant/s is john j. Francis, Jr. of Drinker
Biddle & Reath, 500 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047,
Phone: (973) 360-1100, E-mail: john.francis@dbr.com.


HANFORD PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Drug on Possible Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hanford Pharmaceuticals Inc. is recalling four lots (379,975
vials) of Cefazolin for Injection, USP, 1 g/10 mL vials, an
antibiotic used in a hospital environment.

Certain lots of the active ingredient used to manufacture the
product have been shown to contain microbial contamination
(Bacillus pumilus, Staphylococcus hominis, Propionibacterium
acnes, or Micrococcus luteus) which may pose a serious or life-
threatening risk for some patients.  Cefazolin for Injection,
USP is used to treat skin and skin structure, respiratory and
other infections.

The firm is notifying its customers and users of the recall by
letter, and asking that they stop distribution, recall from
their accounts, and request the return of the recalled lots.
Hospitals, clinics, and users should stop using the affected
lots immediately.  The letter advises that the product was
distributed by Sandoz, Inc. of Broomfield, Colorado and Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Corona, California.  Those who have
purchased the product are advised to check the lot numbers on
the product label and promptly return any with these lot
numbers:  Sandoz product - C4650, C4537; Watson product - C4689,
C4665.

Patients who feel that they may have experienced an adverse
reaction to recalled product should seek medical help.  Patients
or users may contact the firm at (315) 476-7418.  To date, the
firm has not received any confirmed reports of adverse events or
complaints related to the recalled lots.

Any adverse reactions or problems experienced with the use of
this product should also be reported to the FDA MedWatch Program
by completing a form online on the MedWatch at
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm,Phone: 1-800-FDA-1088;
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178; MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20852-9787.


HANOVER DIRECT: Long Island Investor Files Suit Over Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholders in direct-mail retailer Hanover Direct are
suing the Weehawken company over its planned privatization,
according to Multichannel Merchant.

Glenn Freedman, a Long Island businessman, and his company,
L.I.S.T. Inc. of Lake Success, N.Y. filed the suit in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County against:

     (1) Hanover Direct;

     (2) Chelsey Direct;

     (3) Stuart Feldman;

     (4) William B. Wachtel;

     (5) Wayne B. Garten;

     (6) Paul S. Goodman;

     (7) Donald Hecht;

     (8) David Brown; and

     (9) Robert Masson.

The plaintiffs' attorney is Patricia Weiser.  The suit alleged
the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Hanover
shareholders and seeks class certification, an injunction of the
going private transaction, rescission and rescissory damages if
the transaction goes forward, and unspecified damages and costs.
The suit was filed after Hanover announced on Feb. 27 a proposal
from its largest shareholder, Chelsey Direct, to acquire the
company for $1.25 a share.  The price is less than fair value,
the shareholders argue.

Hanover Direct -- http://www.hanoverdirect.com/-- is a direct
marketer of vertically integrated general merchandise brands,
and provider of consumer intimate e-commerce services.


LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Md. State Lawsuits Over Cash Tender Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge North America, which is part of the Lafarge Group and
headed by Lafarge S.A., faces purported class actions in
Maryland state court over a planned cash tender offer.

On February 6, 2006 and later dates, multiple class actions were
filed in the Circuit Courts for Baltimore City and Montgomery
County Maryland against the Company, its directors and Lafarge
S.A. in response to Lafarge S.A.'s February 6, 2006 announcement
that it intends to launch a cash tender offer for the
outstanding minority stake in the Company that Lafarge S.A. does
not own.

Generally, these suits allege defendants breached their
fiduciary and other duties in connection with the proposed offer
and seek to enjoin the proposed offer, on the grounds that
Lafarge S.A.'s proposed price is inadequate.


LAFARGE NORTH: Unit Faces Suit Over Faulty Concrete Foundations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge North America's Canadian subsidiary, Lafarge Canada Inc.
(LCI), is a defendant in a 1999 class action relating to
defective concrete foundations, in which the remaining
plaintiffs are owners of approximately 172 properties, mostly
single-family homes.

The class action is related to a 1992 lawsuit against LCI in
which similar claims were alleged for which LCI paid Canadian
$15.6 million (approximately U.S. $10 million) as its share of
damages.  In April 2004, the Ontario Superior Court confirmed
that LCI has full insurance coverage for the damages that may be
payable to plaintiffs in the class action as well as for LCI's
cost of defending the action.

The Company recognized a reserve for the amount of probable loss
exposure in the class action with a corresponding receivable
from our insurers.  It also recognized an additional reserve in
light of the solvency condition of some of its insurers.  In
addition, the Company believes that any liability that LCI may
incur arising from the class action (irrespective of anticipated
insurance recoveries) will not have a materially adverse effect
on its financial condition.


LITTLE TIKES: Recalls Flashlights with Lead-Containing Paint
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Little Tikes Co., of Hudson, Ohio, voluntarily recalls
20,800 Glowin' Dino and Glowin' Doggy Animal Flashlights.

The company said the light green paint on the dinosaur-shaped
flashlight and the brown paint on the dog-shaped flashlight
could contain excess levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested
by young children and can cause adverse health effects.  No
incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Glowin' Dino Flashlight and the Glowin' Doggy Flashlight are
about 9-inches long and make an electronic sound when switched
on.  The green dinosaur roars, and the white and brown dog
barks.  Only flashlights with these date codes are in included
in the recall: LC5H161, LC5H291, LC5I031, LC5I091, LC5I131,
LC5J061, LC5J231, and LC5J311.

The date codes are found on the bottom of the flashlights.
Units that do not contain these codes or other animal flashlight
characters made by The Little Tikes Co. are not included in this
recall.  Also, units that have an "R" at the end of the date
code are not included in the recall.

The products are made in China and sold at Target stores
nationwide from November 2005 through December 2005 for about
$10.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled
flashlights away from young children and contact Little Tikes
for more information.  Consumers will get a free replacement
flashlight or refund.

Pictures of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06100a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06100b.jpg

Consumer Contact: The Little Tikes Co., Phone: (866) 765-6729
(toll-free); Web site: http://littletikes.com.


MANCO POWER: Recalls Go-Karts with Defective Control Mechanism
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunright International Norcross, Georgia, is recalling 3,200
Manco Blazer Fun-Kart, Sunright International Go-Karts.  The
product is distributed by Manco Power Sports Inc. of Fort Wayne,
Indiana.

The company said the throttle that controls the go-kart engine
can fail and not return the vehicle to idle speed, posing a loss
of control hazard to the driver.  Sunright and Manco Power have
received three reports of incidents in which the throttle did
not return to idle speed, though no injuries have been reported.

The recall involves two-seat go-karts, Manco Blazer model 1050L-
09 and Sunright International model RTV50-SK50, equipped with a
49 cc engine and an electric start.  The go-karts were produced
in several colors including red, green, blue, and yellow.  The
VIN number on the Manco go-karts is attached to the frame behind
the seat back cushion.  The VIN number on the Sunright go-karts
is stamped on the side of the engine.  The recalled go-karts
contain one of these VIN numbers:

Manco:  1095292 through 1099782
Sunright:   04100017 through 05100771

The products were made in China and sold at Manco go-karts were
sold at retailers nationwide from November 2005 through December
2005 for about $900.  Sunright go-karts were sold at other
retailers in Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas from August 2005
through November 2005 from $900 to $1100.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06102.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled go-karts
immediately.  Registered owners of the vehicles will be notified
directly by Manco or Sunright.  To schedule a free repair,
consumers should call or visit the retail location where the go-
karts were purchased.

Consumer Contact: Manco, Phone: (800) 643-7332 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://wwww.mancopowersports.com;Sunright, Phone:
(888) 737-7488 (toll-free) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday; Web site at http://www.sunright.net.


MPOWER HOLDING: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MPower Holding Corporation faces a class action (February 17,
2005) filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
Los Angeles County, alleging violations of California Labor Code
Sections 2802 and 2804.  The group of plaintiffs attempting to
be formed and certified as a class would include the Company's
sales representatives in California for the past four years.

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover what they claim to be
unreimbursed expenses incurred in the performance of their
duties, including additional mileage reimbursement.  The Company
denies any liability to the plaintiffs, and believes that
ultimate settlement or damages awarded, if any, will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


NEW JERSEY: Counties Told to Refund Copy Fees Dating Back 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------
A superior court judge has ordered Burlington and Camden
counties to reimburse people who were excessively charged for
copy services at their clerks' offices starting 1997, according
to Courier Post Online.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge John Sweeney is made in a
class action filed in 2003 by Southampton man Joseph Dugan who
alleged the fees for self-service copies at the counties
violated the state Open Public Records Act.  The suit named as
defendants Camden County Clerk James Beach and Burlington County
Clerk Philip Haines.  Mr. Dugan is represented by lawyer Dan
Doherty.

Judge Sweeney has yet to order has yet to order any
reimbursement because he has not determined the copying costs in
each county since 1997, according to the report.  No new court
date has been set.

Camden and Burlington respectively charged $1, and $0.5 a copy
for use of self-service copy machines for public records until
last spring.  A state appeals court ruled that fees had to be
based on actual cost.  The counties have since reduced fees to
10 cents per copy, according to the report.


PFIZER INC: Celebrex, Bextra Suits Transferred to MDL in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. said that several federal product liability and
consumer fraud actions over its drugs Celebrex and Bextra were
transferred to a Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The suit is
captioned, "In re Celebrex and Bextra Marketing, Sales Practices
and Product Liability Litigation, MDL-1699."

The Company is a defendant in product liability suits, including
purported class actions, in various U.S. federal and state
courts and in certain other countries alleging personal injury
as a result of the use of Celebrex and/or Bextra.  These suits
include a purported class action filed in 2001 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as well as
actions that have been filed since late 2004.

In addition, beginning in late 2004, purported class actions
were filed against the Company in various U.S. federal and state
courts and in certain other countries alleging consumer fraud as
the result of alleged false advertising of Celebrex and Bextra
and the withholding of information from the public regarding the
alleged safety risks associated with Celebrex and Bextra.  The
plaintiffs in these consumer fraud actions seek damages in
unspecified amounts for economic loss.  In September 2005, the
U.S. federal product liability and consumer fraud actions were
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in
California.


PFIZER INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. was named as a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, which was filed against Pharmacia
Corporation, a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.
The suit is styled, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund et al. v.
Pharmacia Corporation et al."

In 2003, several purported class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by
persons who claim to have been purchasers of publicly traded
securities of Pharmacia during the period from April 17, 2000
through August 22, 2001 (the Purported Class Period).  Named as
defendants in the actions are Pharmacia, Pfizer and certain
former officers of Pharmacia.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting the data from a study
concerning the gastrointestinal effects of Celebrex.  These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the
District of New Jersey under the caption, "Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund et al. v. Pharmacia Corporation et al."  Plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of all persons who purchased
Pharmacia securities during the Purported Class Period and were
damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pharmacia's
securities allegedly attributable to the misrepresentations.
Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.


PFIZER INC: Viagra Litigations Transferred to MDL in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. reports that several lawsuits over Viagra, a drug
used to treat impotence in men, were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL) in Minnesota federal court.  The suit is captioned, "In re
Viagra Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1724."

A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have
been filed against the Company in various federal and state
courts alleging that Viagra causes certain types of visual
injuries.  The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to
represent nationwide and certain statewide classes of Viagra
users.  All of the actions seek damages for personal injury, and
the purported class actions also seek medical monitoring.

In January 2006, the federal court cases were transferred to the
MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit is styled, "In re: Viagra Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 0:06-md-01724-PAM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under judge Paul A.
Magnuson.


PFIZER INC: Lipitor Suits Dismissed, Another Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. reports that two of three purported suits it faces
over the promotion of Lipitor were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

Since September 2005, three actions were filed against the
Company in various federal courts alleging claims relating to
the promotion of Lipitor.  In January 2006, two of those actions
s were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

In the remaining action, which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, the plaintiffs seek
to represent a nationwide class consisting of women (regardless
of age) and men over age 65 who in each case had no history of
heart disease or diabetes and who purchased Lipitor within four
years before the filing of the action.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Company engaged in false and misleading advertising in
violation of state consumer protection laws by allegedly
promoting Lipitor for the prevention of heart disease in the
aforementioned two groups.  The action seeks monetary and
injunctive relief, including treble damages.

In addition, a purported class action on behalf of residents of
the Province of Quebec was filed against the Company in Canada
that asserts claims under Canadian law and seeks relief
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the U.S. action.


PFIZER INC: Stock, Fiduciary, ERISA Suits Moved to MDL in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. said that in June 2005 several federal securities,
fiduciary duty and ERISA actions filed against it were
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-
District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit is captioned, "In re Pfizer Inc.
Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, MDL-1688."

Beginning in late 2004, actions, including purported class and
shareholder derivative actions, have been filed in various
federal and state courts against Pfizer, Pharmacia and certain
current and former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer
and Pharmacia.  These actions include:

     (1) purported class actions alleging that Pfizer and
         certain officers of Pfizer violated federal securities
         laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and
         Bextra;

     (2) purported shareholder derivative actions alleging that
         certain of Pfizer's current and former officers and
         directors breached fiduciary duties by causing Pfizer
         to misrepresent the safety of Celebrex and, in certain
         of the cases, Bextra; and

     (3) purported class actions filed by persons who claim to
         be participants in the Pfizer or Pharmacia Savings Plan
         alleging that Pfizer and certain officers, directors
         and employees of Pfizer or, where applicable, Pharmacia
         and certain former officers, directors and employees
         of Pharmacia, violated certain provisions of the
         Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
         by selecting and maintaining Pfizer stock as an
         investment alternative when it allegedly no longer was
         a suitable or prudent investment option.


PENNSYLVANIA: Venango Seeks Dismissal of Tax Collectors' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Venango County filed a motion to dismiss a class action filed by
two elected tax collectors, whose wages were being cut by as
much as 65% this year, according to Derrick.com.

The county said in a reply to the county court the tax
collectors have no power to challenge the decision by
commissioners.  It also said the wage cuts were proposed after
the tax collectors' elections in November, rendering it binding
to those elected.  The elected tax collectors took office in
January 2006.

Annual wages paid to nearly all elected tax collectors in 20
townships and nine boroughs are being cut this year under a
resolution passed nearly a year earlier by county commissioners
Sue Smith, Gary Hutchison and Larry Horn.

The compensation formula was changed from a straight 3% of all
tax monies collected to a flat $4 per tax parcel or property,
tied to a condition that full amount of taxes was collected.  If
not, the amount will fall to $3.  The compensation formula
agreed on Feb. 2, 2005 was to take effect in January 2006.

William McDaniel of Sugarcreek Borough and Bonnie Sharrar of
Sandycreek Township filed the class action, seeking to void the
commissioners' pay cut action and an order barring the change.
Mr. McDaniel said his annual income would drop from $26,000 to
$12,000, according to the report.

The county's court documents were prepared by William Cisek,
assistant county solicitor and a member of the Wilson, Thompson
& Cisek law firm in Franklin.


PPL CORPORATION: Court Admits River Group in Fly Ash Spill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth Court has allowed a Delaware River group and
three residents to intervene in a court case over the fly ash
spill at PPL Corp., but denied a request by eight others,
according to Allentown Morning Call.  It also denied the
residents' request to file a class action in the state court,
the report said.

Jeffrey Russo, a Phillipsburg attorney representing the river
group, Delaware Riverside Conservancy Inc., said the proposed
class action will be filed in another undetermined court venue.

The Delaware Riverside Conservancy Inc. and about a dozen
riverfront property owners filed a complaint in the Commonwealth
Court on Jan. 20, asking to be part of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection's November suit against
PPL (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).  The state filed a
suit in November, alleging numerous violations of environmental
and dam safety laws arising from the Aug. fly ash spill at PPL's
Martins Creek power plant.

The complaint filed by the group and the residents said the
spill caused 'overwhelming' damage to a number of property
owners and recreational users of the Delaware River.

Water containing fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, leaked
from PPL's basin late on Aug. 23 due to a mechanical failure.
The flow continued until Aug. 27, coating the land near the
basin with ash slurry, and polluting the nearby Oughoughton
Creek and Delaware River.  The complaint criticized PPL for not
using low river flows to clean up more of the fly ash out of the
river weeks after the spill.  Another group, the Delaware
Riverkeeper Network, has also complained about the pace of the
cleanup, the report said.

PPL restarted use of the fly ash basin after installing state-
required precautionary measures to prevent another spill.  Mr.
Ruso's complaint demands immediate shutdown of the coal-fired
units and for a residential well testing and remediation program
for anyone affected.


TRIBUNE CO: Court Dismisses Anti-trust Claims by Advertisers
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has rejected advertisers' claims of unfair
competition arising from inflated circulation of Tribune Co.'s
Newsday and Hoy publications, Newsday.com reports.

District Court Judge Denis R. Hurley determined that the
newspapers provided a service and did not directly compete with
advertisers, making the claim inadmissible.  The Judge also said
the advertisers had failed to prove alleged violations of
Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations law.  He,
however, allowed them to re-argue the point.  No date has been
set.

The suit was styled "Crab House of Douglaston Inc. et al. v.
Tribune Company et al. (2:04-cv-00558-DRH-WDW)" filed in the
U.S. District for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Denis R. Hurley, with referral to William D. Wall.  Representing
the defendants are: Judd Burstein of Judd Burstein, P.C., 1790
Broadway, Suite 1501, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-974-2400,
Fax: 212-974-2944; E-mail: Jburstein@burlaw.com; and Joseph O.
Giaimo of Giaimo & Vreeburg LLP, 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Kew
Gardens, NY 11415, Phone: 718-261-6200, Fax: 718-261-0316; E-
mail: giaimovreeburgpc@aol.com

Representing the plaintiff(s) is Samuel Kenneth Rosen of
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 7th
Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400, Fax: 212-753-
3630; E-mail: srosen@whesq.com.


UNITED STATES: Court Allays Spy Fears of 9/11 Detainees' Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial continues in a class action filed by Muslim immigrants
detained in the New York area after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks.

At a hearing on March 7, Magistrate Steven M. Gold in Brooklyn
ordered government lawyers to guarantee in writing that the U.S.
was not tapping communications between plaintiffs and their
lawyers, The New York Times reports.

The question arose after it emerged that the National Security
Agency has intercepted electronic communications inside and
outside the U.S., without a warrant, under an executive order
being challenged in a separate lawsuit, according to Rachel
Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights,
which represents many of the detainees.

Plaintiffs' lawyers verified whether their clients'
communication lines are being snooped at, and if so, asked who
made the order.  But the government refused to answer, according
to the report.

Defendants in the case include Attorney General John Ashcroft
and other top officials.  Some plaintiffs have briefly returned
to New York from Egypt and Pakistan this year to give
depositions, according to the report.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Told to Pay Students $33.8M in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California at Berkeley has been ordered to pay
$33.8 million to rectify the damages incurred after thousands of
UC professional students faced unexpected fee increases,
according to a court opinion released on March 6.

The multi-million dollar lawsuit, filed by eight UC professional
students in 2003, stipulated the university breached its
contract with more than 50,000 professional students -- around
9,000 of whom saw their fees more than double.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren said in the
court opinion that in: "university-wide publications" such as
student catalogues, the university made a promise to
professional students that fees would remain constant, and they
did not follow through.

Although UC officials said the court's decision was anticipated,
the UC Board of Regents will take the case to the Court of
Appeals, which would stymie the retribution process for a number
of years.

"The university appreciates the time and effort the court put
into the case, but nevertheless UC believes the court's
judgement is incorrect on a number of fundamental issues of
law," said UC spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez.

The class action involves three subclasses of professional
students including around 9,000 students enrolled in a
professional degree program before 2002, said Andrew Freeman,
attorney for the plaintiffs.

The two other subclasses include nearly 48,000 students enrolled
and billed for either the 2003 Spring semester or the 2003
Summer session.

Mr. Freeman said that with the court's decision, a future
precedent is now set, binding the university legally to a
contract in the event of future fee increases.

"Even if the university felt compelled to increase student fees,
it can't increase the fees in breach of the contract with
students," he said.

Former Boalt Hall student Mo Kashmiri, the lead plaintiff in the
case, said he could not afford the fees increases at the law
school--from around $10,000 in 2000 to more than $22,000 in
2004--forcing him to take a break from his education.

"(The court's decision) shows that UC is not above the law and
is just ridiculously mismanaged that they're even willing to
break the law to balance the budget on the backs of the
students," he said.  "Now I'm $130,000 in debt and until (the
university reimburses the students), I'll continue to struggle."

In the suit, the plaintiffs also said the university notified
students too late after the fee increases went into effect,
which Mr. Vazquez said was a result of the severe statewide
budget crisis.

"The budget crisis has forced the UC to make very difficult
choices about student fees," he said.  "The whole university was
receiving cuts and difficult decisions had to be made -- the
regents did not make the decision lightly."

Although the university's appeal will extend the case's
conclusion for a few years, the financial effects on UC have
been felt with a temporarily increase professional student fees
by $1,050 until 2007 to cover the cost of the lawsuit, said Anu
Joshi, president of the University of California Students
Association.

"I'm hopeful that the regents will take this as a sign that they
just can't turn to students as a piggy bank," Joshi said. "Right
now students are facing an affordability crisis and regardless
of the contract, we need to focus on long term affordability for
everyone so that all California families have opportunity for a
UC education."


                          Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chiquita Faces 6 Claims for Seamen's Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International Inc. currently faces six asbestos-
related claims that are pending in state courts in various
stages of activity, according to a Securities and Exchange
Commission report.

In the last 19 years, a number of claims, based on negligence
and unseaworthiness, have been filed against the Company on
behalf of merchant seamen or their personal representatives
alleging injury or illness from exposure to asbestos while
employed as seamen on company-owned ships from the mid-1940s
until the mid-1970s.

In these cases, the Company is one of many defendants, which
include manufacturers and suppliers of products containing
asbestos, as well as other ship owners. Over the past eight
years, 25 state court cases have been settled and 34 have been
resolved without any payment.

There are also about 5,300 federal court cases, known as MARDOC
cases, which are currently inactive. The U.S. District Court in
Pennsylvania manages these cases.

In 1996, the District Court administratively dismissed all then
pending MARDOC cases without prejudice for failure to provide
evidence of asbestos-related disease or exposure to asbestos.
The MARDOC cases are subject to reinstatement by the District
Court upon a showing of some evidence of asbestos-related
disease, exposure to asbestos and service on the company's
ships.

While six MARDOC cases have been reinstated against the Company,
one of the cases has been dismissed and there has been little
activity in the remaining five reinstated cases to date.
Punitive damages are not recoverable in seamen's asbestos cases.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Chiquita Brands International
Inc. produces and distributes bananas and other fresh fruits and
vegetables. Fresh produce accounts for about 98% of Chiquita's
total sales. Of that amount, more than 50% of sales come from
bananas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire Reserves US$4.2M for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2005, United Fire & Casualty Co. allocates
US$4.2 million loss reserves for asbestos and environmental
claims, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission
report.

As of December 31, 2004, the Company had established a reserve
of US$3 million for asbestos and other environmental losses and
settlement expenses. (Class Action Reporter, March 11, 2005)

The Company believes that the loss reserves estimation for
environmental claims and claims related to long-term exposure to
asbestos and other substances is one of the most difficult
aspects of establishing reserves, especially given the inherent
uncertainties surrounding such claims.

Although the Company recorded its best estimate of loss and loss
settlement expense reserves, the ultimate amounts paid upon
settlement of such claims may be more or less than the amount of
the reserves, because of the significant uncertainties involved
and the likelihood that these uncertainties will not be resolved
for many years.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based United Fire & Casualty Co. offers a
range of property/casualty and life insurance. Products include
fidelity and surety bonds and fire, homeowners, auto, and
workers' compensation lines. The Company also provides
reinsurance coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Intl, Units Bear Claims in 24 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc., with subsidiaries Leslie Controls
Inc., Spence Engineering Co. Inc., and Hoke Inc., is named as a
defendant or third-party defendant in asbestos exposure-related
lawsuits in 24 states, according to a Securities and Exchange
Commission report.

These product liability claims are brought on behalf of about
22,000 plaintiffs against from 50 to 400 defendants. About 600
claims have been filed in Mississippi.

In some instances, the Company has also been named individually
or as successor in interest to one or more of the subsidiaries.

These cases have been brought in state courts in Alabama,
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming with
most claimants having brought their claims in Mississippi.

The cases seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
against all defendants. However, the complaints filed on behalf
of claimants who do seek specified compensatory and punitive
damages typically seek millions or tens of millions of dollars
in damages against the aggregate of defendants.

Recently in Mississippi, the courts have made decisions and the
legislature has passed legislation aimed at curbing certain
abusive practices by plaintiff attorneys pursuant to which large
numbers of unrelated plaintiffs would be grouped in the same
case against hundreds of defendants.

As a result of the recent changes, many of these "mass filings"
(including some cases in which CIRCOR companies have been named
defendant) have been or are to be dismissed.

Burlington, MA-based CIRCOR International Inc. makes
instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including
precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for
hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems. CIRCOR was
spun off from Watts Industries (now Watts Water Technologies) in
1999.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Tags $516M for Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., in 2005, increased its 15-year estimate of
domestic asbestos indemnity and defense costs to US$516 million
and revised its related estimate of insurance assets to US$320
million, of which US$115 million is contested in ongoing
coverage litigation, according to a Company release.

As a result of its estimates revision, the Company recorded a
charge to earnings of US$113.7 million in the 2005-4th quarter.

The Company continued quarterly monitoring of its actual
experience regarding its domestic asbestos liability and
compared it with its 15-year forecast made at year-end 2004.

At year-end 2005, the Company and its consultants determined
that it was suitable to revise its 15-year estimate of domestic
asbestos indemnity and defense costs as well as its related
estimate of insurance assets.

The Company has included in its cash flow and liquidity
forecasts the potential funding from its own cash of a portion
of its asbestos liabilities in 2006. These forecasts also do not
assume additional settlements with insurance companies in 2006.

The Company has entered into a number of settlement agreements
with various insurers. It has discussed with various remaining
unsettled insurers in 2005 and intends to continue to negotiate
additional settlements where achievable on a reasonable basis
while the litigation proceeds.

Clinton, NJ-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process
and power generating facilities. The Company operates through
two business groups. It also builds, owns, and leases
cogeneration and independent power projects. Europe accounts for
just over half of sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Resolves 99,288 Pneumo Abex Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd. resolved 99,288 Pneumo Abex Corporation
asbestos liability claims from August 28, 1998 through December
31, 2005, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission
report.

The Company resolved 98,444 of these claims as of September 30,
2005. (Class Action Reporter, November 11, 2005)

A total of 137,723 Abex Claims were filed, from August 28, 1998
through December 31, 2005, leaving 38,435 Abex Claims pending at
December 31, 2005, which are the responsibility of Federal Mogul
Corporation. During the year ended December 31, 2005, 4,562
claims were filed and 12,827 claims were resolved.

Since August 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for
resolved Abex Claims was US$2,055 before insurance. A total of
US$82.8 million was spent on defense costs for the period August
28, 1998 through December 31, 2005. Historically, existing
insurance coverage has provided 50% to 80% of the total defense
and indemnity payments for Abex Claims.

In December 2005, Cooper and other parties involved in the
resolution of the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy proceeding had
reached an agreement regarding Cooper's participation in Federal
Mogul's proposed asbestos trust. By participating in this trust,
Cooper would resolve its liability for asbestos claims arising
from Cooper's former Abex Friction Products business.

The proposed settlement agreement was subject to court approval,
approval of 75% of the current Abex asbestos claimants and
certain other approvals. The settlement would resolve more than
38,000 pending Abex claims.

Future claims would be resolved through the bankruptcy trust,
and Cooper would be protected against future claims by an
injunction to be issued by the district court upon plan
confirmation.

Key terms and aspects of the proposed settlement agreement
included Cooper agreeing to pay US$130 million in cash into the
trust, with US$115 million payable upon Federal-Mogul's
emergence from bankruptcy. The remainder would be due on January
15, 2007, or upon emergence from bankruptcy, if later.

Cooper would receive a total of US$37.5 million during the
funding period from other parties associated with the Federal-
Mogul bankruptcy. Cooper would further provide the trust 1.4
million shares of the Company's stock upon Federal-Mogul's
emergence from bankruptcy.

Cooper Industries Inc. makes electrical products, tools,
hardware, and metal support products. Subsidiary Cooper B-Line
makes metal support products that include conduits, cable trays,
and fasteners. The Company is based in Houston, Texas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Spent US$16.8M in 2005
----------------------------------------------------------
For the year ended December 31, 2005, Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.
had US$16.8 million total costs for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims, compared with US$16.5 million for the year
ended December 31, 2004, according to a SEC report.

The US$16.8 million was determined after insurance recoveries
and net of tax.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. A large number of other companies have also been named
as defendants in virtually all of the suits.

Most of those claims have been filed against IR-New Jersey and
allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in
certain of IR-New Jersey's products. Although IR-New Jersey was
neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, some of its
formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing
components, such as gaskets purchased from third-party
suppliers.

All asbestos-related claims resolved to date have been dismissed
or settled.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.
makes refrigeration equipment, construction equipment,
industrial equipment, and heavy equipment and golf carts. The
Company runs 130 plants worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brunswick Named in Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Corporation has been named in a number of asbestos-
related lawsuits, most of which involve Vapor Corporation, a
former subsidiary that Brunswick divested in 1990, according to
the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

Virtually all of the asbestos suits against the Company involve
numerous other defendants. The claims allege that the Company
sold products that asbestos-containing components, such as
gaskets, and seek monetary damages from the Company.

Neither the Company nor Vapor is alleged to have manufactured
asbestos. The Company's insurers have settled a number of
asbestos claims for nominal amounts, while a number of other
claims have been dismissed.

No suit has yet gone to trial.

Lake Forest, IL-based Brunswick Corporation makes pleasure boats
with brand names like Sea Ray, Bayliner, Boston Whaler, Lund,
and Hatteras. The Company also makes marine engines ranging from
40 to 275 horsepower under the Mercury and Mariner nameplates.
Brunswick owns or franchises more than 115 fun centers
throughout Canada, Europe, and the US.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Against Allegheny Energy Up to 935
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2005, Allegheny Energy Inc. contends with 930
open asbestos liability cases pending in West Virginia and five
cases pending in Pennsylvania, according to a Securities and
Exchange Commission report.

As of October 12, 2005, the Company, together with distribution
companies Monongahela Power Co., the Potomac Edison Co., and
West Penn Power Co., faced 841 pending asbestos cases. (Class
Action Reporter, November 11, 2005)

The Distribution Companies currently defend against pending
multi-defendant asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving
multiple plaintiffs and sites. These suits have been brought by
seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations
of either the manufacture, sale or distribution of Allegheny's
asbestos-containing products.

These suits arise out of historical operations and are related
to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials
at Allegheny's generation facilities. Various foreign and
domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London, insured
Allegheny's historical operations.

Allegheny is currently involved in two asbestos insurance-
related actions, in which the parties seek an allocation of
responsibility for historic and potential future asbestos
liability.

Allegheny and numerous others are plaintiffs in a similar
action, pending in the California Superior Court in San
Francisco, filed against Zurich Insurance Company.

On July 5, 2005, Allegheny received payment from one of its
insurance companies in the amount of US$625,000 with the next
payment of the same amount due on July 1, 2006. As part of the
settlement, Allegheny released this insurance firm from
potential liabilities associated with claims against Allegheny
alleging asbestos exposure.

Greensburg, PA-based Allegheny Energy Inc.'s Allegheny Power
unit provides electricity to some 1.5 million customers in five
states and natural gas to more than 200,000 customers through
regulated utilities Monongahela Power, Potomac Edison, and West
Penn Power.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Awaits Court to Approve Quigley Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. expects the courts and asbestos claimants to decide
on subsidiary Quigley Co. Inc.'s plan of reorganization that is
slated to direct all future asbestos personal injury claims from
Quigley to a proposed trust, according to a SEC report.

Acquired by Pfizer in 1968, Quigley sold small amounts of
asbestos-containing products until the early 1970s.

In September 2004, Pfizer and Quigley moved to resolve all
pending and future claims against them in which the claimants
alleged personal injury from exposure to Quigley products
containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in New York seeking reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley
filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that must be
approved by both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District
Court after receipt of the vote of 75% of the claimants.

In connection with that filing, Pfizer entered into settlement
agreements with lawyers representing more than 80% of the
individuals with claims related to Quigley products against
Quigley and Pfizer. The agreements provide for a total of US$430
million in payments, of which US$215 million became due in
December 2005 and is being paid to claimants.

The reorganization plan will establish a Trust for the payment
of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims
alleging injury from exposure to Quigley products.

Pfizer will contribute US$405 million to the Trust through a
note, which has a present value of US$172 million, as well as
about US$100 million in insurance, and will forgive a US$30
million secured loan to Quigley.

New York, NY-based Pfizer, Inc. Pfizer makes prescription drugs
for specific infirmities. The Company's known products include
erectile dysfunction therapy Viagra, pain management drug
Celebrex, antidepressant Zoloft, and cholesterol-lowering
Lipitor. Subsidiaries in the Pfizer family include Warner-
Lambert, Parke-Davis, and Goedecke.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selective Insurance Deals With 2,089 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group Inc. holds pending a total of 2,382
environmental claims, of which 2,089 are related to asbestos,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Of the asbestos-related claims, 748 involve three insureds. The
total case reserves associated with these three insureds
amounted to US$4.7 million on a gross and net basis.

During 2005, 1,212 asbestos claims were closed. These claims
accounted for about US$0.9 million of the total asbestos paid of
US$1.2 million. The total case reserves for asbestos related
claims amounted to US$8.5 million on a gross and net basis.

At December 31, 2005, asbestos claims constituted 88% of the
Company's environmental claims compared with 91% of its 3,310
outstanding environmental claims at December 31, 2004.

At December 31, 2005, Selective's environmental claims reserves
amounted to US$45.6 million on a gross basis (including case
reserves of US$25.0 million and incurred but not reported
reserves of US$20.6 million) and US$41.8 million on a net basis
(including case reserves of US$25.0 million and IBNR reserves of
US$16.8 million).

Headquartered in Branchville, New Jersey, Selective Insurance
Group Inc. provides insurance, including workers' compensation,
commercial automobile, property, and liability claims. Personal
lines include homeowners and automobile insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Motor's Defense Costs Stabilize in `05
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co.'s 2005 annual payout and related defense costs in
asbestos cases remained the same as in 2004 and 2003, according
to a SEC report.

The Company's asbestos defense costs had been increasing between
1999 and 2003.

Asbestos was used in brakes, clutches and other automotive
components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle
makers, the Company defends against lawsuits for injuries
claimed to have resulted from alleged contact with certain Ford
parts and other products containing asbestos.

Plaintiffs in these injury cases allege various health problems
as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts
found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products
in the Company's facilities, or asbestos aboard its former
maritime fleet.

Most of the multi-defendant asbestos litigation the Company
faces involve mechanics or other individuals who have worked on
the brakes of its vehicles over the years.

Many of these cases involve multiple plaintiffs, and the Company
is often unable to tell from the pleadings which of the
plaintiffs are making claims against it as opposed to other
defendants.

Dearborn, MI-based Ford Motor Co. manufactures cars and trucks
with brands as Aston Martin, Ford, Jaguar, Lincoln, Mercury, and
Volvo.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cinergy Subsidiaries Face 130 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinergy Corporation's power units PSI Energy Inc. and Cincinnati
Gas & Electric Co. confront about 130 pending lawsuits related
to asbestos at their electric generating stations, according to
a Securities and Exchange Commission report. The majority of
these claims are PSI cases.

In these lawsuits, plaintiffs claim to have been exposed to
asbestos-containing products in the course of their work as
outside contractors in the construction and maintenance of the
subsidiaries' generating stations. They claim that CG&E and PSI
should be held liable for their injuries and illnesses based on
an alleged duty to warn and protect them from any asbestos
exposure.

Of these lawsuits, one case filed against PSI has been tried to
verdict, in which the jury tagged PSI on a negligence claim and
a verdict on punitive damages. PSI appealed this decision up to
the Indiana Supreme Court.

In October 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the jury's
verdict. PSI paid the judgment of about US$630,000 in the fourth
quarter. In addition, PSI has settled over 150 other claims for
amounts, which are not material to PSI's financial position or
results of operations.

PSI estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in
existing and future suits over the next 50 years could range
from an immaterial amount to about US$60 million, exclusive of
costs to defend these cases.

CG&E has been named in less than 10 cases and has virtually no
settlement history for asbestos cases. CG&E is not able to
reasonably estimate the range of potential loss from current or
future lawsuits. However, potential judgments or settlements of
existing or future claims could be material to CG&E.

Cincinnati, OH-based Cinergy Corporation, through utilities
Cincinnati Gas & Electric and PSI Energy, generates, transmits,
and distributes electricity to more than 1.5 million customers
and natural gas to 500,000 in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp Mulls Further Compensation Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation intends to consider further actions aside
from the current asbestos diseases consolation payment system,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The Company had paid consolation payments to the patients and
the family members of the deceased near its former Kanzaki
plant, who are suffering from or died of mesothelioma, a rare
and lethal form of cancer.

The Company has not recorded any accrual of loss contingencies
related to this matter so far because it is difficult for it to
reasonably estimate the amount of the expenses related to this
matter at this time.

A diversified enterprise, Kubota Corporation makes tractors and
farm equipment such as rice transplanters and combine
harvesters. The Company was established in 1890 and has
headquarters in Osaka, Japan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco's Claims Remain Stable at 200
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2005, MeadWestvaco Corporation recorded about
200 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to a
Securities and Exchange Commission report. The figure remains
unchanged as of October 31, 2005.

These lawsuits also name many other corporate defendants.

The packaging Company and paper products manufacturer had about
250 asbestos-related suits as of July 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, August 12, 2005)

All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been
concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through
settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material
to the company.

At December 31, 2005, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$29 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.

Based in Stamford, Connecticut, MeadWestvaco Corporation is the
result of a merger between Mead and Westvaco. The Company has
sold its Papers business to investment firm Cerberus Capital
Management for. MeadWestvaco's two largest divisions, Packaging
and Papers had accounted for about 80% of sales. The Company
owns about 1.2 million acres of timber.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohm & Haas Braces for More Premises Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Specialty chemicals manufacturer Rohm and Haas Co. reserves an
undisclosed amount for asbestos-related premises claims, in
which the Company believes that the amount it sets aside are
probable and estimable, according to the Company's 10-K report
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys are increasing their focus on peripheral defendants,
including the Company, which had asbestos on its premises.

Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or
settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of
exposure at the Company's facilities.

As the asbestos producers are bankrupted, the demands against
companies with older manufacturing facilities of any type in the
U.S., such as Rohm and Haas, increase.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate what its asbestos costs
will be if the current situation deteriorates and there is no
tort reform.

There are also pending lawsuits filed against subsidiary Morton
International Inc. related to employee exposure to asbestos at a
manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, Louisiana with
additional lawsuits expected. The Company expects that most of
these cases will be dismissed because they are barred under
worker's compensation laws. However, cases involving asbestos-
caused malignancies may not be barred under Louisiana law.

Acquired by the Company in 1999, Morton has also been sued in
connection with asbestos-related matters in the former Friction
Division of the former Thiokol Corporation, which merged with
Morton in 1982. Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and
many cases have closed with no payment.

Philadelphia, PA-based Rohm and Haas Co. operates 150
manufacturing and research sites around the world. Sales take
place in more than 100 countries and total more than US$6
billion annually. In 1999 Rohm and Haas acquired Morton
International, maker of specialty chemicals and famous Morton
Salt.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Washington Group Faces Third-Party Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Construction and engineering firm Washington Group International
Inc. defends against various lawsuits, in which third parties
alleged that they sustained injuries and damage from the
inhalation of asbestos fibers contained in materials used in
construction projects, according to a SEC report.

The Company did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.

The claims alleged that the Boise, ID-based Company was
negligent or failed to warn or protect the plaintiff or claimant
from the dangers of asbestos. The Company expects that more
asbestos claims will be filed against it in the future.

Washington Group believes that all of its asbestos claims are
fully insured except for claims relating to a subsidiary
acquired in 1986. Based on the stock purchase agreement and the
insurance policies obtained by the subsidiary's prior owners,
the Company believes it is entitled to the benefit of the
insurance coverage obtained by the prior owners.

The Company has tendered the claims related to the acquired
company to such insurance carriers, and to date one carrier has
agreed to pay at least a portion of the claims relating to the
subsidiary.

Washington Group International Inc. provides design and
construction services for customers in the defense, energy and
environment, industrial/process, infrastructure, mining, and
power industries. It also operates mines, offers environmental
management, and provides facilities and operations management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Reserves US$96.6M for A&E Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2005, PartnerRe Ltd.'s reserves for unpaid
losses and loss expenses included US$96.6 million that
represents an estimate of its net ultimate liability for
asbestos and environmental claims, according to a SEC report.

Most of the net amount relates to U.S. casualty exposures
arising from business written prior to January 1, 1992 by
certain companies, which were part of the AGF Group and are
currently part of PartnerRe SA or PartnerRe U.S.

The Company's net reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses at
December 31, 2004, included US$92.4 million that represents
estimates of its net ultimate liability for asbestos and
environmental claims.

PartnerRe attributes the net reserve increase in 2005 to change
in currency exchange rates offset by settlement of claims and
was not the result of a change in the Company's view of its
ultimate liability for this business.

The gross liability for such claims at December 31, 2005 and
2004 was US$108.0 million and US$104.6 million, respectively, of
which US$98.0 million and US$94.7 million, respectively, relate
to US casualty exposures from business written by PartnerRe SA
and PartnerRe U.S.

PartnerRe Ltd., based in Pembroke, Bermuda, writes treaty and
facultative reinsurance for such primary coverage as property &
casualty, life, credit & surety, aviation, marine, and other
insurance. The Company operates through subsidiaries in the
U.S., Asia, Europe, and South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Steel Faces 401 Workplace-Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation reports that the Company defends
against 401 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of December 31,
2005, according to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Most of these suits have been filed on behalf of people who
claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the
premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. About half of
these premises suits arise out of exposure claims at a Houston,
Texas facility that has been closed since 1984.

Specific dollar claims for damages were included in the
complaints filed in only 129 of the 401 cases pending at
December 31, 2005 in which AK Steel is a defendant. Those 129
cases involve a total of almost 2,520 plaintiffs and 15,665
defendants.

In each claim, the complaint includes a claim for compensatory
damages and a separate claim in an equal amount for punitive
damages, and does not attempt to allocate the total monetary
claim among the various defendants.

It has been AK Steel's experience that only a small percentage
of asbestos plaintiffs identify AK Steel as a defendant from
whom they actually seek damages and most of these claims
ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small fraction
of the damages initially claimed.

In 2005, the Company noted 186 new claims as compared to 153
claims in 2004 and 256 claims in 2003. The Company had disposed
of 112 claims in 2005, 163 claims in 2004, and 132 claims in
2003. Claims in 2005 were settled for US$1.3 million.

Since 1990, four asbestos cases against AK Steel have proceeded
to trial in three separate cases. All four concluded with a
verdict in favor of the Company.

Middletown, OH-based AK Steel Holding Corp. manufactures carbon,
stainless, and electrical steels. Sales to automakers comprise
nearly half of the Company's business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Says Costs to End Claims Immaterial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. reveals that subsidiary
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.'s asbestos-related claims have
been dismissed or resolved without any payment and a minority of
claims has been resolved for amounts that were not material,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The remaining claims are pending in Maryland and Pennsylvania
state courts.

Since 1993, Baltimore Gas has been involved in several multi-
defendant actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based on
the theory of "premises liability," alleging that Baltimore Gas
knew of and exposed individuals to asbestos.

About 509 individuals who were never employees of Baltimore Gas
had pending claims each seeking several million dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and third-party
claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE
in these actions.

There has been no activity related to certain third-party claims
filed against BGE by Pittsburgh Corning Corp. since PCC filed
bankruptcy in April 2000. The Company does not believe that any
amounts payable under claims made by PCC would have a material
effect the Company's, or Baltimore Gas', financial results.

Baltimore, MD-based Constellation Energy Group Inc., through
Baltimore Gas and Electric, distributes electricity and natural
gas in central Maryland. The Company trades and markets
wholesale energy through subsidiary Constellation Energy
Commodities Group. The Company also operates independent power
plants with more than 12,500 MW of generating capacity through
its Constellation Generation unit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Notes $305.3M Gross Reserves in `05
---------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2005, Markel Corporation recorded its asbestos-
related reserves at US$305.3 million and US$146.6 million on a
gross and net basis, respectively, according to a Securities and
Exchange Commission report.

The Company stated that incurred losses and loss adjustment
expenses for 2005 and 2003 were due mainly to adverse
development of asbestos-related reserves.

Net reserves for reported claims and net IBNR reserves for
asbestos & environmental exposures were US$125.0 million and
US$86.3 million, respectively, at December 31, 2005.

At December 31, 2005, inception-to-date net paid losses and loss
adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures totaled US$287.3
million, which includes US$44.5 million of litigation-related
expenses.

Glen Allen, VA-based Markel Corporation sells specialty
insurance products and programs to a variety of niche markets.
The Company's main subsidiaries are Essex Insurance Co. (excess
and surplus lines), Shand Morahan (excess and surplus,
professional and products liability), Markel Insurance
(specialty program insurance), and Investors Underwriting
Managers (excess and surplus, brokered).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Corp. Units Named in Asbestos Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation states that certain of its subsidiaries and
energy services subsidiaries have been named as defendants in
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to a Securities and
Exchange Commission report.

These subsidiaries have supplied, may have supplied or installed
asbestos material in connection with the repair or installation
of process piping and heating, ventilating and air conditioning
systems.

There have been increasing litigation claims throughout the U.S.
based on asbestos exposure against companies that manufacture or
distribute asbestos products or that have these products on
their premises. PPL cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or whether additional claims may be asserted against its
subsidiaries in the future.

Headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, PPL Corporation
distributes electricity to about 1.3 million customers through
regulated subsidiary PPL Electric Utilities. The Company also
generates electricity and sells it in wholesale and retail
markets in North America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Records 29,875 Claims in 4Q05
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2005, Hercules Inc. noted that it had about
29,875 unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 995
were premises claims and the rest were product liability claims,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company declared about 31,075
unresolved claims, of which about 985 were premises claims and
the rest were product liability claims. (Class Action Reporter,
November 11, 2005)

The Company defends against asbestos-related personal injury
suits and claims from alleged asbestos exposure from resin-
encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by a former subsidiary
to a limited market. Hercules also defends against suits
alleging asbestos exposure at facilities formerly owned or
operated by the Company.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company recorded about 1,775 unpaid
claims, which have been settled or are subject to the terms of a
settlement agreement. For the period, there were about 687
claims which have either been dismissed without payment or are
in the process of being dismissed without payment, but with
plaintiffs retaining the right to re-file.

Between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005, the Company
received about 4,408 new claims. During that same period, the
Company spent about US$37.5 million on these matters, including
about US$27.7 million in settlement payments and about US$9.8
million for defense costs.

Hercules adjusted its accrual for present and future potential
asbestos claims before anticipated insurance recoveries at
December 31, 2005 to US$270.0 million.

Hercules Inc.'s pulp and paper division supplies water-treatment
chemicals and services to the pulp and paper industry. Its
Aqualon subsidiary makes thickeners for water-based products.
Hercules' FiberVisions unit makes staple fibers used in
disposable diapers and automotive textiles, and its Pinova unit
makes resins for adhesives and terpene specialties for flavors
and fragrances. The Company is based in Wilmington, Delaware.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aviall Handles 4 Pending Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2005, Aviall Inc. discloses four pending
asbestos-related lawsuits, including one suit in which the
plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the Company as a defendant
subject to court approval, according to the Company's 2005 10-K
report to the SEC.

Aviall believes that its reserve for these suits is adequate as
of December 31, 2005.

As of December 31, 2004, the Company revealed that it had two
pending asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, April
1, 2005)

In addition, the Company has been named a potentially
responsible party at five third-party disposal sites to which
the previous owner of assets used in the Company's discontinued
engine services operations allegedly sent wastes. The Company
asserted that it did not use these identified disposal sites.

Accordingly, the former owner has retained, and has been
discharging, all liability associated with the cleanup of these
sites pursuant to a sales agreement. The Company has not accrued
for any costs associated with these third-party sites.

The Company has been named a potentially responsible party at
two third-party disposal sites where it used the identified
sites. Cleanup costs associated with these sites have been
accrued and the Company believes its reserves are adequate as of
December 31, 2005.

Aviall Inc. distributes commercial and general aftermarket
aviation parts. The Company is located in the Dallas Fort Worth
Airport in Texas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves US$25.6M for A&E Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation disclosed that its reserve for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expense includes US$25.6 million of
gross and net reserves for various liability coverage related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims at December 31,
2005, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

These claims arose from reinsurance assumed by an affiliate,
Capitol Indemnity Corporation, between 1969 and 1976. Capitol
Indemnity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corporation, exited this business in 1976.

CATA, an Alleghany subsidiary, assumed Capitol Indemnity's
claims.

As of December 31, 2005, reserves of CATA totaled about US$18.7
million for asbestos liabilities and about US$6.9 million for
environmental liabilities, resulting in aggregate asbestos and
environmental reserves of US$25.6 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2005, the Company recorded
aggregate net loss and LAE payments for A&E impairment claims of
CATA at US$0.9 million, compared with US$1.7 million in 2004.

At December 31, 2004, the Company's reserve for unpaid losses
and LAE included US$26.5 million.

New York, NY-based Alleghany Corporation is a diversified
conglomerate with interests ranging from financial services to
real estate. The Company also has commercial and residential
real estate interests in California.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Water Battles 121 Suits in MS, NJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies Inc challenges about 121 cases filed
primarily, but not exclusively, in Mississippi and New Jersey
state courts alleging injury or death as a result of asbestos
exposure, according to a SEC report.

These multiple-defendant filings are filed on behalf of many
plaintiffs. They do not identify any particular Watts products
as a source of asbestos exposure.

To date, Watts has been dismissed from each case when the
scheduled trial date comes near or when discovery fails to yield
any evidence of exposure to any Watts product.

North Andover, MA-based Watts Water Technologies Inc. makes
valves used in plumbing, heating, and water control
applications. The Company is formerly known as Watts Industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMETEK Claims to Receive No Adverse Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK Inc. states that no judgments have been rendered against
the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The Company, together with its subsidiaries, has been named as a
defendant in a number of multi-defendant asbestos-related
lawsuits.

Many of these lawsuits either relate to businesses which were
acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were
manufactured or sold by the Company, or relate to previously
owned businesses of the Company which are under new ownership.

In connection with many of these suits, the sellers or new
owners of such businesses have agreed to indemnify the Company
against these claims.

The indemnified claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, such sellers and new owners who have met their
obligations in all respects.

Headquartered in Paoli, Pennsylvania, AMETEK Inc., through its
Electronic Instruments Group and Electromechanical Group, makes
monitoring equipment and electric motors. The Group also makes
specialty metals for the electronics, telecommunications,
consumer, and automotive industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenaris Resolves 20 of 21 Dalmine Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris SA states that 20 out of 21 asbestos-related cases of
subsidiary Dalmine SpA have been resolved, according to a
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

On June 1, 2005, an Italian court deemed three former Dalmine
managers subject to a criminal proceeding for "objective
responsibility" in the injuries of 21 Tenaris employees caused
by the use of asbestos in manufacturing processes from 1960 to
1980. The managers moved to appeal before the Court of Appeal of
Brescia.

Dalmine is currently subject to 12 civil proceedings for work-
related injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its
manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980. In
addition to the civil and criminal cases, another 22 asbestos
related out-of-court claims have been forwarded to Dalmine.

Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection
with the claims not yet settled or covered by insurance is about
EUR10.3 million (US$12.4 million).

Headquartered in Luxembourg, Tenaris SA manufactures and
distributes seamless steel pipe products. The Company also
produces welded steel pipes for gas pipelines in South America
though subsidiaries Siat and Confab. Through holding companies,
Rocca & Partners owns 60% of Tenaris.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WW Grainger Identified by 1,300 Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of January 23, 2006, W.W. Grainger Inc. defends against cases
filed on behalf of about 1,300 plaintiffs, in which there is an
allegation of asbestos exposure, according to a Securities and
Exchange Commission report.

The Company disclosed that it defends against litigation in
various states involving asbestos or silica. These suits,
brought by about 3,400 plaintiffs, typically assert claims of
personal injury arising from alleged exposure as a consequence
of products purportedly distributed by the Company.

The Company has denied the allegations in all of the lawsuits.
In 2005, lawsuits relating to asbestos or silica and involving
about 700 plaintiffs were dismissed with respect to the Company,
typically based on the lack of product identification.

If a specific product distributed by the Company were identified
in any of these lawsuits, the Company would attempt to exercise
indemnification remedies against the product manufacturer. The
Company believes that a substantial number of these claims are
covered by insurance.

W.W. Grainger Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and service
equipment, components, and supplies. For the business-to-
business market it supplies such products as compressors,
motors, signs, lighting and welding equipment, and hand and
power tools. Grainger also provides materials-management
consulting services. The Company is headquartered in Lake
Forest, Illinois.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy's Suits Stem from Site Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation faces numerous claims relating to
damages for personal injuries allegedly from the exposure or use
of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Power, the Company's franchised
electric business, or its electric generation plants during the
1960s and 1970s.

The Company has third-party insurance to cover losses related to
these asbestos-related injuries and damages above a certain
aggregate deductible. The insurance policy, including the policy
deductible and reserves, provides coverage to Duke Energy up to
an aggregate of US$1.6 billion when purchased in 2000.

These reserves are based upon current estimates and are subject
to uncertainty. Factors such as the frequency and magnitude of
future claims could change the current estimates of the related
reserves and claims for recoveries.

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke Energy Corporation's
regulated US utilities have a generating capacity of 20,000 MW
and distributes power to 2.2 million customers in the Carolinas.
Duke also distributes natural gas to 1.2 million Canadians and
operates a 17,500-mile pipeline system.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Named in 300 Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safety equipment and systems manufacturer Mine Safety Appliances
Co. states that it is presently named in about 3,000 lawsuits
involving respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured
and sold by the Company, according to a SEC report.

About 90% of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs who claim to
suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they suffer
from asbestosis or other combined injuries.

The figures remain the same as of the November 11, 2005 Class
Action Reporter edition.

All the suits represent a total of about 26,000 plaintiffs.
These suits typically allege that these conditions resulted in
part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in
silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there
has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could
potentially involve the Company.

The Company cannot determine its potential maximum liability for
such claims, in part because the defendants in these lawsuits
are often numerous, and the claims generally do not specify the
amount of damages sought.

Pittsburgh, PA-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective
equipment for miners and workers in the fire service,
construction, and homeland security industries. The company
produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks, and
head protection gear. Mine Safety derives about 15% of its sales
from the US military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Suits in 22 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries defend against
lawsuits in 22 states claiming various asbestos-related personal
injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according
to a Securities and Exchange report.

Such components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.

Claims have been filed in the courts of Alabama, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington
and Wyoming.

To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
by insurance.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment with the balance settled for reasonable amounts. Only
one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

IDEX Corporation manufactures pump products, dispensing
equipment, and other engineered products. The Company is
headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Investment firm Ariel
Capital Management Inc owns 22% of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Tackles Multi-Party Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter Inc. challenges numerous multi-party asbestos
lawsuits pending in various states, according to a Securities
and Exchange Commission report.

These lawsuits assert claims alleging that certain industrial
products were manufactured by the defendants and were the cause
of injury and harm.

Established in 1905, Badger Meter Inc. makes meters, valves,
flow tubes, and other measurement devices for original equipment
manufacturers, water and wastewater utilities, and
pharmaceutical, chemical, concrete, and food and beverage
industries. The Company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star Steel Settles 22 of 47 Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Star Technologies Inc. subsidiary, Lone Star Steel Co.,
resolves 22 asbestos-related lawsuits out of 47 suits, which
have been nagging Steel for the past seven years, according to a
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Fifteen suits, out of the 47, have been dismissed or are pending
dismissal. Steel did not manufacture or distribute any asbestos-
containing products.

Some or all of these claims may not be covered by the Company's
insurance. To date, several of these lawsuits have been settled
for about US$300,000 in the aggregate.

In 2003, Lone Star's inactive subsidiary Zinklahoma, Inc. has
been named as a defendant in seven suits alleging that the
plaintiffs had contracted mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos
products manufactured by the defendants and John Zink Co. Five
of these lawsuits have been dismissed and one was settled for
less than US$0.1 million.

Lone Star acquired the stock of Zink in 1987 and sold the assets
of the former Zink to Koch Industries, Inc. in 1989. The Company
renamed the now-inactive subsidiary "Zinklahoma, Inc."

Lone Star retained and agreed to indemnify Koch against certain
pre-closing liabilities of Zink. Koch continues to operate the
business as John Zink Company LLC.

Zink LLC has been named in 10 lawsuits in which the plaintiffs,
five of whom have mesothelioma, allege exposure to asbestos in
Zink's products (four of these have been dismissed) and three
personal injury lawsuits resulting from a 2001 explosion and
flash fire at a flare stack and crude unit atmospheric heater.

Zink allegedly manufactured the flare and related components for
the flare stack in the early 1970s. Koch is seeking damages from
Lone Star with respect to these six pending lawsuits. The costs
of defending and settling the lawsuits alleging exposure to
asbestos in Zink's products have been borne by Zink's insurance
carrier.

During the second quarter of 2005, Zink LLC was dismissed from
the three personal injury lawsuits when it was determined that
Zink did not manufacture the flare and components involved in
the fire.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Lone Star Technologies Inc.'s
oil field products include casing, tubing, and line pipe. The
Company's specialty tubing is used in precision mechanical
applications.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Texas Eastern Contends With Single Suit in LA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TEPPCO Partners LP states that general partner Texas Eastern
Pipeline Co LLC is facing a multi-defendant asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by numerous plaintiffs in the Louisiana District
Court, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

In the suit filed on May 2003, the plaintiffs claimed to have
suffered damages as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products and materials. The plaintiffs have not stipulated the
amount of damages that they are seeking in this suit.

According to the petition and as a result of a preliminary
investigation, Texas Eastern believes that the only claim
asserted against it results from one individual from July 1971
through June 1972, who is alleged to have worked on a facility
owned by Texas Eastern's predecessor.

The individual's claims involve numerous employers and alleged
job sites. Texas Eastern has been unable to confirm its
predecessors' or its involvement with the alleged location, and
it is uncertain at this time whether this case is covered by
insurance.

Discovery is planned, and Texas Eastern intends to defend itself
vigorously against this lawsuit.

TEPPCO is obligated to reimburse Texas Eastern for any costs it
incurs related to this suit.


COMPANY PROFILE

TEPPCO Partners LP
2929 Allen Pkwy.
Houston, TX 77252-2521
Phone: 713-759-3636
Fax: 713-759-3957
Toll Free: 800-877-3636
http://www.teppco.com

Description:
TEPPCO Partners LP transports refined petroleum products through
more than 5,500 miles of pipeline between Texas and New York.
The Company also transports more than 2.4 billion cu. ft. of
natural gas a day through more than 1,900 miles of pipeline in
Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming.


ASBESTOS ALERTS: Teledyne Wrongly Tied in Suits Because of Name
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teledyne Technologies Inc. states that, because of the prominent
"Teledyne" name, it may be mistakenly joined in lawsuits
involving a company or business that was not assumed by the
Company as part of its 1999 spin-off, according to a Securities
and Exchange Commission report.

The Company has been joined among a number of defendants, often
over 100, in lawsuits alleging injury or death as a result of
asbestos exposure.

The filings do not identify any of the Company's products as a
source of asbestos exposure, and the Company has been dismissed
from cases for lack of product identification.

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

Certain gas generators manufactured by the Company's Energy
Systems segment contain a sealed, wetted asbestos component.

While the Company has been using a replacement material, has
placed warning labels on its products and takes care in handling
of this material by employees, there is no assurance that the
Company will not face product liability claims involving this
component.


COMPANY PROFILE

Teledyne Technologies Inc.
12333 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1020
Phone: 310-893-1600
Fax: 310-893-1669
http://www.teledyne.com

Employees (2004)           : 6,600
Fiscal Year-End            : December
2005 Sales (mil.)          : US$1,206.5
2005 Net Income (mil.)     : US$64.2

Description:
The Company operates through four business segments. Electronics
and Communications, Systems Engineering Solutions, Aerospace
Engines and Components, and Energy Systems. The US government
accounts for more than 40% of sales.

The Company spun-off from Allegheny Teledyne Inc., which is now
known as Allegheny Technologies Inc., in November 29, 1999.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Anadarko Contends With 3rd-Party Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation has been named a defendant in
various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of
third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica
and benzene while working at refineries located in Texas,
California and Oklahoma.

Union Pacific Resources Group Inc. and Howell Corporation, two
companies Anadarko acquired in 2000 and 2002, respectively, sold
the refineries prior to being acquired by the Company.

The Company also defends against a number of lawsuits and is
involved in government proceedings arising in the ordinary
course of business, including, but not limited to, royalty
claims, contract claims, and environmental claims.

No significant litigation charges were noted in 2003. In 2005
and 2004, the Company spent US$64 million and US$62 million,
respectively, for litigation charges.


COMPANY PROFILE

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
1201 Lake Robbins Dr.
The Woodlands, TX 77380-1046
Phone: 832-636-1000
Fax: 832-636-8220
http://www.anadarko.com

Company Type:             Public (NYSE: APC)
Fiscal Year-End:          December
2005 Sales (mil.):        US$7,100.0
1-Year Sales Growth:      17.0%
2005 Net Income (mil.):   US$2,471.0
1-Year Net Income Growth: 53.9%
2005 Employees:           3,300

Description:
The Company explores for, develops, produces, and market oil,
natural gas, natural gas liquids, and related products
worldwide. More than half of the Company's reserves are found in
Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, the mid-continent and Rocky Mountain
regions, and the Gulf of Mexico.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. (CB&I) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the Company between March 9,
2005 to February 15, 2006, inclusive.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 20(a) and Section 10(b) of The Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5.

CB&I, a Netherlands corporation, engineers and designs,
fabricates, erects, and repairs steel plate structures and their
associated systems.  The company serves customers in a number of
key industries including oil and gas, petrochemical and
chemical, power, water and wastewater, and metals and mining.

Beginning in March 2005 through August 2005, CB&I consistently
issued favorable press releases lauding the company's financial
strength, consistently reporting an increase in net income and
share value for the 2004 fiscal year and the first two quarters
of 2005.  On May 10, 2005 the Company filed its first quarter
report with the SEC on a Form 10-Q.  Pursuant to section 302 of
Sarbanes Oxley, the Form 10-Q contained signed certifications by
the company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officers.  On August 8, 2005, the Company filed with the SEC its
Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended June 30, 2005.  In the
Form 10-Q, the Company reiterated previously announced financial
results and was signed by the chief financial officer.

In truth, statements issued by the defendants during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading when made because
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was materially overstating its financial
         results by failing to properly utilize percentage-of
         completion accounting;

     (2) the Company failed to properly recognize revenue on two
         projects;

     (3) the Company was not following its publicly stated
         revenue recognition policies;

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to ensure
         the accuracy of its reported financial results and
         guidance;

     (5) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with GAAP; and

     (6) that as a result, the Company's guidance lacked any
         reasonable basis in fact.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888) 476.6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com.


GRAFTECH INT'L: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware against GrafTech
International Limited.

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 November 3, 2005 through February 8, 2006.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


NVE CORPORATION: Seeger Weiss Files Stock Fraud Suit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Seeger Weiss, LLP, initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf
of purchasers of NVE Corporation (NVE) (Nasdaq:NVEC) common
stock in the open market between May 22, 2003 and February 11,
2005.  The complaint seeks remedies for the class under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges that defendants:

     (1) NVE Corporation,

     (2) Daniel A. Baker,

     (3) James M. Daughton, and

     (4) Jeffrey K. Kaszubinski

violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.  NVE is a leader in the
practical commercialization of spintronics, a nanotechnology,
which may represent the next generation of microelectronics.
NVE licenses intellectual property and sells spintronic
products, including sensors and couplers.

NVE primarily licensed its intellectual property (the patents it
held on Magnetic Random Access Memories (MRAM) technology) to
other companies, including, most notably, Cypress Semiconductor
Corp. for the development of products.  The complaint alleges
that beginning on May 22, 2003, NVE issued a series of press
releases containing materially false and misleading statements
related to MRAM.

On February 14, 2005, Cypress Semiconductor announced that the
development of anything other than a small niche market for MRAM
technology was not economically feasible.  On this news, the
price of the Company's common stock began to decline from a
February 11, 2005 closing price of $28.36 to a closing price of
$17.04 on April 19, 2005, when NVE finally issued a press
release commenting on the Cypress Semiconductor announcement.
NVE's stock price has yet to return to the February 14, 2005
price of $25.32 per share and has been trading recently at
approximately $17.50 per share.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss. Esq. and Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss, LLP, One William Street, New
York, New York 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700 and (877) 541-3273,
E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com and echaffin@seegerweiss.com, Web
site: http://www.seegerweiss.com.


PROQUEST CO: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of ProQuest Company between January
9, 2003 and February 8, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

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

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


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
(Nasdaq:TTWO) between October 25, 2004 and January 27, 2006,
inclusive.

Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP is seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants Take-Two,
Paul Eibeler, Karl H. Winters, and Gary Lewis.  The Complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made numerous
misrepresentations about the success of the Company's video game
"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," and the strong contribution
that it was making to the Company's overall revenues.  As
alleged in the Complaint, defendants failed to disclose that it
had improperly hid pornographic materials directly in the
programming of the "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" game.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose
the inclusion of the pornographic materials in order to obtain a
rating of "Mature 17+" by the Entertainment Software Rating
Board (ESRB), a private independent group that rates video
games.  As alleged in the Complaint, had the ESRB known of the
pornographic materials contained in the game, it would have
assigned it a rating of "Adults Only 18+" and it would not have
been carried for sale in the major retail chains, such as Wal-
Mart and Target, who refuse to carry such games.  Indeed, when
it was subsequently disclosed that the ESRB had revised its
rating on the game to "Adults Only 18+," the Company was forced
to reduce its financial guidance.

On January 27, 2006, the last day of the Class Period, it was
announced that the City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles had
filed an action against the Company and its subsidiary for
making misleading statements in the marketing of "Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas," and engaging in unfair competition.  The
action sought disgorgement of the Company's profits from the
sales of the game in California before the game was re-rated.

In direct response to this announcement, Take-Two's stock price
plunged approximately $2.34 per share, or 13.7%, on more than 21
million shares traded -- approximately ten times the average
daily trading volume during the preceding 12 months. Prior to
the announcement, however, company insiders, including the
defendants, were able to capitalize on the inflated stock price,
and sell more than 661,000 shares of their personally-held Take-
Two stock for proceeds of over $18 million.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi and 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.


                            *********


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, Maria Cristina Canson and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  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  * * *