CAR_Public/060811.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 11, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 159

                            Headlines

AMPCO TRANSPORTATION: Settles Col. Racial Discrimination Suits
AQUILA INC: August 2007 Trial Slated for ERISA Litigation in Mo.
BMO NESBITT: Faces $100M Lawsuit Over Retirement Savings Plans
CYNOSURE INC: Faces TCPA Suit in Mass. Over Unsolicited Faxes
EASTMAN KODAK: Files Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Stock Fraud Suit

FIFTH THIRD: Named in Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit in N.Y.
HERCULES INC: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of Dioxin Lawsuit
HERCULES INC: Court Yet to Approve $1.4M Deal in Ga. Gulf Suit
HERCULES INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Agent Orange Suits
HERCULES INC: Settles Carbon Fiber Litigation in Calif., Mass.

INTERPOOL INC: N.J. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
KEYSPAN CORP: Sued Over Operations at Former Bay Shore Gas Plant
MASTEC INC: Fla. Court Sets Hearing for $10M Stock Settlement
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Suits in Wash. Over WGA Anti-Piracy Tool
MINNESOTA: Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Airports Commission

MOLEX INC: Discovery Continues in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
NORTHERN STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit in Minn.
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Agrees to Settle S.D. Livonia Employees Suit
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suits in Utah Over PREOS
PFIZER INC: Settlement of Bjork-Shiley Heart Valves Suit Ongoing

PREMIUM STANDARD: Continues to Face Mo. Property Injury Lawsuit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces New Lawsuit Over Stock Broker Pay
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Saunders" Plaintiffs May Re-file Claims
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Denies Appeal on Insurance Complaint
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Nixes Appeal on HMO Suit Settlement

PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Continues to Face IPO Litigation in N.Y.
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: DERP Opts Out of $400M Suit Settlement
SOUTHERN CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal in Mirant Suit
ST. PAUL: Minn. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Ariz. Stock Fraud Lawsuit for $20M

TRIZEC PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuits in Ill. Over Brookfield Deal
UNITED STATES: Pa. Residents Fail to Stop Foreclosure of Homes
UNITED STATES: Investors Lose Out in Stock Suits, Research Says
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Paying $12M in Discrimination Suit
WACHOVIA CORP: To Pay $1.25M in Adelphia Securities Lawsuit

WESBANCO INC: Reaches Settlement in American Bancorporation Suit
WILLBROS GROUP: Settles Consolidated Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
XCEL ENERGY: Appeal Planned on Minn. Court's Ruling in "Bender"
XCEL ENERGY: Faces Suit in Miss. Over Carbon Dioxide Emissions


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Settles N.Y. Suit v. Carriers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Faces 121,128 Claims in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Sees $87M Liabilities in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide's Defense Costs Drop to $28M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. UIC, Detroit Stoker Fall to 9,496

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont's Claims Decrease to 60,500 in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Pegs Liability at $54M in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Faces Rockwell Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.505B for Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Protecting CNA from New Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Hears Closing Arguments in CNA Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Deals With Burns & Roe Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Units Face Suits in 4 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Casualty Faces Adams Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. Dana Corp. Remain at 76T

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.346B Liabilities in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Links Loss to Settlements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Wins Appeal in Robinson Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Favors Kishes in Insurance Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries' Claims Remain at 116T in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Steel Contends With 401 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Faces Suit in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Industries Inc. Has 10T Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Drop to 280 in 2Q06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 650 Pending Cases in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Notes 127,750 Open Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Suits with 22T Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,161 Cases in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CPChem, ConocoPhillips Dispute Over Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Automotive Faces Claims v. Subsidiaries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Sets Aside Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin. Has $2.32B Liability in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Contend With ASARCO Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Updates WR Grace Suit in Canada

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Accrues $106.9M Interest in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. County Drops Suit v. Sempra, SDG&E
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Gains From $79.6M Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Charges Ore. Hospital $10.2T for Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Relief Trust Reports ZAR91M Payout in 2 Yrs  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Receives Ambrose, Ullum Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Tags Engineer's Death to Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Disallows Biersdorf Claims v. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Reports Move to Pay Trustees
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp Mulls Settlement with Grace


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INFOSONICS CORP: Scott + Scott Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RAMBUS INC: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Fraud Suit
SAFENET INC: Kahn Gauthier Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AMPCO TRANSPORTATION: Settles Col. Racial Discrimination Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi lawyer Anne T. Sulton announced that her clients,
former employees of Ampco Transportation System Inc., have
settled two racial discrimination lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado against the company,
The Denver Post reports.

In 2004, six black Ampco workers filed the first lawsuit "Woods,
et al. v. Ampco Sys Trans Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01724-
JLK-MEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under John L. Kane, with referral to Judge Michael E.
Hegarty.

It alleged plaintiffs were fired for complaining about racial
discrimination, receiving lower pay and fewer benefits than
white workers.

In 2005, the workers filed a second suit "Woods et al. v. Ampco
System Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-02040-PSF-MEH," in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge
Phillip S. Figa.

The second suit seeks to have the suit certified as a class
action representing about 400 current and former bus drivers and
lot supervisors.

Both suits claimed Ampco failed to pay the workers the city's
"prevailing wages" they were entitled to.

Ampco denied the claims in both suits and asked that they be
dismissed.  A judge did not rule on either suit prior to the
settlement.

Terms of the settlement in the wage and discrimination lawsuits
were not disclosed.

A copy of the October 2005 complaint is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f4a

Representing the defendant is Susan Strebel Sperber of
Rothgerber, Johnson & Lyons, LLP-Denver, 1200 Seventeenth Street
One Tabor Center, #3000, Denver, CO 80202-5855, Phone: 303-628-
9563, Fax: 303-623-9222, E-mail: ssperber@rothgerber.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are Gregory Alan Hall of Gregory A.
Hall Law Office, P.O. Box 202922, Denver, CO 80220-8922, Phone:
303-320-0584, Fax: 303-370-6922, E-mail: gregory@federallaw.com;
and Anne Thomas Sulton of the Sulton Law Offices, P.O.Box 2763
Olympia, WA 98507, Phone: 609-468-6029, E-mail:
annesulton@comcast.net.


AQUILA INC: August 2007 Trial Slated for ERISA Litigation in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri set
a tentative August 2007 trial for the consolidated class action,
"In re Aquila ERISA Litigation" which is seeking recovery from
the company more than $150 million in alleged retirement losses.

On Sept. 24, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain members of the company's board of directors and
management, alleging that they violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and were responsible for losses that
participants in the company's 401(k) plan experienced as a
result of the decline in the value of their Aquila common stock
held in the 401(k) plan.

A number of similar lawsuits alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants in
violation of ERISA by concealing information and/or misleading
employees who held the company's common stock through the
company's 401(k) plan were subsequently filed against the
company.

The suits also seek damages for the plan's losses resulting from
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On Jan. 26, 2005, the
court ordered that all of these lawsuits be consolidated into a
single case captioned, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation."

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in March
2005, which largely repeats each of the allegations in the first
complaint.  This case has been certified as a class action and
set for trial in August 2007.

The suit is "Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00865-DW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Jaffe of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, US, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600; and

     (2) Bruce Keplinger of Norris & Keplinger, LLC, 6800
         College Blvd., Suite 630, Overland Park, KS 66211,
         Phone: (913) 323-3185 and Fax: (913) 663-2006, E-mail:
         bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com.

Representing the company is Stanley Daryl Davis of Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
Phone: (816) 474-6550, Fax: (816) 421-4066, E-mail:
sddavis@shb.com.


BMO NESBITT: Faces $100M Lawsuit Over Retirement Savings Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
James R. MacDonald, on behalf of a class of individuals,
initiated a class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., BMO
Trust Co. and BMO Bank of Montreal in respect of foreign
exchange transactions in Registered Retirement Savings Plans,
Registered Retirement Income Funds or Registered Education
Savings Plans accounts.  

The proposed class includes all present and former clients of
the defendants who held or hold RRSP(s), RRIF(s) or RESP(s) and
who, since June 14, 2001, have incurred foreign currency
conversion charges in these accounts.

The statement of claim alleges that the defendants have
systematically converted foreign currency in these accounts to
Canadian currency without instructions from the customers, and
without there being any need to do so, based upon revisions to
the Income Tax Act that came into effect on June 14, 2001.

In effecting all currency conversions, the defendants levy an
undisclosed conversion fee in addition to the amount that they
actually pay to buy or sell currency.

The statement of claim alleges that the defendants failed to
change their operational practices after the change to the
Income Tax Act, which allows RRSPs, RRIFs and RESPs to hold
foreign currency as an investment.  It further alleges that the
reason for the defendants' failure to effect a change was so
that they could continue to earn profits from the foreign
exchange fees, at the expense of the class members.

It seeks damages for all the fees charged in association with
the unauthorized conversion of foreign currency to Canadian
funds since the change to the Income Tax Act became effective.  
It also seeks repayment of all the hidden foreign exchange fees
levied by the defendants on transactions where the customer did
authorize a conversion of funds from Canadian to a foreign
currency; but had no notice and did not agree to payment of the
hidden fee.

Each time a foreign exchange fee is charged by the defendants it
depletes the funds in the customer's retirement or education
fund, the plaintiff said.

The plaintiff is claiming $100 million in damages, a permanent
injunction prohibiting the defendants from conducting
unauthorized foreign exchange transactions and a permanent
injunction prohibiting the defendants from charging undisclosed
fees on any foreign exchange transactions, punitive damages of
$10 million.

The proposed class is all current and former clients of the
defendants resident in Canada, who held one or more trust
account(s) administered by BMO Trust and/or Nesbitt and who,
between June 14, 2001 and the date of certification of this
action as a class proceeding, purchased or sold investments
denominated in foreign currency in their trust account(s) or
were paid dividends or interest in a foreign currency in their
trust account(s) or otherwise held foreign currency into their
trust account(s), which was then converted to Canadian dollars
by the defendants.


This proposed class action is proceeding on a contingency fee
basis.  

A copy of Mr. MacDonald's Claim is available for free at:
  
           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f3c

The case is Court File No. 06-CV-316213 CA filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

Representing the plaintiffs are Margaret Waddell or Odette
Soriano both of Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, 250
University Avenue, Suite 501, Toronto ON, M5H 3E5, Phone: 1-888-
569-4526, E-mail: info@rrspclassaction.com, Website:
http://www.rrspclassaction.com.


CYNOSURE INC: Faces TCPA Suit in Mass. Over Unsolicited Faxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action filed
in Massachusetts state court over allegations it violated
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In May 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a lawsuit against the
company under the TCPA.  The lawsuit alleges that the company
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile.  

Although the company is continuing to investigate the number of
facsimiles transmitted during the period for which the plaintiff
in the lawsuit seeks class certification, and the number of
these facsimiles that were "unsolicited" within the meaning of
the TCPA, the company expects the number of unsolicited
facsimiles to be very large.

Westford, Massachusetts-based Cynosure, Inc. (NASDAQ: CYNO) --
http://www.cynosurelaser.com/-- develops, manufactures and  
markets treatment systems, which are used by physicians and
other practitioners to perform non-invasive procedures to remove
hair, treat vascular lesions, rejuvenate skin through the
treatment of shallow vascular lesions and pigmented lesions, and
temporarily reduce the appearance of cellulite.  The company
markets and sells its products to the dermatology, plastic
surgery and general medical markets, domestically and
internationally.


EASTMAN KODAK: Files Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Stock Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York against
Eastman Kodak Co. and two of its former executives have filed
new motions in the case.

On Jun. 13, 2005, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  

On Jun. 20, 2005 and Aug. 10, 2005, similar lawsuits were filed
against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York.  The cases have been consolidated
in the Western District of New York and the lead plaintiffs are
John Dudek and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund.  

The complaints filed in each of these actions seek to allege
claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a
proposed class of persons who purchased securities of the
company between Apr. 23, 2003 and Sept. 25, 2003, inclusive.  

The substance of the complaints is that various press releases
and other public statements made by the company during the
proposed class period allegedly misrepresented the company's
financial condition and omitted material information regarding,
among other things, the state of the company's film and paper
business.  

An amended complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2006, containing
essentially the same allegations as the original complaint but
adding an additional named defendant.  

Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on Apr. 21, 2006.   
Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was filed on June 23, 2006
and the company's reply was filed on July 24, 2006.

The suit is "McClain v. Eastman, Case No. 6:05-cv-06326-MAT,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York under Judge Michael A. Telesca.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Stuart Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, US, Phone: 610-667-
         7706;

     (2) Eugene Welch of Harris, Chesworth, O'Brien, Johnstone,
         Welch & Leone, 300 Linden Oaks, Ste. 100, Rochester, NY
         14625, Phone: 585-899-1400, Fax: 585-899-1426, E-mail:
         ewelch@rochester.rr.com; and

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton
         Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone:
         (585) 263-1558, Fax: 866-947-0625, E-mail:
         cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com; and

    (ii) John C. Millian of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 1050
         Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         (202) 955-8213.


FIFTH THIRD: Named in Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is a defendant in a consolidated antitrust
class action, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

On April 26, 2006, the company was added as a defendant in the
consolidated lawsuit, which was originally filed against Visa,
MasterCard and several other major financial institutions.

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral
James Orenstein.

Representing the plaintiffs:

     (1) Darla Jo Boggs of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneappolis,
         MN 55401, US, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981,
         E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com;  

     (2) Christopher M. Burke of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: chrisb@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Jason S. Cowart of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
         Gross, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212-661-1100, Fax: 212-661-8665, E-mail:
         jasoncowart@yahoo.com.

Representing the company is Patrick F. Fischer of Keating
Muething & Klekamp, PLL, One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-
mail: pfischer@kmklaw.com.  


HERCULES INC: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of Dioxin Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of their class action,
"The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, et
al. v. The Dow Chemical Co., et al., Case No. 04-0400."

In January 2004, Hercules, Inc., along with several other
companies were sued in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by The
Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and
several individuals who claim to represent between two and four
million Vietnamese who allege that Agent Orange used by the U.S.
during the Vietnam War caused them or their families to sustain
personal injuries.  

The suit alleges violations of international law and war crimes,
as well as violations of the common law for products liability,
negligence and international torts.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the case on several grounds,
including failure to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims
Statute, lack of jurisdiction and justiciability, the bar of the
statute of limitations, failure to state claims for violations
of international law, and the "government contractor defense."  

A hearing on these motions was held on Feb. 28, 2005.  By order
dated March 10, 2005, the court dismissed the lawsuit.  
Plaintiffs though have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The suit is "Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent
Orange/Dioxin, et al. v. Dow Chemical Co., et al.," on appeal
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein with referral to judge Joan
M. Azrack.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Ellen Bates of Hardin, Nomberg & Bates, LLP, 2151
         Highland Ave., Suite 120, Birmingham, Al 35205, Phone:
         205-930-690; and

     (2) Richard Bress Latham & Watkins, LLP, 555 Eleventh
         Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DD 20004, Phone:
         202-637-2137, E-mail: rick.bress@lw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven R. Brock of Rivkin Radler, LLP, EAB Plaza, 10th
         Floor, Uniondale, NY 11556-0111, Phone: 516-357-3315,
         Fax: 516-357-3333, E-mail: steve.brock@rivkin.com; and
    
    (ii) Chryssa V.B. Valletta of McDermott, Will, Emery, 50
         Rockefller Plaza, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 212-547-
         5400, Fax: 212-547-5444, E-mail: cvalletta@mwe.com.


HERCULES INC: Court Yet to Approve $1.4M Deal in Ga. Gulf Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana
has to grant final approval to the $1,412,000 settlement in
class actions against Hercules, Inc. and other defendants over
the contamination of potable water supply at Georgia Gulf.

The company is one of several defendants that were sued by over
2,000 individuals in a series of lawsuits, including purported
class actions that were all brought in the 18th Judicial
District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana, under the
captions:

      -- "Jerry Oldham, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et
         al., Civil Action No. 55,160";

      -- "John Capone, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 56,048C"; and

      -- "Georgenner Batton, et al. v. The State of Louisiana,
          et al., Civil Action No. 55,285."

The purported class members and plaintiffs, who claimed to have
worked or lived at or around the Georgia Gulf facility in
Iberville Parish, Louisiana, alleged injury and fear of future
illness from the consumption of contaminated water and,
specifically, elevated levels of arsenic in that water.  

As to the company, plaintiffs alleged that the company itself
and as part of a joint venture operated a nearby plant and, as
part of those operations, used a groundwater injection well to
dispose of various wastes, and that those wastes contaminated
the potable water supply at Georgia Gulf.  

In August 2005, the company and several other defendants entered
into an agreement to settle these matters with the company
agreeing to pay $1,412,000 (Class Action Reporter, March 17,
2006).

On May 4, 2006, the court granted settlement class
certification.  This settlement, which was agreed to by the
company without any admission of liability, is pending final
approval by the court.

Wilmington, Delaware-based Hercules Inc. (NYSE: HPC) --
http://www.herc.com/-- is a manufacturer and marketer of  
specialty chemicals and related services for a range of
business, consumer and industrial applications.  Its principal
products include chemicals used by the paper industry, water-
soluble polymers, polypropylene fibers and polypropylene /
polyethylene bicomponent fibers, and specialty resins.


HERCULES INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Agent Orange Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York of 23 lawsuits,
including two purported class actions filed against Hercules,
Inc.  

Plaintiffs filed the suits, alleging that exposure to Agent
Orange caused them to sustain various personal injuries.  On
Feb. 9, 2004, the court issued a series of rulings granting
several motions filed by defendants in the two cases that had
been remanded to the U.S. District Court by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme
Court, namely:

      -- "In re: Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation: Joe
         Isaacson, et al. v. Dow Chemical Co., et al., (MDL
         381, CV 98-6383 (JBW))"; and

     -- "Daniel Ray Stephenson, et al. v. Dow Chemical Co.,
         et al., Case No. CV 99-3056 (JBW)."

In relevant part, those rulings held that plaintiffs' claims
against the defendant manufacturers of Agent Orange are properly
removable to federal court under the "federal officer removal
statute" and that such claims are subject to dismissal by
application of the "government contractor defense."  

The court then dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but stayed its
decision to allow plaintiffs to obtain additional discovery and
to move for reconsideration of the court's decision.  

A hearing on the motion for reconsideration was held on Feb. 28,
2005.  By orders dated March 2, 2005, the court denied
reconsideration, lifted the stay of the earlier decision, and
dismissed plaintiffs' claims in all 23 pending lawsuits.  

Plaintiffs have appealed those dismissals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Wilmington, Delaware-based Hercules Inc. (NYSE: HPC) --
http://www.herc.com/-- is a manufacturer and marketer of  
specialty chemicals and related services for a range of
business, consumer and industrial applications.  Its principal
products include chemicals used by the paper industry, water-
soluble polymers, polypropylene fibers and polypropylene /
polyethylene bicomponent fibers, and specialty resins.


HERCULES INC: Settles Carbon Fiber Litigation in Calif., Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules, Inc. settled several purported class actions in both
state and federal courts in Massachusetts and California over
the pricing and sale of carbon fiber products.

Commencing in 1999, the company was one of several companies
sued in a series of civil antitrust and related lawsuits
concerning the pricing and sale of carbon fiber and carbon
prepreg products, together referred to as "carbon fiber
products."

These products were manufactured and sold by the company's
former Composite Products division, which division was sold to
Hexcel Corp. in 1996.  These lawsuits encompassed:

      -- a federal class action brought on behalf of direct
         purchasers of carbon fiber products captioned, "Thomas
         & Thomas Rodmakers v. Newport Adhesives and Composites,
         Case No. CV-99-07796-GHK (CTx)," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Central District of California;

      -- a total of nine California state purported class
         actions brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
         carbon fiber products, all consolidated under the
         caption, "Carbon Fiber Cases I, II, and III, Judicial
         Council Coordination Proceeding Nos. 4212, 4216 and
         4222," filed in the Superior Court of California,
         County of San Francisco;

      -- a Massachusetts state purported class action brought on
         behalf of indirect purchasers of carbon fiber products
         captioned, "Saul M. Ostroff, et al. v. Newport
         Adhesives, et al., Civil Action No. 02-2385," filed in
         the Superior Court of Middlesex County; and

      -- a lawsuit brought by Horizon Sports Technologies, a
         company that had "opted out" of the federal class
         action referred to above and captioned, "Horizon Sports
         Technologies, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives and Composites,
         Inc., et al., Case No. CV02-8126 FMC (RNEX)," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
         California.  

Throughout 2005, the company entered into agreements to resolve
each of the foregoing lawsuits, and the results of such
settlements have been reflected in the company's financial
statements.  

At this time, all of the forgoing lawsuits have been resolved,
and all payments have been made, without any admission of
liability.  The company entered each of the settlements into in
order to avoid the risks, uncertainties and costs inherent in
litigation.

Wilmington, Delaware-based Hercules Inc. (NYSE: HPC) --
http://www.herc.com/-- is a manufacturer and marketer of  
specialty chemicals and related services for a range of
business, consumer and industrial applications.  Its principal
products include chemicals used by the paper industry, water-
soluble polymers, polypropylene fibers and polypropylene /
polyethylene bicomponent fibers, and specialty resins.


INTERPOOL INC: N.J. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved
a $1 million settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Interpool, Inc. and certain of its present
and former executive officers and directors as defendants.

In February and March 2004, several lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the company's reported Consolidated Financial
Statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2000 and 2001 and the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2002, which the company announced in
March 2003 would require restatement.

Each of the complaints purported to be a class action brought on
behalf of persons who purchased securities during a specified
period.  

In April 2004, the lawsuits, which seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including legal
fees, were consolidated into a single action with lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel having been appointed.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
September 2004, which included allegations of purported
misstatements and omissions in public disclosures throughout an
expanded purported class period from March 31, 1999 through
December 26, 2003.

In November 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss was granted by the
District Court on Aug. 18, 2005, dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety and with prejudice.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal order, thereby initiating a review of the District
Court's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In view of the costs and uncertainties described above and which
are inherent in the litigation process, the company elected to
participate in the Third Circuit's mediation program through
which a settlement of this litigation was negotiated.

Following the conclusion of these negotiations, the company
received a letter dated Dec. 8, 2005 from the Director of the
Appellate Mediation Program for the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, confirming the settlement terms for this
class action litigation, to which all parties have agreed, which
are:

      -- a cash payment on behalf of defendants in the total
         amount of $1.0 million, inclusive of all of the fees
         and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel; and

      -- the dismissal of all claims against the company and the
         other defendants on a class-wide basis.

The company's insurance carrier will fund the entire $1,000
payment.  The agreed settlement terms have been embodied in a
formal settlement agreement that has been submitted to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for
consideration of the settlement and on Aug. 1, 2006, held a
fairness hearing with respect to the settlement where the judge
announced in an oral ruling that the settlement had been
approved and will be followed by a written order shortly.

The suit is "Hurtado, et al. v. Interpool, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-00321-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.  

     (2) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, Suite 500 West, 1100 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Matthew M. Oliver of Lowenstein Sandler, 65 Livingston
         Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, E-mail:
         moliver@lowenstein.com.

    (ii) David A. Kotler of Dechert, LLP, Princeton Pike,
         Corporate Center, P.O. BOX 5218, Princeton, NJ 08543,
         Phone: 609-620-3200, E-mail: david.kotler@dechert.com.


KEYSPAN CORP: Sued Over Operations at Former Bay Shore Gas Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keyspan Corp. is facing a purported class action alleging
damages resulting from contamination associated with the
company's operations of the former manufactured gas plant in Bay
Shore, New York.

Based in New York, Keyspan Corp. -- http://www.keyspanenergy.com
-- is a holding company under the Public Holding Co. Act of
2005.  It operates six regulated utilities that distribute
natural gas to approximately 2.6 million customers in New York
City, Long Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, making
KeySpan the fifth largest gas distribution company in the U.S.
and the largest in the Northeast.


MASTEC INC: Fla. Court Sets Hearing for $10M Stock Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida set
an Aug. 15, 2006 preliminary approval hearing for the $10
million settlement in the consolidated securities class action
against MasTec, Inc. and certain of its officers.

In the second quarter of 2004, purported class action complaints
were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida and in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  These cases have been
consolidated by court order in the Southern District of Florida.

The complaints allege certain violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
related to current and prior period earnings reports.

On Jan. 25, 2005, a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint was filed by plaintiffs, which the court granted.  
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Feb. 22,
2005.  

Plaintiffs contend that the company's financial statements
during the purported class period of Aug. 12, 2003 to May 11,
2004 were materially misleading in these areas:

     (1) the financials for the third quarter of 2003 were
         allegedly overstated by $5.8 million in revenue from
         unapproved change orders from a variety of the
         company's projects; and

     (2) the financials for the second quarter of 2003 were
         overstated by some $1.3 million as a result of the
         intentional overstatement of revenue, inventories and
         work in progress at the company's Canadian subsidiary.

Plaintiffs seek damages, not quantified, for the difference
between the stock price plaintiffs paid and the stock price
plaintiffs believe they should have paid, plus interest and
attorney fees.  The company filed a motion to dismiss that was
denied on Sept. 30, 2005.

In April 2006, the company settled the lawsuit for $10 million
in cash.  On June 30, 2006, the parties executed a Stipulation
of Settlement and filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval
of the settlement of the federal securities class action.  

The settlement is contingent upon final court approval.  The
court scheduled a preliminary hearing on the approval of the
settlement for Aug. 15, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: MasTec, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-20886, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Boca Raton), 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200,
         Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-
         750-3364, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Vianale & Vianale, LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355
         Town Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561-
         391-4900, Fax: 561-368-9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com; and

     (4) Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd.,
         Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, Phone: 310-725-
         6400, Fax: 310-725-6420.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Suits in Wash. Over WGA Anti-Piracy Tool
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing two federal lawsuits over its Windows
Genuine Advantage (WGA) anti-piracy tool, alleging that the
company is violating laws that seek to combat spyware, the
English Business News reports.

The purported class actions were both filed in the U.S. District
for the Western District of Washington, under the captions:

      -- "Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-
         00900-MJB, (filed on June 26, 2006);" and

      -- "Engineered Process Controls LLC et al v. Microsoft
         Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-00927-JLR, (filed on June
         30, 3006)."  

According to the suits, since WGA gathers data that can easily
identify individual PCs and could potentially be used to gather
other types of information, it is akin to malicious threats.  In
so doing, the suit claims that the program violates Washington's
anti-spyware laws (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2006).

WGA is an anti-piracy tool designed to check the validity of a
computer user's copy of the Windows operating system.  It
recently became the subject of controversy, after PC users
discovered that WGA was contacting the company's servers on a
daily basis without their knowledge.  This allegedly happened
even if a users' software was legitimate (Class Action Reporter,
July 3, 2006).

Microsoft introduced the piracy check in mid-2005 as a condition
for downloading security fixes and other software, such as anti-
spyware technology, from its Web site.  But, some say the
company clumsily handled several elements of the program,
including a key privacy issue.

The lawsuits allege that the company pushes it to all Windows
PCs, whether they have Automatic Updates turned on or not.  In
effect the company installed the WGA software on consumers'
systems without providing consumers any opportunity to make an
informed choice about that software.

Further, the suits -- both seeking unspecified damages --
contend that the anti-piracy tool amounts to a form of spyware
and that the company misled users by labeling WGA as a critical
security update without telling them that it would secretly
communicate with its servers.

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler insists the piracy check is not
spyware and that the lawsuits are without merit and distorts the
objective of their anti-piracy program.

However, Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic
Privacy Information Center, argued the concern is that users did
not know about or control the interaction.  He said it's very
much like a digital trespass -- someone getting access to your
system without your consent.

Microsoft conceded that it should have told users it was making
the daily connection.  It has since discontinued the daily check
and revised its disclosures.

The system will, however, continue to occasionally check in with
Microsoft to make sure it still believes a person's software is
legitimate.

The named plaintiff in the June 26 lawsuit is Los Angeles
resident Brian Johnson, while in the June 30 case the plaintiffs
were:

     -- Engineered Process Controls, LLC;
     -- Univex, Inc.;
     -- David DiDomizio, individual end user;
     -- Edward Misfud, individual end user; and
     -- Martin Sifuentes, individual end user.   

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Engineered - Plaintiffs] David Elliot Breskin of Short
         Cressman & Burgess, 999 3rd Ave., Ste. 3000, Seattle,
         WA 98104-4088, Phone: 206-682-3333, Fax: 340-8856, E-
         mail: dbreskin@scblaw.com;   

     (2) [Engineered - Plaintiffs] William W. Houck of Law
         Offices of William W. Houck, 4045 262ND Ave., SE
         Issaquah, WA 98029, Phone: 425-392-7118, E-mail:
         houck@houcklaw.com;   

     (3) [Johnson - Plaintiff] Mitchell A. Broz and Jess Gilbert
         Webster of Mikkelborg Broz Wells & Fryer, 1001 4th
         Ave., Ste. 3600, Seattle, WA 98154-1115, Phone: 206-
         623-5890, Fax: 206-623-0965, E-mail: mbroz@mbwf.com and
         jgwebster@mbwf.com.


MINNESOTA: Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Airports Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich has allowed a
class action filed by Minneapolis and Richfield homeowners
against the operator of Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport, according to Associated Press.

The residents accuse the Metropolitan Airports Commission of  
reneging in its promise to install noise protection for more  
homes under airplane flight paths.

The potential class in the suit includes at least 3,500 homes  
around the airport.  The plaintiffs are seeking more than $140
million in additional money for noise-proofing their homes near
the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.  The lawsuit
seeks full noise insulation, at a cost of over $157 million.

A trial is set for February.

Representing the plaintiffs is attorney Robert Moilanen at
Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P., 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Hennepin Co.), Phone: 612-341-
0400, Toll Free: 800-755-0098, Fax: 612-341-0844.


MOLEX INC: Discovery Continues in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Molex, Inc. and certain of its
officers and employees.

Between March 2, 2005 and April 22, 2005, seven separate
complaints were filed -- each purporting to be on behalf of a
class of Molex shareholders -- against the company, and certain
of its officers and employees.  

The shareholder actions have been consolidated before Judge
Ruben Castillo in the case, "The Takara Trust v. Molex Inc., et
al., Case No. 05C 1245," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things,
that from July 27, 2004 to Feb. 14, 2005, the named defendants
made or caused to be made a series of materially false or
misleading statements about the company's business, prospects,
operations, and financial statements which constituted
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  

The complaint also alleges that certain of the named defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5.  

As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the action be certified as a proper class
action, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest,
and payment of costs and expenses, including fees for legal
counsel and experts.  

The individual defendants named in the consolidated amended
complaint are:

      -- J. Joseph King,
      -- Diane S. Bullock,
      -- John H. Krehbiel Jr.,
      -- Frederick A. Krehbiel and
      -- Martin P. Slark.  

On April 28, 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On July 6, 2005, the court appointed
City of Pontiac Group, Joan L. Weeks individually and as
trustee, and James Baker as lead plaintiffs, and approved lead
plaintiffs' choice of lead counsel.  Discovery is ongoing, and
is scheduled to conclude in March 2007.  

The suit is "The Takara Trust v. Molex Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 05C 1245," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,
         Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite
         1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403,
         Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com;
         and

     (2) Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.  

Representing the defendants are Harold C. Hirshman, Jason L.
Rubin, Christopher Qualley King and Gerald E. Fradin of
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E-
mail: cking@sonnenschein.com and gfradin@sonnenschein.com.


NORTHERN STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota state district court in Hennepin County is set to
hear on Aug. 16, 2006, a motion to dismiss a purported consumer
class action, "Hoffman vs. Northern States Power Co.," which was
filed against Northern States Power Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc.

Filed on Mar. 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of
NSP-Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North Dakota
and South Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual obligation
to maintain and inspect the points of connection between NSP-
Minnesota's wires and customers' homes within the meter box.

Plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an increased
risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on file with
the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.  

They thus seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal
to the value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was
required to perform over the past six years.  

NSP-Minnesota has filed a motion for dismissal on the pleadings,
which is to be heard on Aug. 16, 2006.

Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. (NYSE: XEL) --
http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a holding company engaged in  
the utility business in the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries, it
is engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission,
distribution and sale of electricity.  Xcel Energy is also
involved in the purchase, transportation, distribution and sale
of natural gas.  

The company's regulated wholly owned utility subsidiaries
include Northern States Power Co. (NSP-Minnesota), Northern
States Power Co. (NSP-Wisconsin), Public Service Co. of Colorado
(PSCo) and Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS).  These utility
subsidiaries serve electric and natural gas customers in
portions of Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Agrees to Settle S.D. Livonia Employees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corp. d/b/a NorthWestern Energy reached a
memorandum of understanding to settle the putative shareholder
class action and derivative lawsuit pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.

In November 2005, the company and its directors were named as
defendants in a shareholder class action and derivative action,
"City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Draper, et al."

The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating
with Montana Public Power Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two
entities that had made public, unsolicited offers to purchase
the company.

On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add
allegations that the company's directors had erred in choosing
the Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited offer, since it was
not the most attractive offer they had received for the company.

The parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the claims of the plaintiff class.  Under the terms of
the MOU, the company will redeem the existing shareholder rights
plan either following shareholder approval of the merger
agreement with BBI or upon termination of the merger agreement
with BBI, whichever occurs first.

The board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the
shareholders approve adoption of such a plan in advance or, in
the event that circumstances require timely implementation of
such a plan, the board seeks and receives approval from
shareholders within 12 months after adoption.

After limited confirmatory discovery, the parties plan to
present a settlement agreement to the federal court for
preliminary approval.

Once received, notice will be sent to all class members
informing them of the terms of the settlement, their right to
object and notice of the final hearing to approve the
settlement.

The plaintiffs' lawyers will also have the right to seek an
award of attorneys' fees from the federal court at which the
company would object to any such award.  Once approved, the
lawsuit filed by the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System would be dismissed.
  
The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota under Judge
Lawrence L. Piersol.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randall J. Baron and Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 W.
         Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         231-1058, Fax: 231-7423; and

     (2) Timothy J. Dougherty of Dougherty & Dougherty, P.O. Box
         1004, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1004, Phone: 335-8586.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Filiberto Agusti, Scott T. Bielicki, David F. Rifkind
         and Andrew Sloniewsky of Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, 1330
         Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:
         202-429-6428, 202-429-6751, 202-429-8094 and 202-429-
         6759, E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com,
         sbielicki@steptoe.com, drifkind@steptoe.com and
         asloniewsky@steptoe.com; and

    (ii) Roberto Antonio Lange of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz &
         Smith, P.O. Box 1030, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030,
         Phone: 336-2880, Fax: 335-3639, E-mail:
         rlange@dehs.com.


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suits in Utah Over PREOS
--------------------------------------------------------------
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers are
defendants in two purported shareholder class actions filed in
the in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.  The
suits are:

     -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.," filed on
        July 12, 2006; and

     -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al."

Both lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and
allege that between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
market prospects for its proprietary drug, PREOS(R), in
violation of federal securities laws.  PREOS is for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

The lawsuits seek certification as a class action, compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.

The first identified suit is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah under Judge Paul G. Cassell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey S. Abraham and Jack G. Fruchter of Abraham
         Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805, New
         York City, NY 10119, US, Phone: (212) 279-5050; and

     (2) Scott A. Call of Anderson & Karrenberg, 50 W. Broadway,
         Ste. 700, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, Phone: (801) 534-
         1700, E-mail: scall@aklawfirm.com.


PFIZER INC: Settlement of Bjork-Shiley Heart Valves Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Smith, Bowling Claims Administrator urges all patients
implanted with Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave Heart Valves to
register with the court-appointed Bowling Settlement Claims
Administrator.

Under a 1992 class action settlement agreement in the "Bowling,
et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al." heart valve litigation, financial
benefits are still available to certain patients implanted with
the Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valve.  Approximately
86,000 of these heart valves were implanted in patients
worldwide.

A Supervisory Panel of experts funded by the Bowling Settlement
has determined that risk of fracture depends on the patient's
age, gender, valve size, valve implant position, and certain
valve manufacturing characteristics.

Because of a risk of strut fracture that could result in death
or serious injury, the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration forced
all Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave hear valves off the market in
1986.

In 1992, Pfizer Inc. and Shiley Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Pfizer Inc., negotiated a settlement with members of the
Bowling class in the case "Bowling, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et
al." filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.

The Bowling class members were recipients of a mechanical heart
valve manufactured by Shiley known as the Bjork-Shiley Convexo-
Concave who claimed that the heart valve was defective due to a
small, but potentially catastrophic risk of strut fracture.

Under the settlement, the class is defined as "all living
persons currently implanted with C/C heart valves and their
current spouses" as of Jan. 23, 1992, except those persons who
opted out from the class.

Guidelines have been developed to determine which patients with
Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valves will be compensated
from the Settlement for their valve replacement surgery.  

The guidelines are based on a comparison of the risk of the
operation to replace the valve with the risk of fracture if the
valve is left in place.  If the risk of valve fracture exceeds
the risk of reoperation, the class member qualifies for monetary
benefits.

People with Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valves are
advised to contact a cardiologist to discuss whether they are at
an increased risk of fracture or possibly a candidate for a
valve replacement.

For more information on the class action settlement benefits,
contact Wayne Smith, Bowling Claims Administrator, 525 Vine
Street, Suite 2300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 U.S.A., Phone: 513-
421-4415 or 800-977-0779 (Toll Free), Fax: 513-421-7696, E-mail:
bowlingpfizer@fuse.net, Website: http://www.bowling-pfizer.com.

The suit is "Bowling, et al, et al v. Pfizer Inc, et al., Case
No. 1:91-cv-00256-HJW-SM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Herman J. Weber.

Representing the defendants are James Ralph Adams of Frost Brown
Todd LLC - 1, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH
45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, E-mail: jadams@fbtlaw.com; and
Alan F. Goott of Kay Scholer LLP, 425 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-836-8157, Fax: 212-836-8689, E-mail:
AGoott@kayescholer.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James T. Capretz, 5000 Birch Street, Suite 2500,
         Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-724-3000, E-mail:
         jcapretz@capretz.com;

     (2) Stanley Morris Chesley of Waite Schneider Bayless &
         Chesley Co LPA, 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West
         Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-621-
         0267, E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc;

     (3) Bruce A Finzen, 800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: 612-349-8500; and

     (4) Marc David Mezibov of Mezibov & Jenkins, LLP, 401 East
         Court Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:
         513-723-1600, Fax: 513-723-1620, E-mail:
         mmezibov@mezibovjenkins.com.


PREMIUM STANDARD: Continues to Face Mo. Property Injury Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Premium Standard Farms, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action, "Herrold et al. v. Contigroup Cos., Inc. et al.,"
which is pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Kansas
City, Missouri, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2006 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended June 24, 2006.

The suit was briefly removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, but has since been remanded back
to state court.  

It seeks to create a class of plaintiffs living within 10 miles
of the company's farms in northern Missouri, including contract
grower farms, who are alleged to have suffered interference with
their right to use and have quiet enjoyment of their respective
properties and are seeking unspecified damages.  

The suit is "Daniel Herrold, et al. and others similarly
situated v. ContiGroup Companies, Inc., Premium Standard Farms,
Inc., and PSF Group Holdings, Inc., Case No. 4:04-cv-00618-GAF,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri under Judge Gary A. Fenner.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Tammy R. Dodson, Donnamarie
Landsberg and Charles F. Speer of Speer Law Firm, 104 West 9th
Street, Suite 305, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: (816) 472-3560,
Fax: (816) 421-2150, E-mail: tdodson@speerlawfirm.com,
dlandsberg@speerlawfirm.com or cspeer@speerlawfirm.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Mark D. Anstoetter of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP-Grand,
         2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
         Phone: (816) 474-6550, Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail:
         manstoetter@shb.com; and

     (2) Kirk J. Goza, Goza & Honnold, LLC, 1100 Main Street,
         Suite 2630, Kansas City, MO 64148-2355, Phone: (816)
         512-2171, Fax: (816) 512-2172, E-mail:
         kgoza@gohonlaw.com.



PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces New Lawsuit Over Stock Broker Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. faces an additional suit alleging
that it has improperly classified stock brokers as exempt
employees under state and federal wage and hour laws and,
therefore, has improperly denied them overtime pay.  

The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages,
interest, and attorneys.  The suits also name as defendants
Prudential Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC.  

Between September and October 2005, two complaints -- "Janowsky
v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, and Prudential Securities Inc.,"
and "Goldstein v. Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The "Goldstein" complaint purports to have been filed on behalf
of a nationwide class.  The "Janowsky" complaint alleges a class
of New York brokers.

Also in late 2005, three complaints were filed in California
Superior Court, all purporting to have been brought on behalf of
classes of California brokers.  The suits are:

      -- "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential
         Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC";

      -- "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated,
         Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities";
         and

      -- "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and
         Prudential Securities, Inc."

In June 2006, another purported New York state class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The suit, "Panesenko v. Wachovia
Securities, et al.," is alleging that the company failed to pay
overtime to brokers in violation of state and federal law,
according to the company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

Based in Newark, New Jersey, Prudential Financial, Inc. --
http://www.prudential.com/-- (NYSE: PRU) is a financial  
services company that offers through its subsidiaries and
affiliates an array of financial products and services,
including life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and
retirement-related services and administration, asset
management, banking and trust services, real estate brokerage
and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail
securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Saunders" Plaintiffs May Re-file Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has granted
plaintiffs in the mutual fund action, "Saunders v. Putnam
American Government Income Fund, et al.," leave to re-file their
federal securities law claims against Prudential Securities,
Inc.

In October 2004, Prudential Financial, Inc. and PSI were named
as defendants in several class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers and holders of shares in a number of mutual fund
complexes.

The actions were consolidated as part of the multi-district
proceeding, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-
1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-15862, 04-md-15863,
and 04-md-15864," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

The complaints allege that purchasers and holders of mutual
funds were harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive
fees caused by market timing and late trading.  It is seeking
unspecified damages.

In August 2005, the company was dismissed from several of the
actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but
remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated
proceeding.

In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions,
"Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,"
the court granted plaintiffs leave to re-file their federal
securities law claims against PSI.  Motions to dismiss the other
actions are pending.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f40
                         http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f42


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Denies Appeal on Insurance Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County nixed plaintiffs'
application for interlocutory appeal in relation to certain
dismissed claims in the class action, "Capitol Life Insurance
Co. v. Prudential Insurance, et al.," which was filed against:

      -- Prudential Insurance Co. of America;
      -- Prudential Home Mortgage Co., Inc.; and
      -- several other subsidiaries.

The suit was filed in connection with the sale of certain
subordinated mortgage securities sold by a subsidiary of
Prudential Home Mortgage.  

In May 2000, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
alleges violations of the New Jersey securities statute and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud,
conspiracy and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks
compensatory as well as treble and punitive damages.  

In October 2002, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied.  Since that time, the court has permitted nine
additional investors to intervene as plaintiffs.  

In August 2005, the court dismissed the New Jersey Securities
Act and RICO claims and the negligent misrepresentation claim.  
Plaintiffs' application for interlocutory appeal of this ruling
was denied, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Nixes Appeal on HMO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal on the settlement of the class action, "In Re Humana,
Inc. Managed Care Litigation," which was filed against
Prudential Insurance Co. of America and other health management
organizations in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, was recently dismissed.

Filed in 2000, the nationwide class action originally known as
"Shane v. Humana, et al." was brought on behalf of provider
physicians and physician groups.  It alleges that the company
and other health care companies engaged in an industry-wide
conspiracy to defraud physicians by failing to pay under
provider agreements and by unlawfully coercing providers to
enter into agreements with unfair and unreasonable terms.  

Specifically, the suit names as defendants Humana, Inc., Aetna,
Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human Health
Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., the company, United
Health Group, United Health Care and Wellpoint Health Networks,
Inc.
  
An amended complaint, naming additional plaintiffs, including
three state medical associations, and an additional defendant,
was filed in March 2001.  It alleges claims of breach of
contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy
to violate RICO, aiding and abetting RICO violations, and
violations of state prompt pay statutes and the California
unfair business practices statute.

The amended complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, treble damages pursuant to RICO, and
attorneys' fees.

In September 2002, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification of a nationwide class of provider
physicians.  

In September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the decision with respect only to the federal
claims for conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting
RICO violations.  

In September 2005, the district court entered a final order
approving the settlement of these claims by Prudential
Insurance, which provides for payment to plaintiffs in the
amount of $22 million.  

Two members of the plaintiff class appealed the final order.  In
February 2006, the appeals were dismissed.  One appeal was
reinstated in April 2006 and dismissed in June 2006.

The suit is "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation, MDL
1334," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Federico Moreno.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Archie Lamb, 2017 2nd Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
         35203, Phone: (205) 324-4644 and (800) 324-4425, Fax:
         (205) 324-4649, E-mail: Alamb@ArchieLamb.com; Web site:
         http://www.archielamb.com/;and

     (2) Harley S. Tropin of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.,
         2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida
         33134, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-372-1800, Fax: 305-
         372-3508, E-mail: http://www.kttlaw.com.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Continues to Face IPO Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Securities, Inc. remains a defendant in a number of
industry-wide purported class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York relating to its
former securities underwriting business, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Plaintiffs in one consolidated proceeding "In re: Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," allege
that the underwriters engaged in a scheme involving tying
agreements, undisclosed compensation arrangements and research
analyst conflicts to manipulate and inflate the prices of shares
sold in initial public offerings in violation of the federal
securities laws.  Certain issuers of these securities and their
and former officers and directors have also been named as
defendants.  

In October 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in six "focus cases."  The underwriter
defendants appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, which heard argument in March 2006.

In June 2004, plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement
with the issuers, officers and directors named as defendants in
the lawsuits, which the district court preliminarily approved in
February 2005.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: DERP Opts Out of $400M Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver Employees Retirement Plan has opted out of the $400
million settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Qwest Communications International, Inc., The Denver
Post reports.

According to Vicki Halliday, the plan's general counsel, the
Denver workers who were slated to receive a total of less than
$8,000 from the proposed settlement, instead, filed its own suit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against
Qwest seeking at least $1.2 million.

The retirement plan is seeking its losses plus attorney fees and
other costs -- far more than what it was slated to receive from
the class-action settlement, which was announced last November.

Also named as defendants in the Retirement Plan suit are several
former Qwest executives and directors and former Qwest auditor
Arthur Andersen.

Originally, 12 putative class actions were brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between
May 24, 1999 and Feb. 14, 2002.  The suits were consolidated as
one class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  

On Nov. 23, 2005, the company and certain other defendants, and
the putative class representatives entered into and filed with
the court a Stipulation of Partial Settlement to settle the
consolidated securities action against the company and certain
other defendants.  

On Jan. 5, 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and certifying a settlement
class on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002.  

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
give final approval to the proposed settlement (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 7, 2006).

The recent suit is "Denver Employees Retirement Plan v. Qwest
Communications International, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01539-REB-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Robert E. Blackburn, with
referral to Judge Boyd N. Boland.

Representing plaintiffs is Ronald L. Wilcox of Hill & Robbins,
P.C., 1441 - 18th Street, #100 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-296-
8100, E-mail: ronwilcox@hillandrobbins.com.


SOUTHERN CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal in Mirant Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against The
Southern Co. in relation to Mirant Corp.'s initial public
offering are seeking reconsideration of the court order
dismissing certain of their claims in the case.

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against the company, certain of its former
and current senior officers, and 12 underwriters of the IPO.

Several Mirant shareholders originally filed the suit against
Mirant Corp. -- a former wholly owned subsidiary of the company
until its initial public offering in October 2000 -- and certain
Mirant officers in May 2002.  Several other similar lawsuits
were subsequently filed and later consolidated into this
litigation.  

In November 2002, Southern Co., certain former and current
senior officers of the company, and 12 underwriters of Mirant's
initial public offering were added as defendants.

The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged
improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the
California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions
in Mirant's prospectus for its initial public offering and in
subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related
issues previously disclosed by Mirant.

The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant
securities between Sept. 26, 2000 and Sept. 5, 2002.

In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's
alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities
involving the California energy market.  

The remaining claims do not allege any improper trading and
marketing activity, accounting errors, or material misstatements
or omissions on the part of the company but seek to impose
liability on the company based on allegations that the company
was a "control person" as to Mirant prior to the spin off date.  

The company filed an answer to the consolidated amended class
action complaint in September 2003.  Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for class certification.

On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of
its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based
upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing
activities involving the California energy market.

The company and the other defendants have opposed the
plaintiffs' motion.  The plaintiffs have also stated that they
intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend
the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted
against the company in the Mirant bankruptcy litigation.

As a result of Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the Bankruptcy
Code automatically stayed all litigation as to Mirant.  In
November 2003, the Bankruptcy Court granted a request to extend
this automatic stay to all other non-debtor defendants,
including the company and its current and/or former officers
named as defendants in the Mirant securities litigation.  

However, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Mirant to agree with
parties in pending actions to allow discovery or other matters
to proceed without violating the stay.  Mirant and plaintiffs'
counsel in the Mirant securities litigation agreed that document
discovery could proceed.  

During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation
was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery.  Since
Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay
has been lifted, and activity in this case is expected to
resume.

Under certain circumstances, Southern Co. will be obligated
under its bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former
Southern Co. officers who served as directors of Mirant at the
time of its initial public offering through the date of the spin
off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit.  The
final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined, the
company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The suit is "In Re Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Abrams, Gustavo Bruckner, Fred Taylor Isquith,
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison
         Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, E-
         mail: isquith@whafh.com; and

     (2) David Andrew Bain, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood &
         Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail:
         dab@classlaw.com or mdc@classlaw.com  

Representing the defendants are, Kirk Quillian, Thomas Edward
Reilly, Jaime L. Theriort, Christi A. Cannon, Troutman Sanders
Bank of America Plaza, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216, Phone: 404-885-3000, E-mail:
kirk.quillian@troutmansanders.com,
thomas.reilly@troutmansanders.com,  
jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com.  


ST. PAUL: Minn. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota heard oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action filed against St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc.

Initially, three actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Two of these
actions were:

      -- "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al.
         (Nov. 2, 2004);" and

      -- "Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St.
         Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 10,
         2004)."

Certain shareholders of the company brought the putative class
actions against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  These actions have been
consolidated as, "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation
II," and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.

On Jul. 11, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The amended consolidated complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the company's alleged failure to make disclosure relating to the
practice of paying brokers commissions on a contingent basis,
the company's alleged involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids
and the company's allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance
products.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company and the other defendants in "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.
Oral argument on the company's motion to dismiss was presented
on June 15, 2006.

On Apr. 1, 2004, Travelers Property Casualty Corp. merged with a
subsidiary of The St. Paul Companies, Inc.

The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner and Mark C Rifkin
         of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, NYC, 270
         Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4690,
         212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-
         mail: isquith@whafh.com, bruckner@whafh.com and
         rifkin@whafh.com; and

     (2) Jack L. Chestnut and Karl L. Cambronne of Chestnut &
         Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls., MN 55402,
         Phone: (612) 339-7300, Fax: 612-336-2940, E-mail:
         jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David H. LaRocca, Michael J. Chepiga and Michael J.
         Garvey of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425
         Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-
         455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358, E-mail:
         dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
         mgarvey@stblaw.com; and   

    (ii) Peter W. Carter and Richard B. Solum of Dorsey &
         Whitney - Mpls., 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Mpls., MN
         55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-
         mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
         solum.rick@dorsey.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Ariz. Stock Fraud Lawsuit for $20M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taser International, Inc. has reached agreements to settle:

     -- a shareholder class action pending in U.S.
        District Court for the District of Arizona;

     -- derivative lawsuits pending in the U.S. District
        Court for the District of Arizona, the Arizona Superior
        Court, and the Delaware Chancery Court; and

     -- the Section 220 lawsuit for production of documents
        pending in Delaware Chancery Court.

Under these agreements, all claims against the company and
individuals named as defendants will be dismissed without
presumption or admission of any liability or wrongdoing.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement to dismiss the
shareholder class action litigation, TASER International will
pay to the plaintiffs, for the benefit of the class, the total
of $20 million payable by approximately $4.1 million from
insurance proceeds, $7.9 million in company cash, and $8 million
in company stock or cash at the company's election.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement to dismiss the derivative
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, TASER International will pay the amount of $1.75
million in company stock for plaintiffs' attorney fees and adopt
certain corporate governance provisions consisting of the
designation of a lead independent director who will be chosen
from one of three independent directors now serving on the
board.

As part of the settlement of the derivative action pending in
the District Court of Arizona, the two other derivative actions
and the Section 220 action will be dismissed as well.

In conjunction with the agreements to settle, the company will
take a charge of approximately $18 million for litigation and
related charges to the June 30, 2006 results.  As such, the
agreements to settle will be reflected in the company's Form 10-
Q.

"After a review of the evidence, it does not appear that the
company oversold the safety of the TASER(R) device nor that
there was any evidence of wrongdoing.  This is consistent with
the termination of the Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation into this same general subject matter with a
recommendation of no enforcement action," commented Robert B.
Weiser, plaintiff's lead counsel in the derivative litigation.  
"As a result, we accepted company stock as payment for our legal
fees because we believe in the future of the company," concluded
Mr. Weiser.

Rick Smith, chief executive of TASER International, commented:
"Our commitment to our shareholders and our customers was the
driving force behind this settlement, and we look forward to
putting these issues behind the company and moving ahead with
the next phase of TASER's business strategy.  We have generated
significant momentum in our operating results as of late.  As a
result, we believe it is imperative that we maintain our focus
on the execution of these strategic initiatives.  It is
important for our company that we resolve the outstanding
shareholder and derivative litigation, in part to protect our
company and our customers from potentially disruptive, time-
consuming and expensive class action legal inquiries."

"From a risk management standpoint, we felt that the settlement
was in the best interests of the company and our shareholders,"
commented Dan Behrendt, chief financial officer of TASER
International.  "The cash part of the settlement is roughly
twice the amount of cash generated from operations in the 2nd
Quarter of 2006 and with $49.1 million of cash and investments
at June 30, 2006; this is an amount the company could adequately
manage.

The stock component of the settlement represents an approximate
2 percent dilution at the current stock price and given the
inherent costs, distraction and uncertainty that come with this
type of litigation, the company felt that settling these
lawsuits now under the current terms was the best choice."

These agreements to settle these actions are conditioned upon
the appropriate settlement documents, approval by the respective
Courts and other factors.  There is no assurance that the
settlements will be completed.  If the settlements are not
completed, then the parties may attempt to reach agreement on
another settlement or resume the litigation.

Further, the Board of Directors of TASER International, Inc.
approved, in connection with the approval of the settlement
agreements, a resolution authorizing the company to purchase up
to $10 million of the company's common stock between the current
date and the date of final payment of the shareholder class
action settlement subject to stock market conditions and
corporate considerations.

The final payment of the settlement will take place after final
court approval of the formal shareholder class action settlement
agreement, a process expected to take several months.

                         Case Background  

Beginning on or about Jan. 10, 2005, numerous securities class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  These actions were filed on behalf of
the purchasers of the company's stock in various class periods,
beginning as early as May 29, 2003 and ending as late as Jan.
14, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2006).

The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.  Four actions were filed in
New York and one Michigan, which were transferred to the
District of Arizona.  

Judge Susan Bolton consolidated the class actions and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were selected.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which became
the operative complaint for all of the class actions, on Aug.
29, 2005.  The operative class period is May 29, 2003 to Jan.
11, 2005.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which has been fully briefed for the
court but has not yet been decided.

It alleged, among other things, violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief against all defendants.  

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the
company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding, among other things, the safety of
the company's products and the company's ability to meet its
sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5 million sales
order with the company's distributor, Davidson's, in the fourth
quarter of 2004.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that
product defects were leading to excessive product returns by
customers.

The suit is "In re Taser International Securities Litigation,
Master File No. CV 05-115-PHX-SRB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David B. Rosenbaum and Maureen Beyers both of Osborn
         Maledon, P.A., 2929 North Central Avenue, Phoenix,
         Arizona 85012-2794, Phone: (602) 640-9000, Fax: (602)
         664-2053, E-mail: drosenbaum@omlaw.com or
         mbeyers@omlaw.com; and

     (2) Keith E. Eggleton and David A. McCarthy both of Wilson
         Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo
         Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 849-3011, Fax: (650) 493-
         6811, E-mail: KEggleton@wsgr.com or DMcCarthy@wsgr.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Mitchell, 2210 East Camelback Road, Suite 122B,
         Phoenix, AZ 85106;

     (2) Mel E. Lifshitz, Keith M. Fleischman, Timothy J.
         MacFall, Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Stephanie Beige,
         Russell M. Iger and Jeffrey Lerner all of Berstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New
         York, NY 10016;

     (3) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste 406, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100;

     (4) Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper Ross Wolf & Jones LLP,
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 759-4600; and

     (5) Jeffrey Craig Block of Berman DeValerio & Pease, 1
         Liberty Sq., Ste 8, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (617) 542-
         8300.


TRIZEC PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuits in Ill. Over Brookfield Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trizec Properties, Inc. faces two purported stockholder class
actions in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois over a
merger agreement with affiliates of Brookfield Properties Corp.

On June 5, 2006, the company, Trizec Holdings Operating, LLC,
and Trizec Canada, Inc., entered into an agreement and plan of
merger and arrangement agreement with Grace Holdings LLC, Grace
Acquisition Corp., 4162862 Canada Limited, and Grace OP LLC, who
are all affiliates of Brookfield Properties.

Trizec Canada is an indirect holder of approximately 38.1% of
the company's outstanding common stock and all of the company's
outstanding special voting stock and Class F convertible stock
(TZ Canada).

On June 6, 2006, two substantially identical purported
stockholder class actions were filed related to the merger
agreement.  The suits are:

      -- "Doris Staehr v. Trizec Properties, et al. (Case No.
         06CH11226);" and

      -- "Hubert Van Gent v. Trizec Properties, et al. (Case No.
         06CH11571)."

The suits named the company and each of its directors as
defendants.  They allege that the company's directors were
conflicted, unjustly enriched, and engaged in self-dealing, and
violated their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders in
approving the mergers, the merger agreement and the other
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.
  
The lawsuits seek to enjoin the completion of the mergers and
the related transactions.  Additionally, the lawsuits seek
class-action status, rescission of, to the extent already
implemented, the mergers, the Trizec Voting Agreement, the PMCI
Voting Agreement, and the termination fees, and costs and
disbursements incurred in connection with the lawsuits,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

The company said that the suits, even if they be found to be
without merit, may potentially delay or, if the delay is
substantial enough to prevent the consummation of the mergers by
December 31, 2006, potentially prevent the closing of the
mergers.
  
Based Chicago, Illinois, Trizec Properties, Inc. (NYSE: TRZ) --
http://www.trz.com/-- is a fully integrated and self-managed,  
publicly traded real estate investment trust, in the U.S.  It is
engaged in owning and managing office properties in the U.S.  As
of December 31, 2005, it owned interests in 50 office properties
comprising approximately 36.8 million square feet of total area.


UNITED STATES: Pa. Residents Fail to Stop Foreclosure of Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Chief Judge Donetta W. Ambrose has refused to stop
the sale of an East Hills subsidized housing development to the
Urban Redevelopment Authority, according to the Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette.

At a recent hearing, the judge told residents of Third East
Hills Park in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who are seeking a
preliminary injunction in a class action to block the sale, that
being forced to move out of the property does not cause
irreparable harm.

Residents of the 30-year-old Third East Hills Park subsidized
co-op filed a class action against the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development on July 26, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Named
as plaintiffs in the case are:

      -- Third East Hills Park, Inc.,
      -- Aline Reid,
      -- Dale Peoples,
      -- Jean Massie,
      -- Shirley Sowell,
      -- Yevorn Gaskins,
      -- Yugonda Alice,
      -- Zetta Brandon, and
      -- Louise Brandon

The 49-page complaint pointed out that HUD wants to sell the
property to the Urban Redevelopment Authority for $1, which in
turn wants to sell it for a nominal fee to companies that plan
to turn it into mixed-income housing.

The suit, which was filed under the 1968 Fair Housing Act,
states that HUD basically wants to sell the property to
developers under the "East Hills Visioning" plan.  

Under that plan the homes of Third East Hills would be
demolished and redeveloped.  Those involved in the project have
obtained and committed $60 million in public and private
funding.

The plan is reportedly similar to what happened to the First and
Second East Hills Parks in 2002 and 2003, which were sold with
the intent to revitalize the whole community with mixed-income
housing and apartments.

The lawsuit pointed out that under the co-op plan at Third East
Hills, residents were able to become shareholders by paying a
fee up front, and then contributing 30 percent of adjusted
household income each month toward rent and utilities.  

It thus contends that under the current deed for the property,
it must be used as "affordable housing" and for that to change,
the deed must be nullified.  

In order to achieve that nullification, HUD is foreclosing,
based on a failure in four consecutive physical inspections.

However, plaintiffs claim that they never missed a mortgage
payment and should not be foreclosed upon.  

Plaintiffs are seeking class certification for the case to
include all others "similarly situated."  They are also seeking
to have the HUD permanently enjoined from foreclosing on the
property; stopped from displacing any other residents; and
forced to help manage the property.

The suit is "Massie, et al. v. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01004-DWA," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Donetta W. Ambrose

Representing the plaintiffs is Kevin Quisenberry of Community
Justice Project, 429 Forbes Avenue, 1705 Allegheny Building,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 434-6004, E-mail:
kquisenberry@earthlink.net.


UNITED STATES: Investors Lose Out in Stock Suits, Research Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1995, there have been 755 separate cases of class action
securities litigation on allegations of companies inflating
their stock prices due to fraud or untimely disclosure.

Settlements from these cases totaled about $25.4 billion.  On
the surface, it appears that wronged shareholders have received
just retribution for the losses incurred from purchasing stocks
at inflated prices.  But research from a professor at the Olin
School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis shows
that individual shareholders aren't receiving much benefit at
all -- in fact, if anything they're losing out.

"The majority of participants in securities class actions are
institutional investors who trade more than $100 million a year.  
They don't have to pay for any gains they made from selling the
inflated stocks, and once they're compensated for their losses
they actually come out ahead," said Anjan Thakor, PhD., finance
professor at the Olin School of Business.

"Institutional investors are trading such a large volume.  The
net trading loss they suffer from buying inflated stocks is only
20 percent of their gross losses.  Of the more than 2,300 firms
we studied, 40 percent were shown to have realized a net benefit
from the settlement proceeds."

The only way institutional investors might lose from buying
inflated shares of stock is if they buy newly issued securities.

Mr. Thakor said that the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 causes an asymmetry in how much benefit investors
receive when companies actu fraudulently.

"What's worse is that the system is set up so that one group of
shareholders ends up suing another group of shareholders.  If
I'm a shareholder who bought stock before the period where
stocks were inflated, I can't take part in the litigation, yet I
will essentially be paying the settlement to those investors who
did buy inflated shares," Mr. Thakor said.  "It's a process of
taking money from one group of shareholders in the company and
giving it to another for some wrongdoing by the company. Well,
send the managers to jail.  Fine them.  Do whatever you want to
do with them. But why should I be paying a fellow shareholder
when I'm not responsible for the problem?"

Mr. Thakor said that the injustice of the system is made worse
because the actual transfer of the payment is not a neutral
process either.  Huge resources are used up paying the lawyers
and accountants who handled the litigation.  After you pay all
expenses, investors end up with maybe three cents on the dollar.

"The settlement doesn't help the shareholders who paid the fine
since they're paying out of their own pocket.  It doesn't really
help the shareholders who sued company, who barely recover their
losses.  So who made the money? Large institutional investors
handling more than $100 million in assets, the lawyers and the
accountants," Mr. Thakor said.

The inequities that Mr. Thakor discovered are part of an
analysis he conducted for the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform.  He said his findings are disheartening since the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was an attempt
to promote transparency in corporate activities and prevent
fraud.

In Mr. Thakor's opinion, it's time to re-examine the act,
incorporating ways to appropriately punish those who committed
the wrongdoing.  The focus ought to be on getting managers to
comply since they're the ones making the decisions so the
company can have a transparent financial market.

"I don't think you should get there by having system by which
the only people who benefit are the lawyers, accountants and
large institutional investors.  The system ought to impose
punishment on the people who committed the crime -- that ought
to be the managers, not the shareholders."


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Paying $12M in Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has
approved a $12 million settlement of the consolidated class
action brought on behalf of females and Hispanics employed by
the Regents of the University of California at Los Alamos
National Laboratory between Dec. 10, 2000 and June 1, 2006.

The lawsuits allege disparities in pay, promotions and other
terms and conditions of employment.  The Laboratory agreed to
settle the lawsuits without admitting wrongdoing.

The settlement agreement provides that the Regents will pay $12
million, not including attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has given its preliminary approval to the proposed
settlement.  A hearing on a final approval will be held on Oct.
31, 2006, 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico, 333 Lomas Blvd., New Mexico, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.

The class in the suit consists of all females and Hispanics
employed by the Regents of the University of California at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory who are or were regular, limited-
term or short-term employees at any time between Dec. 10, 2000,
and June 1, 2006.

Deadline for submission of claims is November 30, 2006.  
Deadline to object or opt out from the suit is Aug. 28, 2006.  

The suit is a consolidation of the suits:

     -- Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber, Case No. CIV-03-
        1404 WJ/RLP against the Regents of The University of
        California, d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory; and

     -- Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, gloria a. Bennett,
        Ph.D., and Yvonne Ebelacker; Hispanic Roundtable of New
        Mexico; and University Professional & Technical,
        Employees CWA 9119 (AFL-CIO) Local, UPTE-Los Alamos
        (Case No. No. CIV-04-112 WJ/RLP) against Regents Of The
        University of California, and G. Peter Nanos, in his
        individual and official capacities.

On December 10, 2003, a complaint alleging violation of the
Equal Pay Act and breach of contract was filed in by Veronique
A. Longmire and Laura Barber, on their own behalf and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated employees at
the Laboratory.  

On Jan. 6, 2004, a second lawsuit was filed in Rio Arriba County
District Court by Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria A.
Bennett, Yvonne Ebelacker, Hispanic Roundtable of New Mexico,
and University Professional & Technical Employees CWA 9119 (AFL-
CIO) alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act, breach of contract
and other claims.  The Garcia Action was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico and consolidated
with the Barber Action to become the consolidated actions.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated actions claim that the
Regents, which operates and manages the Laboratory, and G. Peter
Nanos, discriminated against female and Hispanic employees in
terms of pay, promotion, educational opportunities, and other
terms and conditions of employment.

The consolidated actions sought unspecified damages for lost
earnings and benefits, emotional distress damages, liquidated
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, in
addition to certain injunctive and declaratory relief.

On June 1, 2006, upon the stipulation of the parties, the court
granted certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  

The court has appointed as plaintiffs' class counsel: Patrick
D. Allen and Joseph B. Wosick of Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick,
P.C., and Michael J. Flannery of Carey & Danis, LLC; and John C.
Bienvenu, Richard W. Hughes, and Robert R. Rothstein of
Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu,
LLP.

The court has appointed as class representatives Laura Barber,
Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria A. Bennett, and Yvonne
Ebelacker.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f63

The class counsels are:

     (1) Patrick D. Allen at Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick, 4908
         Alameda Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113, Phone: (505)
         266-3995;

     (2) Michael J. Flannery at Carey & Danis, 8235 Forsyth
         Blvd., Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, Phone:
         314-725-7700; and

     (3) John C. Bienvenu at Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes,
         Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, P.O. Box 8180, Santa
         Fe, NM 87504-8180, Phone: 505-988-8004.

Claims administrator: PO Box 1254, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1254,
On the Net: www.lanlclassactionsettlement.com, Phone: 1-800-680-
3841 (toll-free number).


WACHOVIA CORP: To Pay $1.25M in Adelphia Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. is paying $1.25 million as part a $460 million
settlement in "In Re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities
and Derivative Litigation, Case No. 03 MD 1529 (LMM) or MDL-
1529," according to regulatory filings.

Banks involved in the proposed $460 million settlement in "In Re
Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 03 MD 1529 (LMM) or MDL-1529," reached a
preliminary agreement to pay $250 million to settle investor
lawsuits over losses from Adelphia's collapse.

The banks included in this settlement are:

      -- ABN AMRO Inc.,  
      -- ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,  
      -- Banc of America Securities, LLC,  
      -- Bank of America, N.A. (successor by merger to Fleet  
         National Bank),  
      -- Bank of Montreal,  
      -- Barclays Capital, Inc.,  
      -- Barclays Bank, PLC,  
      -- BNY Capital Markets, Inc.,  
      -- The Bank of New York Co., Inc.,  
      -- The Bank of New York,  
      -- CIBC World Markets Corp.,  
      -- CIBC, Inc.,  
      -- Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a SSB  
         Inc.),  
      -- Citibank, N.A.,  
      -- Citicorp U.S.A., Inc.,  
      -- Calyon Securities (USA) Inc. (f/k/a Credit Lyonnais  
         Securities (USA) Inc.),
      -- Calyon New York Branch (successor by operation of law  
         to Credit Lyonnais, New York Branch),  
      -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a Credit  
         Suisse First Boston LLC),  
      -- Credit Suisse, New York Branch (f/k/a Credit Suisse  
         First Boston, New York Branch),
      -- Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (f/k/a Deutsche Bank  
         Alex. Brown Inc.),  
      -- Deutsche Bank AG,  
      -- Fleet Securities Inc.,  
      -- Harris Nesbitt Corp. (f/k/a BMO Nesbitt Burns Corp.),  
      -- JPMorgan Securities, Inc.,  
      -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.,  
      -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,  
      -- PNC Capital Markets, Inc.,  
      -- PNC Bank Corp.,  
      -- PNC Bank, National Association,  
      -- Scotia Capital (USA), Inc.,  
      -- The Bank of Nova Scotia,  
      -- SG Cowen Securities Corp.,  
      -- Societe Generale,  
      -- SunTrust Capital Markets, Inc. (f/k/a SunTrust  
         Equitable Securities),  
      -- SunTrust Bank,  
      -- TD Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a TD Securities (USA)  
         Inc.),
      -- Toronto Dominion (Texas) LLC (f/k/a Toronto Dominion  
         (Texas) Inc.),
      -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a Wachovia  
         Securities, Inc.), and  
      -- Wachovia Bank, National Association.

The court will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 10, 2006 at 2:15
p.m. for the proposed $460 million settlement in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom
15D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is March 10, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired securities issued by Adelphia Communications
Corp. or its subsidiaries between Aug. 16, 1999, and June 10,
2002.  It consists of two separate settlements:

       -- the $210,000,000 Deloitte & Touche Settlement; and
  
       -- the $250,000,000 Banks Settlement.

Beginning in April 2002, more than 30 individual and class
actions were filed by purchasers of Adelphia debt and equity
securities against Adelphia, its officers and directors, its
outside counsel, Adelphia's auditors Deloitte & Touche, and/or
various of Adelphia's underwriters and lenders, the banks.  

Most of those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were assigned to Judge
Herbert Hutton.  Among the cases filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania were approximately 30 class actions asserting
claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and/or the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

In addition to the class actions, public pension funds and/or
fund managers seeking to recoup losses on behalf of their funds
commenced several individual actions.

On April 30, 2002, Judge Hutton entered an order consolidating
the then pending actions filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania as, "In re Adelphia Communications Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 02 CV 1781," and providing for the
consolidation of all later-filed actions.

On or about June 25, 2002, Adelphia and its subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern
District of New York.  The Chapter 11 cases were assigned to
Hon. Robert E. Gerber and are being jointly administered in the
case, "In re Adelphia Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 02-
41729 (REG)."   

Thereafter, by Order dated July 23, 2003, the class actions as
well as certain individual actions against the same defendants
were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation to the Southern District of New York and are
currently pending before Judge McKenna as, "In re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities & Derivative Litigation, 03 MD
1529 (LMM)."
  
On Dec. 5, 2003, Eminence Capital, LLC, Argent Classic
Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P., Argent Classic Convertible
Arbitrage Fund (Bermuda) L.P., Argent Lowlev Convertible
Arbitrage Fund Ltd., UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global Equity
Arbitrage Master Ltd. and UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global
Convertible Portfolio were appointed as lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated class actions and Abbey Gardy, LLP, (n/k/a Abbey
Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP) and Kirby McInerney & Squire
were appointed as co-lead counsel in accordance with the federal
securities laws.

On Dec. 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a complaint, which
alleges claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k, 77l(a)(2) and
77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. Section
77jjj, 77mmm, 77ooo and 77www et seq. and state law against
various defendants including Deloitte & Touche and the Banks.
  
After filing the complaint, on March 8, 2004, the Settling
Defendants, along with other defendants, moved to dismiss the
complaint.  The court has not yet ruled on several of the issues
raised by the defendants' motions, but has partially granted and
partially denied some of the motions.

On or about June 30, 2005, at the suggestion of Judge McKenna,
various parties to the class action agreed to participate in
mediation to resolve the pending litigation.  The various
parties selected Judge Daniel Weinstein, a retired judge, to
serve as the mediator.   

Pursuant to the court's directives, lead plaintiffs' counsel and
counsel for Deloitte & Touche and the Banks entered into
extensive negotiations under the supervision of Judge Weinstein.

As a result of such discussions and their involvement in the
extensive negotiation process, lead plaintiffs agreed to the
settlements with Deloitte & Touche and the Banks.

For more details, contact:  

     (1) Adelphia Claims c/o Valley Forge Administrative  
         Services, One Aldwyn Center, P.O. Box 220, Villanova,  
         PA 19085-0220, Phone: 877-965-3300, E-mail:  
         info@adelphiasettlement.com, Web site:  
         http://www.adelphiasettlement.com;

     (2) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 1-888-529-4787;  
         and  

     (3) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, Phone: 1-800-
         889-3701.  


WESBANCO INC: Reaches Settlement in American Bancorporation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WesBanco, Inc. has reached a preliminary agreement under a
mediation process to settle claims in a class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia.

On March 1, 2002, the WesBanco, Inc., consummated its
acquisition of American Bancorporation through a series of
corporate mergers.  

At the time of the consummation of this transaction, American
Bancorporation was a defendant in the suit, "Martin, et al. v.
The American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al., Civil
Action No. 5:2000-CV-168," which was pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.  

The company became the principal defendant in this suit by
reason of the merger.  This case involves a class action against
American Bancorporation by certain beneficiaries of the American
Bancorporation Defined Benefit Retirement Plan, seeking to
challenge benefit calculations and methodologies used by the
Plan Administrator in determining benefits under the Plan which
was frozen by American Bancorporation, as to benefit accruals,
some years ago.  

The Plan had been the subject of a prior a case, "American
Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al. v. McKain, Civil Action
No. 5:93-CV-110," which was also litigated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

The McKain case resulted in an Order entered by the District
Court on Sept. 22, 1995, which directed American Bancorporation
to follow a specific method for determining retirement benefits
under the Plan.  American Bancorporation has asserted that it
has calculated the benefits in accordance with the requirements
of the 1995 Order.

The purported class of plaintiffs asserted that they are not
bound by the 1995 Order since they were not parties to that
proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit determination.  
The District Court in the current case limited the class of
plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37 individuals and
granted partial summary judgment to significantly reduce the
scope and extent of the case.  

The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the
company on the remaining claims on March 31, 2004, and the
plaintiff appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion dated May
11, 2005, which reversed the District Court's earlier grant of
summary judgment on behalf of the company, and remanded the case
for further proceedings.  

The Appellate Court reversed the District Court's ruling that
res judicata and collateral estoppel were applicable under the
circumstances, which precluded the re-litigation of matters
previously decided by the District Court in the earlier 1995
case involving the same pension plan.

The parties subsequently filed renewed Motions for Summary
Judgment on the issues of the benefit calculation and
plaintiffs' claims under Section 204(h) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act in the District Court.  The
Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a report and
recommendation dated Jan. 18, 2006, to the court denying both
parties' Motions for Summary Judgment on the benefit calculation
issues but recommending to the court a key finding of fact on a
material issue in the case.

The key finding recommended would have sustained WesBanco's
position that a timely summary plan description was distributed
to plan participants addressing a benefit calculation consistent
with the methodology used by the plan administrator.  

The court subsequently denied both parties' motions and declined
to make the finding of fact recommended by the Magistrate.  The
court has not yet addressed the Section 204(h) notice issue.

A recent mediation was held in the case, which has resulted in a
tentative settlement of both the benefit claim and the 204(h)
notice issue.  The settlement will require approval of the court
and the class members involved in the case, as well as
confirmation of the benefit calculations agreed to in the
settlement.  It is anticipated that the approval process will
take several months to complete.

The suit is "Martin, et al v. American the Plan, et al., Case
No. 5:00-cv-00168-WCB-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia under Judge W. Craig
Broadwater.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas M. Cunningham of Cassidy,
Myers, Cogan & Voegelin, L.C., 1413 Eoff St., Wheeling, WV
26003, Phone: 304-232-8100, Fax: 304-232-8352, E-mail:
tmc@cmcvlaw.com.

Representing the company is Cynthia B. Jones of Steptoe &
Johnson, PLLC - Morgantown, PO Box 1616, Morgantown, WV 26507-
1616, Phone: 304-598-8111, Fax: 304-598-8116, E-mail:
jonescb@steptoe-johnson.com.


WILLBROS GROUP: Settles Consolidated Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. reached an agreement in principle to settle
a consolidated securities class action filed in 2005 against the
company and certain of its current officers and a former officer
of its international subsidiary, according to the company's
report for the second quarter.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, Willbros and the
plaintiffs will negotiate and seek court approval of the
definitive settlement.  The settlement will be funded by
Willbros' insurance carrier, and will include the dismissal of
all claims against all defendants.

On May 18, 2005 a securities class action, "Legion Partners, LLP
v. Willbros Group, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against the company and
certain of its present and former officers and directors.

Thereafter, three nearly identical lawsuits were filed.  
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class composed of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Willbros Group, Inc. common
stock and/or other securities between May 6, 2002 and May 16,
2005, inclusive.

These complaints generally allege violations by the defendants
of Section 10(b) of U.S. the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and allege,
among other things, that defendants made false or misleading
statements of material fact about the company's financial
statements.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

On October 17, 2005, the court ordered these actions
consolidated and appointed ADAR Investments, LLC as lead
plaintiff and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz of New York as lead
plaintiff's counsel.  As ordered by the court, the plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 9, 2006.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges that WGI and certain of
its present and former officers and directors, including Michael
Curran, Warren Williams, and J. Kenneth Tillery, violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through a series of false and
misleading statements and a "scheme to defraud."

The alleged misrepresentations and scheme to defraud relate to
the activities of Mr. Tillery in Nigeria and Bolivia, certain
alleged accounting errors, the restatement of past financial
results, and alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of WGI common stock during the purported class
period.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  WGI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
March 9, 2006, and briefing on that motion was completed on June
14, 2006, according to the company's June 16, 2006 Form 10-K
filing for the period ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The suit is "Legion Partners, LLP v. Willbros Group, Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-01778," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.  

Consolidated Plaintiff            Counsel

Adar Investment Management, LLC   Ronald J. Aranoff
                                  Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz
                                  10 East 40th Street
                                  22nd Floor
                                  New York, NY 10016
                                  Phone: 212-779-1414
                                  Fax: 212-779-3218
                                  E-mail: aranoff@bernlieb.com

Defendant                         Counsel
            
Willbros Group Inc.               Laurie B. Smilan
                                  Michele E. Rose
                                  Latham & Watkins LLP
                                  11995 Freedom Dr
                                  Ste 500
                                  Reston, VA 20190-1000
                                  Phone: 703-456-1000
                                  Fax: 703-456-1001
                                  E-mail: michele.rose@lw.com


XCEL ENERGY: Appeal Planned on Minn. Court's Ruling in "Bender"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit a Minnesota federal court's decision denying
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in full in the class
action, "Bender et al. vs. Xcel Energy."

On July 2, 2004, five former NRG Energy, Inc. officers filed a
lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  NRG is a former independent power
production subsidiary that had filed for bankruptcy protection
in May 2003.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Xcel Energy
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by
refusing to make certain deferred compensation payments to the
plaintiffs.

The complaint also alleges interference with ERISA benefits,
breach of contract related to the nonpayment of certain stock
options and unjust enrichment.  It alleges damages of
approximately $6 million.  

On Jan. 19, 2005, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment.  On July 26, 2005, the court issued an order granting
the company's motion for summary judgment in part with respect
to claims for interference with ERISA benefits, breach of
contract for nonpayment of stock options and unjust enrichment.

The court denied the company's motion in part with respect to
the allegations of nonpayment of deferred compensation benefits.  

Plaintiffs and the company have filed additional cross motions
for summary judgment, with oral arguments presented on Feb. 24,
2006.

On May 17, 2006, the court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment in full and denied the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment in full.  Plaintiffs have filed notice of
intent to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.

The suit is "Bender, et al. v. Xcel Energy, Inc., Case No. 0:04-
cv-03117-ADM-FLN," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota under Judge Ann D. Montgomery with
referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are Kelly A. Jeanetta and Maurice W.
O'Brien of Miller O'Brien, 120 S. 6th St., Ste. 2400, Mpls, MN
55402, Phone: 612-333-5831, Fax: 612-342-2613, E-mail:
kjeanetta@miller-obrien.com and bobrien@miller-obrien.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) James L. Altman and Daniel A.R. Shoemaker of Xcel
         Energy, 800 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 2900, Mpls, MN 55402,
         Phone: 612-215-4582, Fax: 6122154544, E-mail:
         james.l.altman@xcelenergy.com and
         daniel.a.shoemaker@xcelenergy.com; and

     (2) Timothy R. Thornton and Steven W. Wilson of Briggs &
         Morgan, PA, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 2200, Minneapolis, MN
         55402, Phone: 612-977-8550, Fax: 612-977-8650, E-mail:
         pvolk@briggs.com and swilson@briggs.com.

                         
XCEL ENERGY: Faces Suit in Miss. Over Carbon Dioxide Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc. is defendant in a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
over carbon dioxide emission.

On Apr. 25, 2006 Xcel Energy received notice of the lawsuit,
which named as defendant more than 45 oil, chemical and utility
companies.  The suit alleges that defendants' carbon dioxide
emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in
the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina."  

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence, and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the hurricane.  

On July 19, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit in its entirety.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carlos A. Zelaya of Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902 Julia
         Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, US, Phone: 504/569-8732,
         Fax: 504/525-6932;

     (2) Stephen M. Wiles and Randall Allan Smith of Smith &
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: smwiles@smithfawer.com and
         rasmith3@bellsouth.net; and

     (3) F. Gerald Maples F. Gerald Maples, PA, 902 Julia
         Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504/569-8732, E-
         mail: federal@geraldmaples.com.

Representing the company are John G. Corlew and Katherine K.
Smith of Watkins & Eager, P. O. Box 650, Jackson, MS 39205-0650,
Phone: (601) 948-6470, E-mail: jcorlew@watkinseager.com and
ksmith@watkinseager.com.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Settles N.Y. Suit v. Carriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation reached settlements, through the 2006-
2nd quarter, with several carriers involved in a comprehensive
asbestos-related insurance coverage case pending in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York.

In the suit filed September 2003, the Corporation sought to
confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and
to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance
proceeds.

Although the Corporation has settlements in place concerning
coverage for asbestos claims with many of its insurers,
including those covered by the 1985 Wellington Agreement, this
suit was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the
Wellington Agreement.

The Corporation also filed this suit against insurers that do
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage.

Based in Houston, Texas, Union Carbide Corp. makes chemicals
such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide used to make polyester fibers and ethylene glycol
used to make antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Faces 121,128 Claims in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded 121,128 pending asbestos-
related claims against it at June 30, 2006, compared with
198,470 claims at June 30, 2005.

The Corporation recorded 143,806 asbestos-related claims pending
against it at March 31, 2006, compared with 198,682 claims at
March 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006)

The Corporation is and has been involved in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed in state courts during the past three decades.
These suits allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and seek actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims relate to products that the Corporation sold
in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on the Corporation's premises, and its responsibility
for asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem
Products Inc.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure,
or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation had 79,032 individual
claimants, compared with 133,788 individual claimants at June
30, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation had 42,096 claimants with
claims against both the Corporation and Amchem, compared with
64,682 claimants at June 30, 2005.

Based in Houston, Texas, Union Carbide Corp. makes chemicals
such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide used to make polyester fibers and ethylene glycol
used to make antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Sees $87M Liabilities in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation had US$87 million in current asbestos-
related liabilities at June 30, 2006, compared with US$121
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$111 million at March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
June 9, 2006)

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation had US$1.346 billion in non-
current asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$1.384
billion at Dec. 31, 2005.

Asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claims
amounted to US$1.4 billion at June 30, 2006. About 36 percent of
the recorded liability related to pending claims while about 64
percent related to future claims.

The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was US$1.5 billion at Dec. 31, 2005. About 39
percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
about 61 percent related to future claims.

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation's current asbestos-related
insurance receivables were US$76 million, compared with US$117
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation's non-current asbestos-related
receivables were US$763 million, compared with US$818 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was US$485 million at June 30, 2006 and
US$535 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006 US$391 million (US$398 million at Dec. 31,
2005) of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to
insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement
and do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage.

Based in Houston, Texas, Union Carbide Corp. makes chemicals
such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide used to make polyester fibers and ethylene glycol
used to make antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide's Defense Costs Drop to $28M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded US$28 million in defense
costs, for the six months ended June 30, 2006, pertaining to
asbestos-related claims filed against the Corporation and its
former subsidiary Amchem Products Inc.

For the six months ended June 30, 2005, the Corporation recorded
US$32 million in defense costs.

To date as of June 30, 2006, the Corporation recorded US$447
million in aggregate defense costs.

The Corporation recorded US$73 million in resolution costs, for
the six months ended June 30, 2006, pertaining to asbestos-
related claims filed against the Corporation and Amchem. This
compares to US$98 million in resolution costs for the same
period in 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Corporation recorded US$1.138 billion
aggregate resolution costs.

Moreover, the Corporation had receivables for defense and
resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers for
reimbursement.

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation had US$21 million in
receivables for defense costs, compared with US$73 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation had US$333 million in
receivables for resolution costs, compared with US$327 million
at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Corporation's total receivables for
defense and resolution costs was US$354 million, compared with
US$400 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Houston, Texas, Union Carbide Corp. makes chemicals
such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide used to make polyester fibers and ethylene glycol
used to make antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. UIC, Detroit Stoker Fall to 9,496
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Corporation and its subsidiary Detroit Stoker
Co. faced about 9,496 total pending asbestos-related claims
asserted in lawsuits, as of June 30, 2006.

This figure is comparable with about 11,059 pending claims as of
Dec. 31, 2005 and about 13,750 pending claims as of June 30,
2005.  

As of March 31, 2006, the Company and Detroit Stoker had about
10,159 asbestos-related claims asserted in lawsuits. (Class
Action Reporter, May 26, 2006)

As of June 30, 2006, the Company and Detroit Stoker were named
in asbestos litigation pending in Arkansas, California,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New
York, North Dakota and Rhode Island.

The Company and Detroit Stoker made several products, in which
some of the parts and components used asbestos-containing
material made and provided by third parties. The use of ACMs
ceased around 1981.

Cases involving the Company and Detroit Stoker name 80 to 100
defendants. The Company and Detroit Stoker have not gone to
trial with respect to any asbestos-related personal injury
claims, although there is no assurance that trials may not occur
in the future.

As of June 30, 2006, neither the Company nor Detroit Stoker has
been required to pay any punitive damages. Moreover, as of June
30, 2006, some previously pending claims have been settled or
dismissed with or without prejudice.  

As of June 23, 2006, the Company estimated US$31,450,000
undiscounted liability for asbestos-related matters including
damages and defense costs, compared with US$31,852,000 as of
June 30, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had US$20,186,000 insurance
receivables for asbestos-related liabilities, compared with
US$20,434,000 as of June 30, 2005.

Based in Hunt Valley, Maryland, United Industrial Corp., through
subsidiary AAI Corp., makes automatic test equipment for
avionics, electronic warfare test and training systems, training
simulators for combat systems and aircraft maintenance, and
unmanned aerial vehicle systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont's Claims Decrease to 60,500 in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had about
60,500 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2006,
compared with 61,100 claims at March 31, 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2005, Maremont had 61,900 pending asbestos-related
claims, compared with 61,700 claims at Sept. 30, 2005.

Acquired by the Company in 1986, Maremont made asbestos-
containing friction products from 1953 through 1977, when it
sold its friction product business.

Maremont and many other firms defend in lawsuits by individuals
claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products. In the cases where actual injury has been
alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont
product caused their injuries.

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

In the nine months ended June 30, 2006, billings to insurance
companies for indemnity and defense costs of resolved cases were
about US$5 million, compared with US$8 million in the nine
months ended June 30, 2005.

Based in Troy, Michigan, ArvinMeritor Inc. makes components for
commercial vehicles, like axles, transmissions, and clutches.
The Company also makes components for light vehicles, such as
door, roof, exhaust, wheels, and suspension systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Pegs Liability at $54M in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$54
million as of June 30, 2006, in which US$14 million was current
and US$40 million was non-current.

As of Sept. 30, 2005, the Company's asbestos-related liabilities
also totaled US$54 million, in which US$16 million was current
and US$38 million was non-current.

The Company's asbestos-related recoveries totaled US$34 million
as of June 30, 2006, in which US$11 million was current and
US$23 million was non-current.

As of Sept. 30, 2005, the Company's asbestos-related recoveries
totaled US$35 million, in which US$13 million was current and
US$22 million was non-current.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005, the Company's
subsidiary, Maremont Corp., hired Bates White LLC to help
estimate the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-
related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected
to be filed against Maremont.

Maremont also tasked Bates White to help estimate the cost of
Maremont's share of committed but unpaid settlements entered
into by the Center for Claims Resolution.

The Company engaged Bates White to update the study as of June
30, 2006. Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably
possible range of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal
injury claims over the next three to four years of US$33 million
to US$49 million.

Maremont determined that as of June 30, 2006, the most likely
and probable liability for pending and future claims over the
next four years is US$44 million.

Based in Troy, Michigan, ArvinMeritor Inc. makes components for
commercial vehicles, like axles, transmissions, and clutches.
The Company also makes components for light vehicles, such as
door, roof, exhaust, wheels, and suspension systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Faces Rockwell Injury Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc. co-defends in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos in certain components
of Rockwell Automation Inc.'s automotive products years ago.

The Company assumed liability for these claims during the spin-
off of the automotive business to ArvinMeritor from Rockwell in
1997.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants were
exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products. Past
experience has shown that most of the claimants will never
identify any of Rockwell's products.

The Company has historically been dismissed from most of these
claims with no payment to claimants.

Based in Troy, Michigan, ArvinMeritor Inc. makes components for
commercial vehicles, like axles, transmissions, and clutches.
The Company also makes components for light vehicles, such as
door, roof, exhaust, wheels, and suspension systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.505B for Claims in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation carried about US$1.505 billion of
claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance
recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-related
claims, as of June 30, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, CNA carried US$1.554 billion and US$1.508
billion as of March 31, 2006.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$1 million of unfavorable asbestos-related net claim and claim
adjustment expense reserve development, compared with US$7
million for the six months ended June 30, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company paid US$50 million for asbestos-
related claims, net of reinsurance recoveries, compared with
US$73 million at June 30, 2005. At June 30, 2006, the Company
had 1,339 policyholders.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company paid US$142 million for asbestos-
related claims, net of reinsurance recoveries. At Dec. 31, 2005,
the Company had 1,324 policyholders.

The Company noted that about 80 percent of its total active
asbestos accounts are classified as small accounts at June 30,
2006.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Protecting CNA from New Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court is scheduled to consider confirmation of
a bankruptcy plan containing an injunction to protect CNA
Financial Corporation from any future asbestos-related claims by
the end of 2006.

On Feb. 13, 2003, CNA had resolved asbestos related coverage
litigation and claims involving A.P. Green Industries, A.P.
Green Services and Bigelow-Liptak Corporation.

Under the agreement, CNA is required to pay US$74 million, net
of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period commencing
after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization.

The settlement resolves CNA's liabilities for all pending and
future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, Bigelow-Liptak and related subsidiaries, including
alleged "non-products" exposures.

The settlement received initial bankruptcy court approval on
Aug. 18, 2003.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, like workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Hears Closing Arguments in CNA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York State Court held closing arguments, on March 27,
2006, for asbestos-related insurance coverage litigation, in
which CNA Financial Corporation is involved.

Case No. 601037/03, styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers
Ins. of Wausau et al., was filed in 2003 in New York County.

The litigation had a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs,
who have asbestos bodily injury claims against the former Robert
A. Keasbey Co., which used to sell and install asbestos-
containing insulation products in New York and New Jersey.

Plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims against Keasbey.
However, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites was a
highly contested issue. Therefore, the defense disputed the
percentage of valid claims against Keasbey.

CNA issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and excess
policies for 1972-1978. CNA has paid an amount equal to the
policies' aggregate limits for products and completed operations
claims in the confirmed CNA policies.

Claimants against Keasbey alleged that CNA owes coverage under
sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate limits.

In the litigation, CNA and the claimants sought declaratory
relief as to the interpretation of various policy provisions.

On March 21, 2004, the Court dismissed a claim alleging bad
faith and seeking unspecified damages. The Appellate Division,
First Department, affirmed the ruling on March 31, 2005.

On July 13, 2005, the trial in the Keasbey coverage action
commenced. Closing arguments ended on Oct. 28, 2005.

The Court reopened the record in January 2006 for additional
evidentiary submissions and briefing.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, like workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Deals With Burns & Roe Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation deals with insurance coverage disputes
related to asbestos bodily injury claims against a bankrupt
insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc.

These disputes are part of coverage litigation, which is stayed
in view of Burns & Roe's bankruptcy, and an adversary proceeding
in Case No. 00-41610, styled Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., which
is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects. When it filed for
bankruptcy on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns & Roe asserted that it faced
about 11,000 claims alleging bodily injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos as a result of construction projects in
which Burns & Roe was involved.

CNA allegedly provided primary liability coverage to Burns & Roe
from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain project-
specific policies from 1964-1970.

The litigation involves disputes over the confirmation of the
Plan of Reorganization in bankruptcy, the scope and extent of
coverage afforded to Burns & Roe for its asbestos liabilities.

On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization. A confirmation hearing relating to that Plan is
expected in 2007. Coverage issues will be determined in a later
proceeding.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Units Face Suits in 4 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation stated that asbestos related lawsuits
have been initiated against two of its subsidiaries and other
insurers in four jurisdictions: Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, and
Montana.

In about 70 Ohio actions filed to date, plaintiffs initially
alleged that the defendants negligently performed duties
undertaken to protect workers and the public from the effects of
asbestos, altered evidence and conspired and acted in concert to
harm the plaintiffs.

Several of these suits are styled Varner v. Ford Motor Co.,
filed on June 12, 2003, and pending in the Ohio Court of Common
Pleas; Peplowski v. ACE American Ins. Co., filed on April 1,
2004, and pending in the N.D. of Ohio; and Cross v. Garlock
Inc., filed on Sept. 1, 2004, and pending in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas.

In the most recent of these cases, plaintiffs have made
negligent undertaking claims against the insurers. One of these
suits is styled Ball v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., filed on May
16, 2005, and pending in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The Cuyahoga County court granted insurers, including CNA,
dismissals against an initial group of plaintiffs, ruling that
insurers had no duty to warn plaintiffs about the dangers of
asbestos and that there was no basis for spoliation, conspiracy
and concert of action claims. That ruling was affirmed on appeal
in the suit styled Bugg v. Am. Std. Inc., No. 84829 (Ohio Ct.
App. May 26, 2005).

The Cuyahoga County Court has continued to dismiss similar
complaints and plaintiffs have either failed to appeal the
dismissals or have voluntarily dismissed their appeals.

Plaintiffs continued to file similar suits although all cases in
that court have been dismissed. The only case that is pending is
Peplowski, which was transferred to the federal Multi-District
Litigation court in October 2004 and has been dormant since
then.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, like workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Casualty Faces Adams Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's subsidiary Continental Casualty Co.
is faced with a purported class action against it and other
insurers, alleging that the defendants violated West Virginia's
Unfair Trade Practices Act in handling and resolving asbestos
claims against five named asbestos defendants.

Case Nos. 0-2C-1708 to 0-2C-1719 styled Adams v. Aetna Inc., et
al. was filed on June 28, 2002 in the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, W.Va.  

The Court has stayed the Adams litigation pending a planned
motion by plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reflected
two June 2004 decision of the W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals.

In June 2005, the court presiding over Adams and three similar
putative class actions against other insurers told plaintiffs to
file any amended complaints by June 13, 2005, and directed the
parties to agree upon a case management order that would result
in trial being commenced by July 2006.

Under the Amended Complaint, CCC and the other defendant
insurers have now been sued for alleged violations of the UTPA
in connection with handling and resolving asbestos personal
injury and wrongful death claims in W. Va. courts against all
their insureds if those claims were resolved before June 30,
2001.

CCC, along with other insurer defendants removed the Adams case
to Federal court, Adams v. Ins. Co. of North America (INA) et
al. (S.D. W. Va. No. 2:05-CV-0527). A plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case to state courts was granted on March 30, 2006.

Following remand to state court, CCC's motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint was denied as to living plaintiffs, but
granted as to claims brought by two estates, and CCC
subsequently answered the Amended Complaint, as it had been
narrowed by the plaintiffs in the interim.

The trial court has stated that it intends to try the case
starting July 2007.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. Dana Corp. Remain at 76T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation's pending asbestos-related product liability
claims remained at about 76,000 at June 30, 2006, including
9,000 that were settled but awaiting final documentation and
payment.

At March 31, 2006, the Company had about 76,000 active pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, including 9,000
claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and
payment. (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006)

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had 77,000 claims, including
10,000 claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation
and payment.

At June 30, 2006, the Company had accrued US$96 million for
indemnity and defense costs for pending asbestos-related product
liability claims, compared with US$98 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company estimated its potential liability through 2020 to be
within a range of US$70 million to US$120 million. At June 30,
2006, the Company had recorded US$79 million as an asset for
probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and
projected claims, compared with US$78 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded a receivable of US$8
million in connection with an October 2005 settlement agreement
with one of its insurers. The Company received a payment of US$2
million in the 2006-1st quarter and US$6 million in the 2006-2nd
quarter.

Moreover, the Company had a net amount recoverable from its
insurers and others of US$14 million at June 30, 2006, compared
with US$15 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Through June 30, 2006, the Company had paid US$47 million to
Center for Claims Resolution claimants and collected US$29 from
its insurance carriers with respect to these claims. At June 30,
2006, the Company had a net receivable of US$13 million that it
expects to recover from available insurance and surety bonds
relating to these claims.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp. makes car parts, in which its
core products include axles, brakes, and driveshafts, as well as
engine, filtration, fluid-system, sealing, and structural
products. Dana filed for bankruptcy in 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.346B Liabilities in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities
stood at US$1.346 billion in the 2006-2nd quarter, compared with
US$1.384 billion in the 2005-4th quarter.

In the 2006-1st quarter, the Company's non-current asbestos-
related liabilities stood at US$1.366 billion. (Class Action
Reporter, May 19, 2006)

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company's non-current asbestos-
related insurance receivables stood at US$763 million, compared
with US$818 million in the 2005-4th quarter.

Based in Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Co. makes plastics,
chemicals, hydrocarbons, herbicides, and pesticides. Other
Company products include polyethylene resins for packaging,
fibers, films, and performance chemicals like acrylic acid.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to defend against
personal injury claims, including claims by employees of 3rd-
party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and
benzene while working at refineries in Texas, California, and
Oklahoma.

Union Pacific Resources Group Inc., acquired by the Company in
2000, and Howell Corp., acquired by the Company in 2002, sold
the refineries before being acquired by the Company.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company spent
US$10 million for litigation charges and adjustments. For the
six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company spent US$3 million.

For the three months ended June 30, 2005, the Company did not
spend for litigation charges and adjustments. For the six months
ended June 30, 2005, the Company spent US$27 million.

Adjustments to litigation charges increased income before income
taxes US$8 million during the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
compared with a decrease of US$27 million for the same period of
2005. (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2006)

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Links Loss to Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc.'s 2006 cash flow from operations was
reduced by gross loss payments of about US$14,000,000 for
settled asbestos claims, according to a Company press release,
dated July 31, 2006, reported to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Of the US$14,000,000, US$8,400,000 is due to be collected from
reinsurers in subsequent accounting periods.

In the 2006-1st quarter, the Company's 2006 cash flow from
operations was reduced by gross loss payments of about
US$1,900,000 for a settled asbestos-related claim of which
US$1,100,000 will be collected from reinsurers in subsequent
accounting periods. (Class Action Reporter, May 12, 2006)

Consolidated cash flow from operations was US$16,672,000 for the
six-month period ended June 30, 2006, compared with
US$115,906,000 for the same period in 2005.

Based in New York City, New York, The Navigators Group Inc.'s
main insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance,
write ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy,
liability, and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance
for onshore energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty
liability and professional liability insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Wins Appeal in Robinson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, 14th District, upheld a
prior court ruling in favor of Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc. in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by John and Barbara Robinson.

The Panel, comprised of Chief Justice Adele Hedges and Justices
Wanda McKee Fowler and Ken Thompson Frost, handed down the
decision of Case No. 14-04-00658-CV on May 4, 2006.

In 1956, Mr. Robinson joined the U.S. Navy and served for about
20 years as a boiler tender on several vessels. He maintained
boilers, pipes, steam lines, and other machinery and equipment
insulated with asbestos products, including insulation products
of Mundet Cork Corp., Crown Cork's predecessor.

Mr. Robinson was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The Robinsons sued
Crown Cork, Mundet's successor, and others for damages caused by
Mr. Robinson's exposure to asbestos.  

The Robinsons moved for partial summary judgment to establish
Crown Cork's liability for the damages allegedly caused by
Mundet's products. The 55th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court granted the Robinsons' motion as to compensatory
damages, but not as to punitive damages.

While the Robinsons' suit was pending, the Texas Legislature
passed House Bill 4, which had a new affirmative defense
limiting the liability of successor corporations for asbestos-
related claims.  

After the Statute became effective, Crown Cork moved for summary
judgment. The Trial Court granted the motion and severed the
Robinsons' claims against Crown Cork from those against the
other defendants. The Robinsons appealed.

Mr. Robinson died while the case was pending, and Mrs. Robinson
continued to pursue his claims under the wrongful death statute.

Mrs. Robinson attacked the summary judgment on three grounds.
First, Mrs. Robinson claimed that the legislation is
unconstitutionally retroactive as applied to her because it
extinguished a vested right. Next, she claimed that the law is
unconstitutional because it is a special law, designed
specifically to aid Crown Cork. Finally, she claimed that Crown
Cork failed to establish as a matter of law each element of its
affirmative defense.

The Appeals Court overruled Mrs. Robinson's issues and affirmed
the Trial Court's judgment.

Based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Crown Cork & Seal Co.
Inc.'s main products include steel and aluminum cans for food,
beverage, household, and other consumer products. The Company
also makes metal and plastic caps, closures, and dispensing
systems. The Company is a subsidiary of Crown Holdings Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Favors Kishes in Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, granted
an appeal filed by John and Elizabeth Kish in an insurance
asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co. and other entities.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Linda Ann Wells, Angel A.
Cortinas, and Leslie B. Rothenberg, handed down the decision of
Case No. 3D05-1538 on April 26, 2006.

In August 2004, Mr. & Mrs. Kish sued in the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County against 21 entities. The suit alleged
negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, civil
conspiracy to commit fraud, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress relating to injuries Mr. Kish sustained from
asbestos exposure.

Mr. & Mrs. Kish sought to hold Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
liable for Mr. Kish's injuries because in the 1930s and 1940s,
the insurer allegedly agreed not to "fully share with the
public" the results of industrial hygiene surveys and studies it
had performed.

The Circuit Court ruled that the fraud statute of repose, barred
the Kishes' fraud claims. The Kishes appealed from the final
summary judgment.

As to Metropolitan Life's alleged fraudulent conduct, the 12-
year period provided for redress protected the Kishes' interests
when balanced against Metropolitan Life's right not to be called
upon to defend a claim some 50 or 60 years old.

The Appeals Court rejected the claim that application of the
statute of repose resulted in an unconstitutional denial of
access to the courts.

Angel M. Reyes and Daniel F. O'Shea of Reyes & O'Shea
represented John and Elizabeth Kish.

Carlton Fields and Alina Alonso and Jeffrey A. Cohen; Martin
Unger (Orlando, Fla.); Steptoe & Johnson and Stephen A. Fennell
and Jeffrey E. McFadden (Washington, D.C.), represented
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries' Claims Remain at 116T in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc. faced asbestos-related lawsuits involving
about 116,000 claims, as of June 30, 2006, in which about 7,000
of the 116,000 claims pending against the Company and its
subsidiaries are premises claims.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company faced asbestos-related suits
involving about 116,000 claims. (Class Action Reporter, June 16,
2006)

The Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that it should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products made and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp., in which the Company
and Corning Inc. are each 50 percent shareholders.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
in Pittsburgh, Pa.

On May 14, 2002, PPG had agreed with several other parties,
including certain of its insurance carriers, the official
committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy,
and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants
appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement
arrangement relating to asbestos claims against PPG and PC.

On March 28, 2003, Corning Inc. had separately reached its own
arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for
the settlement of certain asbestos claims that might arise from
PC products or operations.

For 2006, the Company recorded that accretion expense associated
with the asbestos liability would be about US$6 million a
quarter.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG Industries Inc. makes
coatings (paints and stains) and sealants. The Company also
makes glass and chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110 manufacturing
facilities in more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates
more than 350 paint retail centers in the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Steel Contends With 401 Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation recorded about 401 asbestos-related
exposure lawsuits pending against it, as of Dec. 31, 2005,
according to the Company's Quarterly Report for the period
ending June 30, 2006, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Since 1990, the Company or its predecessor, Armco Inc., has been
named as a defendant in suits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

Most of these suits have been filed on behalf of people
allegedly exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a
current or former Company facility. About half of these premises
suits are from claims of exposure at a site in Houston, Tex.
that has been closed since 1984.

The Company noted that specific dollar claims for damages were
included in the complaints filed in 129 of the 401 cases pending
at Dec. 31, 2005 in which it is a defendant. Those 129 cases
involve a total of almost 2,520 plaintiffs and 15,665
defendants.

In 2005, the Company recorded 186 newly filed claims, compared
with 153 in 2004. In 2005, the Company recorded 112 claims
disposed of, compared with 163 in 2004.

In 2005, the Company settled US$1.3 million for claims, compared
with US$1 million in 2004.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against the Company, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of
the Company.

Based in Middletown, Ohio, AK Steel Holding Corp. makes carbon,
stainless, and electrical steels. Sales to automakers comprise
nearly half of the Company's business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Faces Suit in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. co-defends in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.

The suit alleged that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs sought an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Co. under the terms of its
1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Based in Houston, Texas, Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. operates
as a contract offshore oil and gas driller that descends depths
of 7,500 feet. Loews Corp. owns about 54 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Industries Inc. Has 10T Claims in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. recorded 10,000 claimants in asbestos-
related suits in the six months ended June 30, 2006, compared
with 18,100 in the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

In the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted 10,900
claimants associated with claims closed, compared with 12,000
claims in the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

In the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted 2,800
claimants associated with claims opened, compared with 2,100
claimants in the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company is subject to suits and claims incidental to the
conduct of the Company or certain of its predecessors'
businesses, including suits and claims relating to product
liability, personal injury including asbestos, environmental,
contractual, employment and intellectual property matters.

At June 30, 2006, the asbestos liability was US$47.5 million,
compared with US$47.8 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the insurance receivable related to the
liability as well as claims for past payments was US$35 million,
compared with US$34.7 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in West Paterson, New Jersey, Cytec Industries Inc.
produces chemicals from which it makes engineered materials,
specialty chemicals, and additives used in treating water and in
industrial processes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Drop to 280 in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Co. noted that 10 percent of the 2,800
respiratory products lawsuits filed against it are attributable
to asbestosis and other combined injuries.

According to the June 2, 2006 Class Action Reporter, the Company
noted about 290 asbestos-related respiratory products suits
filed against it.

The 2,800 suits involve respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively,
these suits represent a total of about 23,000 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging they
suffer from silicosis.

These suits allege that these conditions resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured by
the Company.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Mine Safety Appliances Co.
makes protective equipment for miners and workers in the fire
service, construction, and homeland security industries. The
Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks,
and head protection gear. Mine Safety draws about 15 percent of
its sales from the U.S. military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 650 Pending Cases in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA
Holdings Inc., continue to face about 650 asbestos-related
cases.

In the three months ended June 30, 2006, 18 new cases were filed
against the Company and 26 cases were resolved.

As of March 31, 2006, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc. had
about 660 asbestos-related cases filed against it. (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2006)

Since many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Celanese Corp. operates as global hybrid
chemical firm. The company's business involves processing
chemical raw materials, such as ethylene and propylene, and
natural products, including natural gas and wood pulp, into
value-added chemicals and chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Notes 127,750 Open Claims in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson PLC recorded about 127,750 outstanding claimants at the
end of June 2006, a reduction of 3,600 compared with 131,350
claimants at the end of December 2005.

In the first half of 2006, the Company noted about 2,750 new
asbestos claimants filed in the first half of 2006, compared
with 6,700 filed in the same period in 2005.

In the first half of 2006, the Company resolved about 6,350
claims, in which over 90 percent were dismissals, compared with
about 8,850 in the same period in 2005.

Gross costs in the first half of 2006 were US$27.1 million,
compared with US$22.2 million in the first half of 2005, US$21
million in the second half of 2005 and an annual cost of US$59.3
million in 2004.

In the first half of 2006, the Company used US$2.2 million of
the insurance asset, resulting in a net cost before tax of
US$24.9 million, compared with US$15.4 million in the same
period in 2005.

Gross costs in the second half of 2006 are expected to be
similar to those in the first half of this year.

An asbestos provision is maintained for those gross costs
considered to be both probable and reliably estimable. This is
equivalent to about eight years of gross cost at an average of
around US$60 million per annum.

The US$30 million charge for the half-year is equivalent to
GBP8.4 million after tax and discounting. This is offset by more
insurance secured in the first half of GBP14.7 million.

Hanson's U.S. subsidiaries, which are affected by asbestos, will
continue to litigate and negotiate for more insurance cover and
intend to settle only those cases with proven disease and
product identification.

Based in London, United Kingdom, Hanson PLC produces aggregates,
ready-mixed concrete, bricks, and concrete pipe and building
products. Other operations include quarries, marine dredging,
and recycling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Suits with 22T Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc. stated that its subsidiaries, Leslie,
Spence, and Hoke, defend in asbestos-related claims, filed on
behalf of about 22,000 plaintiffs, against 50 to 400 defendants.

Of about 22,000 plaintiffs who have sued the Company's
subsidiaries, all but about 700 have been filed in Mississippi.

Of the plaintiffs who have sued CIRCOR units, all but about 650
have been filed in Mississippi. (Class Action Reporter, May 12,
2006)

In some instances, the Company has also been named individually
and as successor in interest to one or more of these units.
These cases have been filed in state courts in Alabama,
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming with
most claimants having filed their claims in Mississippi.

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

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

Based in Burlington, Massachusetts, CIRCOR International Inc.
makes instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including
precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for
hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,161 Cases in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation, had 1,161 remaining pending asbestos-related claims
out of 3,283 cases filed against it as of June 30, 2006.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,972
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 150 cases.

As of March 31, 2006, Central Hudson had 1,158 pending asbestos-
related cases out of 3,280 cases. Of the cases no longer pending
against Central Hudson, 1,972 have been dismissed or
discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central
Hudson has settled 150 cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 26,
2006)

Central Hudson is unable to assess the validity of the remaining
asbestos suits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate
liability relating to these cases.

Based in Poughkeepsie, New York, CH Energy Group Inc., through
Central Hudson, provides electricity to almost 290,000 customers
and natural gas to more than 67,000 customers along the Hudson
River in New York. Subsidiary Central Hudson Enterprises
oversees the Group's non-regulated businesses in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic, including petroleum product distribution and
energy management services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CPChem, ConocoPhillips Dispute Over Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LLC is involved with certain
asbestos-related lawsuits for which the financial responsibility
between CPChem and parent ConocoPhillips is disputed.

CPChem, ConocoPhillips, and parent Chevron Corp. are attempting
to resolve whether ConocoPhillips or CPChem has financial
responsibility for these suits. ConocoPhillips currently manages
and defends in these suits.  

In the event the financial responsibility for these suits is
ultimately determined to rest with CPChem, CPChem may be
required to record a charge to operations that could be material
to the period reported.

Based in The Woodlands, Texas, Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LLC
produces ethylene, propylene, polyethylene, and polypropylene,
which are sometimes used as a component for the Company's other
products such as pipe. Most of the Company's operations are
located in the U.S. Chevron Corporation and ConocoPhillips share
ownership of CPChem.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Automotive Faces Claims v. Subsidiaries
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation said that certain of its
subsidiaries deal with asbestos-related claims, which seek
damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure to
asbestos used in certain components sold by the Company's units.

The Company said that most of the claimants were assembly
workers at U.S. automobile makers. Most of these claims name as
defendants manufacturers and suppliers of products allegedly
with asbestos.

To the extent any of the products sold by the Company's
subsidiaries and at issue in these cases had asbestos,
management said that the asbestos was encapsulated. Management
said that a small portion of the claimants has will develop any
asbestos-related impairment.

Many of these cases have been dismissed without any payment.
Moreover, the Company has significant insurance coverage with
solvent carriers with respect to these claims.

Based in Livonia, Michigan, TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. makes
components for automakers like Ford, DaimlerChrysler,
Volkswagen, and General Motors. Products include chassis systems
and safety systems such as airbags, security electronics, and
seat belts. Other products include fasteners, body controls, and
engine valves.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Sets Aside Claims Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc. stated that it has established
reserves for asbestos exposures at June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31,
2005.

The reserves are for:

-- The 2005-4th quarter settlements of two large claims
aggregating about US$28 million for excess insurance policy
limits exposed to class action suits against two insureds
involved in the making or distribution of asbestos products,
each settlement to be paid over two years;

-- The 2004 settlement of a large claim about US$25 million
exposed to a class action suit which settlement will be paid
over seven years starting in June 2005;

-- Other insureds not directly involved in the making or
distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
products that had asbestos; and

-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
over time.

The Company's exposure to asbestos liability stems from marine
liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the
mid-1980s. In general, the Company's participation on those
risks is in the excess layers, which requires the underlying
coverage to be exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in
the Company's layer.

In many instances, the Company is an insurer who participates in
the defense and ultimate settlement of these claims, and it is a
minor participant in the overall insurance coverage and
settlement.

The Company has now settled four large asbestos claims where
excess policy limits were exposed to class action suits, which
gave rise to the reserve action taken in the 2003-4th quarter.  

At June 30, 2006, ceded asbestos paid and unpaid losses
recoverable were US$26.2 million of which US$14.2 million was
due from Equitas. The Company expects that it would pay about 74
percent of the gross asbestos reserves over the next two years.

Based in New York City, New York, The Navigators Group Inc.'s
main insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance,
write ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy,
liability, and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance
for onshore energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty
liability and professional liability insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin. Has $2.32B Liability in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. recorded US$2.327
billion net asbestos-related claims liability for the three
months ended June 30, 2006, compared with US$2.224 billion net
for the three months ended March 31, 2006.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company incurred
US$265 million net for claims and claim adjustment expenses. For
the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company paid US$162
million net for claims and claim adjustment expenses.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company incurred
US$267 million net for claim and claim adjustment expenses. For
the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company paid US$231
million net for claims and claims adjustment expenses.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$2.65 billion net
reserves, in which US$2.34 billion was for asbestos claims and
US$319 million was for environmental claims.

The recorded net reserves are within an estimated range,
unadjusted for covariance, of US$2.07 billion to US$3.15
billion.

Based in Hartford, Connecticut, The Hartford Financial Services
Group Inc. offers personal and commercial property-casualty
insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers'
compensation. Established in 1810, the Company sells its
products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than
100,000 registered broker-dealers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Contend With ASARCO Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation stated that its direct and indirect
parent corporations, including Americas Mining Corp. and Grupo
Mexico, have been named parties in litigation involving ASARCO
LLC.

On Aug. 9, 2005, ASARCO filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex. ASARCO's bankruptcy
case is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its
subsidiaries.   

In 2005, certain ASARCO subsidiaries filed bankruptcy petitions
in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. ASARCO has
informed SCC that by utilizing the Chapter 11 process, ASARCO
can achieve an orderly restructuring of its business and finally
resolve its asbestos and environmental claims.

In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in SCC from ASARCO.  
In August 2002 the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then-
proposed purchase of SCC from ASARCO. The action was settled
pursuant to a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2, 2003.

In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other
parties, not including SCC, were named in a suit filed in New
York State court in connection with alleged asbestos
liabilities, which suit claimed, that AMC's purchase of SCC from
ASARCO should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.  

Based in Lima, Peru, Southern Copper Corp. mines, smelts, and
refines copper at its Toquepala and Cuajone mines in Peru. It
produces blister copper and copper cathodes at the smelter and
refinery in Ilo, Peru. The Company also recovers silver and
molybdenum from copper ore. Americas Mining Corp., a subsidiary
of Grupo Mexico, owns 75 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Updates WR Grace Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation updated a lawsuit, in which the Company
is involved, regarding W.R. Grace and Co. and its Canadian
subsidiaries.

In April 2001, Grace's subsidiary Grace Canada Inc. had obtained
an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada recognizing the Ch. 11 actions in the
U.S. involving Grace Canada Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and
other U.S. affiliates of Grace Canada Inc.

The order enjoined all new actions and stayed all current
proceedings against Grace Canada Inc. related to asbestos under
the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada Inc., the Court
ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against Sealed Air and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The stay has been extended
through Oct. 1, 2006.

Grace's proposed plan of reorganization provided that these
claims will be paid by the trusts to be established under the
Bankruptcy Code as part of Grace's plan of reorganization. It is
expected that the defendants will ask the Canadian courts to
enforce the terms of the plan of reorganization.

If Grace's final plan does not include comparable provisions or
if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce Grace's final plan of
reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if Grace is unwilling
or unable to defend and indemnify Sealed Air and its units in
these cases, then Sealed Air could be required to pay damages.

Based in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corp.'s Food
Packaging segment produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads,
and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to
protect meat and poultry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Accrues $106.9M Interest in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation recorded US$106.9 million asbestos-
related accrued interest charge at June 30, 2006, compared with
US$90.3 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At March 31, 2006, recorded an asbestos-related interest charge
of US$98.6 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 12, 2006)

The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million in the 2002-
4th quarter, of which US$512.5 million covered a cash payment
that the Company is required to make upon the effectiveness of a
plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy of W.R. Grace & Co.

The Company expects to fund this payment by using a combination
of accumulated cash and future cash flows from operations and
funds available under its US$500 million senior unsecured multi-
currency credit facility or its accounts receivable
securitization program or a combination of these alternatives.

The cash payment of US$512.5 million accrued interest at a 5.5
percent annual rate, which is compounded annually, from Dec. 21,
2002 to the date of payment.

Based in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corp.'s Food
Packaging segment produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads,
and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to
protect meat and poultry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. County Drops Suit v. Sempra, SDG&E
--------------------------------------------------------------
The County of San Diego, Calif. has withdrawn litigation against
Sempra Energy and subsidiary, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., in
an asbestos-related environmental lawsuit.

The suit sought civil penalties for alleged violations of
environmental standards applicable to the abatement, handling
and disposal of asbestos-containing materials during a 2001
demolition of a natural gas storage facility in Lemon Grove,
Calif.

SDG&E and two employees, environmental supervisor Jacquelyn
McHugh and environmental specialist David Williamson, have also
been charged in a federal criminal indictment for these
standards and with related charges of conspiracy and having made
false statements to governmental authorities.

In January 2005, Sempra Energy and SDG&E received a grand jury
subpoena from the US Attorney's Office in San Diego seeking
documents related to this matter and are fully cooperating with
the investigation. (Class Action Reporter, March 4, 2005)

SDG&E stated that the maximum fines and penalties that could
reasonably be assessed against it with respect to these matters
would not exceed US$750,000. A jury trial is set for January
2007.

Based in San Diego, California, Sempra Energy distributes
natural gas to about 6.2 million customers and electricity to
1.3 million customers through its Southern California Gas
(SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Gains From $79.6M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. benefited from an asbestos settlement
received from an insurer, and adding US$79.6 million to the
Company's 2006-2nd quarter profits, Reuters reports.

The Company said it continues to litigate claims against other
insurers as it works toward settlements.

Excluding the asbestos settlement, a charge of US$12.3 million
related to debt reduction, and stock option expenses, the
Company earned US$43.1 million, or US$0.61 a share, above the
average forecast of US$0.41 a share among analysts polled by
Reuters Estimates.

The Company said that net earnings were US$106.2 million, or
US$1.53 a share, compared with US$28.2 million, or US$0.55 a
share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 42 percent to US$745.3
million.

Based in Clinton, New Jersey, Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds
business process and power generating facilities. The Company
operates through two business groups. It also builds, owns, and
leases cogeneration and independent power projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Charges Ore. Hospital $10.2T for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon state Department of Environmental Quality has issued
a US$10,200 fine to the Oregon State Hospital for asbestos-
related violations during a water line project, The Associated
Press reports.

The DEQ fined the hospital for allowing asbestos to accumulate
in the open and for allowing the contractor Emery & Sons
Construction to perform asbestos-related work without a license.

The DEQ fined Emery & Sons US$3,600. Emery & Sons vice president
Bill Martinak said the Company would appeal.

The DEQ said the hospital hired Emery & Sons to install a water
line. In January 2006, workers dug into an old asbestos-
insulated pipeline, in which the asbestos was reportedly left in
a pile of dirt and debris.

Jane Hickman, the DEQ administrator or compliance and
enforcement, said that officials at the psychiatric hospital
should have known about the hazardous material because a 1990
survey documented asbestos sites on the 144-acre hospital
campus.

State hospital officials had said the asbestos was about 200
feet from the nearest residential area.

Jim Sellers, spokesman for the Department of Human Services,
said the department had not yet decided yet whether it would
appeal the fine, but he said it would examine the 1990 survey
and "find whatever lessons we can in the experience."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Relief Trust Reports ZAR91M Payout in 2 Yrs  
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Doidge, chairman of The Asbestos Relief Trust, said that
the Trust, established to compensate asbestosis claimants, paid
out more than ZAR91 million in 1,378 claims in the past two
years, BusinessDay reports.

In his report, Mr. Doidge said, "The manager's report shows that
to date we have been able to compensate 1,378 people suffering
with an asbestos related disease. The amount paid to these
people is ZAR91,371,598."

The average payment per claim was ZAR68,000.

Since the first claim in March 2004, the Trust had worked with
accredited claims handlers and set up offices in South African
locations like Johannesburg, Kuruman and Mpumalanga, to ensure
claims were processed speedily.

Established by Gencor after extensive litigation was filed
against the Company, the Trust compensates ex-miners, or people
living in mining areas, who suffer from asbestos-related
disease, as well as the families of people who have died due to
asbestos exposure.

To qualify for compensation, the claimant must have been
employed by one of the qualifying operations during certain
qualifying times when the mines were owned by Gencor, Msauli, or
Griqualand Exploration & Finance Co.

Mr. Doidge said the highest payments to beneficiaries were made
in the past 12 months with the Trust paying out ZAR49,976,510 to
more than 600 claimants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Receives Ambrose, Ullum Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia received two jointly
filed asbestos-related lawsuits, each naming 108 defendants, on
July 26, 2006, The West Virginia Record reports.

Charles and Nancy Ambrose filed the first suit. The suit said
71-year-old Mr. Ambrose has asbestosis and mesothelioma, two
lung diseases related to asbestos exposure, from years of
working as a steelworker.

The complaint stated Mr. Ambrose worked out of Local 809 at
various steel mills, including Weirton Steel Corp. and Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel Corp.

Loretta Ullum filed the second suit, individually and as the
Executrix of the Estate of William Ullum.  The suit said Mr.
Ullum died of asbestosis and mesothelioma after years of working
as a laborer out of Local 1149.

Mrs. Ambrose and Mrs. Ullum made loss of consortium claims.

The suits were filed through Pittsburgh, Pa. attorney David
Chervenick of Goldberg, Persky and White.

A visiting judge will be assigned Case Nos. 06-C-1465 and 06-C-
1466.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Tags Engineer's Death to Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in the U.K. has concluded that the death of 61-year-
old engineer Rodney Brown was linked to mesothelioma, an
asbestos-related lung cancer, icSouthLondon.co.uk reports.

For over 30 years, Mr. Brown maintained the heating system at
Guy's Hospital in Lambeth and later developed mesothelioma. He
fell into a coma and died on May 6, 2006 after surgery at the
hospital to treat strain on his heart caused by the tumor.

At the inquest, a statement Mr. Brown wrote as part of a
compensation claim was read out, saying he received no
protection from the toxic dust he handled during his job.

Mr. Brown said, "I was not provided with a protective mask. When
the whole hospital was cleared of asbestos this was one of the
areas found to contain the most."

Southwark Coroner John Sampson recorded a verdict of death from
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Disallows Biersdorf Claims v. Grace
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of W.R. Grace and Co. and the other Debtors, the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court disallowed 53 non-traditional asbestos
property damage claims filed by Biersdorf and Associates PA, for
claimants in Minneapolis, Minn. The claimants seek recovery for
"stigma" damage to property.

The Claimants are residents of a Northeast Minneapolis
neighborhood where a Superfund site is located. From the 1950s
to 1989, the Debtors disposed of asbestos-contaminated
vermiculite by offering and distributing it throughout the
neighborhood as "free crushed rock." From 2000 to the present,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inspected over 1,600
homes in the claimants' neighborhood and remediated over 200 as
result of the contamination. In 2003, EPA began its fourth, and
likely final, year of outdoor properties cleanup.

In a memorandum opinion, Judge Judith Fitzgerald rules that the
Claimants failed to introduce any evidence suggesting that
Minnesota law would permit a property owner to pursue a claim
solely for stigma to property.

Judge Fitzgerald refers to Jackson v. Reiling, 249 N.W. 2d 896
(Minn. 1977), which establishes that no claim is compensable
when it involves remote and speculative damages. She maintains
that the Bankruptcy Court "cannot create a new cause of action
which has never been applied in Minnesota courts."

In a supplemental memorandum filed with the Bankruptcy Court in
support of protocol for disposition of Speights & Runyan's
property damage claims involving buildings in Canada, the
Debtors tell Judge Fitzgerald that the Canadian PD Claims are
not enforceable under applicable Canadian law and, thus, should
be disallowed under Section 502(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Pursuant to the Court's recent decision involving the
Minneapolis Stigma Claims, if Canadian law does not recognize
the Canadian PD Claims, then there is no basis on which they
should be allowed, states James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski
Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub LLP, in Wilmington, Del.

Mr. O'Neill states that the Canadian court has full authority to
adjudicate the Debtors' objections to the Canadian PD Claims in
a proceeding under Section 18.6 of the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act.

Since the commencement of the CCAA Proceeding, Mr. O'Neill
relates, the Canadian Court has provided assistance to the
Debtors' Chapter 11 case by entering an order that affect
interests of the Debtors and Canadian third-parties asserting
claims involving the Debtors. Those orders are consistent with
the broad authority granted to the Canadian Court by the CCAA to
aid the Bankruptcy Court in the resolution of the Debtors'
cases.

Mr. O'Neill clarifies that the Debtors, in their pending request
for a scheduling order regarding certain PD claims, are not
asking the Bankruptcy Court to abstain from addressing the
Canadian PD Claims or to relinquish its jurisdiction over those
Claims. Rather, the Debtors are proposing the use of the
Canadian Court's expertise in the CCAA Proceeding to determine
if the Canadian PD Claim can be allowed as enforceable claims
against Grace under Canadian law.

According to Mr. O'Neill, the three independent doctrines that
U.S. bankruptcy courts have invoked to defer to foreign courts
and tribunals for adjudication of disputes that are otherwise
within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction are:

-- International comity,
-- Concurrent jurisdiction, and
-- The doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Accordingly, the Debtors insist that the Bankruptcy Court should
authorize them to litigate the enforceability of the Canadian PD
Claims in the CCAA Proceeding because:

(1) The Canadian Court has the strongest interest in resolving
those claims;

(2) Speights filed the Claims with a specific intent to bypass
the Canadian law's application; and

(3) Adjudication of the Debtors' objections in Canada would best
serve the interests of judicial efficiency and the convenience
of affected parties.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 113; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Reports Move to Pay Trustees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Amended Plan of Reorganization of Owens Corning and
the other Debtors provides for the establishment of a trust into
which all asbestos-related personal injury claims will be
channeled. Under the Plan, the occurrence of the "Effective
Date" is subject to conditions precedent that, inter
alia:

-- Trustees for the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust will have
accepted their appointment as Asbestos Personal Injury Trustees
and will have executed the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust
Agreement; and

-- The individuals designated to serve as members of the
Trustee's Advisory Committee for the Trust will have accepted
their appointment as TAC members.

James J. McMonagle, the Court-appointed legal Future Claimants
Representative in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases, and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants have
interviewed about 80 candidates to serve as prospective trustees
and directors in several cases, including the Owens Corning
cases, in connection with the formation of asbestos personal
injury trusts.

However, the Trustees have not yet been selected. Once selected,
Marla R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine LLC, at Wilmington,
Delaware, tells the Court that the Trustees will commence taking
the steps necessary to have the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust
operational and ready to receive, process and pay asbestos
personal injury claims as soon as reasonably practicable after
the Effective Date.

The FCR and ACC expect that the Trustees will want to retain
separate counsel in connection with carrying out their duties.

Pursuant to the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Agreement, the
Trustees are required to consult with the TAC and the FCR on
certain issues relating to the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust,
including issues relating to the Trust's general implementation
and administration. Each member of the TAC will be entitled to
compensation from the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust in the form
of a reasonable hourly rate set by the Trustees for attendance
at meetings or other conduct of the Trust's business. The TAC
members will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
costs and expenses.

The FCR and ACC want to have the Trustees and the TAC commence
establishing the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and taking the
other steps necessary to have the Trust ready to be functioning
by the Effective Date. As part of these preparations, the
Trustees will be meeting with representatives of the Debtors,
the FCR, the ACC and proposed TAC members.  

By this motion, the FCR and ACC ask the Court to authorize the
Debtors:

a. To reimburse the Trustees for the reasonable attorneys' fees
and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the
establishment of the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and other
actions necessary to have the Trust ready to be operational by
the Effective Date;

b. If the TAC members undertake activities prior to
confirmation, to reimburse those members for reasonable out-of-
pocket expenses incurred in connection with the activities and
pay the members a reasonable hourly rate established by the
Trustees for meetings attended or other conduct of the Trust's
business;

c. Pay the Trustees for meetings attended at the per diem rate
as set forth in the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Agreement and
agreed on by the FCR and the FCC; and

d. Pay the premiums for errors and omissions insurance to be
issued on the Trustees' behalf.

Under the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Agreement, each of the
Trustees will be entitled to receive US$60,000 per annum from
the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust for their services. The
Managing Trustee will receive US$75,000 for his service, plus:

-- A per diem allowance for telephonic meetings or other
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust business performed for US$1,500;

-- A per diem allowance for in-person meetings for US$2,500; and

-- The reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket costs and
expenses.

Ms. Eskin points out that the reimbursable fees and expenses
will be of no cost to the Debtors' estates since payment will be
offset against the US$1.25 billion payment to the Asbestos
Personal Injury Trust on the Effective Date.

The FCR and ACC further ask Judge Judith Fitzgerald to authorize
the Debtors to make the payments without further authorization
of, or approval by, the Bankruptcy Court.

"By authorizing the Debtors to reimburse the Trustees and the
TAC members now . . . the Debtors will be in a position to
consummate the Sixth Amended Plan shortly after confirmation,"
Ms. Eskin maintains.

(Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 138; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp Mulls Settlement with Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation anticipates that a settlement agreement
between the Company and W.R. Grace & Co. would become effective
upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of
reorganization.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company agreed with the committees
appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace's bankruptcy
case, to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims
made against the Company and its affiliates, the fraudulent
transfer claims, successor liability claims, and indemnification
claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. and affiliated
companies in connection with a Cryovac transaction.

Completed on March 31, 1998, the Cryovac transaction was a
multi-step transaction, which brought the Cryovac packaging
business and the former Sealed Air Corp.'s business under the
common ownership of the Company.

On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors approved the
agreement. The Company received notice that both of the
committees had approved the agreement as of Dec. 5, 2002. The
parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive
settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003.

On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware, where the Grace bankruptcy case is pending, signed an
order approving the definitive settlement agreement.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization
and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court.

Objections were filed, and the Company does not know whether the
final plan would be consistent with the terms of the settlement
agreement or if the other conditions to the Company's obligation
to pay the settlement amount will be met.

If these conditions are not met or not waived by the Company,
the Company would not be obligated to pay the settlement amount.

Based in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corp.'s Food
Packaging segment produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads,
and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to
protect meat and poultry.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


INFOSONICS CORP: Scott + Scott Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, reminds investors they have only until Aug
14, 2006 to request that the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff in a securities-fraud action against Infosonics Corp.
and certain officers.

On July 14, 2006, Scott+Scott, LLC, filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of Infosonics securities purchasers during the period May
8, 2006, through June 12, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding certain of the company's warrants, which
were improperly "marked to market" in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.  

After being "marked to market," the warrants remained booked as
a liability at the end of the quarter ended March 31, 2006, when
they should have been reclassified as equity as of Feb. 17,
2006, the date upon which the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission declared the company's Form S-3 effective, thereby
registering the shares underlying the warrants.

The immediate result was to artificially inflate the company's
net income results for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2006, a condition that remained uncorrected until the end of the
Class Period.

Finally, on June 12, 2006, the company revealed that it had
restated certain portions of the financial statements for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006. On this news, the price of
Infosonics' stock fell from $24.22 to $17.05, a drop of $7.17,
on more than three times the normal trading volume.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: (800) 404-
7770 and (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.  


RAMBUS INC: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson filed a class action on behalf of plaintiff
and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of Rambus, Inc.
during the period December 12, 2001 through July 18, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that Rambus and certain officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning Rambus's improper and
undisclosed practice of backdating options conferred on certain
executives which made it appear that such options were issued
upon dates when the market price of Rambus stock was lower than
actual market price on the actual grant dates.  This improper
backdating masked the virtually instant profits the option
recipients obtained.

Under generally accepted accounting principles, these profits
were required to be recognized as an expense in the company's
financial statements for the appropriate period, but were not.

This backdating of options also violated provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments.
Thus, the company's financial statements in Form 10-K filings
for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were materially false
and misleading.

In addition, the company's Proxy Statements for annual
shareholder meetings held in years 2002 to 2005 were materially
false and misleading because they contained statements
concealing Rambus's practice of backdating stock options.

The plaintiff is represented by J&P, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving financial fraud.  

J&P is a litigation boutique dedicated to maximizing
shareholders' returns and keeping the lead plaintiffs involved
in the litigation.

Attorneys Johnson and Perkinson are both former employees of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Members of the firm have
prosecuted complex class actions on behalf of plaintiffs in the
areas of securities and consumer fraud since 1985.

Based in South Burlington, Vermont, the firm has prosecuted
leading actions on behalf of defrauded investors against
numerous public companies resulting in the recovery of many
millions of dollars and has been singled out for its excellence
by various courts.

The firm is litigating, or recently resolved litigation, as lead
or co-lead counsel in securities class actions against Xerox,
Priceline, i2, Allaire, and Exchange Applications, and serves on
the Executive Committee in the Global Crossing case.

Interested parties may no later than (60) days from July 19,
2006, move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact James F. Conway, III of Johnson &
Perkinson, Phone: 1888-459-7855, E-mail: jconway@jpclasslaw.com.  


SAFENET INC: Kahn Gauthier Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that a class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock and other securities of SafeNet, Inc.
between March 31, 2003 and May 18, 2006.

The action against SafeNet and certain of the company's
executive officers charges violations of federal securities
laws.  

On July 26, 2006, the company stated that it would be restating
its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2002 that its year-ending
2002 financial statements are unreliable, and that future
restatements may occur.

SafeNet's accounting problems stem from the illegal backdating
of stock options granted to senior management, which is the
subject of ongoing investigations by the SEC and the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Interested parties have only until October 2, 2006, to move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Managing Partner Lewis Kahn of KGS,
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.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  * * *