CAR_Public/060707.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 134

                            Headlines

ACCREDITED HOME: Suit Over Mortgage Loans Fees Remains Pending
ALBERTSONS INC: EEOC Files Colo. Racial, Ethnic Harassment Suit
AMERICAN HOME: Mortgage Loan Fees Suit in Ill. Remains Pending
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls ATVs to Repair Rear Brake
BRADY FARMS: Settles Labor Lawsuit Filed by Migrant Workers

CALPINE CORP: Appeal on Calif. ERISA Suit's Dismissal to Proceed
CALPINE CORP: Hawaii Fund Appeals Extension of Automatic Stay
CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Short-Selling Transactions
HEAT & GLO: Recalls Twilight Gas Fireplaces for Fire Hazard

INDIANA: August Hearing Set in Medicaid Lawsuit Settlement
KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11
LOUISIANA: Suit Filed Over Demolition of Housing Complexes
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Calif.
MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Consumers' Suit Remanded to State Court

MONACO COACH: Recalls Hundreds of Motor Home Workhorse Chassis
MSG/NUCLEOTIDES SETTLEMENT: $39.775M Windfall Awaits Plaintiffs
NEW MEXICO: Santa Fe County Jail Settles Strip Search Lawsuit
NEW YORK: NYLAG Files Suit in N.Y. Over USCIS Processing Delays
ORKIN INC: Appeals Court Dismisses "Butland" Lawsuit in Fla.

PHILIPPINES: Marcos Victims Payout Depends on Available Funding
RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25
SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Remands Consumer Suit Back to Calif.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Judge Okays Continental Forge Settlement
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissed Pa. Stock Suit

SUPERIOR FORESTRY: Migrant Workers' Suit Denied Class Status
TRAVEL COMPANIES: New Mexico City Sues Online Travel Agents
UNION PACIFIC: Workers File Suit Over Personal Data Theft in Ia.
UNION PACIFIC: Tex. Lawyer Asks Class Status for Derailment Suit

UNITED KINGDOM: Lloyd's Investors Commence GBP1B Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Indictment Spurs Transparency Act


                         Asbestos Alert
   
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits v. Flowserve Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Faces Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Officials Get 4T Payout Applications
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Notes 257 Defendants in 4 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Dumps UCC's Claims v. Conwed

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DaimlerChrysler Holds 28,000 Claims in 4Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Asks Court to Estimate Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Group Seeks to Change ASARCO Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning to Agree on Royal Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Says Locals Deserve Payments

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Payout for Mother's Death Sought in Japan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Wins Payout for Lung-Cancer Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun, GM Clash Over Memo as Proof
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Considers Selling Off ABB Lummus Global
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian EPA to Monitor College Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Bans Use of Alimta for Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAT, Allianz Australia Settle Cancer Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reduces Liabilities by $900Mil in Sale
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court, Cape Approve GBP40M Fund for Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widows to Gain After Reversal of Ruling


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KLA-TENCOR: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Suit Over Mortgage Loans Fees Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Accredited Home Lenders Inc. over
residential mortgage loans fees has stopped moving after Madison
County, Illinois Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron denied in
December the company's motion to reconsider a class
certification, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In December 2002, the company was served with a complaint and
motion for class certification in the suit "Wratchford et al. v.
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc."  The case was brought in  
Madison County, Illinois under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and  
Deceptive Business Practices Act, the consumer protection
statutes of the other states in which the company does business
and the common law of unjust enrichment.  

The complaint alleges that the company has a practice of
misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees it pays to
third parties in connection with the residential mortgage loans
that it funds.  

Plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting of
others similarly situated, that is, those who paid the company
to pay, or reimburse the company's payments of, third-party fees
in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received
a refund for the difference between what they paid and what was
actually paid to the third party.  

Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court may
grant.  

On Jan. 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying:  

      -- a class of Illinois residents with respect to the  
         alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and  
         Deceptive Business Practices Act who, since Nov.
         19, 1997, paid money to Accredited Home for third-party
         fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and
         never received a refund of the difference between the
         amount they paid to Accredited Home and the amount
          Accredited Home paid to the third party; and  

      -- a nationwide class of claimants with respect to an  
         unjust enrichment cause of action included in the  
         original complaint who, since Nov. 19, 1997 paid  
         money to Accredited Home for third-party fees in
         connection with residential mortgage loans and never
         received a refund of the difference between the amount
         they paid Accredited Home and the amount AHL paid the
         third party.  

The court conditioned its order limiting the statutory consumer
fraud act claims to claimants in the state of Illinois on the
outcome of a case pending before the Illinois Supreme Court in
which one of the issues is the propriety of certifying a
nationwide class based on the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.  

According to Accredited Home's May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2006, the company intended to petition the
Illinois Supreme Court for a supervisory order reversing the
lower court's class certification decision -- the lower court
having denied the company's motion for reconsideration of the
court's order granting class certification and the court's
denial of the company's request for leave to take an
interlocutory appeal of such order.  

A June 1 report by The Madison St. Clair Record said nothing has
happened in the case since.


ALBERTSONS INC: EEOC Files Colo. Racial, Ethnic Harassment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against
Albertson's Inc. over a decade-long pattern of harassment at a
suburban Denver distribution center, the cbs5.com reports.

In the lawsuit, EEOC claims that it traced harassment at the
Aurora center as far back as 1995, which ranged from racist
graffiti on bathroom fixtures to threats of violence against
Hispanic and black employees.

The EEOC allege that the grocery chain's managers failed to take
adequate action to end what the agency described as a hostile
work environment.

The suit alleges that representatives of Albertsons human
resources department failed to act when a black employee accused
a white manager of threatening him with physical violence.

The EEOC is seeking remuneration for employees for emotional
pain, suffering and inconvenience.  It is also seeking for
Albertsons' eradication of practices that created the hostile
work environment.

In a statement, the company said it will investigate the
allegations and possibly take corrective and disciplinary
action.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Albertson's Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01273-WYD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Wiley Y.
Daniel.

Representing the plaintiffs are Rita Byrnes Kittle, Kim Rene
Rogers and Nancy A. Weeks all of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission-Colorado, 303 East 17th Avenue, #510
Denver, CO 80203, Phone: 303-866-1347 or 303-866-1361 or 303-
866-1947, Fax: 303-866-1375, E-mail: rita.kittle@eeoc.gov or
kim.rogers@eeoc.gov or nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov.


AMERICAN HOME: Mortgage Loan Fees Suit in Ill. Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action over residential mortgage loan fees filed against
American Home Loans has stopped moving after plaintiffs replied
to defendant's motion to decertify the suit, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

The suit was filed by Alton, Illinois attorney Emert Wyss on
behalf of Paul Wratchford and Ladonna Wratchford, who closed a
mortgage at Centerre Title.  The Wratchfords claim that American
Home had kept part of a $50 fee they paid for a credit report.

Centerre Title is a company Mr. Wyss owned next to his law
office.  In 2004, defendant Alliance Mortgage moved Circuit
Judge Phillip Kardis to add Centerre Title and Mr. Wyss as third
party defendants.  Judge Kardis granted the motion.  The effect
was that Mr. Wyss accidentally sued himself.

Mr. Wyss moved and was allowed to dismiss himself from the case.  
He also moved to dismiss Centerre Title as defendant, but the
judge denied the motion.

Byron certified the case in January 2005.  Defendants moved for
leave to appeal, but Judge Byron denied the motion last July.

In October, the new attorney for American Home Loans, John
Baroni of St. Louis, amended the answer to the complaint.  He
asked Judge Byron to deny class certification, enter judgment in
favor of his client on all counts, dismiss with prejudice, and
award attorney fees and costs.

The plaintiffs replied, and nothing has happened since,
according to a June 1 report by The Madison St. Clair Record.  
Judge Byron has set case management conferences and the parties
have agreed to continue them, the report said.

Mr. Baroni is an associate in Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard,
A Professional Corporation, One City Centre, 15th Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (Independent City), Phone: 314-231-
3332; 800-225-5529, Telecopier: 314-241-7604.


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls ATVs to Repair Rear Brake
----------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Recreational Products of Quebec, Canada, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 11,300 units of Bombardier all-terrain vehicles.

The company said the operator could ride with their foot
engaging the rear brake without noticing.  This can cause the
rear brake to overheat and possibly ignite, posing a risk of
serious injury or death.

Bombardier has received eight reports of fire caused by the rear
brake overheating and igniting.  The fires only involved
property damage to the ATVs.  No injuries have been reported.

Included in the recall are Bombardier brand Model Year 2006
Outlander 650 and 800 ATVs and Some Can-Am brand Model Year 2007
Outlander 650 ATVs.  Serial numbers are located on the front of
the ATV on the identification decal.  The ATVs were available in
yellow, green, red, and camouflage.

These all-terrain vehicles were manufactured in Canada and are
being sold at Bombardier and Can-Am ATV dealers nationwide from
August 2005 through June 2006 for between $7,900 and $10,400.

Picture of the recalled all-terrain vehicle:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06561.jpg

Consumers are advised to pay close attention when operating and
be careful not to accidentally engage the rear brake with their
foot.  Consumers should immediately contact their local
Bombardier or Can-Am ATV dealer to schedule an appointment for a
free repair.  Consumers with the recalled ATVs are being sent
direct notices from BRP.

For more information, call Bombardier at (888) 864-2002 between
8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET or visit http://www.brp.com.


BRADY FARMS: Settles Labor Lawsuit Filed by Migrant Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brady Farms of Grand Haven Township, Michigan has settled a
lawsuit filed by migrant workers employed in the Ottawa County
blueberry farm, according to The Grand Rapids Press.

The Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project initiated a suit
against Brady Farms in 2004, alleging labor law violations, the
Holland Sentinel reports (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7, 2004).

The group filed the suit on behalf of 19 field workers as a
purported class action.  The suit accuses owner Robert L. Brady
and several of his supervisors of failing to pay the blueberry
pickers minimum wage, keeping accurate pay records, and
providing adequate access to water, bathrooms and washing
facilities.  The proposed class included workers who suffered
the alleged claims between July 22, 1998 and Dec. 31, 2005.

Details of the recent settlement agreement were not disclosed,
but it reportedly involves monetary compensation, according to
The Grand Rapids Press.  Defendants denied any wrongdoing.

Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Brady Farms Inc., and its owner Robert Brady,
     -- Autumn Leaves, LLC (owner),
     -- Dos Amigos, LLC (owner),
     -- Twin Lake Farms Inc.,
     -- Jose Arturo Chavez (farm contractor),
     -- Santiago-Botello-Perez (farm contractor),
     -- Juan Esteban Garcia (farm contractor),
     -- Mauro Lopez (farm contractor),
     -- Ismael Perez (farm contractor),
     -- Adrian Zavala (farm contractor),
     -- Jose Trujillo-Gomez (farm contractor), and
     -- Vicente Perez (farm contractor)

Based in Grand Haven Township at 14786 Winans St., Brady Farms
has fields in Holland and Olive townships, as well as near the
company's base in Grand Haven Township and in the Nunica area.


CALPINE CORP: Appeal on Calif. ERISA Suit's Dismissal to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties allowed an appeal to proceed in relation to the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California of a consolidated class action against Calpine
Corp.

On April 17, 2003, James Phelps filed a class action complaint,
alleging claims under Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  
On May 19, 2003, Lenette Poor-Herena filed a nearly identical
class action complaint in the same court.  

The parties agreed to have both of the ERISA actions assigned to
Judge Armstrong.  On Aug. 20, 2003, pursuant to an agreement
between the parties, Judge Armstrong ordered that the two ERISA
actions be consolidated as, "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA."  

Plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated ERISA complaint on
Jan. 20, 2004.  Ms. Poor-Herena is not identified as a plaintiff
in the Consolidated Complaint.

The consolidated complaint defines the class as all participants
in, and beneficiaries of the Calpine Corp. Retirement Savings
Plan for whose accounts investments were made in Calpine stock
from Jan. 5, 2001 to the present.  

It names as defendants:

     -- the company;
     -- the members of its board of directors;
     -- the Plan's Advisory Committee and its members:

        * Kati Miller,
        * Lisa Bodensteiner,
        * Rick Barraza,
        * Tom Glymph,
        * Patrick Price,
        * Trevor Thor,
        * Bob McCaffrey
        * Bryan Bertacchi;

     -- signatories of the Plan's Annual Return/Report of
        Employee Benefit Plan Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002:
        Pamela J. Norley and Marybeth Kramer-Johnson,
        Respectively;

     -- an employee of a consulting firm hired by the Plan:
        Scott Farris; and

     -- unidentified fiduciary defendants.   

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties involving the plan, in violation of ERISA by:

      -- misrepresenting the company's actual financial results
         and earnings projections;

      -- failing to disclose certain transactions between the
         company and Enron Corp. that allegedly inflated
         Calpine's revenues;

      -- failing to disclose that the shortage of power in
         California during 2000-2001 was due to withholding of
         capacity by certain power companies; and

      -- failing to investigate whether Calpine common stock was
         an appropriate investment for the plan, and failing to
         take appropriate actions to prevent losses to the plan.

In addition, the consolidated complaint alleges that certain of
the individual defendants suffered from conflicts of interest
due to their sales of the company's common stock during the
class period.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  Judge
Armstrong granted the motion and dismissed three of the four
claims with prejudice.  The remaining claim, for
misrepresentation, was dismissed with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on June 3,
2005.  The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants
Calpine Corp. and the members of the Advisory Committee for the
Plan.  

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.  The court granted defendants' motions and dismissed
the plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on
Dec. 5, 2005.  

Plaintiff appealed the court's dismissal orders to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Ninth Circuit has extended the
stay to the other defendants, suspended the briefing schedule on
the appeal as to all parties, and requested a status report,
which was filed on June 28, 2006.  

The company recently filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants.  
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the hearing was scheduled for
June 5, 2006.  

Just prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated to allow the
appeal to proceed and, if the lower court ruling is reversed,
the plaintiffs may then seek leave from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to proceed with the action.

The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
4:03-cv-01685-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward W. Ciolko and F. Andre Delfi of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) Robert S. Green and Robert A. Jigarjian of Green
         Welling, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-
         6710, E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.

Representing the company is Robert L. McKague of Morrison &
Foerster, LLP, 755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-813-5835, Fax: 650-494-0792, E-mail: rmckague@mofo.com.


CALPINE CORP: Hawaii Fund Appeals Extension of Automatic Stay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund is appealing the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York's
order extending the automatic stay to the individual defendants
in a California state court suit against Calpine Corp.

The suit is a Section 11 case brought as a class action.  It was
filed on behalf of purchasers in the company's April 2002 stock
offering.  

The case was filed in San Diego County Superior Court on March
11, 2003.  However, defendants won a motion to transfer the case
to Santa Clara County.  

Defendants in the case include the company, Peter Cartwright,
Ann B. Curtis, John Wilson, Kenneth Derr, George Stathakis,
Credit Suisse First Boston, Banc of America Securities, Deutsche
Bank Securities, and Goldman, Sachs & Co.

The Hawaii Fund alleges that the prospectus and registration
statement for the April 2002 offering had false or misleading
statements regarding:

      -- Calpine's actual financial results for 2000 and 2001;

      -- Calpine's projected financial results for 2002;  

      -- Mr. Cartwright's agreement not to sell or purchase
         shares within 90 days of the  offering; and

      -- Calpine's alleged involvement in "wash trades."

A central allegation of the complaint is that a March 2003
restatement concerning the accounting for two sales-leaseback
transactions revealed that the company had misrepresented its
financial results in the prospectus/registration statement for
the April 2002 offering.  

This action is stayed as to the company pursuant to federal
bankruptcy law.  There is no trial date in this action.  

The company recently filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants,
or enjoin further prosecution of the action.  The Hawaii Fund
opposed that motion.  

On June 5, 2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the motion.  
Accordingly, the case is now stayed as to the company entity
defendants and the individual defendants.

On June 16, 2006, the Hawaii Fund filed a notice of appeal of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's order extending the automatic stay
to the individual defendants.

The suit is "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v.
Calpine, et al."


CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 16, 2006 for the proposed
$5,250,000 settlement in a securities class action against
Carreker Corp.

The case was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Carreker Corp. from July 30, 1999 to Dec. 10, 2002.  It
alleges violations of:

     -- Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
        1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants:

        * the company,
        * John D. Carreker Jr.,
        * Ronald Antinori and Terry L. Gage, except Ernst & \        
          Young LLP,

     -- violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
        the individual defendants; and

     -- violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act
        against defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald
        Antinori.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jane J. Boyle at
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100
Commerce St., Dallas, Texas 75242.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made before Aug. 2, 2006 and July 17, 2006, respectively.  Claim
forms must be submitted before Oct. 2, 2006.

The suit is "In re Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:03-CV-0250-B."

For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Carreker Corp.
Securities Litigation, Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P., P.O.
Box 270, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0270, Phone: 1-800-252-5745, E-
mail: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/carr/.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Short-Selling Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. is a defendant in two purported class
actions filed beginning April 12, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by customers who
engaged in short-selling transactions in equity securities since
April 12, 2000.

The suits, filed by the hedge funds, Electronic Trading Group
LLC and Quark Fund LLC, are:

      -- "Quark Fund, LLC. v. Banc of America Securities LLC et
         al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02933-VM," and

      -- "Electronic Trading Group, LLC v. Banc of America
         Securities LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02859-VM."

The complaints generally allege that the customers were charged
fees in connection with the short sales but that the applicable
securities were not necessarily borrowed to effect delivery,
resulting in failed deliveries.

Both complaints allege that this conduct constituted a
conspiracy in violation of the federal antitrust laws, and also
assert claims under the New York Business Law and common law.

The suits are both filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero.

Representing the plaintiffs is Vincent R. Cappucci of Entwistle
& Cappucci, LLP, 280 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212) 894-7200.

Representing the company Richard Howard Klapper of Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP, (NYC), 125 Broad Street, NY, NY 10004, Phone:
212-558-3555, Fax: 212-558-3588, E-mail: klapperr@sullcrom.com.


HEAT & GLO: Recalls Twilight Gas Fireplaces for Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heat & Glo, of Lakeville, Minnesota, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,550 units of indoor/outdoor gas fireplaces.

The company said temperatures in the framing header area above
these fireplaces can get too high, posing a fire hazard.

Heat & Glo has received a report of one incident resulting in
property damage that may be related to this hazard.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves the Heat & Glo Twilight II and IIB
indoor/outdoor see-through gas fireplaces.  The model name,
Twilight II or IIB, can be found by looking at the bottom right
side of the inside of the control compartment of the inside
portion of the fireplace.

These fireplaces were manufactured in Canada and are being sold
by fireplace stores and distributors nationwide from July 2005
through April 2006 for about $3,700.

Picture of the recalled fireplace:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06562.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these fireplaces until the
repair is performed.  Homeowners are being contacted by Heat &
Glo to schedule an appointment for the free repair.

For more information, contact Heat & Glo at (800) 215-5152
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the
company's Website: http://www.heatnglo.com.


INDIANA: August Hearing Set in Medicaid Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------  
An Aug. 2, 2006 hearing has been set before a district court for
the settlement of a class action filed by six Medicaid
recipients who lost benefits after state officials ruled their
incomes were too high to receive assistance, the
SouthBendTribune.com reports.

State officials have agreed to reinstate Medicaid benefits for
about 10,000 blind, elderly and disabled people in order to
settle the class action.

The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration had
stopped giving aid to some Medicaid recipients starting Jan. 1
after it automated much of its program in response to a 2003
lawsuit.  As a result, some recipients lost the aid in January.  
In certain cases, the concerned individuals didn't even knew
about it.

Under the settlement, the FSSA will stop removing people from
the program without a hearing.  It said it will take about 30
days to reinstate people in the list.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Mary Daugherty of
Vincennes.  Representing plaintiffs is Scott R. Severns of
Severns & Bennett, P.C. (http://www.severns.com/)Indianapolis,  
Indiana (Marion Co.).

According to Mr. Severns the state had terminated benefits to
about 300 to 350 people a month.


KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias will hold a
fairness hearing on the proposed $717,031 settlement of the
class action "In re Kava Kava Litigation" on Aug. 11, 2006, 9:00
a.m.  

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons in California who
purchased products containing the herb Kava Kava between March
14, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2005.  

The trial will be at Department 308 of the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, 600 South Commonwealth
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.  

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is July 14, 2006.

Under the settlement, the court shall enter a permanent
injunction requiring each settling defendant to provide specific
product warnings on all Kava Products that the respective
settling defendant makes available for sale in the state of
California or makes available for sale to any third party whom
settling defendants know will offer Kava Products for sale in
the State of California.  In summary, the warnings pertain to
the alleged risk of liver problems associated with Kava Product
use, among other warnings.

The settling defendants have also agreed to make settlement
payments, totaling $717,031, from which two charitable
contributions, together totaling at least $100,000, will be made
to two organizations agreed upon by the settling parties and
approved by the Court.  

Class counsel will apply for attorneys' fees and expenses not to
exceed $520,531.  This amount will not fully reimburse class
counsel for their fees and costs.  

In addition, class counsel will ask the court to award each of
the representative plaintiffs $500 in recognition of the
services provided for the class in this lawsuit.  The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on April 27, 2006.  

In 2002, cases were filed against certain entities that
allegedly manufactured, distributed and/or sold products
containing "kava kava" or "piper methysticum" without adequately
warning consumers of alleged risks of liver damage.  These
actions were subsequently consolidated by the Los Angeles
Superior Court into: "In re Kava Kava Litigation, Case No. BC
269717."

For more information, contact:

     (1) defendants' notice counsel: Amy P. Lally, Sidley Austin
         LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA
         90013; or

     (2) co-lead class counsel: Christopher M. Burke of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West
         Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058); or

     (3) David R. Scott and Arthur L. Shingler III Scott+Scott,
         LLC, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone:
         619-233-4565.


LOUISIANA: Suit Filed Over Demolition of Housing Complexes
----------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen former residents of public housing units in New
Orleans, Louisiana filed a purported class action in federal
court on June 27 over the demolition of the complexes they used
to live in.

The St. Bernard, C.J. Peete, B.W. Cooper and Lafitte housing
complexes have been shuttered under a plan by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to redevelop them.  The plan
emerged after the housing projects were destroyed by Hurricane
Katrina.

The suit alleges discrimination, violation of fair housing,
equal protection and international laws that protect people
displaced by natural disasters.  In the aspect of
discrimination, the defendants allegedly prevented low-income
black families from returning to the city.  Plaintiffs are
demanding that the federal government help low-income residents
return to their former neighborhoods.  

The suit was filed in part by the Advancement Project, a
national civil-rights and racial justice organization based in
Washington, D.C.  

Defendants are the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Housing Authority of New Orleans.  The suit
specifically names as defendants HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson,
and two federal officials recently assigned to run the Housing
Authority's board, Donald Babers and Bill Thorson.

The suit is "Anderson et al. v. Jackson et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under
Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle with referral to Alma L. Chasez.

Representing the plaintiff is William Patrick Quigley of Loyola
Law School Clinic, 7214 St. Charles Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118,
Phone: (504) 861-5590, Fax: duprestars@yahoo.com.


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Interactive Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to the company's July
3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended May 26, 2006.

Starting Aug. 19, 2005, several securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, on behalf of
purchasers of the company's stock from October 2003 to November
2005.

The class actions were later consolidated as "In re Mercury
Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-
3395."  The original actions were:

      -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395";

      -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         3864";

      -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         4031"; and

      -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157.

The securities class action complaints allege, among other
things, violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaints generally allege that the company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its business and operations, and seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against the defendants.

On May 5, 2006, the Court appointed the Mercury Pension Fund
Group, represented by Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, as lead plaintiff and counsel.

The parties stipulated, and the court approved, a briefing
schedule by which the consolidated amended complaint will be
filed between Aug. 7, 2006 and Sept. 5, 2006.

The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel
with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 619-233-4565, Fax: 619-233-0508, E-mail: ashingler@scott-
scott.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Nicole Acton Jones of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 333 Bush
         Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-772-6032,
         Fax: 415-772-6268, E-mail:
         nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com;

     (2) Kirk Andrew Dublin of Jones Day, 555 California Street,
         26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104-1500, Phone: 415-
         626-3939, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail:
         kdublin@jonesday.com;

     (3) Jeffrey S. Facter of Shearman & Sterling, LLP, 525
         Market Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105,
         Phone: 415-616-1100, Fax: 415-616-1199, E-mail:
         jfacter@shearman.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Consumers' Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
remanded a class action filed by software purchasers against
Microsoft Corp. back to state court, according to McGlinchey
Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.

Entitled, "Comes and Riley Paint, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp." the
suit was initially filed in District Court for Polk County Iowa
and later transferred to the district court.

On Sept. 16, 2003, the Iowa trial court certified two classes of
Iowa software purchasers.  One class represents the "Microsoft
Operating Systems Software Class," which consists of Iowa
indirect purchasers of Microsoft . . . operating systems
software.  The second class is the "Microsoft Applications
Software Class," which consists of Iowa indirect purchasers of
Microsoft applications software.  

In an attempt to keep the case in the district court, the
company took advantage of the plaintiffs' fourth amended
complaint, which was filed after the Class Action Fairness Act's
date of commencement.

However, Chief Judge Ronald E. Longstaff's disagreed with the
company's argument on the jurisdictional issues, and the court
held that the civil action commenced in February of 2000 when
the software purchasing plaintiffs filed their original
complaint in Iowa state court.

After that the judge addresses the company's assertion that
federal jurisdiction was proper due to the federal questions
presented in the plaintiffs' latest version of their complaint.

However, the court concluded that broad allegations of
violations of federal securities laws and a brief mention of
intellectual property did not create federal jurisdiction.   

It added that the securities law violations in the plaintiffs'
fourth petition were not related to their claim for relief.  
Judge Longstaff noted that simply raising a point of federal law
in the context of state law claims does not generate federal
question jurisdiction.

Finally, the court addresses issues in relation the Class Action
Fairness Act.  Judge Longstaff did not recognize the burden of
proof split perpetuated by CAFA, and immediately shouldered the
company with the burden of proving removal was proper. It Relied
on the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure that state a civil action
commences upon a filing of a petition to the court.  The court
held that a civil action could only be commenced once.

Reinforcing its reasoning with CAFA's legislative history, the
district court recognized Congress's intent to limit CAFA's
application to cases filed after it became effective.

Judge Longstaff concluded that the plaintiffs were not seeking
to recover on a new claim, and therefore the action commenced
long before CAFA became law, precluding removal under the
statute.  Finding no federal jurisdiction existed, the case
remanded back to state court.  

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

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d55.

The suit is "Comes et al v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 4:05-cv-
00562-REL-RAW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa under Judge Ronald E. Longstaff with
referral to Judge Ross A. Walters.

Representing the plaintiffs is Roxanne Barton Conlin of Roxanne
Conlin & Associates, 319 7th Street, Suite 600, Des Moines, IA
50309, Phone: 515 283 1111, Fax: 515 282 0477, E-mail:
roxlaw@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Brent B. Green of Duncan Green Brown Langeness &
         Eckley, PC, 400 Locust St., Suite 380, Des Moines, IA
         50309-2331, Phone: 515 288 6440, Fax: 288 6448, E-mail:
         bgreen@duncangreenlaw.com;

     (2) Sharon L. Nelles of Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad
         Street, New York, NY 10004, US, Phone: 212-558-4000;
         and

     (3) Edward W. Remsburg of Ahlers & Cooney, PC, 100 Court
         Ave., Ste. 600, Des Moines, IA 50309-2231, Phone: 515
         243 7611, Fax: 243 2149, E-mail:
         eremsbur@ahlerslaw.com.


MONACO COACH: Recalls Hundreds of Motor Home Workhorse Chassis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monaco Coach Corp., in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 404 units
Workhorse Chassis.

The company said certain motor home chassis built on Workhorse
Chassis may have been equipped with incorrect steering
intermediate shafts. The spline can strip while the steering
wheel is being turned.  The steering condition could result in a
loss of steering control, increasing the risk of crash.

These motor home chassis models are included in the recall:

Make/Models:                 Model/Build Years:      

HOLIDAY RAMBLER/ADMIRAL SE       2006
HOLIDAY RAMBLER/VACATIONER       2006-2007
MONACO COACH/LAPALMA             2006-2007
MONACO COACH/MONARCH             2007
MONACO COACH/MONARCH SE          2006
SAFARI/SIMBA                     2006
SAFARI/TREK                      2006-2007

Consumers are advised to inform Workhorse for inspection and, if
necessary, for replacement of the steering intermediate shaft.

For more information, contact Workhorse at 1-877-294-6773 or
Monaco Coach at 1-800-685-6545.


MSG/NUCLEOTIDES SETTLEMENT: $39.775M Windfall Awaits Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
A $39.775 million settlement has been proposed in a class action
involving indirect purchasers of the flavor enhancers monosodium
glutamate (MSG) or Nucleotides (DSG, DSI, and I-plus-G) and
products containing MSG or Nucleotides.

The settlement resolves alleged antitrust, consumer protection
and unfair trade practice law violations against:

      -- Archer Daniels Midland Co.;  

      -- Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and Ajinomoto USA, Inc.;  

      -- CJ Corp., f/k/a Cheil Jedang Corporation and CJ  
         America, Inc.;  

      -- Daesang Corporation Daesang Group d/b/a/ Miwon Group,
         Miwon Company Ltd., Daesang Japan, Inc. and Daesang  
         America, Inc.;  

      -- Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko U.S.A., Inc.,  
         Kyowa Foods, Inc., and Kyowa America, Inc.;  

      -- Samsung Corp.; and  

      -- Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Limited f/k/a Takeda Chemical  
         Industries Ltd.

Although the defendants have agreed to settle these allegations,
they deny the violations ever occurred.

The settlement affects consumers and businesses that indirectly
purchased MSG and/or Nucleotides manufactured or sold by any of
the defendants between Jan. 1, 1983 and Oct. 1, 1999 in:

      * Arizona,
      * Arkansas,
      * District of Columbia,
      * Florida,
      * Hawaii,
      * Iowa,
      * Kansas,
      * Louisiana,
      * Maine,
      * Michigan,
      * Minnesota,
      * Mississippi,
      * Nevada,
      * New Jersey,
      * New Mexico,
      * New York,
      * North Carolina,
      * North Dakota,
      * Puerto Rico,
      * South Dakota,
      * Tennessee,
      * Vermont,
      * West Virginia,
      * Wisconsin

Indirect purchasers are those persons or entities that purchased
MSG or Nucleotides from a source other than the manufacturer.

MSG and Nucleotides are food flavor enhancers used in a variety
of foods such as dehydrated soups and gravies; canned meat;
sausage; prepared meals; tomato sauce and ketchup; mayonnaise;
snack foods; soy sauce; preserved crab, prawn, fish and
shellfish; Asian cuisine; and prepared vegetables.

The court in the Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo,  
State of New Mexico will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 25,  
2006 at 9:00 a.m. MDT for the proposed settlement.

The suit is "Eugene Higgins v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Case
No. 06168."  It alleges that from Jan. 1, 1983 until at least
Nov. 1, 1999 the defendants, along with their co-conspirators,
conspired to fix prices, allocate market share and otherwise
restrain trade and eliminate competition in the U.S. for the
sale of MSG and Nucleotides, both food flavor enhancers in
violation of state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair
trade practices acts (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2006).

Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement are due on  
Sept. 15, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Settlement Administrator] MSG Indirect Purchaser,  
         Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 832, Acworth, GA  
         30101-0832, Phone: 1-888-245-1009, Web site:  
         http://www.msgindirectsettlement.com/;     

     (2) [Plaintiff] David Boies, III of Straus & Boies, LLP,  
         4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor, Fairfax, VA  22030,  
         Phone: (703) 764-8700; and

     (3) [Defendant] Michael R. Lazerwitz, Esq. of Cleary
         Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 2000 Pennsylvania  
         Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, Phone: (202) 974-
         1500.


NEW MEXICO: Santa Fe County Jail Settles Strip Search Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed by former Santa Fe County jail inmates
who were strip-searched at the county jail have reached a
preliminary settlement, according to Associated Press.

An order filed by U.S. Magistrate Alan Torgerson says the
parties are drafting the necessary documents, which they should
file by a July 10 deadline.

The suit filed in January 2005 concerns the jail's blanket strip
search policy.  It seeks to permanently end the practice as well
as the inspections of all inmates admitted to the jail.  

The suit alleges that none of the plaintiffs named were admitted
to the jail for violent offenses, and none were found to be in
possession of any contraband after they were subjected to a
strip search, according to the Web site of Lawyers and
Settlements.

Former warden Kerry Dixon has said the policy was scrapped in
December 2004.


NEW YORK: NYLAG Files Suit in N.Y. Over USCIS Processing Delays
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Legal Assistance Group filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of a class of immigrants challenging
pervasive delays in the processing of naturalization
applications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Under federal law, USCIS is required to grant or deny
naturalization applications within 120 days of the applicant's
interview.

However, USCIS' failure to review these applications in a timely
manner has resulted in many immigrants waiting well over six
months since their interviews with no word from USCIS.

These delays are allegedly particularly troubling, as many of
the plaintiffs are elderly and/or disabled individuals who will
lose their sole source of financial assistance, Supplemental
Security Income, leaving them to rely on much lower state public
assistance.  Additionally, all plaintiffs have been reportedly
deprived the right to vote in elections.  

A statement from The New York Legal Assistance Group relates an
experience of lead plaintiff Raisa Yakubova, a refugee from
Uzbekistan, came to the U.S. in 1998.  After being a legal
resident for five years, she applied for naturalization in
February 2004 and was called for an interview in April 2005.

At that interview, Mrs. Yakubova was allegedly told she had
passed all relevant exams, and that she would be called for the
oath ceremony soon.  However, since that time, her application
has not been adjudicated and she has not been called to
participate in an oath ceremony, according to the statement.  As
a result, Mrs. Yakubova lost her Supplemental Security Income
benefits in December 2005.

"I feel totally helpless and at the mercy of USCIS . . . I want
to be a citizen so I can vote and fully participate in the
democracy of the U.S.  However, I have been waiting so long that
I fear that it will never happen."

Founded in 1990, the New York Legal Assistance Group is a not-
for-profit law office providing free civil legal services to low
income New Yorkers.

The suit is "Yakubova et. al. v. Chertoff et. al., Case No.
1:06-cv-03203-ERK-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Edward R. Korman, with
referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the plaintiffs are Deborah Berkman, Caroline Jane
Hickey and Jane Greengold Stevens all of The New York Legal
Assistance Group, 450 West 33rd Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10001, Phone: 212-613-5000 or 212-613-5077 or 212-
750-0800 ext. 207, Fax: 212-750-0800 or 212-750-0820, E-mail:
dberkman@nylag.org or chickey@nylag.org or jstevens@nylag.org.  
The New York Legal Assistance Group on the Net:
http://www.nylag.org


ORKIN INC: Appeals Court Dismisses "Butland" Lawsuit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Second District Court of Appeals rejected the
efforts of plaintiffs' attorneys to certify a class in the suit,
"Butland, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co."

The plaintiffs filed the suit in March 1999 and are seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief for Orkin customers who
were allegedly damaged as a result of the rendering of services
by the company (Class Action Reporter, May 24, 2006).

In early April of 2002, the court certified the suit as class
action.  The company appealed that ruling to the Florida Second
District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the trial
court for further findings (Class Action Reporter, May 24,
2006).

In December 2005, the court issued a new ruling certifying the
class action.  The company appealed this new ruling to the
Florida Second District Court of Appeals (Class Action Reporter,
May 24, 2006).

In a July 5 statement, the company said the court of appeal has
completely rejected plaintiffs' attorneys' efforts to get class
status for the suit.

Atlanta-based Orkin, Inc. -- http://www.orkin.com-- is an  
industry leader in essential pest control services and
protection against termite damage, rodents and insects in the
United States, Canada, Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica.

For more information, contact Martha Craft, Orkin, Inc. Media
Contact, Phone: 404-888-2217.


PHILIPPINES: Marcos Victims Payout Depends on Available Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said victims of human rights
violations under the regime of deposed president Ferdinand
Marcos are assured of getting immediate payment of $2,000
(PHP106,000) each, but the distribution is still subject to the
availability of funds, the Journal Online reports.

Secretary Ermita added that current President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo is supporting the release of the indemnification fund,
noting an earlier mandate from the president urging Congress to
set aside part of the recovered ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses as compensation to human rights victims.

The Manila Standard Today quoted Presidential spokesman Ignacio
Bunye saying that the president would like to end the legal
battle for the assets of the Marcoses without compromising the
interests of the government.

In 1986, about 9,500 victims of human rights abuses filed a
class action against the Marcos estate the same year he was
deposed as president after a 20-year rule.  The former president
and his family fled to Hawaii, where he died in exile in 1989
(Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2006).

Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court in Hawaii has
issued an order authorizing partial compensation of $2,000 each
to about 7,500 victims of human rights abuses of his regime
(Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2006).

In May, the Philippine Presidential Commission on Good
Government appealed the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to use the money illegally
acquired by him to pay human-rights abuse victims because of
technicalities that make the ruling problematic (Class Action
Reporter, May 10, 2006).

Foreign banks and the Philippine government are claiming
ownership of the Marcos wealth.  The Philippine government
claimed the money belonged to its treasury, but the appeals
court said it had no legal right to that deposit (Class Action
Reporter, May 10, 2006).

The commission has proposed a compromise settlement with the
Marcoses.


RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25
-------------------------------------------------------------  
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on July 25, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $3,000,000 settlement in the matter: "Swack v. Credit
Suisse First, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-11943-DPW."

Filed on Oct. 3, 2002, the case was brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired Razorfish, Inc. common stock between May
24, 1999 and May 4, 2001.

The hearing will be held before the Douglas P. Woodlock in U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, MA 02210.  

Any objections and exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made by July 11, 2006.  Deadline for submitting a proof of claim
is on Oct. 6, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Claims Administrator, Razorfish Securities Litigation,
         c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014,
         Jericho, N.Y. 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax:
         (516) 931-0810; and

     (2) Thomas G. Shapiro, Edward F. Haber and Theodore M.      
         Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax:
         617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com,
         ehaber@shulaw.com and ted@shulaw.com.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Remands Consumer Suit Back to Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
remanded back to California state court the consumer fraud class
action "Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Case No. 05 C
4743," according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.cafalawblog.com.

The suit, which was consolidated under "In Re Sears, Roebuck &
Co. Tools Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL-1703,"
for coordinated proceedings, alleges that the company sold to
consumer foreign-made tools while deceptively advertising its
Craftsman line of tools as being made exclusively in the U.S.A.

Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint in January 2005,
asserting claims of consumer fraud violations against the
retailer on behalf of "all person who purchased Craftsman tools
in the State of California from Jan. 6, 2001 through the
present."

On March 24, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint,
asserting the same claims of consumer fraud, but also broadening
the class definition to include "all persons who purchased
Craftsman branded tools and products in the state of California
from Jan. 6, 2001 through the present."

Based on this modification, the company removed the case to
federal court alleging the amendment commenced a new action
post-Class Action Fairness Act.

Going from "tools" to "tools and products" didn't do it for the
district judge, who placed the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction under CAFA to the company, thanks to the Seventh
Circuit's opinion in "Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans,"
according to according to McGlinchey Stafford.  

Addressing the commencement issue, District Judge John F. Grady
decided that the post-CAFA expansion of the class definition did
not create federal jurisdiction under the statute.  The court
recognizes that an action "commences" when it is filed in state
court by relying upon the Seventh Circuit's opinion in "Knudsen
v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co."

Though Judge Grady acknowledged an amendment could commence a
new suit if it is "sufficiently independent of the original
contentions," he leaned on "Schorsch v. Hewlett-Packard Co." to
conclude the newly-added language of "and products" concerned
the same transaction or occurrence as the one involved in the
original suit.  

The court noted that it is an extreme exaggeration to say that
the amended complaint in this case "greatly expanded" the scope
of the putative class.  It pointed out that the amendment was
your basic "workaday change routine in class suits."

Using every Seventh Circuit precedents, Judge Grady made clear
that it did not matter that the amendment added new plaintiffs,
referencing "Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.," wherein the circuit
court held that "amending a state-court class action to add or
substitute plaintiffs did not 'commence' a new case under CAFA."  

Since the case was originally filed in California state court,
but was transferred to Illinois federal court as a result of
multi-district litigation, Judge Grady's relation back
conclusion addressed both California and Illinois state law.

The judge noted, "California is similar to federal and Illinois
law; an amended complaint relates back to the original when it
is based on the same general set of facts, seeks relief for the
same injuries, and refers to the same incident."

The court concluded all three were satisfied when considering
the amendment.  Thus, the court remanded the action back to
California state court.

Addressing one final issue, Judge Grady did not award
plaintiffs' attorney's fees in contesting the removal, citing
that since CAFA was on the books only a month before the company
removed the case, it would not be fair to say the strategy
lacked an objectively unreasonable basis.

A copy of the various court opinions is available at:

      -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d5a(Santamarina)

      -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d58(Knudsen)

      -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d57(Brill)

      -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49b(Schorsch)

      -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d59(Philllips)

The suit is "Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Case No. 1:05-
cv-04743," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge John F. Grady.

Representing the plaintiffs is Barbara J. Hart of Goodkind,
Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New
York, NY 10017-5563, Phone: (212) 907-0700, E-mail:
bhart@labaton.com.

Representing the company are Francis Anthony Citera and Andrew
Eliseev of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Phone: (312) 456-8400 and
(310) 586-7700, E-mail: citeraf@gtlaw.com and
eliseeva@gtlaw.com.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Judge Okays Continental Forge Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager gave final
approval to the Continental Forge settlement, resolving the
major claims filed against Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. and another utility in a class suit related to
California's energy crisis in 2000-2001, the North County Times
reports.

Under the settlement, the company will make cash payments in
installments aggregating $377 million, of which $347 million
relates to the Continental Forge and California class action
price reporting litigation.

Of the $377 million, $83 million would be paid within 30 days of
final approval of the settlement by the San Diego County
Superior Court, and an additional $83 million would be paid on
the first anniversary of that approval.  

Of the remaining amount, $27.3 million would be paid on the
closing date of the settlement and $26.3 million would be paid
on each successive anniversary of the closing date through the
seventh anniversary of the closing date.

At any time after the first anniversary of the closing date, the
company would have the option to prepay all or any portion of
the remaining unpaid settlement amounts at a discount rate of
7%, with any partial prepayment applied to and reducing each
remaining payment on an equal and proportionate basis.

The Continental Forge litigation, which is the subject of the
aforementioned settlement, consists of class action and
individual antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits
consolidated in San Diego Superior Court.   

The suit alleges that Sempra Energy along with other investor-
owned utilities in California unlawfully sought to control
natural gas and electricity markets.  It claims damages of $23
billion on behalf of all natural gas and electric consumers
served by the California investor-owned utilities.  

The Continental Forge settlement would also include the
settlement of class action price reporting litigation,
consisting of antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits
coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court.   

The suit alleges Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully
misreported natural gas transactions to publishers of price
indices and engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissed Pa. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of the securities
fraud class action against Smithfield Foods, Inc.

In June 2001, the company acquired a 50% interest in Pennexx and
extended Pennexx a $30 million line of credit, secured by
Pennexx's assets.

In July 2003, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of shareholders of Pennexx Foods, Inc. against Pennexx,
its directors, the company and two of its officers who were
former directors of Pennexx.

Plaintiffs, who sought unspecified compensatory damages, allege
that:

      -- defendants artificially inflated the price of Pennexx
         stock by disseminating materially false and misleading
         statements concerning the company's financial
         performance, business operations and prospects; and,

      -- the company breached its fiduciary duties owed to the
         non-controlling shareholders of Pennexx through its
         scheme to control and undermine Pennexx's business.

At that same time, Pennexx defaulted under the Smithfield Credit
Agreement.  The company subsequently seized all of the tangible
property assets of Pennexx and transferred the assets to its
wholly owned subsidiary, terminating Pennexx's ability to
continue its business.

In January 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action, which the court granted in part and denied in part in
September 2004.

In February 2005, the shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class of certain Pennexx shareholders.  In June 2005,
the court dismissed the class action without prejudice for lack
of prosecution.  The court took this action following the
withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and the failure of any other
putative class member to step forward as lead plaintiff.

In July 2005, the class action plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal of the Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, according to the company's June 30, 2006 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006.  

The federal suit is "The Winer Family Trust v. Queen et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-04318-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Alan K. Cotler, Robert A. Nicholas and Milind M. Shah
         of Reed Smith, LLP, 1650 Market St., 2500 One Liberty
         Pl., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-851-8100 and
         215-851-8298, Fax: 215-851-1420, E-mail:
         acotler@reedsmith.com, rnicholas@reedsmith.com and
         mshah@reedsmith.com;

     (2) Edward J. Fuhr and Terence J. Rasmussen of Hunton &
         Williams, LLP, Riverfront Plaza, E. Tower, 951 E. Byrd
         St., Richmond, VA 23219-4074, Phone: 804-788-8201 and
         804-788-8632, Fax: 804-788-8218; and

     (3) Eric F. Spade of Mitts Milavec & Spade, LLC, 1835
         Market Street, 15TH Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-569-1800, Fax: 215-569-1822, E-mail:
         espade@mittslaw.com.


SUPERIOR FORESTRY: Migrant Workers' Suit Denied Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has recently denied a request by migrant workers
to certify as class action a suit they filed against Superior
Forestry Service Inc., but allowed plaintiffs to renew such
motion, according to Associated Press.

The suit was launched earlier this year on behalf of three
migrant workers from Mexico who claimed their Arkansas-based
employer failed to pay them as promised to plant trees in
Tennessee, WBIR.com reports (Class Action Reporter, March 9,
2006).

The suit was filed in Columbia by the Southern Poverty Law
Center.  It sought to become a class action for an estimated 15-
hundred migrant temporary workers that the Tilly-based company,
employed over the past six years.  In addition it also sought
back pay, travel expenses, other monetary damages and an
injunction prohibiting the company from violating federal wage
and working condition laws.  The three named plaintiffs are
Andres Aldana-Moreno, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran, and Jose Rosiles-
Perez.

No trial date has been scheduled yet, according to the
Associated Press report.

The suit is "Rosiles-Perez, et al. v. Superior Forestry
Service, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:06-cv-00006," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge
William J. Haynes.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Clifton David Briley of Briley Law Group, PLLC, 511
         Union Street, Suite 1610, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone:
         (615) 986-2684, E-mail: david@brileylaw.com;  

     (2) Tim A. Freilich of Legal Aid Justice Center, 1000
         Preston Avenue, Suite A, Charlottesville, VA 22903, US,
         Phone: (434) 977-0553 x 111, Fax: (434) 977-0558, E-
         mail: tim@justice4all.org;  

     (3) Mary C. Bauer, Kristi Graunke and Jennifer J. Rosenbaum
         of Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrant Justice
         Project, 400 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104,
         US, Phone: (334) 956-8200, Fax: (334) 956-8481, E-mail:
         kgraunke@splcenter.org and
         jennifer.rosenbaum@splcenter.org;  

     (4) Marni Willenson of Willenson Law Group, LLC, 4308 N.
         Ridgeway Avenue, Chicago, IL 60618, US, Phone: (312)
         546-4137, Fax: (312) 261-9977, E-mail:
         marni.willenson@gmail.com;  

     (5) James M. Knoepp of Virginia Justice Center for Farm and
         Immigrant Workers, 6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 520, Falls
         Church, VA 22041, US, Phone: (703) 778-3450, Fax: (703)
         778-3454; and

     (6) Matthew J. Piers and Joshua Karsh of Hughes, Socol,
         Piers, Resnick & Dum, Ltd., 70 W. Madison, Suite 4000,
         Chicago, IL 60602-4692, US, Phone: (312) 580-0100, Fax:
         (312) 580-1994.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: New Mexico City Sues Online Travel Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque attorney James Lyle initiated a class action on
behalf the city of Gallup, against online travel Web sites,
alleging that the firms are underpaying taxes to the city for
brokering hotel rooms, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

The suit alleges the travel sites buy room rentals from hotels
at a discounted rate, mark them up for resale to customers, who
pays the tax for the full rental price.  The travel agents,
however, allegedly remit taxes based only on the discount rate
paid to the local hotel.

New Mexico state law requires cities to levy up to 5 percent in
lodgers tax, also known as an occupancy tax.

Originally filed in the 11th Judicial District Court, the suit
was moved to federal court on June 23 by attorneys for the
defendants, which include, Hotels.com, Expedia, Orbitz,
Travelocity as well as other agencies.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including  
California, North Carolina and Ohio (Class Action Reporter,
April 4, 2006).

According to Paul Chronis, an attorney defending Orbitz and
related clients, the online travel companies don't purchase the
hotel rooms, but rather facilitate online travel.

Plaintiffs' attorney is James P. Lyle of The Law Office of James
P. Lyle P.C., 1116 2nd Street NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102, Phone:  
(505) 843-8000, Fax: (505) 843-8043, Website:
http://www.jamesplylelaw.com.

Representing Orbitz in the suits is Paul E. Chronis of McDermott
Will & Emery, 227 West Monroe, Chicago, IL 60606-5096, Phone:  
(312) 984-6473, Fax: (312) 984-7700.


UNION PACIFIC: Workers File Suit Over Personal Data Theft in Ia.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nine Union Pacific Railroad Co. employees filed a class action
complaint in the Pottawattamie County District Court in Iowa on
behalf of a class that could include 30,000 members, the Omaha
World-Herald reports.

The suit stems from a police investigation in May over the theft
of a computer with the names and Social Security numbers of
active and retired Union Pacific employees.  The human resources
employee from whose computer the data were stolen on April 29
allegedly violated company policy by transferring work files to
a private computer to work on at home.

The plaintiffs allege Union Pacific acted negligently by failing
to protect employees' Social Security numbers, by using them for
purposes other than tax reporting, and by failing to use other
employee-identifying numbers.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of punitive damages and a
jury trial.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are:

     -- William Price of Omaha;

     -- William Platt of Mitchell, Nebraska;

     -- Jerry Eubank of Cheyenne, Wyoming;

     -- George Owen of Independence, Missouri;

     -- Chris Nelson of Missouri Valley, Iowa;

     -- David Blackmore of Kansas City, Missouri;

     -- Jeffrey Klapprodt of Boone, Iowa;

     -- Chris Tucker of Abilene, Kansas; and

     -- Jacob Moore of Edwardsville, Kansas.

Representing the plaintiffs are Ryan M. Sewell, 215 South Main
Council Bluffs, Iowa 51503, Phone: 712-328-1575, Fax: 712-328-
1562; and Robert E. O'Connor, Jr., 2433 South 130th Circle
Omaha, Nebraska 68144, Phone: 402-330-5906, Fax: 402-330-9763,
E-mail: reolaw@aol.com, Website: http://www.dlcoconnor.com.


UNION PACIFIC: Tex. Lawyer Asks Class Status for Derailment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Gloria Bradford of Texarkana has asked U.S. District
Judge Harry Barnes in Arkansas to grant class status to a suit
filed by residents affected by a Union Pacific train derailment
last October in Texarkana, according to Associated Press.

At about 5 a.m. on Oct. 15, a train operated by Union Pacific
Railroad Co. that was coming from Chicago struck the back of
another train coming from Pine Bluff in a rail yard on the south
side of Texarkana.  Eight cars derailed, and a tanker car
containing propylene exploded and fire broke out.

Attorney R. Gary Nutter of Texarkana, Texas subsequently filed a
suit on behalf of residents Troy H. Bradford and Gloria Bradford
and their business Books Etc. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 21,
2005).

The suit accused the Omaha, Nebraska-based company of
negligence, trespass, and causing a nuisance "in allowing toxic
and hazardous chemicals" into the community.  It sought an order
requiring the company to clean up any damage and pay unspecified
monetary compensation for personal injuries, evacuation and
cleanup costs, property loss, and lost income resulting from the
derailment.

In November, Union Pacific Railroad Co. filed a petition to move
the suit from Miller County Circuit Court where it was filed to
federal court, KTBS, LA reports (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3,
2006).

The petition stated that the case should be tried in federal
court due to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, and due to
the amount of money, which may eventually be involved in the
suit.

In a related matter, another class action has been filed by
resident David Kemp, which has also been petitioned by Union
Pacific to be moved to federal court.

In December it was reported that residents of College Hill,
Texas are asking a federal judge to send back the lawsuit that
they filed against Union Pacific Corp. to Miller County circuit
court where they originally filed it, The Texarkana Gazette
reports (Troubled Company Reporter, Dec 09, 2005).


UNITED KINGDOM: Lloyd's Investors Commence GBP1B Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Chris Stockwell initiated a lawsuit on behalf of 1,100
investors in Lloyd's of London against the government and the
Treasury, The Scotsman reported.

The suit alleges the Treasury failed to regulate the insurer
properly.  The investors, known as Names, claim they made heavy
losses at Lloyd's because the market's watchdog, failed to
implement key European Union directives.

The E.U. directives include a measure that dictates how much
insurers should hold in reserves when writing certain types of
business.

A Treasury spokesman denied it had failed to regulate Lloyd's
properly, however.  He added that they would defend the case,
which seeks over GBP1 billion in compensation.

The initial court case, which is expected to last around four
weeks, will decide whether the Names are allowed to sue the
government in a class action of this kind and whether their
claim for compensation has expired.

According to Mr. Stockwell, if they succeed in the first legal
stage, he anticipates the class to swell well beyond the
billion-pound mark.

However, if they are defeated on these initial procedural
points, the Names will appeal the decision to the U.K. Court of
Appeal.  If they fail there, they will take it to the European
Court of Human Rights.


UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Indictment Spurs Transparency Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
As an aftermath of a federal indictment against the law firm of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP several congressmen
recently introduced H.R. 5491 that would amend the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, according to Lyle Roberts of
http://www.the10b-5daily.com.

The legislation, entitled the "Securities Litigation Attorney
Accountability and Transparency Act," would:

      -- allow a prevailing defendant to argue to the court that
         the plaintiff's attorney should pay the prevailing
         defendant's fees and expenses because the "position of
         the plaintiff was not substantially justified;"

      -- require disclosure to the court of any conflict of
         interest between a plaintiff and his attorney and
         permit the court to disqualify the attorney if
         necessary; and

      -- permit courts to approve lead counsel in securities
         class actions through "alternative means," including a
         competitive bidding process.

A hearing on the legislation took place on June 28, 2006, before
the Subcommitte on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government
Sponsored Enterprises of the House Committee on Financial
Services.  Witnesses in that hearing included:

      -- The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge, U.S.
         District Court, Northern District of California;

      -- The Honorable William F. Galvin, Secretary of the
         Commonwealth, Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

      -- Theodore H. Frank, Resident Fellow and Director, AEI
         Liability Project, American Enterprise Institute; and

      -- James D. Cox, School of Law, Duke University

A copy of the prepared testimony is available at:

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d45.

On May 18, 2006, Milberg Weiss and two of its senior partners
were indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly
participating in a scheme in which several individuals were paid
millions of dollars in secret kickbacks in exchange for serving
as named plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and
shareholder derivative lawsuits.  The firm allegedly received
well over $200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits
over the past 20 years.

The indictment charges the firm and the partners of conspiracy  
with several objects, including obstructing justice, perjury,  
bribery and fraud.  The conspiracy count outlines a scheme in  
which individuals received secret kickback payments to serve, or  
cause friends and relatives to serve, as named plaintiffs in  
lawsuits filed by Milberg Weiss, (Class Action Reporter, May 22,  
2006).

The federal probe into allegations against Milberg Weiss, which  
once dominated class action law in the U.S., accounting for 85%  
of all such suits filed in California and 60% elsewhere in 2001,  
came to light in January 2002, when a flurry of subpoenas went  
out to scores of lawyers and stockbrokers from major firms and  
plaintiffs who had participated in Milberg Weiss lawsuits,
(Class Action Reporter, Jun. 29, 2005).  

In June 2005, Seymour Lazar, a Palm Springs investor and former  
entertainment lawyer was indicted, accused of collecting $2.4  
million in "secret and illegal kickback payments" for his role  
in dozens of lawsuits, (Class Action Reporter, Jun. 29, 2005)

In August 2005, federal prosecutors stepped up their criminal  
investigation of Milberg Weiss.  The investigation looked at  
whether the firm illegally made payments to plaintiffs in order
to lead a series of shareholder suits, (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 10, 2005)

Plaintiffs in such suits are not permitted to receive payments
beyond those awarded by courts, to avoid conflict between their
interests and those of the rest of the class.
The 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was  
drafted with Milberg Weiss in mind, limits plaintiffs to no more  
than five class actions in three years (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 10, 2005).

      
                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits v. Flowserve Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to face lawsuits that seek to
recover damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly made and
distributed by the Company.

These products were used as self-contained components of process
equipment. However, the Company asserted that there was no
emission of ambient asbestos-containing fiber during the use of
this equipment.

In addition, the Company said that a high percentage of these
suits are covered by insurance or indemnities from other
companies.

Based in Irving, Texas, Flowserve Corp. makes pumps, valves, and
mechanical seals. The Company's flow solutions division offers
mechanical seals, sealing systems, and repair services to OEMs.
Its flow control division makes valves, actuators, and related
equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Faces Suits in Miss. Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pride International Corporation's subsidiaries, since August
2004, has been facing asbestos-related complaints filed in the
Circuit Courts of Mississippi by individuals alleging that they
were employed by these companies for a certain period between
1965 and 1986.

The complaints alleged that drilling contractors used asbestos-
containing products in offshore drilling operations, land-based
drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs,
vessels and other equipment. The plaintiffs asserted claims
based on negligence and strict liability and claims under the
Jones Act.

The complaints also named as defendants other firms that are not
affiliated with the Company, including firms that allegedly made
asbestos-containing drilling products.

The plaintiffs sought an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. Eight individuals in these suits have been
identified as allegedly having worked for the Company or one of
its affiliates or predecessors.

Discovery is ongoing to determine whether the Company, one of
its affiliates or predecessors employed these individuals.


COMPANY PROFILE

Pride International Inc.
5847 San Felipe, Ste. 3300
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: 713-789-1400
Fax: 713-789-1430
http://www.prde.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$2,033.3
1-Year Sales Growth:              18.8 percent
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$128.6
2004 Employees:                   13,700
1-Year Employee Growth:           12.3 percent

Description:
The Company offers drilling, maintenance, workover, and
engineering services for oil and gas companies. It also designs
specialized drilling equipment and provides project management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Officials Get 4T Payout Applications
---------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Government officials stated that about 4,000 people
have applied for financial relief since March 20, 2006 under a
new law to support asbestos disease victims and their families,
The Asahi Shimbun reports.

Enacted on February 3, 2006, the law stipulates treatment
allowances for victims of mesothelioma and asbestos-caused lung
cancer as well as condolence payments for families of deceased
victims.

The law was created in response to revelations in 2005 of
asbestos-related health problems after machinery maker Kubota
Corporation admitted that asbestos used in its plants had led to
health problems in neighboring communities.

The new law targets those who are not covered by workers'
accident compensation insurance. Recognized victims are eligible
to receive a monthly allowance of JPY103,870 in addition to
medical costs. Relatives of deceased victims qualify for a one-
off condolence payment of about JPY3 million.

The legislation offers relief to bereaved families of workers
who died more than five years ago of mesothelioma or lung cancer
linked to the use of asbestos in their workplace.  

Officials noted that people who live near factories, which used
or produced asbestos, filed 70 percent of claims. The officials
said that 320 people have been recognized as eligible to receive
medical allowances or condolence money for deceased relatives.

Officials said 2,710 resident applications had been filed as of
June 27, 2006. Of the applications, 182 bereaved families and 27
patients were recognized. Of those 209 cases, 207 involved
mesothelioma, while the remaining two victims had developed lung
cancer.

By the end of May 2006, 1,257 bereaved families had applied for
the compensation on grounds the statute of limitations for
workers had expired. A total of 111 were recognized.

The recognized victims came from 36 prefectures. Tokyo had the
most cases with 30, followed by 22 in Hyogo Prefecture and 21
each in Osaka and Kanagawa prefectures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Notes 257 Defendants in 4 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia recognized 257
defendants in four asbestos-related lawsuits filed on June 22,
2006, The West Virginia Record reports.

David Chervenick of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based law firm
Goldberg, Persky, and White sued on behalf of spouses Albert and
Chestene Miller and individual David Murray.

The Millers named 107 defendants in their suits. Mr. Miller
worked as a laborer with the United Steel Workers Association
Local 721, working at an industrial site in Kenova that was
owned and operated by entities including U.S. Steel Chemical,
Aristech and Novamont Chemical.

Mr. Miller has developed mesothelioma, a lung disease related to
asbestos exposure. Mrs. Miller is suing for loss of consortium.
The Millers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Fifty-nine-year old Mr. Murray was the son of James Murray, who
worked at a Wheeling Pittsburg Steel plant in Benwood. Mr.
Murray, who has asbestosis and mesothelioma, said he was exposed
to asbestos fibers his father brought home on his clothes. Mr.
Murray named 108 defendants.

John Skaggs, of Charleston, West Virginia-based The Calwell
Practice, sued on behalf of Walter and Carolyn Donat and Paul
and Mildred Hunt.  These jointly filed suits named 42
defendants.

The suit states that Mr. Donat and Mr. Hunt, who worked as
laborers and welders from 1969-1996, were exposed to asbestos
fibers. Mrs. Donat and Mrs. Hunt are suing for loss of
consortium. Both cases seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Case numbers 06-C-1193, 06-C-1198, O6-C-1212, and 06-C-1213 will
be assigned to visiting judges.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Dumps UCC's Claims v. Conwed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the decision
of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota that denied Union
Carbide Corp.'s claim against Conwed Corp. in an asbestos-
related lawsuit.

The Panel, comprised of Circuit Judges William Jay Riley, Gerald
W. Heaney, and Steven M. Colloton, decided Case No. 04-3386, 04-
3855 on April 18, 2006.

Conwed Corporation used asbestos from Union Carbide Corporation
to make ceiling tiles. Conwed employees developed asbestos-
related diseases, and Conwed paid them workers' compensation
benefits.

The employees sued Union Carbide based on theory of product
liability. They settled with Union Carbide for damages not
compensated through Minnesota's statute governing workers'
compensation.

Conwed sought recovery from Union Carbide for the workers'
compensation benefits that were paid and payable. Union Carbide
counterclaimed for contribution and indemnity. The District
Court set the claims for trial and divided the claims into three
groups.

The first trial, for mesothelioma claims, resulted in a jury
verdict for Union Carbide. Conwed agreed to dismiss claims for
the employees in the second group, consisting of lung cancer
claims, and the parties then tried the consolidated claims of 11
employees with asbestosis, the third group of claims.

The jury found Conwed and Union Carbide at fault for causing
injuries to six of the 11 employees and awarded damages,
including general disability and loss of future earning
capacity.

Conwed appealed, claiming that the District Court improperly
applied the jury's common law allocation of fault to the
benefits paid and payable to determine Conwed's subrogation
award. Union Carbide cross-appealed.

The District Court denied Union Carbide's claim against Conwed
for equitable contribution to offset the jury's award of
subrogation damages, and Union Carbide likewise appealed that
decision.

The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court judgment, but
remanded to enter judgment in the amount of US$23,878.36 rather
than US$23,465.06.

Robert D. Brownson and Kristi K. Warner of Minneapolis,
Minnesota represented Conwed Corp.

Trevor J. Will, G. Michael Halfenger, and Christoper S. Schilder
of Milwaukee, Wisconsin represented Union Carbide Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DaimlerChrysler Holds 28,000 Claims in 4Q05
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG, primarily its subsidiary DaimlerChrysler
Corporation, had about 28,000 asbestos-related lawsuits in the
2005-4th quarter against 14,000 in the 2001-4th quarter.

The Company faced about 29,000 asbestos-related suits in the
2004-4th quarter. (Class Action Reporter, July 1, 2005)

The Company has experienced a growing number of multi-defendant
suits, which seek compensatory and punitive damages for
illnesses alleged to have resulted from direct and indirect
exposure to asbestos used primarily in some vehicle components,
principally brake pads.

These suits name other corporate defendants and may also include
claims of exposure to non-automotive asbestos products. A single
suit may include claims by multiple plaintiffs alleging illness
in the form of asbestosis, mesothelioma or other cancer or
illness.

In most cases, plaintiffs do not specify their alleged illness
and provide little detail about their alleged exposure to
components in DaimlerChrysler's vehicles. Some plaintiffs do not
exhibit current illness, but seek recovery based on potential
future illness.

Based in Stuttgart, Germany, DaimlerChrysler AG makes about 4.6
million vehicles a year with brands including Dodge, Jeep, and
Chrysler vehicles. The Mercedes Car Group includes Mercedes,
Maybach (ultra-luxury vehicles), and smart (mini cars).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Asks Court to Estimate Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to estimate
derivative asbestos liabilities and enter a case management
order establishing procedures for that estimation.

A hearing on the Estimation Motion was held on May 12, 2006. At
that time, the Court took the matter under advisement and
directed the parties to attempt to negotiate a schedule for an
estimation hearing.

The parties were able to reach an agreement regarding some
aspects of the procedure for resolution of the Derivative
Asbestos Claims, Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., at Baker Botts LLP, in
Dallas, Texas, tells the Court.

Accordingly, ASARCO seeks the Court's authority to enter into a
settlement agreement with the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, and Robert C.
Pate, future claims representative, regarding procedures to
resolve the Derivative Asbestos Claims.

The salient terms of the Settlement Agreement are:

(a) The parties will ask the Court to conduct a pre-hearing
conference in July 2006 to set the manner of conducting the
hearing for the derivative asbestos claims issues;

(b) The parties set these schedules for discovery:

Dec.  1, 2006 -- Completion of all fact discovery

Dec. 15, 2006 -- Filing and serving of opening expert reports

Dec. 18, 2006 -- Asbestos Committee and the FCR's filing of
pleading asserting the aggregate amount of the Derivative
Asbestos Claims

              -- Filing of pleading asserting ASARCO's view of
the aggregate amount of its liability for the Derivative
Asbestos Claims

Jan. 15, 2007 -- Filing and serving of rebuttal expert reports

Jan. 31, 2007 -- Completion of discovery regarding opening
expert reports

              -- Filing and serving of revised opening expert
reports

Feb. 15, 2007 -- Completion of discovery regarding rebuttal
experts and revised opening reports

(c) Any party may ask the Court to schedule more status
conferences;

(d) The parties will file a proposed hearing order, witness
lists, copies of all exhibits to be offered and all schedules
and summaries to be used, and the proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law two weeks before the hearing;

(e) The parties will ask the Court to hold a final pre-hearing
conference on a date determined by the Court;

(f) The parties will ask the Court to commence the hearing on
the Contested Matter in March 2007;

(g) The adversary proceeding between ASARCO, the Asbestos
Committee and the FCR will be stayed pending a resolution of
ASARCO's liability for the Derivative Asbestos Claims; and

(h) The parties will file a joint motion to resolve the
Derivative Asbestos Claims.

Mr. Kinzie asserts that the Settlement Agreement strikes a fair
and reasonable balance between ASARCO's need to obtain
estimation of the Derivative Asbestos Claims, and the Asbestos
Committee and the FCR's need for discovery regarding the
Derivative Asbestos Claims.

The Settlement Agreement permits ASARCO to move forward with the
resolution of the Derivative Asbestos Claims, and thereby
advance its reorganization efforts, Mr. Kinzie adds.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 24; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Group Seeks to Change ASARCO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Subsidiary
Debtors and Robert C. Pate, as Future Claims Representative,
filed an amended complaint, realigning parties and seeking to
hold ASARCO LLC, liable for tort liabilities of the Subsidiary
Debtors against ASARCO.

Subsidiary Debtors Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltee, Lake Asbestos
of Quebec, Ltd., LAQ Canada Ltd., Capco Pipe Company, Inc., and
Cement Asbestos Products Company are no longer operating
companies.

Jacob L. Newton, Esq., at Stuzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka,
APC, in Dallas, Texas, related that as early as December 1976,
numerous asbestos claims were asserted against CAPCO, LAQ and
ASARCO. The Subsidiary Debtors depend on ASARCO and its
insurance coverage to fund their asbestos liabilities.

Under various alter ego theories, Mr. Newton asserted that
ASARCO is directly responsible for the Subsidiary Debtors'
asbestos liabilities because, among others:

(a) ASARCO owns 100% of the Subsidiary Debtors' stock;

(b) The Subsidiary Debtors have failed to adhere to corporate
formalities and maintain adequate corporate records,
underscoring the fact that the relationship between the
Subsidiary Debtors and ASARCO was not at arms' length;

(c) ASARCO caused the Subsidiary Debtors to become and remain
insolvent by siphoning funds and stripping all assets from the
Subsidiary Debtors in the face of massive asbestos liabilities,
leaving the Subsidiary Debtors wholly dependent upon ASARCO and
its insurance policies to fund those liabilities;

(d) The Subsidiary Debtors have been made to function as mere
facades for ASARCO, as mere shams existing for no other purpose
than as vehicles for fraud;

(e) ASARCO has commingled assets with one or more of the
Subsidiary Debtors;

(f) With knowledge of the massive asbestos and environmental
liabilities asserted against the Subsidiary Debtors, ASARCO
caused all assets to be stripped from the Subsidiary Debtors,
leaving them as mere shell companies, hopelessly
undercapitalized and insolvent;

(g) ASARCO and the Subsidiary Debtors' operations are
significantly intertwined by the sharing of corporate counsel,
staff and offices;

(h) ASARCO asserted control and domination over the Subsidiary
Debtors;

(i) ASARCO, LAQ, CAPCO had an intertwined executive structure
and overlapping officers and directors.

(j) ASARCO and the Subsidiary Debtors share corporate counsel,
staff, corporate offices, addresses, telephone numbers, and
others;

(k) ASARCO guaranteed settlement obligations of at least some of
the Subsidiary Debtors; and

(l) The Subsidiary Debtors' employees are carried on in ASARCO's
payroll.

Accordingly, the Subsidiary Committee and the FCR asked the
Court to declare that ASARCO is liable for the Subsidiary
Debtors' asbestos liabilities under various Alter Ego Theories,
agency principles, partnership principles, conspiracy
principles, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty
principles.

The Subsidiary Committee and the FCR reserved their right to add
more defendants in the adversary proceeding as may be deemed
necessary and appropriate.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 24; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning to Agree on Royal Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning and Royal Indemnity Company are parties to an
agreement among a number of insurers and producers of asbestos-
containing products. The agreement, commonly referred to as the
Wellington Agreement, provides a framework by which disputes
relating to coverage for asbestos-related claims would be
resolved.

By the mid-1990s, Owens Corning had consumed the products limits
of all its insurance policies issued by subscribing insurers to
the Wellington Agreement, including Royal. J. Kate Stickles,
Esq., at Saul Ewing LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that
for many years, Owens Corning has been seeking confirmation from
its insurers that they will pay asbestos claims that are not
subject to the "products" limits of their policies. The "non-
products" claims include claims involving alleged injury during
the course of Owens Corning's installation of asbestos-
containing materials.

Owens Corning and Royal disagree with respect to whether, and
the extent to which, Royal has further coverage obligations to
Owens Corning. The Debtors asserts that Royal continues to have
coverage obligations with respect to "non-products" claims
notwithstanding the exhaustion of the policies' "products"
limits. Royal contends that the alleged "non-products" claims
are subject to the policy limits that have already been
exhausted.

On October 26, 2005, Owens Corning initiated an alternative
dispute resolution proceeding against Royal pursuant to the
Wellington Agreement, by which Owens Corning sought coverage for
"non-products" claims.  Subsequently Owens Corning and Royal
engaged in non-binding mediation with the assistance of David
Geronemus, a neutral third party.

On April 4, 2006, Owens Corning and Royal reached an agreement
in principle to settle their dispute concerning coverage for
"non-products" claims. The parties later finalized the terms of
their settlement, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement effective
May 23, 2006.

The principal terms of the Settlement Agreement include:

a. Royal will pay a monetary amount into an escrow account by
June 30, 2006;

b. Owens Corning and Royal will mutually release each other and
their related entities from all claims relating to the excess
liability policies issued by Royal to Owens Corning;

c. Key terms of the Settlement Agreement are contingent on the
entry of a final order confirming a plan of reorganization that
includes an injunction pursuant to Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code protecting, inter alia, Royal; and

d. In the event that the Settlement Agreement becomes null and
void -- for example, if a plan is confirmed by Final Order
without a 524(g) Injunction -- Royal will be entitled to the
prompt release and return of any payment previously made to the
Escrow Account, and the parties will have restored all rights,
defenses, and obligations relating to the excess liability
policies issued by Royal to Owens Corning and the Wellington
Agreement.

Pursuant to Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, the Debtors ask the Court to approve the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement enables the Debtors to avoid the expense, delay
and risk associated with further alternative dispute resolution
proceedings, Ms. Stickles says.

The Debtors believe that the Settlement Amount and timing of
payment is reasonable in light of the expenses, delays and risks
of ongoing coverage proceedings, and the fact that Owens
Corning's demands against Royal were premised on assertions of
future payment obligations by Royal.

In accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the
Settlement Agreement, the Debtors seek the Court's authority to
file the Agreement under seal.

"Safeguarding [the Settlement's] confidentiality advances the
interests of Owens Corning and Royal considerably by providing
them with greater flexibility in future negotiations and
settlements with third parties," Ms. Stickles states.

(Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 134; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Says Locals Deserve Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senator Max Baucus said that some Libby, Montana residents
who suffer from asbestos-related disease are entitled to as much
as US$40,000 in back payments from the U.S. Social Security
Administration, Daily Inter Lake reports.

Residents had been denied payments because the Social Security
Administration did not have disability benefit criteria for
amphibole asbestosis, which is the asbestos disease linked to
the former W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine at Libby.

The Social Security Administration ruled in May 2006 that
victims of asbestos poisoning in Libby are eligible to apply for
disability benefits.

Libby residents who were denied disability status under two
different programs may qualify for retroactive payments.
Residents who have not worked since being denied benefits under
the Social Security Disability Insurance benefits program during
the last four years may be eligible for back payments up to
about US$40,000 an in some cases up to about US$70,000.

Libby residents who have not worked since being denied
disability benefits under the Supplemental Security benefits
program during the last two years may be eligible for back
payments up to about US$10,000 and in some cases as much as
about US$25,000.

Sen. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, moved to help Libby asbestos
victims after learning that people afflicted from exposure to
chrysotile asbestos are eligible for disability benefits.

Sen. Baucus said the amount owed to each person would be
determined by the date he or she applied for assistance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Payout for Mother's Death Sought in Japan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of a 57-year-old woman from Tomakomai, Hokkaido,
Japan said that she filed for industrial accident compensation
on behalf of her mother, who died of an asbestos-related disease
after working at a chrome mine in the prefecture, Kyodo News
reports.

The claim was filed at a local labor standards office.

The woman's supporters said that her mother extracted chrome
from serpentine rocks at a mine in the town of Mukawa in
southern Hokkaido between 1958 and 1962.

The supporters' group added that the mother developed malignant
mesothelioma and died in November 2004 at the age of 84.

Mitsuru Nakagawa, an expert on serpentine rocks and a researcher
at the Hokkaido office of the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology, said, "Serpentine rocks
contain asbestos so there is a possibility that she inhaled the
dust during the mining work."

Illnesses linked to asbestos usually have long periods of
incubation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Wins Payout for Lung-Cancer Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Byrne, whose husband died from asbestos-related lung
cancer, won the legal battle for compensation for an undisclosed
amount, according to an Irwin Mitchell news release.

Former scaffolder Bill Byrne, of Birmingham, U.K., died in 2002
at the age of 71 while his brother, Bob, died seven years
earlier at the age of 61. The brothers worked at Mills
Scaffolding and Lyndon Scaffolding during the 1950s and the
1960s, and died from mesothelioma.

While an inquest found that Bill Byrne's death was due to
industrial disease, Mrs. Byrne had to prove that his death was
due to asbestos exposure in order to sue his former employers.

Solicitor Helen Ashton, of Irwin Mitchell, who represented Mrs.
Byrne said, "Bill Byrne's case was extremely difficult both
medically and legally. We had to prove on the balance of
probabilities that the asbestos exposure led to Bill's lung
cancer and untimely death."

Ms. Ashton added that solicitors were seeing an escalating
number of asbestos related lung cancer cases.

Asbestos causes at least as many deaths from lung cancer as it
does from mesothelioma, but because there are other causes,
including smoking, it is much harder to prove asbestos exposure
was to blame.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun, GM Clash Over Memo as Proof  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc clashed with General
Motors Corporation in court over a document that GM claimed to
be proof in its US$1 billion (GBP550 million) lawsuit over
asbestos-related personal injury liabilities, The Telegraph
reports.

"It's like a smoking gun, your honor," Edward Tessler, GM's
legal counsel, told the Oakland County Court in Pontiac,
Michigan.

GM told the Court it had found a memo, which it claimed to be
proof that Royal & Sun Alliance was liable for the claims. GM
alleged that the memo has an admission of liability by William
Watt, a senior executive at Royal & Sun's U.S. business in the
1970s.

GM alleged that Mr. Watt admitted in the memo that Royal & Sun
would have to pay out for any future claims that related to the
period of coverage.

GM sued Royal & Sun in a dispute regarding asbestos-related
personal injury policies between 1954 and 1974. (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2006.

The hearing was a preliminary hearing ahead of the U.S. trial,
which is set to begin in September 2006.

Since 2000, GM has been faced with class action suits claiming
damages for illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos in products
like brake linings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Considers Selling Off ABB Lummus Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd.'s Chief Financial Officer Michel Demare said that the
Company is to sell off several of its German and U.S.
investments, citing U.S. subsidiary ABB Lummus Global Inc. as
one of possible targets, Agence France Presse reports.

ABB Lummus has been sued in the U.S. for claims over exposure to
asbestos in its products.

Mr. Demare said that ABB Lummus' value increased, compared to
two years ago, when a sell-off would have resulted in a heavy
loss for ABB.

Mr. Demare added that the asbestos case against ABB Lummus is
"in its final phase" and the positive state of the oil and gas
sectors has contributed to an upturn in ABB Lummus' fortunes.

In April 2006, ABB paid US$1.43 billion dollars (EUR1.18 billion
euros) compensation to claimants in asbestos cases involving
another of its U.S. subsidiaries

Based in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd. operates through two
major divisions, power technologies and automation technologies,
and serves utility, industrial, and commercial customers. The
Company has undergone extensive restructuring to focus on these
two units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian EPA to Monitor College Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Queensland Government's Environmental Protection Agency has
been asked to coordinate the asbestos cleanup in a former TAFE
College damaged by fire in Brisbane, Australia, ABC reports.

Barry Pearce, a senior fire officer, said crews are wearing
protective masks and clothing because of the amount of asbestos
in the 50-meter long building.

Mr. Pearce said, "Now that we know it is on site, the site
itself will be contained and then as I say protective clothing
will be worn by anyone going on this site.

The fire is considered suspicious as the building was derelict
and had no power connected.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Bans Use of Alimta for Asbestos Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
NHS in England has banned the use of the drug Alimta by
sufferers of mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease linked to
heavy industries, Doncaster Today reports.

Eli Lilly, Alimta's manufacturer, said it would appeal against
the decision.

A National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence study
suggested that patients should be denied Alimta from October
2006.

NICE studied the cost and effectiveness of Alimta and concluded
that the drug, which costs about GBP8,000 for each patient,
should not be recommended for use except as part of ongoing or
new trials.

Figures show that 127 people in Doncaster and 354 in South
Yorkshire died from asbestos-related cancer between 1981 and
2000, with cases expected to peak over the next decade.

While asbestos was banned in the U.K. in 1999, about 65,000
cases are expected to occur between 2002 and 2050, as people who
were exposed to the substance in the 1970s fall ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAT, Allianz Australia Settle Cancer Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco plc and Allianz Australia settled an
out-of-court asbestos-related insurance claim brought in behalf
of Allan Mowbray, a former employee of Brambles Industries DLC
Group, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Mr. Mowbray died of lung cancer in 2002. His case was filed in
the Dust Diseases Tribunal.

Allianz, as Brambles' insurer, paid AUD200,000 in compensation
because Mr. Mowbray had been exposed to asbestos fibers found in
brake linings, in his work as a mechanic. Brambles filed a
cross-claim against BAT, saying it should pay some of the
compensation because Mr. Mowbray had been a longstanding smoker.

The case attracted attention in May 2006 when Brambles amended
its cross-claim to include allegations that BAT had deliberately
destroyed damaging documents and hidden others by handing them
to its lawyers under cover of false requests for legal advice.

Brambles also claimed BAT had falsely claimed that its so-called
"document retention policies" had an innocent housekeeping
explanation, in order to prevent the courts overturning claims
for legal professional privilege or assuming the worst about the
contents of destroyed documents.

On May 30, 2006, Judge Jim Curtis ordered BAT to hand over
material including detailed lists of what had happened to
documents formerly held by firms within the BAT group and by the
Tobacco Institute of Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reduces Liabilities by $900Mil in Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd., the holding company for the ACE Group of Cos., has
reduced its exposure to legacy liabilities, including asbestos,
by about US$900 million in the sale of its three run-off
reinsurance units to insurance management firm Randall & Quilter
Investment Holdings Ltd., according to an ACE Ltd. press
release.

ACE has also reduced its reinsurance recoverables by about
US$400 million.

The agreement to sell ACE American Reinsurance Co., Brandywine
Reinsurance Co. (UK) Ltd., and Brandywine Reinsurance Co. S.A.-
N.V. to Randall & Quilter was announced in January 2005.

The sale followed necessary approvals by the U.K.'s Financial
Services Authority and the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance.
Both regulators approved the sale of the firms within their
jurisdiction after concluding that the firms were adequately
capitalized and that Randall & Quilter was a fit buyer.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd., through its subsidiaries,
sells property and casualty insurance and reinsurance in the
U.S. and about 50 other countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court, Cape Approve GBP40M Fund for Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.K. High Court and shareholders of Cape PLC approved a
GBP40 million compensation fund for asbestos victims of Cape's
former subsidiary, Barking & Dagenham Post reports.

Families exposed by Cape Asbestos, which Cape PLC formerly
owned, voted in favor of the scheme.

Cape PLC would now establish a separate company to deal with
compensation and pay in GBP40 million. The sum is estimated to
last for about eight years and Cape PLC has pledged to top it up
every three years, if necessary.

Solicitor Daniel Easton said, "We told our clients they had to
make their own minds up whether they trusted Cape to top up the
fund in the future. We have got significant concerns that they
won't add money and that future asbestos claims will go unpaid."

Observers fear that loopholes would allow Cape PLC to make
excuses for not adding funds.

Based in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom, Cape PLC makes fire
protection, insulation, and building products for the
construction industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widows to Gain After Reversal of Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Widows from West Cumbria in the U.K. could benefit after the
Government would amend the Compensation Bill to reverse a House
of Lords ruling, Times & Star reports.

The House of Lords reduced the amount of compensation granted to
two widows after their husbands died of industrial disease
mesothelioma.

Saint-Gobain Pipelines plc appealed against the decision to
award GBP152,000 damages to a Flintshire widow, because it said
it was the legal successor to the original employer, which had
gone out of business and so it was not fully liable.

The House of Lords upheld the appeal and the firm had to pay
only a portion of the damages.

But Prime Minister Tony Blair has agreed to review the judgment
and the Government would amend the Compensation Bill to reverse
the Lords' decision.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


KLA-TENCOR: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
certain members of the board of directors and certain executive
officers of KLA-Tencor Corp.

The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers
and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director
stock option grants (a.k.a. back-dated stock options).

Such practice of awarding stock options to executives and
directors at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the
company's internal documents (such as the company's stock option
plan), as well as state laws governing officer and director
fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing securities and
taxation.

In addition, the practice results in lower payments to
companies, results in those companies under-reporting
compensation expenses, and permits directors, officers and/or
executives to unjustifiably reap millions and billions of
dollars which should be disgorged and returned to the corporate
coffers thereby contributing to the financial health of the
company.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: E-mail:
ssbny@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.  


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, 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  * * *