---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 164

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: 2007 Hearing Set for Minn. Perflourooctanyl Suit
3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Suit in Minn.
3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Suit in N.J.
3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Perflourooctanyl Lawsuits in Ala.
3M COMPANY: To Settle Antitrust Litigation Over Transparent Tape

AT&T INC: Sept. Trial Set for Tex. Retiree Phone Concession Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Former Employee
BIOMET INC: Faces Purported Antitrust Violations Suits in Ind.
BOMBARDIER CAPITAL: Court Denies Teamsters' Certification Motion
CALIFORNIA: City Sued Over "Driving Under the Influence" Fees

CARE MANAGEMENT FIRMS: Face Suit Over Medicaid Payments in Ga.
DECATUR HOTELS: Immigrants File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in La.
DEL MONTE: Parties Reach $400,000 Settlement in Ore. Labor Suit
DYNEX CAPITAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y.
GENZYME CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Biosurgery Stock

HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Plaintiffs in MD. Stock Suit Amend Complaint
HILB ROGAL: Bensley Voluntarily Dismisses N.J. Securities Suit
HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs in Antitrust Suit Ask to Certify Class
HILB ROGAL: Va. Securities Fraud Complaint Dismissal Appealed
INTEL CORP: Asks Permission to Subpoena ATI in Antitrust Suit

MCDONALD'S CORP: Ill. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss "Selbst"
MEDIA COS: Aug. 28 Hearing Set for DVD Labeling Suit Settlement
MERRILL LYNCH: Investors Get Class Status for Enron-Related Suit
MURPHY OIL: October 2006 Trial Set for Crude Oil Spill Lawsuit
MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over 2003 La. Miraux Fire

NASHUA CORP: Court Dismisses Appeal in Cerion Securities Case
NATIONAL HOUSING: Suit Against Papua New Guinea's NHC Rejected
NEBRASKA: Court Reverses Certification of NAS' Abuse Lawsuit
NOBLE ENERGY: April 2007 Trial Set for Patina Oil Case in Colo.
NORTH CAROLINA: Homeowner Barred from Joining Developers Suit

QUINTUS CORP: Reaches $10M Settlement in Calif. Stock Lawsuit
REFCO INC: GMWL Class Plaintiffs Want Debtors' Request Denied
SALOMON SMITH: N.Y. Court Dismisses Mutual Fund Fees Litigation
STATE FARM: "All-Risk" Policies Suit Refused Class Certification
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: N.H. Judge Certifies Retirement Plan Lawsuit

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Physicians Appeal Dismissal of Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Class Status to N.J. Labor Suit
YAHOO INC: Nov. Hearing Set for "Click Fraud" Suit Settlement


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Con Edison Inc. Posts $25M Liability in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Supply Faces 25T Suits in 5 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Face Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Faces Exposure Claims by La. Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Deal With Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Resolves 100,590 Pneumo Abex Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TODCO Still Faces Aaron Suit in Miss. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KWELM Contributes $1.8M to Goodrich Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 30,070 Pending Claims in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Has $256.8M Liabilities in 2Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Spends $909M for Claims in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Decline to 1,568 From 1,620
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Pays $242M for Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Absolves Belden CDT Inc. in 168 Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Liability Totals $306M in 2Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NRG Energy Records 3,428 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe, Units Defend in Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Claimants Seek to Clear Texas Eastern
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Dismissed in 3-Count Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Notes 220 Pending Suits in Md. Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Rise to 350 in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Uses $16.5M for Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Still Faces Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: One Suit Stays Pending v. RJR Tobacco, B&W
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Faces Suits From Product Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 124,400 in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Tool Works Faces Welding Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defective Mask Claims v. 3M Co. Drop to 33T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 500 Cases from Old Operations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Armstrong Reorganization Plan

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rejects Quigley Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Oversees Removal Work at Michelin Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Court Bans "Bundling" of Injury Cases
ASBESTOS ALERT: Man Gets $10.3M in Lawsuit v. Thorpe Insulation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IMAX CORP: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. N.Y.
SAFENET INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
SAFENET INC: Public Pension Fund Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
WITNESS SYSTEMS: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.


                            *********


3M COMPANY: 2007 Hearing Set for Minn. Perflourooctanyl Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative 2007 hearing is scheduled for the purported class
action pending in the District Court of Washington County,
Minnesota against the 3M Company over perflourooctanyl
contamination.

Two residents of Washington County, Minnesota, filed in October
2004, a purported class action on behalf of Washington county
residents whose properties were allegedly harmed and who have
allegedly suffered personal injury from emissions from the
company's former perfluorooctanyl production facility at Cottage
Grove, Minnesota.  

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per
plaintiff and class member.   After the District Court granted
the company's motion to dismiss the claims for medical
monitoring and public nuisance in April 2005, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations
involving other perfluoronated compounds manufactured by the
company.  

The amended complaint is alleging additional legal theories in
support of their claims, adding four plaintiffs, and seeking
relief based on alleged contamination of the City of Oakdale
municipal water supply and certain private wells in the vicinity
of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding two additional plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs' counsel also
amended the definition of the class of plaintiffs whom they
purport to represent in a manner that no longer includes the two
persons who initially asserted the class claims.  Those two
plaintiffs thereafter dismissed their claims against the
company.  

The amended class is defined to include all individuals whose
residential drinking water in Minnesota is or has been supplied
by one or more wells that contains more than 0.05 parts per
billion of one or more perfluorochemicals attributable to
releases and/or wastes from the company's Cottage Grove,
Minnesota plant.  

Pretrial proceedings are in progress and the court has scheduled
a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the action as a class
action for the spring of 2007, 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.

Minnesota-based 3M Co. (NYSE: MMM) -- http://www.mmm.com/-- is  
a diversified technology company with a global presence in the
businesses, including healthcare; industrial; display and
graphics; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; electronics and telecommunications, and
transportation.


3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Suit in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 3M Company remains a defendant in an age discrimination
class action pending in the District Court of Ramsey County,
Minnesota, according to the firm's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2006.

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action, seeking to represent a class of
all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M
Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46 or
older at any time during the applicable period to be determined
by the court.

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."  It also alleges
that the company disproportionately selects younger employees
for a leadership-training program called "Six Sigma" (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2004).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs suffered
various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age
in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  It seeks
injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory -- up to triple
actual damages -- and punitive damages in excess of $50,000,
including back and front pay and attorneys' fees (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 28, 2006).  

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional plaintiffs.  In February 2006, the company filed its
answer to an amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in
January, joining four additional plaintiffs.

Minnesota-based 3M Co. (NYSE: MMM) -- http://www.mmm.com/-- is  
a diversified technology company with a global presence in the
businesses, including healthcare; industrial; display and
graphics; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; electronics and telecommunications, and
transportation.


3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 3M Company remains a defendant in a purported age
discrimination class action pending in U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, according to the firm's Aug. 3, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit alleges that 3M violated New Jersey's Law Against
Discrimination by policies, practices and patterns of decisions
related to performance appraisals, training, promotion, pay and
termination that discriminate against employees over the age of
45.  It is anticipated that the class will include about 100
current and former salaried exempt and non-exempt employees.  

On Nov. 2, 2005, John Pinkowski, a 3M employee, filed the suit
against his employer in the Superior Court of Essex County, New
Jersey on behalf of a class of New Jersey-based employees of the
company.  On Dec. 2, 2005, the company filed a Notice of Removal
and the case was transferred to federal court in New Jersey.  
The company then filed its answer to the complaint on Dec. 23,
2005.

The Pinkowski Complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?5da

The suit is "Pinkowski v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-05668-
KSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to
Judge Patty Shwartz.  

Representing the plaintiff is Bennet Dann Zurofsky of Reitman
Parsonnet, 744 Broad Street, Suite 1807, Newark, NJ 07102,
Phone: (973) 642-0885, E-mail: bzurofsky@reitpar.com, Web site:
http://www.sprengerlang.com/cases/case-list/3m/about/#NJ.  

Representing the defendants are Michael T. Bissinger, Pitney
Hardin and Gregory C. Parliman of Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch,
LLP, Phone: (973) 966-6300 and 973-966-8401, E-mail:
mbissinger@pitneyhardin.com, acastronovo@pitneyhardin.com and
gparliman@pitneyhardin.com.


3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Perflourooctanyl Lawsuits in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 3M Company remains a defendant in several purported class
actions filed in Alabama over alleged perflourooctanyl
pollution, according to the firm's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2006.

A former employee filed one of the suits in 2002 in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama.  It seeks unstated compensatory
and punitive damages and alleges that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, sub-clinical injuries and property damage
from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemical at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.  

The complaint also alleges that the company acted improperly
with respect to disclosures to workers concerning such chemical.  

The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the company's motion to
dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on
the basis that the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act bar such claims.  

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
granted the company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the action described above filed in the
same court in 2002.

The second suit was filed by three residents of Morgan County,
Alabama seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages
involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly produced those compounds.

Minnesota-based 3M Company (NYSE: MMM) -- http://www.mmm.com/--  
is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the businesses, including healthcare; industrial; display and
graphics; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; electronics and telecommunications, and
transportation.


3M COMPANY: To Settle Antitrust Litigation Over Transparent Tape
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 3M Company is working to settle litigation over its alleged
monopoly of the transparent tape markets, according to the
firm's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Direct and indirect tape purchasers have filed a number of
purported class actions and individual actions against the
company in various state and federal courts.

These cases allege that the company competed unfairly and
unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for transparent tape, and
seek injunctive relief and damages in the form of price
overcharges the company allegedly charged for these products.

            Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

The federal court in California granted final approval on April
2006 of the previously disclosed settlement agreement of 12
tape-related class actions brought on behalf of indirect
purchasers who did not purchase tape for resale.  Three
objectors to the settlement have filed an appeal in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

             Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

The company agreed to settle three of the four pending direct
purchaser transparent tape antitrust cases -- two individual
actions and a purported class action on behalf of direct
purchasers of both 3M branded and private label tape.  The two
individual actions have been settled and the actions have been
dismissed.  

In March 2006, the federal court in Pennsylvania granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement executed by the
parties to the purported class action.  

If that agreement receives final court approval at a hearing
currently scheduled for later this summer and all conditions in
the agreement are satisfied, the settlement will terminate the
purported class action and release the claims of the affected
putative class members nationwide.

During the second quarter of 2006, the company entered into an
agreement in principle to resolve the antitrust class action
involving direct purchasers of branded transparent tape -- but
not private label tape -- that as previously disclosed had been
scheduled to start trial at the end of May.  

The settlement is conditioned on court approval, which will be
sought promptly upon execution of final settlement documents and
is expected to be granted later this year or early next year.

If that agreement receives final court approval and all
conditions in the agreement are satisfied, the settlement will
terminate the class action and release the claims of the
affected class members nationwide.

Minnesota-based 3M Company (NYSE: MMM) -- http://www.mmm.com/--  
is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the businesses, including healthcare; industrial; display and
graphics; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; electronics and telecommunications, and
transportation.


AT&T INC: Sept. Trial Set for Tex. Retiree Phone Concession Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 25, 2006 trial is scheduled for a class action over
retiree phone concessions filed against AT&T Inc. -- formerly
SBC Communications, Inc. -- in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.

The suit, "Stoffels v. SBC Communications, Inc.," was filed in
2005.  Plaintiffs, who are retirees of Pacific Bell Telephone
Company, Southwestern Bell, and Ameritech, contend that the
telephone concession provided by the company is, in essence, a
"defined benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of persons that are either
retirees of the former subsidiaries of SBC or a predecessor
thereof, who received the telephone concession benefit after
they retired or current or former employees of the former
subsidiaries of SBC with more than 5 years of service during the
time that they had a policy to provide employees with a
telephone concession benefit upon retirement.  

They also seek reformation of the out-of-region phone concession
offered under the post-employment benefits plan (the Plan) and
the documents governing it to comply with ERISA, an order
requiring the company to fund the Plan as reformed, the
appointment of an independent fiduciary to administer the Plan,
an order requiring the Plan to pay benefits to plaintiffs and
other class members consistent with the terms of the plan and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to ERISA.

The company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, which was denied by the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas on Feb. 3, 2006.  

On June 23, 2006, the court heard argument on plaintiffs' motion
to certify the class.  No decision has been issued.  The case
has been set for trial on Sept. 25, 2006.  

The suit is "Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, et al.,
Case No. 5:05-cv-00233-WWJ," filed in the U.S District Court for
the Western District of Texas under Judge William Wayne Justice.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Les Mendelsohn of Les Mendelsohn
& Associates, P.C., 110 Broadway, Suite 500, San Antonio, TX
78205-1934, Phone: (210) 222-2271, Fax: 210/230-8914.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Former Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed by an operations analyst at Bank of
America Corp. have reached a confidential settlement, according
to The Roanoke Times.  The settlement will cover all 24 of the
lead plaintiff's co-complainants.

The suit was filed by Cynthia Diane Deel in early 2004 who
claimed that she has been denied overtime by the company.  A
judge approved the suit as class action in the same year.  Ms.
Deel left the company in July 2003.

In 2005, a federal judge in the Western District of Virginia
ruled that about 250 current and former Bank of America
employees may join a class action seeking compensation for
unpaid overtime labor, the Associated Press reports (Class  
Action Reporter, Feb. 14, 2005).  

The suit charges that Bank of America improperly classified the
workers as ineligible for overtime between September 2002 and
April 2003.  Furthermore, the suit also charges the bank of
changing their classification, but improperly discouraged
overtime claims.  

The affected employees had worked for the Banking Center Control
Review department, performing on-site reviews at Bank of America
branches.    

In July, U.S. District Judge James Turk ordered mediation of the
suit before U.S. Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler of the
Charlottesville division of the courts (Class Action Reporter,
July 10, 2006).

The suit is "Deel v. Bank of America Corp., Case No. 7:04-cv-
00150-jct," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western  
District of Virginia under Judge James C. Turk.

Representing the defendant are:  

     (1) Richard F. Kane of Mcguire Woods LLP, Suite 2900, 100  
         North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202-4011, Phone:  
         704-373-8957, Fax: 704-373-8828, E-mail:  
         rkane@mcguirewoods.com; and

     (2) Bruce M. Steen of Mcguire Woods LLP, Suite 2900, 100  
         North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202-4011, Phone:  
         704-353-6244, Fax: 704-353-6200, E-mail:  
         bsteen@mcguirewoods.com.  

Representing the plaintiff are John Palmer Fishwick, Jr. and  
Devon James Munro of Lichtenstein, Fishwick & Johnson, plc, P.O.  
BOX 601, Roanoke, VA 24004-0601, Phone: 540-345-5890, Fax: 540-
345-5789, E-mail: jpf@vaonline.com, devon@vaonline.com.  


BIOMET INC: Faces Purported Antitrust Violations Suits in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Biomet Inc. has been named defendant in two purported class
suits over alleged antitrust law violations, the company said in
its annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The filing didn't indicate what damages the complainants are
seeking.  Greg Sasso, the company's senior vice president of
corporate development and communications, told Dow Jones
Newswires he did not know where it was filed, either.  But he
knew that the lawsuits were filed by companies and individuals.

Biomet is aware that other lawsuits have been filed but not
served on the company, and those complaints also name other
orthopedics companies as defendants, the annual report said.

In June, the Justice Department subpoenaed the Warsaw, Indiana
maker of orthopedic products for possible antitrust violations.  
Three other companies were also named in the subpoena.

The suit is "Chaiken DDS PC v. Biomet Inc. et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00462-TLS-CAN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Theresa L. Springmann,
with referral to Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein.

Representing the plaintiffs are Peter J. Agostino of Anderson
Agostino & Keller PC, 131 S Taylor Street, South Bend, IN 46601,
Phone: 574-288-1510, Fax: 574-288-1650, E-mail:
agostino@aaklaw.com; and Richard J. Kilsheimer, 805 Third Avenue
22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-687-1980, Fax: 212-
558-1585.


BOMBARDIER CAPITAL: Court Denies Teamsters' Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund's
motion for class certification of a putative class suit filed on
behalf of open market purchasers of certain certificates offered
by Bombardier Capital Mortgage Securitization Corp. and
Bombardier Capital, Inc.  

In 2005, Teamsters alleged that defendants engaged in a scheme
to defraud investors by misrepresenting the integrity of the
certificate collateral.

A copy of Teamsters' complaint is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?fd0

The complaint seeks relief under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  It also seeks an order to
certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although several of Teamsters' arguments in favor of class
certification are vigorously disputed, the linchpin of
Teamsters' motion -- and the focus of the parties' briefs and
expert reports -- is the efficiency of the market for the
certificates.

If the market is inefficient, then Teamsters may not avail
itself of the presumption that investors relied on defendants'
misrepresentations, the requirement that common issues
predominate over individual issues will not be satisfied, and
class certification must be denied.

If the market is efficient, then Teamsters may rely on the
presumption, common issues will predominate, and class
certification will be granted so long as Teamsters satisfies the
other Rule 23 requirements.

Because Teamsters cannot rely on either the Affiliated Ute or
the fraud on the market presumptions of transaction causation,
Teamsters cannot prove reliance on a class-wide basis, and each
plaintiff will have to prove reliance individually.

Although the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) does not
mandate that all issues be capable of generalized proof, when
plaintiffs must individually prove reliance -- an element of
their Rule 10b-5 material misrepresentation claim -- the
putative class action fails the predominance requirement.

Thus, Teamsters cannot satisfy the predominance requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3).

On Aug. 1, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin denied Teamsters' motion
for class certification.  

A copy of the judge's opinion and order dismissing the motion
for class certification is available free of charge at:  

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

The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund
v. Bombardier Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01898-SAS-GWG,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, with referral to Judge
Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

Representing the defendants are Isaac S. Greaney, Patrick
Michael McGuirk and Alfred Robert Pietrzak all of Sidley Austin
LLP(NY), 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212)-
839-7324 or 212-839-8709 or (212)-839-5300, Fax: 212-839-5599,
E-mail: igreaney@sidley.com or pmcguirk@sidley.com or
rpietrzak@sidley.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joel P. Laitman and Frank Rocco
Schirripa both of Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton Street
New York, NY 10038, Phone: (212) 964-0046, Fax: 212-267-8137, E-
mail: frank@spornlaw.com.


CALIFORNIA: City Sued Over "Driving Under the Influence" Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Fresno, California faces a class action over some
fees it collects in relation to Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) arrests, ABC Local reports.

The suit claims that the city is breaking the law in two areas
when it comes to DUI.  The first involves a fee that forces a
suspect to pay when a large emergency response is needed to make
the arrest.  

Even though their arrest requires no more police presence than a
traffic citation, many DUI suspects are being charged this fee,
according to an attorney.

It has also been alleged that the city is collecting booking
fees before it gets a conviction.  The fees can allegedly add up
to hundreds of dollars.

For now damages sought in the case are minimal.  However, they
could rise since the case is a class action, according to the
report.


CARE MANAGEMENT FIRMS: Face Suit Over Medicaid Payments in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peach State Health Plan Inc., AMGP Georgia Managed Care Co. Inc.
and Wellcare of Georgia Inc. are defendants in a purported class
action filed in Fulton County Superior Court over allegations
that they failed to make required payments to doctors in
Georgia's Medicaid system, according to the Associated Press.

Attorney Roderick E. Edmond filed the suit on behalf of a dozen
doctors and medical offices on Aug. 15.  The suit claims that
the health firms' failure to make the payments resulted in
suffering for patients and disruptions to medical practices.  It
is seeking class-action status.

The three care management organizations have state contracts to
administer the Medicaid system in the metro Atlanta and central
Georgia region, according to the complaint.

The managed-care Medicaid system was unveiled last June, which
according to state officials was designed to halt the rapid
growth of Medicaid.  

At the same time the system was also designed to improve care by
steering Medicaid patients toward regular preventive health care
and away from unnecessary use of emergency rooms.

The system was introduced in stages.  It currently covers about
600,000 patients and by the next month it is supposed to cover
1.2 million patients.

The lawsuit claims that the three named defendants misstated
their ability to administer the program and have failed to pay
doctors in the plan.

For more details, contact Roderick E. Edmon of Edmond & Jones,
LLP, Candler Building, 127 Peachtree Street NE, Suite #410,
Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: (404) 525-1080, Fax: (404) 525-1073.


DECATUR HOTELS: Immigrants File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Decatur Hotels, LLC and its president, F. Patrick Quinn, III,
face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana over alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, The Associated Press reports.

The suit claims that the company violated certain provision of
FLSA when it failed to reimburse workers for the exorbitant fees
they paid to aggressive labor recruiters working as agents for
the hotel chain.

It was filed on behalf of 82 guest workers that were mostly
employed in housekeeping, maintenance and other hotel support
jobs.

Attorney Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center's
Immigrant Justice Project helped file the lawsuit.  She said
that workers were lured by recruiters in their home countries
with promises of high wages and steady work.

According to her, the workers spent between $3,500 to $5,000 for
travel and other expenses, which Decatur Hotels was obligated to
reimburse during the first week of employment.  

However, Ms. Bauer states that the workers were never reimbursed
and have not been given the overtime hours they expected to help
quickly recover the costs of their passage.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the company abused a visa
program for unskilled non-agricultural workers to get immigrant
laborers.

For more details, contact Mary C. Bauer of the Southern Poverty
Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project, 400 Washington Avenue,
Montgomery, AL 36104, Phone: 334-956-8200, E-mail:
mbauer@splcenter.org.


DEL MONTE: Parties Reach $400,000 Settlement in Ore. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Fresh Foods and eight ex-workers have agreed to a
$400,000 settlement in a class action pending in Multnomah
County Circuit Court, Oregon, according to the Oregonian.

The suit accuses the food processor and a temporary staffing
firm it worked with of violating state law by firing workers for
complaining about safety concerns and by withholding overtime
pay, break periods and safety gear from hundreds of workers.

According to Keith Cunningham-Parmeter of the Oregon Law Center,
one of the workers' legal representative, the settlement could
benefit as many as 1,800 former workers.

Under the agreement, Del Monte denied any wrongdoing.  Never the
less it agreed to pay $5,000 to each of the eight fired workers
who alleged discrimination.  It also deposited $301,709 into a
settlement fund for the class-action claims.

The case stems from a dispute around a scheduled shift that was
supposed to begin at midnight on New Year's Day 2005 at Del
Monte's food processing plant in North Portland.  

As the holiday neared, plant workers agreed to meet at their
temporary employment firm, Quality Manual Labor Inc., to have
the midnight hour with their families.  Several workers showed
up on Dec. 30 to make their request to the firm's co-owner David
Moore and his assistant, Laurence Rivera.

However, according to complaints and interview records filed
with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and Multnomah
County Circuit Court, both Messrs. Rivera and Moore rejected the
request and told the workers that everyone was required to work.

An argument later ensued between Messrs. Moore and Rivera and
the workers.  The argument resulted in the firing of the
workers.  

On Jan. 28, 2005, the fired workers filed complaints with the
Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries alleging QML violated
state law in regards to their firing.

In February, they met with Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter at the Oregon
Law Center, a nonprofit legal services organization that
represents low-income clients.  

In September 2005, while waiting for the labor bureau to
complete its investigation, Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter filed a
lawsuit in Multnomah County Circuit Court against Del Monte,
repeating allegations made against QML.

During the case, Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter requested wage records
from both QML and Del Monte.  He would later discover that
workers on numerous occasions had worked 12, 14 or 16 hours a
day with no overtime pay.

In November 2005, Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter threatened to file a
class action against Del Monte and QML, alleging that both had
violated state wage-and-hour rules:

      -- by failing to provide daily uninterrupted meal periods
         and 10-minute rest periods for every four hours
         employees worked; and

      -- by requiring workers to put on and take off their
         protective aprons and gloves off-the-clock and to
         purchase protective work gloves for 50 cents a pair.

In December, a labor bureau investigator found that QML had
violated the workers' rights under state law.  A month later,
the employment firm and its owners disappeared, according to Mr.
Cunningham-Parmeter.  

On Feb. 27, 2006, Del Monte and Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter met and
reached a settlement with the help of a U.S. Department of
Agriculture mediator.

Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter said the deal could benefit as many as
1,800 people who worked at Del Monte from 2003 to 2005.  But he
said he expects 300 to 600 claims, resulting in payouts of $500
to $1,000 a person.  For its part, the Oregon Law Center will
receive $58,291 for attorney fees and costs.

As part of the settlement, Del Monte also agreed to ensure that
it pays overtime, provides meal breaks and pays workers for
putting on and off protective uniforms.

For more details, contact The Oregon Law Center, 813 SW Alder,
Suite 500, Portland, OR 97205, Phone (503) 224-2414 Ext. 122 and
1-800-898-5594, Fax: (503) 295-0676.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harold Baer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified an interlocutory appeal of his
prior decision denying a motion to dismiss a Section 10(b)
claim, finding a substantial ground for difference of opinion
about the standard for pleading scienter of a corporate entity.

In the case "In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Sec. Litigation, 2006 WL
1517580", Judge Baer had held that scienter could be adequately
alleged with respect to the corporation even where scienter was
not adequately pleaded as to any particular employee, but then
found existing case law sufficiently murky to warrant
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit to clarify the standard.

The 'Dynex' case is a putative class action against Dynex
Capital Inc., its subsidiary, Merit Securities Corp., and two
corporate officers for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act in connection with the sale of asset-
backed bonds.

The judge concluded that it is likely that there can be no
single bright-line rule for pleading and proving corporate
scienter in all cases.

In a case concerning a limited transaction that involves only
two relevant corporate agents, it may be clear, even at the
pleading stage, that if there is no adequate pleading of
scienter for the two individuals to permit a Section 10(b)
claim, then the case also should not proceed against the
corporation.

In contrast, in a case where the allegations concern a
widespread course of conduct involving numerous corporate agents
linked to a credible corporate motive, as Dynex appears to be,
it is reasonable to infer at the pleading stage that one or more
corporate agents must have possessed the requisite scienter.

Discovery will either support that inference or not, and the
plaintiff generally will be required to proffer evidence of
knowledge and conduct residing together in at least one
individual at the summary judgment or trial stage to establish
corporate liability.


GENZYME CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Biosurgery Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp. remains a defendant in several purported class
actions regarding the exchange of all of the outstanding shares
of Biosurgery Stock and for shares of the company's stock.  

Initially four lawsuits were filed against the company regarding
the exchange in connection with the elimination of the company's
tracking stocks in July 2003.  Each of the lawsuits is a
purported class action on behalf of holders of Biosurgery Stock.  

The first case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May
2003, alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing in the company's charter and a breach of its board
of directors' fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff in this case
sought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio for the
tracking stock exchange.

The court dismissed the complaint in November 2003, but the
plaintiff has appealed this dismissal.  This appeal was argued
before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in March 2005 and the
company is awaiting the Appeals Court's ruling.  

Two substantially similar cases were filed in Massachusetts
Superior Court in August and October 2003.  These cases were
consolidated in January 2004, and in July 2004, the consolidated
case was stayed pending disposition of a fourth case, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York in June 2003.

That complaint initially alleged violations of federal
securities laws, common law fraud, and a breach of the merger
agreement with Biomatrix, Inc. in addition to the state law
claims contained in the other cases.  The plaintiffs initially
sought an adjustment to the exchange ratio, the rescission of
the acquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified compensatory
damages.

In November 2005, the plaintiffs in this case dropped all of the
claims alleged in the initial complaint relating to the initial
issuance of Biosurgery Stock and the acquisition of Biomatrix,
and narrowed the putative class to include only those
individuals who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and
to oppose the class certification.  Discovery in this case was
put on hold pending resolution of these motions.

Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Genzyme Corp. (NASDAQ: GENZ) on
the Net: http://www.genzyme.com/.


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Plaintiffs in MD. Stock Suit Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint was filed in the consolidated
securities class action, "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW," which was
filed against Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.

Between June 22, 2004 and July 1, 2004, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the company, four in
the Eastern District of New York and one in the Eastern District
of Virginia:

     -- "Twist Partners v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et
         al., No. 1:04-cv-02585 (filed 06/22/2004, E.D.N.Y);"

     -- "Shapiro v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02681 (filed 06/28/2004, E.D.N.Y.);"

     -- "Imperato v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., No. 1:04-      
         cv-02736 (filed 06/30/2004, E.D.N.Y.);"

     -- "Walters v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02826 (filed 07/01/2004, E.D.N.Y.); and

     -- "Browne v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-715 (filed 06/23/2004, E.D. Va.)."

The complaints asserted that the company's reported revenues
were inflated through certain billing improprieties at one of
the company's facilities.  The plaintiffs in Browne subsequently
dismissed their complaint without prejudice, and the four
remaining cases were consolidated into a single action in the
Eastern District of New York as, "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:04-cv-2585."  

On Feb. 15, 2005, the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The amended complaint asserts that the company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the company's facilities.  

In addition, the amended complaint asserts that the company
violated the federal securities laws in connection with a
restatement announced by the company on Aug. 16, 2004, restating
certain of the company's financial statements during 2001
through the first quarter of 2004.  

The amended complaint purports to allege violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by certain of the company's executives as
"controlling persons" of the company.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the consolidated securities class action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.  

On June 12, 2006, a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed against the company in the District of
Maryland, "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW."

The Second Amended Complaint asserts that the company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the company's facilities.

In addition, the Second Amended Complaint asserts that the
company violated the federal securities laws in connection with
a restatement announced by the company on Aug. 16, 2004,
restating certain of the company's financial statements during
2001 through the first quarter of 2004.

The Second Amended Complaint purports to allege violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the company's
executives as "controlling persons" of the company.

The company has not yet filed its response to the Second Amended
Complaint.  

The suit is "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge
Alexander Williams, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         and Robbins, LLP, 58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax:
         16313671173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) John Bucher Isbister of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP, 100
         E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
         14107529714, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:
         jisbister@tydingslaw.com.  

Representing the company is James Christian Word of Latham and
Watkins, LLP, 11955 Freedom Dr., Ste. 500, Reston, VA 20190,
Phone: 17034565226, Fax: 17034591001, E-mail:
christian.word@lw.com.


HILB ROGAL: Bensley Voluntarily Dismisses N.J. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey in the class action,
"Bensley Construction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
et al.," which names Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. as one of the
defendants.

In May 2005, Bensley Construction filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Case
No. ESCV2005-00277) against the company and certain large
commercial insurers and brokers.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that the broker defendants entered into contingent
commission agreements with the insurer defendants without
disclosing the existence and/or terms of the agreements to
clients to whom the defendants owed a fiduciary duty and that
certain of the defendants engaged in a bid-rigging and customer
allocation scheme to maximize their revenues under the
contingent commission agreements.

The plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty,
breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages for each member of the
class in an amount not to exceed $74,999 per class member, costs
and other relief.

The defendants removed the case to federal court and it was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey to be consolidated with the other cases that comprise,
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1663."

On June 22, 2006, Bensley Construction filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, voluntarily dismissing Bensley
Construction's claims in this matter with prejudice.

The suit is "Bensley Construction Inc., et al. v. Marsh &
Mclennan Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00716-FSH-PS," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Brooks of Martland & Brooks, LLP, Stonehill
         Corporate Center, Suite 500, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA
         01906, US, Phone: 617-742-9720; and

     (2) Douglas J. Hoffman of Gilman And Pastor, LLP, 60 State
         St., 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, US, Phone: 617-742-
         9700.

Representing the defendants is Juliane Balliro and Christine
Marie Griffin of Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis, One Boston Place,
40th Floor, Boston, MA 02108, US, Phone: 617-226-4000.


HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs in Antitrust Suit Ask to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on the motion for class certification of certain
complaint in the class action, "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL-1663," which names Hilb Rogal
& Hobbs Co. as one of the defendants.

In August 2004, OptiCare Health Systems Inc. filed a putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No. 04-CV-06954) against a number of
the country's largest insurance brokers and several large
commercial insurers.  Hilb Rogal was named as a defendant in the
OptiCare suit in November 2004.

In December 2004, two other purported class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Stephen Lewis (Case No. 04-C-7847) and Diane Preuss (Case No.
04-C-7853), respectively, against certain insurance brokers,
including the company, and several large commercial insurers.

On Feb. 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that the OptiCare suit, along with three other purported
antitrust class actions filed in New York, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania against industry participants, be centralized and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In addition, by Conditional Transfer Order dated March 10, 2005,
the Panel conditionally transferred the Lewis and Preuss cases
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
transfer subsequently became effective and as a result of the
Panel's transfer orders, the OptiCare, Lewis and Preuss cases
are proceeding on a consolidated basis with other purported
class actions in "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. MDL-1663, Master Docket No. 2:04-cv-5184."

                Commercial Class Action Complaint

On Aug. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in MDL 1663 filed a First
Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint (the
Commercial Complaint) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Civil No. 04-5184) against the company
and certain other insurance brokers and insurers.

In the Commercial Complaint, the named plaintiffs purport to
represent a class consisting of all persons who, between Aug.
26, 1994 and the date on which class certification may occur,
engaged the services of any one of the broker defendants or any
of their subsidiaries or affiliates to obtain advice with
respect to the procurement or renewal of insurance and who
entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the
insurer defendants.

The plaintiffs allege in the Commercial Complaint, among other
things:

      -- that the broker defendants engaged in improper steering
         of clients to the insurer defendants for the purpose of
         obtaining undisclosed additional compensation in the
         form of contingent commissions from insurers;

      -- that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging
         scheme involving the submission of false and/or
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;

      -- that the broker defendants improperly placed their
         clients' insurance business with insurers through
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
         commissions from insurers;

      -- that the broker defendants entered into unlawful tying
         arrangements to obtain reinsurance business from the
         defendant insurers; and

      -- that the defendants created centralized internal
         departments for the purpose of monitoring, facilitating
         and advancing the collection of contingent commissions,
         payments and other improper fees.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and (d), fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.

                   Employee Benefits Complaint

In addition, the plaintiffs in MDL 1663 also filed on Aug. 1,
2005 a First Consolidated Amended Employee Benefits Class Action
Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against:

     * the company;
     * Frank F. Haack & Associates, Inc.;
     * O'Neill, Finnegan & Jordan Insurance Agency Inc.; and      
     * certain other insurance brokers and insurers.

In the Employee Benefits Complaint (Civil Nos. 04-5184, et al.),
the named plaintiffs purport to represent two separate classes
consisting of ERISA and non-ERISA plan employees and employers,
respectively, that have acquired insurance products from the
defendants in connection with an employee benefit plan between
Aug. 26, 1994 and the date on which class certification may
occur.

Plaintiffs allege in the Employee Benefits Complaint, among
other things:

      -- that the broker defendants secretly conspired with the
         insurer defendants to steer plaintiffs and members of
         the classes to the insurer defendants in exchange for
         undisclosed fees, including communication fees,
         enrollment fees, service fees, finders fees and/or
         administrative fees, contingent commissions and other
         payments, including broker bonuses, trips and
         entertainment, from the insurer defendants;

     -- that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging scheme
        involving the submission of false and/or inflated bids
        from insurers to clients;

     -- that the broker defendants improperly placed their
        clients' insurance business with insurers through
        related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
        unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
        commissions from insurers; and

     -- that the defendants entered into unlawful tying
        arrangements under which the broker defendants would
        place primary insurance contracts with insurers on the
        condition that the insurers use the broker defendants
        for placing their reinsurance coverage with reinsurance
        carriers.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and (d), fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble and punitive
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution,
interest, attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.

The company, along with other defendants, filed a motion to
dismiss both the Commercial Complaint and the Employee Benefits
Complaint.  The motion is now fully briefed and awaiting a
decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Also, on Feb. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motions for
class certification in each case.  On May 5, 2006, the
defendants filed their oppositions to the motions for class
certification.  On May 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a reply
brief in support of their motions for class certification.  The
motion for class certification is now fully briefed and awaiting
a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, 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.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. MDL-1663, Master Docket No. 2:04-cv-5184," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Faith S. Hochberg.

Representing the company are:

     (1) Michael R. Griffinger of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan,
         Griffinger & Vecchione, PC, One Riverfront Plaza,
         Newark, NJ 07102-5496, Phone: (973) 596-4500, E-mail:
         griffinger@gibbonslaw.com; and

     (2) Shawn Patrick Regan of Hunton & Williams, LLP, 200 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: (212) 309-1046, E-
         mail: sregan@hunton.com.


HILB ROGAL: Va. Securities Fraud Complaint Dismissal Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of an amended complaint
in the purported securities fraud class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. and certain of its officers.

The Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund has filed a putative
class action complaint against the company and Andrew L. Rogal,
Martin L. Vaughan, III, Timothy J. Korman, Carolyn Jones, Robert
W. Blanton, Jr. and Robert B. Lockhart.

The plaintiff alleges violations by each of the defendants of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2005, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
putative class action complaint.  On April 27, 2006, an order
was entered granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  On May 23,
2006, the plaintiff appealed this order.  

The suit is "Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal &
Hobbs Co. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00735-GBL-TCB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Benjamin Joseph Weir of Finkelstein Thompson &
         Loughran, 1050 30th St NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone:
         (202) 337-8000; and

     (2) Harvey B. Cohen of Miles & Stockbridge, PC, 1751
         Pinnacle Dr., Suite 500, McLean, VA 22102-3833, Phone:
         (703) 903-9000.

Representing the defendant is Terence James Rasmussen of Hunton
& Williams, LLP, 951 E. Byrd St., Riverfront Plaza, Richmond, VA
23219, Phone: (804) 788-8200.


INTEL CORP: Asks Permission to Subpoena ATI in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. asked the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware for permission to serve a subpoena on graphics chipset
manufacturer ATI Technologies in relation to an antitrust suit
filed against it by Advanced Micro Devices, IDG News Service
reports.  

The move is aimed at expanding its defense, the report said.  
Intel is trying to find out how AMD's planned acquisition of ATI
will affect its ability to compete in the microprocessor market.  
Specifically, it wants to know the transaction's strategic
rationale; the effect of the acquisition on competition in
chipsets, graphics chips and microprocessors; and the effect of
the transaction on Intel or AMD business practices.

The deadline to file requests for subpoena was June 15, but
Intel is asking for permission to file a late request because it
learned only later that the documents held by ATI may be
significant in the case, and because AMD's plan to buy ATI was
publicly disclosed only on July 24.

AMD's legal counsel did not object to the request to file the
subpoena.  According to The Inquirer, AMD lawyers said they
don't view all the information requested as appropriate, but
they don't think the nature of the subpoena breaches the
production rules set by the court.

In June 2005, AMD filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware alleging that the company and its
Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of
the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions  
Code, including providing secret and discriminatory discounts
and rebates and intentionally interfering with prospective
business advantages of AMD.  

AMD's complaint sought unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.  
Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits in the  
Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against the
company's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's  
Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55
million, plus various other costs and fees.  

A suit, "In re Intel Corp. Antitrust Litigation, Case No.  
1:05-md-01717-JJF," is currently before U.S. District Judge
Joseph Farnan Jr.

On April 20, the judge stated that the suit by AMD will be tried
first, in 2008.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,  
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,  
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 263-0594, E-mail:  
         steve@hbsslaw.com;    

     (2) R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine  
         St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111, US, Phone:  
         415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail:  
         rick@saveri.com; and  

     (3) Michael P. Lehmann of The Furth Firm, LLP, 225 Bush  
         Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104,  
         Sonoma County Office, 10300 Chalk Hill Road,  
         Healdsburg, California 95448, Phone: (415) 433-2070,  
         Fax: (415) 982-2076, E-mail: mplehmann@furth.com.   

Representing the company are:  

     (i) David Mark Balabanian and Joy K. Fuyuno of Bingham  
         McCutchen, LLP, Three Embarcadero Center, San  
         Francisco, CA 94111-4067, US, Phone: 415-393-2000, E-  
         mail: david.balabanian@bingham.com and  
         joy.fuyuno@bingham.com; and  

    (ii) Jef Feibelman of Burch Porter & Johnson, 130 N. Court  
         Ave., Memphis, TN 38103, US, Phone: 901-524-5000, E-  
         mail: jfeibelman@bpjlaw.com.   


MCDONALD'S CORP: Ill. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss "Selbst"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss a third amended
complaint in the securities class action filed against
McDonald's Corp. and certain of its officers and directors,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

The suit, "Allan Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., Jack M. Greenberg,
Matthew H. Paull and Michael J. Roberts," was filed on April 2,
2004 over allegations of federal securities laws violations.  
Two nearly identical actions were subsequently filed in the same
court.  

On Oct. 19, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its amended and
consolidated class action complaint, alleging, among other
things, that the company and individual defendants misled
investors by issuing false and misleading financial reports and
earnings projections in a series of press releases and other
public statements between Dec. 14, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2003,
thereby overstating the company's current and anticipated
earnings.

The amended complaint seeks class action certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 21, 2005, the court denied this
motion.  The lead plaintiff then filed its First Amended
Complaint on Oct. 7, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30,
2005).

On May 17, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, giving the
plaintiffs another chance to state a claim.

On June 16, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.  On July 17, 2006, the defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the complaint.

The suit is "Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-02422," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge Blanche M. Manning.

Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100.

Representing the Company is Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland &
Ellis LLP (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100,
Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
rkopecky@kirkland.com.  


MEDIA COS: Aug. 28 Hearing Set for DVD Labeling Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a fairness
hearing on Aug. 28, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed
settlement of the case, "Boltz v. Buena Vista Home
Entertainment, Inc., et al. Case No. BC 323842."  

The hearing will be held before Judge Anthony J. Mohr, in  
Department 309, Central Civil West Courthouse, 600 S.  
Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.

The suit is a class action alleging that certain motion picture  
producers and distributors misled consumers by inaccurately  
describing the nature of the closed captioning and/or subtitling  
provided on their DVDs.

Named as defendants (Settling Companies) in the case are:  

      -- Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.,  
      -- The Walt Disney Company,  
      -- Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,  
      -- Warner Home Video Inc.,  
      -- Universal Studios Home Entertainment LLC,  
      -- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.,  
      -- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment LLC,  
      -- Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.,  
      -- Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Inc., and  
      -- Tri-Star Pictures, Inc.  

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled
consumers by displaying a captioning symbol or stating
"captioning," "captioned," "subtitled" or "subtitling" on
certain DVD packaging when the main feature presentation was  
captioned, closed captioned, or subtitled but some or all of the  
DVD "bonus material" was not.  

The Settling Companies have denied liability, but have agreed to  
settle this action to avoid litigation by, in the future,  
providing:

      -- captioning or closed captioning of bonus material on
         major categories of DVDs they distribute over the next
         five (5) years;

      -- paying $275,000 to certain non-profit organizations
         dedicated to advocacy for deaf and hard-of-hearing
         persons; and  

      -- paying attorneys' fees and costs (including any
         incentive award to named plaintiff) up to $1,300,000  
         in exchange for the release of claims, as more fully
         specified in the settlement agreements.  

The proposed settlement affects and includes these U.S.  
residents:  

      -- all persons with any hearing loss who, before Apr. 27,  
         2006, have purchased, rented or otherwise obtained a  
         VHS, Laser Disk, DVD, or other home video product  
         produced and/or distributed by any of the Settling  
         Companies (Home Video Product), or on whose behalf such  
         a Home Video Product was so obtained; and  

      -- all other persons who, within the class period,  
         purchased, rented or otherwise obtained such a Home  
         Video Product or on whose behalf such a Home Video  
         Product was so obtained for use with or with the  
         expectation that it contained captioning or closed  
         captioning.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) DVD 'CC' Labeling Class Settlement, c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., P.O. Box 91041, Seattle, WA 98111-9141,
         Web site: http://www.dvdcclabelingclasssettlement.com;

     (2) Robert W. Mills, Esq., and Harry Shulman, Esq., The  
         Mills Law Firm, 145 Marina Boulevard, San Rafael,  
         California 94901, Phone: (415) 455-1326, Fax: (415)
         455-1327, E-mail: dvdsettlement@themillsfirm.com, Web
         site: http://www.millslawfirm.com;and  

     (3) Robert M. Bramson, Esq. of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &  
         Birkhaeuser, LLP, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120,  
         Walnut Creek, California 94598, Phone: (925) 945-0200,
         Fax: 925-945-8792, E-mail: RBramson@bramsonplutzik.com,
         Web site: http://www.bramsonplutzik.com/.


MERRILL LYNCH: Investors Get Class Status for Enron-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Melinda Harmon has granted class-
action status to individual shareholders suing Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. and other investment banks for fraud related to their
underwriting of Enron Corp. securities.

Merrill Lynch is one of more than a dozen defendants in class
actions and derivative actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York in Oct. 2005 related to
the sale of securities of Refco Inc., which announced that it
was filing for bankruptcy on Oct. 18, 2005 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 28, 2005).  

These suits allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws and state laws in connection with the sale of  
Refco securities, including the Refco initial public offering in  
August 2005.  Merrill Lynch was not one of the three book-
running managers in that offering, but was nevertheless named as
a defendant in connection with its role as an underwriter of
those securities.


MURPHY OIL: October 2006 Trial Set for Crude Oil Spill Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
scheduled a tentative October 2006 trial for the consolidated
class action, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.," which was filed
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries.  

On Sept. 9, 2005, a class action was filed seeking unspecified
damages to a class comprised of residents of St. Bernard Parish
who were claiming damages caused by a release of crude oil at
the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Murphy Oil USA, Inc.'s
Meraux, Louisiana, refinery as a result of flooding damage to a
crude oil storage tank following Hurricane Katrina.

The suit was filed by property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on
behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  

The court certified the class on Jan. 30, 2006 and a trial as to
liability is scheduled to commence in October 2006.

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common  
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-  
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,  
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,  
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.  
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.  
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:  
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over 2003 La. Miraux Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated class
action filed in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana over the June 10,
2003 fire that severely damaged the Residual Oil Supercritical
Extraction (ROSE) unit at the company's Meraux, Louisiana
refinery, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel.  Subsequent to the
fire, numerous class actions have been filed seeking damages for
area residents.  

All the lawsuits have been administratively consolidated into a
single legal action in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for
one such action, which was filed in federal court.  

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the company's liability insurers.  In
responding to this direct action, one of the company's insurers,
AEGIS, has raised lack of coverage as a defense.

El Dorado, Arkansas-based Murphy Oil Corp. (NYSE: MUR) --
http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/-- is a global oil and gas  
exploration, and production company with refining and marketing
operations in North America and the United Kingdom.


NASHUA CORP: Court Dismisses Appeal in Cerion Securities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court rejected a plaintiff's appeal on a decision
by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to dismiss a
consolidated class action filed against Nashua Corp. on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cerion between
May 24, 1996 and July 9, 1996.

Two individual plaintiffs filed suits in August and September
1996.  The suits were later consolidated.  The suit was filed
against the company, Cerion Technologies, Inc., certain
directors and officers of Cerion, and the company's underwriter.

In March 1997, the same individual plaintiffs joined by a third
plaintiff in filing a consolidated amended class action
complaint.  The consolidated complaint alleged that, in
connection with Cerion's initial public offering, the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted
the disclosure of material facts regarding, in particular,
certain significant customer relationships.

In October 1997, the Circuit Court, on motion by the defendants,
dismissed the consolidated complaint.  

The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint
alleging similar claims as the first consolidated complaint
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On May 6, 1998, the Circuit Court, on motion by the defendants,
dismissed with prejudice the Second amended consolidated
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed with the Appellate Court an
appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling.

On Nov. 19, 1999, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit
Court's ruling that dismissed the second amended consolidated
complaint.  The Appellate Court ruled that the second amended
consolidated complaint represented a valid claim and sent the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

On Dec. 27, 1999, the company filed a petition with the Supreme
Court of Illinois.  In that petition, the company asked the
Supreme Court of Illinois to determine whether the Circuit Court
or the Appellate Court is correct.  That petition was denied and
the case was sent to the Circuit Court for trial.

On Oct. 8, 2003, the Circuit Court heard motions on a summary
judgment motion and a class action certification motion.  On
Aug. 16, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2005, the plaintiffs
appealed the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment with the
Appeals Court.  

On Apr. 21, 2006, the company filed its brief in response to the
plaintiff's appeal.  On June 30, 2006, the Appellate Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the Aug. 16, 2005 order by
the Circuit Court which granted the defendants motion for
Summary Judgment.

The suit is "ILL Student Assist v. Nashua Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1994-M1-146053," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois under Judge Robert Quinn.

Representing the plaintiffs is Wexler & Wexler, 500 W. Madison
#2910, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: (312) 474-1000.


NATIONAL HOUSING: Suit Against Papua New Guinea's NHC Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Court in Papua New Guinea dismissed a class action
filed by tenants of Salamanda Flats in Lae against the National
Housing Corp., according to The National.

The tenants, at least 64 of them, filed the suit to block the
housing authority from evicting them, and to get approval to
purchase the flats they live in from the NHC.  They had
previously complained of rental increase, and sued when the
housing authority tried to evict them on failure to pay rent.  
They had obtained an interim order in June to prevent their
eviction.

However, in a recent court ruling, National Court Justice Sao
Gabi ruled the tenants do not have a cause of action to file the
suit.  He said the plaintiffs based their case on certain
decisions of the National Executive Council about the sale of
property to tenants, which is not binding.

He said there is no evidence that defendants offered any of the
plaintiff a chance to purchase a flat.  An offer that he found
was for somebody who is not party to the proceedings.

The National Housing Corp.'s principal legal officer is Anthony
Waira.


NEBRASKA: Court Reverses Certification of NAS' Abuse Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis decertified a
class action alleging abuse of female patients at Nebraska's
three mental health hospitals, according to Associated Press.

On Dec. 12, 2002, Nebraska Advocacy Services, Inc., The Center
for Disability Rights, Law, and Advocacy, filed a civil rights
action in federal court on behalf of 16 women.  All of the women
are or were patients at Nebraska's State mental health
facilities: Norfolk Regional Center, Hastings Regional Center,
and Lincoln Regional Center.  

Plaintiffs said that many of them have a history of being
sexually abused.  NAS alleged that the State of Nebraska did not
protect the women from physical and sexual assaults by male
hospital workers and patients while they were at the Regional
Centers and that the State did not provide the women with mental
health programs designed to treat the effects of their past
sexual abuse.  

In filing the lawsuit, NAS requested systemic reform and relief
at the Regional Centers to protect the women from further harm
and for changes in the provision of mental health services.

NAS filed a motion and brief for class certification on March
18, 2005.  This motion and brief were filed on behalf of the
women who were sexually abused while at Nebraska's state mental
health facilities.  They were filed to expand the current
lawsuit against the state of Nebraska on behalf of the women to
show the magnitude of abuse by male hospital workers and
patients while the women have been receiving treatment at
Nebraska's Regional Centers.

Changing the case to a class action allows the court to see
approximately how many women were abused in each of the Regional
Centers.  It is estimated that at least 1,000 women who have
been or are currently patients have been abused in some way at
the Regional Centers.

In May 2005, U.S. District Judge Lyle Strom certified the suit
despite the state's arguments that past female patients could
not be certified as class members because they would "no longer
be subject to an ongoing violation of federal law."  That time,
14 of the 16 named plaintiffs no longer resided at any of the
three hospitals.

In decertifying the suit, the appeals court said Judge Strom
"went too far," according to the report.

The appeals court said "the district court abused its discretion
by including present and former residents in a single,
essentially unmanageable class."

Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Barbara Ramsey, chief executive at the Lincoln Regional
        Center;
     -- Richard Gamel, chief executive officer at Hastings
        Regional Center;
     -- Y. Scott Moore, M.D., Clinical Director at the Lincoln
        Regional Center;
     -- Stephen O'Neill, M.D., Clinical director at the Norfolk
        Regional Center; and
     -- Richard Dyer, M.D., director at the Hastings Regional
        Center.

The case is "Elizabeth M., Selena et al. v. Ron D. Ross,
director of Nebraska Health and Human Services System, et al.,
Case No. 8:02-CV-585," filed in the U.S. District court for the
District of Nebraska.

Representing the plaintiff are Bruce G. Mason, Shirley Mora
James and Michael J. Elsken at Nebraska Avocacy Services, Inc.,
134 South 13th St., Suite 600, Lincoln, N.E. 68508, Phone: (402)
474-3183; Fax: (402) 474-3273; E-mail: bruce@nas-pa.org,
shirley@nas-pa.org, mike@nas-pa.org.


NOBLE ENERGY: April 2007 Trial Set for Patina Oil Case in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 24, 2007 trial date is scheduled for the class action,
"Jack Holman, et al. v. Patina Oil & Gas Corp., Case No. 03-CV-
09," which was filed in the District Court for Weld County,
Colorado.  Patina Oil has since merged with Noble Energy, Inc.

The suit was initially filed in January 2003.  Plaintiff sought
to certify the case as a class action based upon the Colorado
Supreme Court's ruling in "Rogers v. Westerman Farm Co."  The
suit alleges that the company had improperly deducted certain
costs in connection with its calculation of royalty payments
relating to its Colorado operations.  

Essentially, the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in
"Rogers," back in July 2001 resulted in uncertainty regarding
the deductibility of certain post-production costs from payments
to be made to royalty interest owners.

In May 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint narrowing
the class of potential plaintiffs, and thereafter filed a motion
seeking to certify the narrowed class as described in the
amended complaint.   

The class certification motion was heard on Sept. 22, 2005 and
granted on Oct. 13, 2005.  The Colorado Supreme Court denied the
defendant's petition for review on Nov. 23, 2005.

The matter has been set for trial scheduled to commence April
24, 2007.

Houston, Texas-based Noble Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NBL) --
http://www.nobleenergyinc.com/-- is engaged, directly or  
through its subsidiaries, in the exploration, production and
marketing of crude oil and natural gas.  Exploration activities
include geophysical and geological evaluation, and exploratory
drilling on properties for which the company has exploration
rights.


NORTH CAROLINA: Homeowner Barred from Joining Developers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson denied a
request by a Durham County homeowner to share in the multi-
million dollar school impact fee recently refunded to local
homebuilders, the News & Observer reports.

An attorney for homeowner Kevin E. Jones claim his client and
others who bought homes in Durham County are entitled to a part
of the money because the cost of the fee was passed along to
them in the purchase price of their homes.

Judges Rick Elmore, Doug McCullough and Eric Levinson of the
North Carolina Court of Appeals ordered the county on June 6 to
repay the more than $7.5 million school impact fees it has
collected from developers over the last two-and-a-half years,
saying it was unlawful and void (Class Action Reporter, June 15,
2006).  The county's collection was held in escrow pending a
resolution of the case.

Counties collect the fees from developers to offset the "impact"
of school construction costs generated by residential growth.  
Durham county started collecting the fees without state
legislative approval in January 2004.

Developers sued.  In January 2005, Superior Court Judge Orlando
Hudson ruled in their favor.  The county appealed and was
allowed to keep collecting the fees pending the appeals court's
decision.

On appeal, the court ruled that "While a laudable goal, the
county must have statutory authority to pass the ordinance
requiring the fee."

After the suit was settled, Mr. Jones' attorney, Edward J.
Coyne, filed court papers in an attempt to joint the lawsuit.  
While he was alone in the suit, he had hoped to lead a class
action representing the more than 4,000 residents who bought
homes while the county was assessing the fee, the report said.

The county's attorney is Chuck Kitchen, 600 Superior Ave. E.,
Cleveland, Ohio (Cuyahoga Co.).  The developers' lawyer is
Hank Fordham of Stam, Fordham & Danchi, P.A., 510 West Williams
Street, P.O. Box 1600, Apex, North Carolina 27502 (Wake Co.),
Phone: 919-362-8873, Fax: 919-387-1171.


QUINTUS CORP: Reaches $10M Settlement in Calif. Stock Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a hearing on Oct. 19, 2006 at 2 p.m. to approve a
$10.10 million settlement of the class action, "In Re Quintus
Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-4263 VRW."

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired the common stock of Quintus Corp. between Nov. 15, 1999
and Nov. 15, 2000, inclusive.

The hearing will be before Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, located at
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

Deadline to file proof of claim is Nov. 22, 2006.  Deadline to
file for exclusion is Sept. 28, 2006.  Filings are to be sent
to: Quintus Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims
Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Fax:
(516) 931-0810, Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims.

Quintus reached a settlement in connection with all of the
securities litigation involving Quintus and its former officers
and directors in 2004 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2004).  
This litigation includes a class action pending in the federal
district Court for the Northern District of California, state
Court lawsuits in California and Texas and suits and claims in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Under the terms of the settlement then, the various plaintiff
groups will be paid a total of $13 million.  Quintus will
contribute $1 million of this amount from existing cash, while
the remaining $12 million will be paid by certain insurers and
Quintus' former auditors.  The settling parties will exchange
releases.  The settlement is subject to court approval by both
the federal court in California and the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court.  The settlement funds will only be disbursed after the
required Court approval.

Terms of the settlement also include the reacquisition or
subordination of certain shares of Quintus stock held by its
former chief executive officer and its former chief financial
officer.

Headquartered in Dublin, California, Quintus Corp., develops and
provides comprehensive electronic customer relationship
management software, applications and services.  The company and
its affilicates filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 22, 2001
(Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 01-00501 through 01-00503).

Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are   
Jordan L. Lurie and Leigh A. Parker at Weiss & Lurie, 10940
Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:
(310) 208-2800.


REFCO INC: GMWL Class Plaintiffs Want Debtors' Request Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Global Management Worldwide Limited, on behalf of a putative
class representing securities brokerage customers of Refco
Securities, LLC, and Refco Capital Markets, Ltd., filed in
January 2006 a class action complaint pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
"In re Refco Capital Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Securities
Litigation, 06-Civ.-643 (GEL)."

The brokerage customers entrusted cash and securities to RCM and
Refco Securities, LLC, between Oct. 17, 2000, and the Petition
Date.

The complaint asserts violations of securities laws, fraud and
other unlawful actions, including claims that arise under and
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Joshua J. Angel, Esq., at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman &
Leonard, P.A., in New York, relates that the claims asserted in
the complaint arise out of a scheme on the part of Refco, Inc.,
and its subsidiaries, RSL and RCM, to steal assets belonging to
RCM/RSL customers to cover up billions of dollars of
fraudulently undisclosed losses incurred by Refco.

Mr. Angel tells Judge Drain that during the Class Period, Refco
engaged in a "Ponzi Scheme," which involved the practice of
surreptitiously selling securities held by RCM/RSL customers
with an undisclosed intent to misappropriate the proceeds.  He
says that as part of that scheme, RSL:

   (i) regularly re-circulated and kited funds with RCM;

  (ii) failed to comply with SEC Rule 15c3-3; and

(iii) failed to properly maintain or segregate RCM/RSL
       customers' assets.

Specifically, Mr. Angel notes, the class action plaintiffs
allege that the defendants engaged in the Ponzi Scheme pursuant
to which customer proceeds were transferred from RCM to Refco to
"offset" losses incurred by Refco.  These "loans" were
fraudulently omitted from Refco's consolidated financial
statements and other disclosures during the Class Period.

The claim is unliquidated, and estimated to be in an aggregate
amount in excess of $2,000,000,000.

The complaint further alleges that the RCM/RSL Customers are
"Securities Customers" of RSL.  Pursuant to SEC Rule 15a-6, RSL
was required to carry out all of the relevant brokerage
functions for those customers, including maintaining fully paid
securities and excess margin securities, as well as holding
customer assets in custody.  As a result of the Ponzi Scheme,
RSL did not carry out those functions resulting in the claimed
loss to the class.

Moreover, as introducing broker under SEC Rule 15a-6, RSL was
required to maintain all of the customer securities "held" in
RCM customer accounts.  RSL was also responsible for maintaining
customer assets pursuant to SEC Rule 15c3-3 in a special account
for customers' benefit.

In this light, the GMWL Class Plaintiffs ask the Bankruptcy
Court to deny, in its entirety, Refco's and its debtor
affiliate' request to approve a stipulation concerning
collection of intercompany claims against RSL.

The GMWL Class Plaintiffs dub the intercompany agreement
"flagrant fraudulent conveyance."  They ask the court to direct
RSL to promptly file a petition under either Chapter 7 or
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. Angel contends that if approved, the Stipulation -- in total
disregard and absolute prejudice to the claims asserted in the
complaint -- will serve to:

   (a) fraudulently strip RSL of all of its assets in derogation
       of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law;

   (b) pay in full the inferior claim of the Savings Bank of the
       Russian Federation of approximately $127,000, while
       leaving RSL insolvent and without any funds to satisfy
       the Class claims against it; and

   (c) allow Refco Capital LLC, an entity without any
       discernible present business function other than its
       central role in looting the RSL/RCM customer accounts, to
       receive nearly $50,000,000 of the funds to be transferred
       to it by RSL to be used by RCC in the ordinary course of
       administering its estate.

                         Debtors Respond

The Debtors, RSL, Refco Capital LLC, the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors, and RCM Trustee Marc Kirschner agreed to
revise the Stipulation to clarify that the Stipulation does not
constitute an order prohibiting RSL from paying its obligations.

J. Gregory Milmoe, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, in New York, argues that the merits of the Complaint
against RSL are irrelevant to the Stipulation's approval because
RSL has not sought and does not require Bankruptcy Court
approval to enter into the Stipulation.  Nor is it proper for
any RSL creditor to use a forum or an objection to RCC's
Stipulation to restrict RSL's activities, to prevent it from
paying its admitted debts, or to subject its operations or
activities to the court's jurisdiction.

Mr. Milmoe asserts that any and all disputes between the GMWL
Class Plaintiffs and RSL should be dealt with the District
court, where the class action is currently pending.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask Judge Drain to overrule the GMWL
Class Plaintiffs' objection.

               Court Approves Amended Stipulation

Under the court-approved Amended Stipulation, RSL, Refco
Capital, the RCM Trustee, and the Creditors Committee agree
that:

   (1) RSL confesses judgment of $127,459,910 debt to RCC on
       account of a series of transactions between RSL and RCC
       that occurred before the Petition Date.

   (2) RSL will pay, in full, the RCC Debt to an account
       designated by RCC, through pro rata distributions of
       "available cash" within two business days after any date
       on which Available Cash exceeds $2,000,000.

   (3) RSL is unconditionally obligated to pay RCC at least
       these aggregate percentage amounts of the RCC Debt on or
       before these dates:

          * within two business days after the parties'
            execution of the Stipulation -- 80% of the RCC Debt
            equal to $101,967,928; and

          * December 22, 2006 -- 100% of the RCC Debt, plus
            4.98% interest accruing from and after April 30,
            2006, on the unpaid portion of the RCC Debt.

   (4) Available Cash means the total amount of cash held by
       RSL, less:

          (i) the amount of third party customer segregated
              funds, RCM-related segregated funds and excess
              customer segregated funds;

         (ii) $8,000,000 less the administrative costs incurred
              and paid for by RSL after July 20, 2006; and

        (iii) any amounts reserved by RSL for distributions on
              account of all known claims against RSL to the
              extent that the amount reserved is necessary for
              their pro rata treatment.

   (5) Payments will be made through wire transfer to a separate
       segregated account designated by RCC.  The payments will
       be held in a segregated account until the Stipulation
       becomes final and no longer subject to review, at which
       time:

          (i) 60% of any payments made from RSL to RCC
              will be held in a segregated account until
              disputes related to the RCC Debt ownership are
              determined by Court order; and

         (ii) RCC will be free to use the remaining 40% of the
              funds in the ordinary course of administering its
              estate.

       All liens and encumbrances on the RCC Debt will attach to
       all payments made by RSL, including.

   (6) RCC and the Creditors Committee will forbear from taking
       any and all actions to obtain a judgment or collect on
       the RCC Debt.

   (7) The Creditors Committee will, on RCC's behalf, prosecute
       and collect on the RCC Debt without prejudice to the
       rights of any entity that has an existing lien on the RCC
       Debt and the proceeds of any prosecution will remain
       subject to those rights.

   (8) RSL will not pay or reserve for or grant a lien on
       collateral to secure any RSL Creditor Claims or any other
       non-customer claims that may become known to RSL, unless
       RSL contemporaneously makes a pro rata payment or grant
       of collateral to RCC on the RCC Debt.

   (9) RSL will provide RCC a list of the nature and amounts of
       all of RSL's assets.  RSL will not transfer its assets
       other than to pay:

          -- claims of RSL broker-dealer customers, as to which
             it is required to maintain cash in a segregated
             customer account or a segregated excess reserve
             account;

          -- non-Customer Claims pro rata in amounts not to
             exceed $1,000,000; or

          -- costs incurred in the ordinary course of RSL's wind
             down operations, subject to an aggregate cap of
             $8,000,000.

  (10) The RCM Trustee will not seek payment of or from the RCM
       Related Segregated Funds, which will be placed into a
       separate escrow account bearing interest.  RSL will not
       offset the RCM-RSL Claim against the RSL-RCM Claim.

  (11) If the amount of Third-Party Customer Claims exceeds the
       amounts held as Third Party Customer Segregated Funds,
       the Third-Party Customer Claims will be paid first from
       the Excess Customer Segregated Funds and second from the
       RCM-Related Segregated Funds.  To the extent that any
       Third-Party Customer Claims are paid from RCM-Related
       Segregated Funds, RCM's claim asserting 100% recovery
       from the RCM-Related Segregated Funds will be treated
       instead as a non-Customer Claim.


SALOMON SMITH: N.Y. Court Dismisses Mutual Fund Fees Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern District of New York Judge Paul A. Crotty dismissed the
class action, "In re Salomon Smith Barney Mutual Fund Fees
Litigation, 04-civ-4055," according to the New York Law Journal.

The suit was filed by investors claiming that Salomon Smith
offered undisclosed incentives to brokers and financial
advisers, extracted improper fees from investors in its
proprietary funds, and encouraged its propriety funds to invest
in poorly performing companies capitalizing on their status in
investment banking.  It follows investigations into the fee and
revenue-sharing practices in the mutual fund industry.

Judge Crotty dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice
on funds in which they owned no shares.  He also did not admit
plaintiffs' claims for primary violations of the Securities and
Exchange Acts because the plaintiffs had failed to plead loss
causation for their purchase of mutual fund stock.

The judge also dismissed plaintiffs' direct claim under Section
36(b) of the Investment Company Act, saying claims under that
section must be brought derivatively on behalf of the funds
rather than directly by fund shareholders.  But he granted them
"limited" right to replead a claim under one section of the Act.

Representing Salomon Smith are: James N. Benedict, JooYun Kim
and David R. Gefland and C. Neil Gray at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy (http://www.milbank.com/);and Stephen S. Madsen and  
Francis P. Barron at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
(http://www.cravath.com/).

The plaintiffs are represented by James J. Sabella, Jay W.
Eisenhofer, Sidney S. Liebesman, Naumon A. Amjed at Grant &
Eisenhofer (http://www.gelaw.com/).


STATE FARM: "All-Risk" Policies Suit Refused Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge L. T. Senter Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi denied class status to a suit
filed by State Farm and Casualty Co. policyholders claiming full
compensation for Hurricane Katrina damages.

Attorney Richard Phillips is pursuing the case on behalf of
policyholder Judy Guice of Ocean Springs, Mississippi.  His suit
seeks to represent those policyholders with "slab" or
"foundation only" claims in Harrison, Hancock and Jackson
counties.

It further seeks to represent homeowners in cases in which a
State Farm adjuster requested an engineering report that the
company subsequently cancelled.  

In its motion to dismiss, State Farm maintains that the water
damage exclusion, as well as the weather conditions provision,
unambiguously bar coverage caused by a combination of wind and
water.  On the other hand, plaintiff argued that since she
suffered a total loss to her home, caused in part by wind, then
State Farm is liable for the full policy limits notwithstanding
the fact that water damage is excluded from coverage.

In his ruling, the judge, quoted the "Tuepker v. State Farm Fire
& Casualty Co." case that "[t]he nature and extent of the
property damage the owners sustain from the common cause,
Hurricane Katrina, will vary greatly in its particulars,
depending on the location and condition of the property before
the storm struck and depending also on what combination of
forces caused the damage".

The suit is "Guice v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00001-LTS-RHW," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Robert H. Walker.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Robert C. Galloway at Butler, Snow, O'mara, Stevens &
         Canada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248, Gulfport, MS 39502-
         4248, Phone: 228864-1170, E-mail:
         bob.galloway@butlersnow.com; and

     (2) William N. Reed at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
         Berkowitz, PC, P.O. Box 14167, Jackson, MS 39236-4167,
         Phone: (601) 351-2400.

Representing the plaintiff is Richard Taylor Phillips at Smith,
Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, P.O. Drawer 1586, Batesville, MS
38606, Phone: 662/563-4613, E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: N.H. Judge Certifies Retirement Plan Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire
granted class-action status to a suit filed by participants in
Tyco International Ltd.'s retirement savings plan, The
Associated Press reports.

The judge rejected Tyco's arguments:

     -- that the employees who wanted to represent the class
        weren't involved enough in the lawsuit and weren't
        typical of all workers who invested in Tyco stock
        because they relied on the financial information Tyco
        provided in differing degrees; and

     -- that some of the proposed class representatives had not
        relied on the company's alleged misrepresentations.

He said that in cases involving stock fraud and a company's
failure to disclose important information, the U.S. Supreme
Court doesn't require investors to prove they relied on
information from the company.

The judge ruled that the shareholders were numerous enough, and
involved enough in the case, to warrant a class action.

                        Case Background

More than two dozen securities class actions were initially
filed against the company in 2002.  They were now transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  In eight of the actions,
plaintiffs have moved to have their cases remanded to state
courts.  

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among others:  

     -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting  
        therefore, as well as allegedly undisclosed
        acquisitions;  

     -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;  

     -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,
        promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings
        performance;  

     -- compensation of certain of the company's former
        executives;  

     -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal
        benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate
        transactions;  

     -- their sales of Tyco shares;  

     -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former
        directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and  

     -- the criminal investigation of the company's former
        chief executive officer.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
rescission, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.   
1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the   
District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Vicki K. Andreadis of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, One   
         Battery Park Plaza, New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212 837-  
         6000, E-mail: andreadi@hugheshubbard.com;

     (2) Francis P. Barron of Cravath Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825   
         8th Ave., New York, NY 10019-7475, Phone: 212 474-1000,   
         E-mail: fbarron@cravath.com;

     (3) Gregory A. Blue of Morgenstern Jacobs & Blue, LLC, 885   
         Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212 750-  
         6776, E-mail: gblue@mjbllc.com;

     (4) R. Matthew Cairns of Ransmeier & Spellman, PO Box 600,  
         Concord, NH 03302-0600, Phone: 603 228-0477, Fax: 603   
         224-2780, E-mail: matt@ranspell.com; and    

     (5) William L. Chapman of Orr & Reno, PA, One Eagle Sq., PO   
         Box 3550, Concord, NH 03302-3550, Phone: 603 224-2381,   
         E-mail: wlc@orr-reno.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of  
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,   
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:  
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and   
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570   
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:   
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000   
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-  
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and   

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),  
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,   
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Physicians Appeal Dismissal of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Alabama lawyer Archie Lamb said the group of physicians he
represents has appealed the summary judgment ruling dismissing
their claims against UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Coventry Health
Care Inc., BestWire reports.

The plaintiffs who appealed are:

     -- Dr. Charles B. Shane of Kentucky,
     -- the Medical Society of Georgia,
     -- the Florida Medical Association, and
     -- the Louisiana State Medical Society.

In June, U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno of the Southern
District Court of Florida issued a summary judgment order
dismissing all remaining claims against UnitedHealth Group in
the Florida provider class action (Class Action Reporter, June
21, 2006).

The judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence" they were part
of an alleged conspiracy with eight other managed care
companies.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class actions were filed against
UnitedHealthcare, a UnitedHealth Group Company; Pacificare
Health Systems; and virtually all major entities in the health
benefits business.  In December 2000, a Multidistrict litigation
panel consolidated several litigation cases involving
UnitedHealth Group and affiliates, including PacifiCare, in the
Southern District Court of Florida, Miami division.

Generally, the health care provider plaintiffs allege violations
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act in connection with alleged
undisclosed policies intended to maximize profits.  Other
allegations include breach of state prompt payment laws and
breach of contract claims for failure to timely reimburse
providers for medical services rendered.

In April 2003, the nation's highest court ruled in favor of
UnitedHealth and PacifiCare, finding the companies could send
their cases to arbitration, despite the physicians' argument
they couldn't receive "meaningful relief" in arbitration because
their contracts with the HMOs prohibited punitive damages.

Seven managed-care companies ultimately reached settlements in
the case.  Cash payments to physicians via settlement funds
totaled $407.2 million.  Funds to nonprofit health-care
foundations totaled $40 million.  Attorneys' fees amounted to
$201 million.  The changes companies are making to their
business practices have been valued by the plaintiffs' attorneys
at more than $1.2 billion.  The companies did not admit
wrongdoing.

In February, Moreno granted summary judgment in favor of
PacifiCare Health Systems Inc., now a unit of UnitedHealth,
ruling there was no evidence it conspired to underpay the
physicians.

The suit is "In re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Representing the plaintiffs is Archie Lamb of The Law Offices of
Archie Lamb, 2017 2nd Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:
(205) 324-4644 or (800) 324-4425, Fax: (205) 324-4649, E-mail:
Alamb@ArchieLamb.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Class Status to N.J. Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A state appeals court in New Jersey denied class-action status
to a lawsuit filed by employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that
alleges non-payment to workers of hours worked through breaks,
NJ.com reports.

The suit was originally filed by two former Wal-Mart cashiers,
Michelle Iliadis and Angela Nelson- Croxton, on behalf of
themselves and all other past and present employees of Wal-Mart
and its subsidiary, Sam's Club.

Plaintiffs alleged the "were made to work 'off-the- clock' and
that they did not receive the rest breaks and meal breaks to
which they were entitled."

Appellate Division Judge Dorothea Wefing said that the lawsuit
was not appropriate as a class action because "individual
factual determinations would have to be made of the
circumstances under which a particular employee missed a break
or worked off the clock."

In the ruling, which Appellate Division Judges Barbara Byrd
Wecker and Ronald Graves joined, Judge Wefing said Wal-Mart
"should be entitled to establish, if it can, that employees
voluntarily chose to work through rest breaks or meal breaks for
personal reasons."

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is facing numerous cases containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs have brought claims
under FLSA, corresponding state statutes, or other laws.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former hourly
Associates who allege, among other things, that the company
forced them to work "off the clock," or failed to provide work
breaks, or otherwise claim they were not paid for work
performed.

Class certification has been denied or overturned in cases
pending in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Some or all of the
requested classes have been certified in cases pending in
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Oregon, and Washington.

The cases relate to a 2001 state law stipulating that employees
who work at least six hours must have a 30-minute, unpaid lunch
break.  If they do not get that, the law requires they be must
paid for an additional hour of pay.


YAHOO INC: Nov. Hearing Set for "Click Fraud" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold on Nov. 20, 2006, 10 a.m. a final approval hearing in
the $5 million setttlement of the class action, "Checkmate
Strategic Group Inc v. Yahoo Inc et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04588-
CAS-FMO."

The class consists of all persons -- and their officers,
employees, independent contractors, principals or agents -- that
have purchased Yahoo! Ads as, defined in the settlement
agreement, from Jan. 1, 1998, through July 31, 2006, regardless
of where the advertisement was displayed.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court, Central District
of California, Western Division, in the courtroom of the
Honorable Christina M. Snyder.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Oct. 14, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Nov. 20, 2006.

In June, Judge Snyder preliminary approved Yahoo Inc.'s proposed
settlement of a "click fraud" class action brought against the
company by Checkmate Strategic Group in June 2005 (Class Action
Reporter, June 30, 2006).

The terms of the settlement include a cash payment of about $5
million to plaintiffs' counsel and a provision that will allow
advertisers to file a claim for Yahoo to investigate potentially
fraudulent clicks back through January 2004.

Yahoo will pay refunds to advertisers who file claims if it
discovers evidence of fraudulent clicks.'

Both parties have agreed to these settlement terms:

     -- The company will offer advertisers a one-time extended  
        claims period during which advertisers can submit click  
        fraud claims for clicks dating back through January  
        2004.  Yahoo will investigate all claims filed under  
        this one-time extension and offer cash refunds to  
        advertisers if it finds questionable activity.  This  
        claims process will be overseen by a retired Federal  
        judge;

     -- The company will appoint a Traffic Quality Advocate who  
        will be dedicated entirely to addressing advertiser  
        concerns about click fraud and traffic quality issues.   
        This advocate will serve as the internal voice of the  
        advertiser within Yahoo! on these matters;

     -- Once a year Yahoo will host a panel of individual  
        advertisers to tour the company's Clickthrough  
        Protection system, allowing them to ask questions and  
        provide feedback on how the company can continue to  
        enhance their approach to fighting click fraud;

     -- Yahoo will work with a reputable third party toward  
        building industry-wide efforts to combat click fraud,  
        including development of industry-wide definitions of  
        click fraud and a comprehensive lists of identified  
        bots; and

     -- Yahoo will commit technical and human resources to build  
        a Traffic Quality Resource Center, which will provide  
        advertisers with more detailed information about traffic  
        quality issues (including click fraud) and solutions via  
        FAQs, advice columns, best practices guides and  
        additional access to analytics tools.  

In addition, the company plans to provide advertisers with
better visibility in turnaround time on complaints on click
fraud, responding within a specified time frame.

Yahoo will also offer more clarity around refunds on click
fraud, including additional detail describing more specifically
what the company has found in refunds or credit notices-
especially in better documenting the differences between click
fraud and other traffic variances that might be misinterpreted
as click fraud.

A copy of the Settlement Notice and the Preliminary Approval
Order is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?fc4

                              and     

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?fc5

The suit is "Checkmate Strategic Group Inc v. Yahoo Inc et al.,  
Case No. 2:05-cv-04588-CAS-FMO," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Central District of California under Judge  
Christina Snyder, with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren T Kaplan and Gregory E Keller both of Chitwood  
         Harley Harnes, 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree  
         Street, Northeast, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-
         3900, E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com;

     (2) Richard L Kellner and Frank Eric Marchetti both of  
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, 350 S Grand Avenue, 39th Floor,  
         Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-217-5000; and

     (3) Shawn Khorrami of Shawn Khorrami Law Offices, 14550  
         Haynes St, 3rd Fl Van Nuys, CA 91411, Phone: 818-947-
         5111, E-mail: skhorrami@khorrami.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Patrick J Carome of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and  
         Dorr, 2445 M Street, N W, Washington, DC 20037, US,  
         Phone: 202-663-6000; and

     (2) Emil W Herich, Larry W McFarland and Dennis L Wilson  
         all of Keats McFarland & Wilson, 9720 Wilshire Blvd,  
         Ste PH, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, Phone: 310-248-3830;  
         Fax: 310-860-0363, Email: lmcfarland@kmwlaw.com or  
         dwilson@kmwlaw.com.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Con Edison Inc. Posts $25M Liability in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Inc. had US$25 million in accrued
liabilities for asbestos-related lawsuits at June 30, 2006 and
Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, Con Edison's regulatory
assets for asbestos suits totaled US$25 million.

At June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, Con Edison's subsidiary
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York had US$25 million in
regulatory assets for asbestos suits.

Suits have been filed in New York State and federal courts
against Con Edison New York and another subsidiary, Orange and
Rockland Utilities Inc., and many other defendants.

In these suits, plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive
damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos at various premises of Con Edison of New York and O&R.

Many of the suits have been resolved without any payment by Con
Edison of New York and O&R, or for amounts that were not
material to them.

In 2004, Con Edison of New York estimated US$25 million for its
aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and
additional suits that may be filed in the next 15 years.

Moreover, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from asbestos exposure. Con Edison of New York is
permitted to defer, as regulatory assets, liabilities incurred
for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims.

Based in New York City, Consolidated Edison Inc.'s main
subsidiary Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, distributes
electricity to more than 3.1 million residential and business
customers in New York City. It also delivers natural gas to more
than 1 million customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Supply Faces 25T Suits in 5 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary, industrial supplies distributor
Fairmont Supply Co., is a defendant in about 25,531 asbestos-
related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, and Mississippi.

In the 2006-1st quarter, Fairmont had about 25,507 asbestos
claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
Maryland, and Mississippi. (Class Action Reporter, May 19, 2006)

Since a small percentage of products made by third parties and
supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and
many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by
hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it
has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the
cases involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were exposed to
asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006 and the year ended
December 31, 2005, payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos
cases have not been material.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, CONSOL Energy Inc. operates
as a coal mining firm. The Company has 4.5 billion tons of
proved and probable reserves, mainly in northern and central
Appalachia and the Illinois Basin. Allegheny Energy Inc.
accounts for about 10% of CONSOL's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Face Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Inc.'s subsidiaries co-defend in several complaints
that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi involving over 700 persons that allege personal
injury arising out of asbestos exposure.

The plaintiffs alleged exposure in the course of their
employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986.
The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries to which the Company may owe indemnity.

The complaints also name other unaffiliated defendant companies,
including companies that allegedly made asbestos-containing
drilling products. The number of unaffiliated defendant
companies involved in each complaint ranges from about 20 to 70.

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

The plaintiffs sought awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The trial court has ordered that the
plaintiffs provide additional information regarding their
employment histories.

The Company has not yet conducted extensive discovery nor has it
been able to determine the number of plaintiffs that were
employed by its subsidiaries or have any connection with the
Company's drilling operations.

Based in Houston, Texas, Transocean Inc. operates as an offshore
drilling contractor in Africa, Asia, Brazil, Canada, India, the
Middle East, the Gulf of Mexico, and the North Sea. Other
Company operations include management of third-party drilling
services and a nine-rig contract land drilling business in
Venezuela.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Faces Exposure Claims by La. Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation has been named in lawsuits as a defendant by
individuals, who claim injury due to asbestos exposure, while
working at Company sites in central Louisiana.

Most of the claimants were workers who participated in the
construction of various generation facilities. Some of the
claimants have worked at Company-owned locations.

Management regularly analyzes current information and provides
accruals for probable liabilities on the eventual disposition of
these matters.

Based in Pineville, Louisiana, Cleco Corporation's utility unit,
Cleco Power, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity
to 265,000 residential and business customers in more than 100
communities in Louisiana.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Deal With Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Inc., formerly Reliant Energy Inc., and its
subsidiaries co-defend in lawsuits filed by individuals who
claim injury from asbestos exposure.

Some of the claimants have worked at Company-owned locations,
but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned
by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company expects that
more claims will be asserted in the future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, now known as NRG
Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco
LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
Texas Genco LLC and its successor.

However, the Company has agreed to continue to defend those
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense from the purchaser.

Based in Houston, Texas, CenterPoint Energy Inc.'s utilities
distribute natural gas and electricity to about 4.8 million
customers in six southern states. CenterPoint Energy operates
8,200 miles of gas pipeline, and has gas gathering and storage
operations. The Company is formerly known as Reliant Energy Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Resolves 100,590 Pneumo Abex Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd. resolved 100,590 Pneumo Abex Corp.
asbestos-related claims, from Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30,
2006, out of 139,408 claims filed.

At June 30, 2006, the Company noted 38,818 pending Abex claims
that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corporation.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2006, the Company resolved
100,026 of the 138,457 asbestos-related claims facing Pneumo
Abex. (Class Action Reporter, May 12, 2006)

In the three months ended June 30, 2006, 951 claims were filed
and 564 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average
indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,084 before
insurance. A total of US$95 million was spent on defense costs
for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2006.

In October 1998, Cooper sold its Automotive Products business to
Federal-Mogul. These discontinued businesses, including the Abex
product line obtained from Pneumo Abex in 1994, were operated
through subsidiary firms, and the stock of those subsidiaries
was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement
dated Aug. 17, 1998.

Federal-Mogul indemnified Cooper for certain liabilities of
these subsidiary firms, including liabilities related to the
Abex product line and any potential liability that Cooper may
have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between
Cooper and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that
Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to
Cooper.

If Federal-Mogul rejects the 1998 Agreement, Cooper will be
relieved of its future obligations under the 1998 Agreement,
including specific indemnities relating to payment of taxes and
certain obligations regarding insurance for its former
Automotive Products businesses.

In December 2005, Cooper announced that the Company and other
parties involved in the resolution of the Federal-Mogul
bankruptcy proceeding had reached an agreement regarding
Cooper's participation in Federal Mogul's proposed asbestos
trust.

At a Jan. 20, 2006 hearing, other parties to the bankruptcy
proceedings were unable to satisfy the court's requirements to
grant the required preliminary injunction. As a result, the
proposed settlement agreement required renegotiation of certain
terms. Accordingly, Cooper recorded a US$227.2 million after-tax
discontinued operations charge, net of a US$127.8 million income
tax benefit, in the 2005-4th quarter.

On July 7, 2006, Cooper announced a revised agreement had been
reached regarding Cooper's participation in Federal-Mogul's
trust. Accordingly, Cooper recorded a US$20.3 million after-tax
discontinued operations charge, net of an US$11.4 million income
tax benefit, in the 2006-2nd quarter.

At June 30, 2006, the accrual for potential liabilities related
to the Automotive Products sale and Federal-Mogul bankruptcy was
US$548.7 million, compared with US$526.3 million at Dec. 31,
2005.

Based in Houston, Texas, Cooper Industries Ltd. makes electrical
products, tools, hardware, and metal support products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TODCO Still Faces Aaron Suit in Miss. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODCO continues to deal with an asbestos-related suit styled
Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Co. et al., which is
filed in the Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones
County, Mississippi.

The Aaron suit is the case name used to refer to several cases
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury arising out of
asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by the
defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints named as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries and certain of Transocean Inc.'s subsidiaries to
which the Company may owe indemnity. The complaints named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly made asbestos-containing drilling related products
that are the subject of the complaints. The number of
unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each complaint
ranged from about 20 to 70.

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

The plaintiffs sought awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

To date, three plaintiffs have named TODCO or Transocean as a
defendant in their amended complaint. Amended complaints are
still outstanding for 24 plaintiffs.

Based in Houston, Texas, TODCO provides services to exploration
and production businesses operating in the shallow waters of the
Gulf of Mexico, in the Gulf Coast inland marine region, as well
as in Trinidad and Venezuela.



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KWELM Contributes $1.8M to Goodrich Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
London United Investments plc's insolvent fund managers paid
US$1.8 million in additional settlement distributions to
Goodrich Corp. during the six months ended June 30, 2006,
following completion of the insolvent scheme of arrangement
process in the United Kingdom.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had added US$11.3 million to the
settlement.

The Company and a number of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in actions by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products, or which
may have been present in its facilities.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be dismissed by the court. These
actions relate to previously owned businesses. The primary layer
of insurance coverage for most of these claims is provided by
the Kemper Insurance Cos.

In September 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with London United Investments, also known as KWELM,
in which the Company agreed to give up its rights with respect
to the KWELM insurance policies in exchange for US$18.3 million.

In 2004, the initial US$18.3 million settlement amount was paid
to Company, was recorded as a deferred settlement credit and
will be used to offset asbestos and other toxic tort claims in
future periods.

In May 2002, the Company completed the spin-off of its
Engineered Products segment, which at the time included EnPro
Industries Inc. and Coltec Industries Inc. At that time, two
Coltec subsidiaries were defendants in a number of personal
injury claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing products
sold by those subsidiaries.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Goodrich Corp.'s Engine
Systems unit makes aerostructures, engine and fuel controls,
fuel systems, pumps, and turbine components. The Company's
Airframe Systems makes aircraft wheels, brakes, landing gear,
and flight control and actuation systems. Electronic Systems
makes interior products, de-icing and specialty systems,
monitoring systems, lighting products, avionics systems,
telemetry systems, sensors, and recon systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 30,070 Pending Claims in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc. had about 30,070 unresolved asbestos-related
claims as of June 30, 2006, of which about 1,010 were premises
claims and the rest were products claims.

The Company also had about 2,200 unpaid claims, which have been
settled or are subject to the terms of a settlement agreement.
Moreover, there were about 565 claims as of June 30, 2006, which
have either been dismissed without payment or are in the process
of being dismissed without payment.

Between Jan. 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the Company received
about 1,720 new claims. In the same period, the Company spent
about US$17.8 million on these matters, including US$13.2
million in settlement payments and about US$4.6 million for
defense costs.

According to the June 2, 2006 Class Action Reporter edition, the
Company recorded about 29,385 unresolved asbestos-related
claims, of which about 990 were premises claims and the rest
were products claims. The Company noted about 2,460 unpaid
claims, which have been settled or are subject to a settlement
agreement. As of March 31, 2006, there were about 565 claims,
which have either been dismissed without payment or are in the
process of being dismissed without payment.
  
The Company is a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits and claims, which arise from alleged exposure to
asbestos fibers from resin-encapsulated pipe and tank products
which were sold by one of the Company's former subsidiaries to a
limited industrial market.  

The Company is also a defendant in suits alleging exposure to
asbestos at facilities formerly or presently owned or operated
by the Company. Claims are received and settled or otherwise
resolved on an ongoing basis.

Effective Aug. 23, 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with respect to insurance policies issued by
underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and reinsured by Equitas Ltd.
and related entities.

As part of that settlement, Equitas paid US$30 million to the
Company and placed US$67 million into a trust set up to
reimburse the Company for a portion of the costs incurred by the
Company to defend and resolve certain asbestos claims. As of
June 30, 2006, US$46.6 million remains in the trust.

In exchange, the Company released the underwriters from past,
present and future claims under those policies, agreed to the
cancellation of those policies, and agreed to indemnify the
underwriters from any claims asserted under those policies.

Effective Oct. 8, 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with respect to certain insurance policies issued by
various insurance firms operating in the London insurance
market, and by a U.S. insurance firm.

Under the terms of the agreement, the participating insurers
agreed to place into trust over a four-year period commencing in
January 2005 and ending in 2008 monies, which will ultimately
total about US$102.2 million. As of June 30, 2006, US$68.5
million of the US$102.2 million has been placed into the trust,
of which US$24.2 million remains in the trust.

In exchange, the Company released the insurers from past,
present and future claims under those policies, agreed to the
cancellation of those policies, and agreed to indemnify the
insurers from any claims asserted under those policies.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Hercules Inc.'s pulp and paper
division supplies water-treatment and functional performance
chemicals and services to the pulp and paper industry. Its
Aqualon unit makes thickeners for water-based products such as
latex paints, printing inks, and oral hygiene products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Has $256.8M Liabilities in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.'s asbestos-related liabilities were US$256.8
million as of June 30, 2006, in which US$36.4 million were
current and US$220.4 million were non-current.

As of June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's current
asbestos liabilities were US$36.4 million.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
liabilities were US$220.4 million, compared with US$233.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related assets, as of June
30, 2006, were US$102.9 million, compared with US$120.7 million
as of Dec. 31, 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-
related assets and liabilities were US$6.5 million, compared
with US$15.2 million for the six months ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company spent
US$2.3 million net for asbestos-related costs, compared with
US$2.1 million for the same period in 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company spent US$4.5
million net for asbestos-related costs, compared with US$3.8
million for the same period in 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company had a gross accrued liability of
US$256.8 million for present and future potential asbestos
claims. The Company also had US$102.9 million of asbestos-
related receivables and restricted cash in several trusts
pertaining to lawsuits and claims at June 30, 2006.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Hercules Inc.'s pulp and paper
division supplies water-treatment and functional performance
chemicals and services to the pulp and paper industry. Its
Aqualon unit makes thickeners for water-based products such as
latex paints, printing inks, and oral hygiene products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Spends $909M for Claims in 2Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation made total payments of US$909 million for
asbestos-related claims in the 2006-2nd quarter. The payments
included an US$890 million payment to the U.S. Gypsum Asbestos
Trust and a US$19 million payment related to the settlement of
other asbestos-related claims included within the asbestos
reserve.

In the 2005-4th quarter, the Corporation recorded a pretax
charge of US$3.1 billion for all asbestos-related claims,
increasing U.S. Gypsum's reserve for all asbestos-related claims
to US$4.161 billion.

At the time of the June 25, 2001 Chapter 11 filing, U.S. Gypsum
was a defendant in more than 100,000 pending asbestos personal
injury claims. Moreover, L&W Supply Corp. and Beadex
Manufacturing LLC had been named as defendants in a small number
of asbestos personal injury claims.

The Plan of Reorganization resolves the Debtors' liability for
all present and future asbestos personal injury and related
claims. The Plan of Reorganization also provides that all
resolved asbestos property damage claims filed in the Debtors'
Chapter 11 proceedings would be paid in full.

About 1,400 asbestos property damage claims were timely filed in
the Debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings. Moreover, more than 70
claims were filed after the bar date for filing claims. More
than 950 of the claims were disallowed or withdrawn, leaving
about 520 claims pending.

As of June 30, 2006, U.S. Gypsum's insurance coverage for
asbestos claims was exhausted. Beadex had confirmed coverage of
about US$11 million in primary or umbrella insurance coverage
available to pay asbestos-related costs. In addition, Beadex had
US$15 million in available excess coverage.

At the time of confirmation of the Plan, the Debtors reached
agreements with the issuers of the primary and umbrella
policies, Federal Insurance Co. and TIG Insurance Co., to
resolve all of the insurers' liabilities under these policies in
exchange for Federal Insurance's payments of US$1,723,000
million and TIG Insurance's US$2,500,000 to the Trust. In June
2006, the Bankruptcy Court approved these agreements.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Corporation reversed US$27 million
of a reserve for asbestos-related claims. The reversal was based
on the Corporation's evaluation of the asbestos property damage
settlements it has reached in principle and the remaining
unresolved asbestos property damage claims.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, USG Corp., together with
subsidiaries, makes gypsum wallboard, joint compound and related
gypsum products, cement board, gypsum fiber panels, and ceiling
panels and grid. The Company also distributes building products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Decline to 1,568 From 1,620
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation is involved in about 1,568 pending active
asbestos-related cases with an aggregate of about 10,526
claimants, as of June 30, 2006.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company was a party to about 1,620
pending cases involving an aggregate of about 19,022 claimants
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. As of Feb.
28, 2006, the Company was a party to about 1,609 pending cases
involving an aggregate of about 19,952 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos.

The claimants alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos-
containing materials formerly used in gaskets, both encapsulated
and otherwise, made or distributed by certain of the Company's
subsidiaries for use in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

Moreover, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company stated that many of its
pending cases related to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

Exclusive of defense costs, total settlement costs for all
cases, some of which were filed over 18 years ago, have been
about US$3.5 million. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos-related
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.

Based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, TriMas Corp. has three
units: Cequent Group, Rieke Packaging Systems, Industrial
Specialties, and Fastening Systems. The Company makes a variety
of products from SUV and truck parts, packaging, consumer
products, tools, and agricultural equipment. The Company was
spun off from Metaldyne Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Pays $242M for Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. paid US$242 million for net
asbestos losses and expenses in the first six months of 2006,
compared with US$191 million in the same period of 2005,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for
the period ending June 30, 2006 and filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

About 58 percent in the first six months of 2006 and 38 percent
in the first six months of 2005 of total net paid losses related
to policyholders with whom the Company previously entered into
settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability.

At June 30, 2006, net asbestos reserves totaled US$4.12 billion,
compared with US$3.74 billion at June 30, 2005. The increase was
due to an US$830 million charge to strengthen reserves in the
2005-4th quarter, partially offset by loss payments made during
the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2006.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Paul Travelers Cos. Inc.
offers personal and commercial liability and casualty, property,
workers' compensation, auto, marine, and other coverage to
companies in North America and the United Kingdom.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Absolves Belden CDT Inc. in 168 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden CDT Inc. has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be
dismissed, in about 168 asbestos-related cases without any going
to trial, and with seven of these cases involving payment to the
claimant.

According to the May 19, 2006 Class Action Reporter edition, a
total of 158 asbestos-related claims were dismissed against the
Company without a trial, of which seven claims sought payment.

The Company is party to legal proceedings and administrative
actions that are incidental to its operations in which the
claimant alleged injury from exposure to heat-resistant asbestos
fiber, found in a number of products made by Company
predecessors.

These proceedings included personal injury cases in which the
Company is a defendant, eight of which are scheduled for trial
during 2006. The Company was aware of about 149 cases at July
31, 2006.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory,
special and punitive damages.

The Company has insurance that should cover a major portion of
any defense or settlement costs borne by the Company in these
types of cases.

Based in St. Louis, Missouri, Belden CDT Inc. makes cable and
wire products for use in the broadcasting, computer,
entertainment, instrumentation, networking, and
telecommunications industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Liability Totals $306M in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was
US$306 million, for the six months ended June 30, 2006, in which
US$16 million was current.

For the six months ended June 30, 2005, the Company's asbestos-
related liability was US$318 million, in which US$17 million was
current.

For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company's
asbestos-related liability stood at US$309 million, of which
US$16 million was current. (Class Action Reporter, May 19, 2006)

The Company faces lawsuits in which current and former employees
alleged exposure to asbestos. Moreover, the Company has received
claims for asbestos exposure that have not been litigated. The
claims and suits alleged occupational illness resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products.

The potential for asbestos exposure in the railroad industry
existed while steam locomotives were used. The railroad
industry, including subsidiary Union Pacific Railroad Co. and
its predecessors, phased out steam locomotives between 1955 and
1960.

At June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, about 16 percent of the
recorded liability related to asserted claims, and about 84
percent related to unasserted claims. The Company expects to pay
out these claims through 2034.

Insurance coverage reimburses us for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries.

Additionally, the Company has a legal obligation to properly
dispose of asbestos-containing materials. The estimated fair
value of this obligation is US$5 million at both June 30, 2006
and Dec. 31, 2005, which was recorded as a long-term liability.

Based in Omaha, Nebraska, Union Pacific Corp.'s unit, Union
Pacific Railroad Co. transports coal, chemicals, industrial
products, and other freight over more than 32,000 route miles in
23 states in the western U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NRG Energy Records 3,428 Pending Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy Inc. had 3,428 pending asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for
the period ending June 30, 2006 and filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company had 3,526 pending asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2006)

In the 2006-2nd quarter, one new claim was filed, one claim was
settled, and 99 claims were dismissed or otherwise resolved with
no payment.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, one claim was filed,
four claims settled, and 189 claims dismissed or otherwise
resolved with no payment.

Several of the Company's plants are the subject of lawsuits,
primarily commenced in 2001, against defendants by a number of
individuals who claim personal injury due to alleged exposure to
asbestos while working at Texas plant sites. These are premise-
based claims as distinguished from product-based claims.

Most of these claimants are third party contractors or sub-
contractors who participated in the construction, renovation,
and repair of various industrial plants, including power plants.

The average portion of the settlements for which NRG had
financial responsibility during the first two quarters of 2006
was about US$20,900.

While ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses
relating to asbestos claims has been assumed by the Company,
CenterPoint Energy Inc. has agreed to continue to indemnify
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
CenterPoint Energy.

Based in Princeton, New Jersey, NRG Energy Inc. produces power
with a capacity of 24,580 MW. In 2006, the Company acquired
power generator Texas Genco Inc. for US$5.8 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe, Units Defend in Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlobalSantaFe Corporation and its subsidiaries co-defend in
asbestos-related injury claims, which are pending in various
jurisdictions, according to the Company's quarterly report, on
Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2006 and filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2004, certain of the Company's subsidiaries were named
as defendants in six lawsuits filed in Mississippi, five of
which are pending in the Circuit Court of Jones County and one
of which is pending in the Circuit Court of Jasper County,
Miss., alleging that individuals aboard the Company's offshore
drilling rigs had been exposed to asbestos.

These six suits are part of a group of 23 suits filed on behalf
of about 800 plaintiffs against a large number of defendants,
most of which are not affiliated with the Company.

The suits assert claims based on theories of unseaworthiness,
negligence, strict liability and the Company's subsidiaries'
status as Jones Act employers. The defendants are alleged to
have made, distributed or utilized asbestos-containing products.

In the case of the Company's subsidiaries, the suits alleged
those defendants allowed ACMs to be utilized aboard offshore
drilling rigs.

In February 2004, a Company subsidiary sued its insurance
underwriters in the Superior Court of San Francisco County,
Calif., seeking a declaration as to its rights to insurance
coverage and the proper allocation among its insurers of
liability for claims payments in order to assist in the future
management and disposition of certain claims.

As of June 30, 2006, the subsidiary had been named as a
defendant in about 4,000 suits, the first of which was filed in
1990, and a substantial number of which are pending.

The Company said that as of June 30, 2006, from US$30 million to
US$40 million had been spent to resolve claims, with the
subsidiary having spent US$4 million of that amount due to
insurance deductible obligations. However, the subsidiary has in
excess of US$1 billion in insurance limits.

The same subsidiary has been a defendant in a suit filed against
it by Union Oil Co. of California in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill. That suit arose out of claims alleging personal
injury caused by exposure to asbestos at a refinery owned by
Union and constructed by the Company's subsidiary.

Union has alleged that the subsidiary is required to defend and
indemnify it under the terms of contracts entered into for the
construction of the refinery. The Company has also been named as
a defendant in the pending litigation.

Based in Houston, Texas, GlobalSantaFe Corp. operates a fleet of
60 offshore rigs (premium and heavy-duty), harsh-environment
jackups, semi submersibles, and ultra-deepwater drill ships. The
Company was established in 2001.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Claimants Seek to Clear Texas Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Louisiana
have agreed to dismiss TEPPCO Partners LP's general partner
Texas Eastern Pipeline Co. from the suit, in response to an
exception filed on behalf of Texas Eastern.

In May 2003, Texas Eastern was named as a defendant in the suit
styled John R. James, et al. v. J Graves Insulation Co., et al.
as filed in the first Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, La.  

Plaintiffs, who were identified in the action, are alleged to
have suffered damages as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products and materials.  

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

This period represented a small portion of the total alleged
exposure period from January 1964 through December 2001 for this
individual. The individual's claims involved numerous employers
and alleged job sites.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Dismissed in 3-Count Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas Inc. was dismissed with prejudice, in the 2006-2nd
quarter, in three counts of an asbestos-related insurance
lawsuit filed by Cooper Industries LLC against the Company and
other defendants.

Cooper Industries sued the Company, Pneumo Abex LLC, and the
Trustee, styled Cooper Industries LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et
al., in which the claims involved the Trust and an insurance
policy.

Case No. 05 CH 9214 was filed in the Cook County Circuit Court
on May 31, 2005.

In the 2002-2nd quarter, the Company bought insurance coverage
related to sites previously owned and operated or impacted by
Pneumo Abex and its units. The trust, which was established in
2000 with the proceeds from an insurance settlement, purchased
insurance coverage and funded coverage for remedial and other
costs related to the sites previously owned and operated or
impacted by Pneumo Abex and its units.

Cooper asserted that it was entitled to access the US$34 million
that previously was in the Trust and used to purchase the
insurance policy. Cooper claimed that Trust funds should have
been distributed for underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims
indemnified by Cooper. Cooper complained that it was deprived of
access to money in the Trust because of the Trustee's decision
to use the Trust funds to purchase the insurance policy.

The Company joined a motion by the Trustee to dismiss the suit
on the grounds that Cooper lacked standing to pursue its claims
because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust. Pneumo Abex
LLC, the corporate successor to the Company's prior subsidiary,
has been dismissed from the suit.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Trustee's motion to dismiss was
granted and all counts against the Trustee were dismissed with
prejudice.

Two counts of the complaint remain pending against the Company.
It has since filed a separate motion to dismiss the remaining
counts and is awaiting a hearing on the motion.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, PepsiAmericas Inc., a Pepsi
bottler behind Pepsi Bottling Group, operates in 19 US states
and holds about 20% of the US market for Pepsi products. The
Company distributes drinks in the Bahamas, Barbados, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Jamaica, Poland, Puerto Rico, Slovakia, and
Trinidad and Tobago. PepsiCo owns about 41 percent of
PepsiAmericas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Notes 220 Pending Suits in Md. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings Inc. recorded about 220 asbestos-related cases
against it that are pending in the State Courts of Maryland as
of June 30, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report,
on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2006 and filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Of the 220 pending cases, about 85 cases were filed after Dec.
19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant Corporation for
defense and indemnification under the terms of an asset purchase
and sale agreement.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, about 265 asbestos-related were pending
against Pepco in Maryland state courts. (Class Action Reporter,
March 17, 2006)

In 1993, Pepco was served with amended complaints filed in the
state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City
and Baltimore County, Md. in separate ongoing, consolidated
proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."
Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases
on a theory of premises liability.

Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was
negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees
or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on Pepco's property.

A total of about 448 individual plaintiffs initially added Pepco
to their complaints. It appeared that each plaintiff sought US$2
million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive
damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have
been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have
been dismissed. As a result of two dismissal motions, numerous
hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco
has had about 400 of these cases dismissed with prejudice.

Based in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes
electricity to more than 1.8 million customers and natural gas
to nearly 120,000 customers through its utility units. The
Company also has international energy interests.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Rise to 350 in 2Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation is dealt with about 350 asbestos-
related lawsuits as of June 30, 2006, compared with 300 suits as
of March 31, 2006.

The Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, in which these suits also name many
other corporate defendants.

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

At June 30, 2006, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$25 million, a significant portion of
which related to asbestos.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Uses $16.5M for Claims in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd. spent about US$16.5 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2006, in which the amount comprised total
costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax.

For the three-month period ended March 31, 2006, the Company's
total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax were about US$6.8 million.
(Class Action Reporter, May 19, 2006)

Certain wholly owned Company subsidiaries are defendants in
asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In all of
the suits, a number of other firms have been named as
defendants.

Most of those claims have been filed against Ingersoll-Rand Co.
(IR-New Jersey), a wholly owned Company subsidiary, and alleged
injury caused by exposure to asbestos found in certain of IR-New
Jersey's products.

Although IR-New Jersey neither produced nor made asbestos, some
of its formerly made products used asbestos-containing parts,
like gaskets bought from third-party suppliers.

To date, all asbestos-related claims resolved have been
dismissed or settled.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd. makes
refrigeration equipment used mostly in trucks and supermarkets,
locks and security systems, construction equipment, industrial
equipment, and heavy equipment and golf carts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Still Faces Product Liability Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Essex Inc. stated that Essex International Inc. and
certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a number
of asbestos-related product liability lawsuits since about 1990.

Essex International Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Superior Essex Holding Corp., which is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Superior Essex Inc.

The suits were brought by electricians, other skilled tradesmen
and others claiming injury, in most cases, from exposure to
asbestos found in electrical wire products produced many years
ago.

Litigation against Essex International's various past insurers,
who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex
International against these suits, was settled during 1999.

Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for
substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the
defense of these suits, and the insurers have undertaken to
defend, are currently directly defending and will indemnify
Essex International against those asbestos suits.

Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in
these actions will be able to assert claims under applicable
insurance coverage and other similar arrangements.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Superior Essex Inc., which was
formerly known as Superior TeleCom, makes communications wire
and cable and magnet wire. Its products can be found in
transformers, generators, and electrical controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: One Suit Stays Pending v. RJR Tobacco, B&W
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported that one asbestos-related
lawsuit was pending against RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
as of July 14, 2006.

The Company was established when RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings
and B&W merged in 2004.

In the suit, asbestos companies and asbestos-related trust funds
alleged that they "overpaid" claims brought against them to the
extent that tobacco use, not asbestos exposure, was the cause of
the alleged personal injuries.

The suit styled Fibreboard Corp. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
is pending in state court in California.

The bankruptcy court has approved the plaintiffs' request to
voluntarily dismiss the case, but the dismissal has not yet been
filed with the trial court.

Based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American Inc.
trails the Altria Group, the owner of Philip Morris, which
steers nearly half of the U.S. tobacco market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Faces Suits From Product Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
CompuDyne Corporation continues to face cases related to claims
for asbestos exposure allegedly due to the substance found in
certain of the Company's predecessor's products.

The Company has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits
involving personal injury and death claims in which the Company,
individually and as an alleged successor, is a defendant.  

The Company has advised its insurers of each of these cases, and
the insurers are providing a defense under agreement with the
Company. The insurers have advised that claims in litigation for
punitive damages, exemplary damages, malicious and willful and
wanton behavior and intentional conduct are not covered.  

One of the carriers has advised that asbestos-related claims are
excluded from certain of these policies. The insurers have more
coverage defenses, which are reserved, including that claims may
fall outside of a particular policy period of coverage.  

To date, litigation costs have not been significant and the
Company has not paid any settlements from its own funds.

Based in Annapolis, Maryland, CompuDyne Corp. provides products
and services to the Public Security market. The Company operates
in four segments: Attack Protection, Federal Security Systems,
Institutional Security Systems and Public Safety and Justice.
The Company was founded in 1952.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 124,400 in 2Q
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. recorded about 124,400 pending
asbestos-related claims against it at June 30, 2006, compared
with 125,700 claims at March 31, 2006.

The claims related to alleged asbestos-related diseases
resulting from exposure to asbestos in products made by the
Company or in asbestos-containing materials in the Company's
facilities. The plaintiffs sought unspecified actual and
punitive damages and other relief.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, about 700 new claims were filed against
the Company and about 2,000 were settled or dismissed. The
amount expended on asbestos defense and claim resolution by the
Company and its insurance carriers during the 2006-2nd quarter
was US$6 million and US$10 million in the first six months of
2006.

In the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted 1,600
new claim filings and 2,700 claims settled or dismissed.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 40,800 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal or by entering into a
settlement. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related
liability and gross payments, including legal costs, totaled
about US$242 million through June 30, 2006 and US$233 million
through Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company had recorded liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$103
million at June 30, 2006 and US$104 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims was US$37 million at June 30, 2006 and US$31 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and
related defense costs was US$66 million at June 30, 2006 and
US$73 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded
a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$53 million. The
Company expects that about 52 percent of asbestos claim related
losses would be recoverable up to the Company's accessible
policy limits through the period covered by the estimated
liability. Of this amount, US$9 million was included in current
assets as part of accounts and notes receivable at June 30, 2006
and Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company said that at June 30, 2006, it had at least US$176
million in aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially
applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims. A
portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$53 million insurance receivable recorded at
June 30, 2006.

The Company also had about US$20 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis and defense costs available with the Company's
primary insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements
at June 30, 2006.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. makes
tires. Other products include automotive hoses, belts, and
industrial chemicals. The Company operates about 90 plants
worldwide, and runs nearly 1,700 retail tire and auto centers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Tool Works Faces Welding Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Tool Works Inc., with subsidiaries Hobart Brothers Co.
and Miller Electric Mfg. Co., co-defend in lawsuits alleging
injury from exposure to welding consumables.

The plaintiffs in these suits claim unspecified damages for
injuries resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos,
manganese and toxic fumes in connection with the welding
process.

The Company has not recorded any significant reserves related to
these cases.

Based in Glenview, Illinois, Illinois Tool Works Inc.
manufactures products used in the automotive, construction,
paper products, and food and beverage industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defective Mask Claims v. 3M Co. Drop to 33T
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is a co-defendant in numerous asbestos or respirator
mask lawsuits that represent about 33,000 individual claimants,
a decrease from about 56,300 individual claimants with actions
pending at June 30, 2005.

Most of the suits resolved by and currently pending against the
Company alleged use of some of the Company's mask and respirator
products. The suits sought damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures
to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, found in
products made by other defendants or in the workplace.

The remaining claimants alleged personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously made
by the Company, which are often unspecified, and by other
defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company co-defended in numerous
asbestos or respirator mask suits that purport to represent
about 40,200 individual claimants, a decrease from about 58,000
individuals claimants with actions pending at March 31, 2005.
(Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2006)

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had US$202 million asbestos or
respirator mask liabilities, compared with US$210 million as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had US$439 million asbestos or
respirator mask insurance receivables, compared with US$447
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Co. has six operating segments:
display and graphics; health care; safety, security, and
protection; electro and communications; transportation and
industrial; and consumer and office. The Company noted that
sales outside the U.S. account for nearly two-thirds of its
revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 500 Cases from Old Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. faces about 500 asbestos-related lawsuits,
involving about 10,600 plaintiffs and their spouses, which are
pending in several jurisdictions.

These suits alleged personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products made by the
Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and
mixed dust.  

The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation
because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability. To date, the Company has not
been deemed liable in any of these matters.

From time to time, the Company has received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against
former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with
which the Company has entered into settlements extinguishing
certain insurance policies.

Based in Dallas, Texas, NL Industries Inc., operates through its
subsidiary, Kronos Worldwide. Kronos supplies titanium dioxide
(TiO2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity, and brightness
of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc.
owns about 83 percent of NL Industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Armstrong Reorganization Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo C. Robreno rules that
US$3,100,000,000 is a reasonable approximation of Armstrong
World Industries Inc.'s liability for its present and future
asbestos personal injury claims.

In a 60-page Memorandum, the Court says AWI's Plan of
Reorganization, as modified, does not discriminate against the
Class 6 Unsecured Creditors because their percentage recovery
under the Plan is not materially less than that of the Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants.  

The Court finds that the Plan Proponents have shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the Plan does not discriminate
the unsecured creditors, hence, satisfies Section 1129 of the
Bankruptcy Code. Because no discrimination exists, Judge Robreno
says he need not reach the issue of whether the discrimination
is unfair.

Presented with three estimates -- US$1,960,000,000 by Dr.
Letitia Chambers, US$4,500,000,000 by Dr. Thomas Florence, and
US$5,363,000,000 by Dr. Mark Peterson -- the Court agrees with
Drs. Peterson and Florence, the Plan Proponents' experts, and
finds that US$3,100,000,000 is a reasonable prediction of the
amount of liability AWI will face.

Judge Robreno notes that the US$3,100,000,000 estimate of AWI's
asbestos liability is validated by a comparison with estimations
made in bankruptcy cases of other major asbestos defendants
including Federal-Mogul Corp., and Owens Corning.

The US$3,100,000,000 estimate is also supported by the
experience of other asbestos defendants that had been members of
the Center for Claims Resolution, and have since emerged from
bankruptcy, Judge Robreno notes. Based on the evidence presented
at the Confirmation trial, Judge Robreno adds that AWI's
liability will increase post bankruptcy now that the CCR is
defunct.

According to Judge Robreno, estimation of the Plan Proponents'
expert is more persuasive. Drs. Peterson and Florence adequately
incorporate the changed litigation environment into their
estimations.

Judge Robreno agrees that the litigation landscape has changed
since the 1990s:

* Potential asbestos personal injury claimants are an aging
population;

* Reform in certain jurisdictions has provided prophylactics to
the adjudication of claims of questionable merit;

* Introduction of more stringent requirements for the evaluation
of claims, like those introduced by the Manville Trust, will
also result in a reduction of, at least, the nonmalignant
claims; and

* Fraudulent claims filing practices described by Judge Janis
Jack of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas in In re Silica Products Liability Litigation, 398
F.Supp.2d 563 (S.D. Tex., 2005), and others are likely to result
in more careful policing of claims by defendants and the courts.

The Court also recognizes that greater change is likely to take
place in the future.

However, the extent and direction of the change is not yet fully
charted, Judge Robreno points out. Given these uncertainties,
the Court stands on shifting sands.  

"What may appear reasonable today may well, in a few years, with
the benefit of hindsight, turn out to have been incorrect,"
Judge Robreno says. "Nevertheless, the role of the Court is to
decide disputes based on the data available as to the present,
while making sensible predictions as to the future."

"It is not to search for mathematical precision, [or] ultimate
certainty," Judge Robreno adds. "The Court is not clairvoyant,
nor the holder of a crystal ball.  Rather, it seeks to reach an
informed judgment based on an assessment of past experience and
current circumstances."

For these reasons, Judge Robreno overrules the objection of the
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to AWI's Plan.

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Memorandum signed and posted
is available for free at:
http://bankrupt.com/misc/AWIConfirmationMemo.pdf


(Armstrong Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 99; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rejects Quigley Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein has rejected the
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Pfizer Inc.'s unit, Quigley
Co. Inc., setting the Company back in its efforts to resolve
asbestos liabilities, Dow Jones reports.

The settling asbestos claimants voted for Quigley's plan.
However, more than half the non-settling asbestos claimants
voted against it.

In September 2004, Quigley filed for Chapter 11 protection and
has been trying to put in place a plan that would move claims
for asbestos damages into a trust away from Pfizer.

Before Quigley filed for bankruptcy, Pfizer agreed to pay US$430
million to settle claims by some with asbestos injuries who said
Pfizer could be held liable for the subsidiary's faulty
products.

Pfizer paid half its US$430 million settlement in December 2005.
The other half is to be paid if Quigley's Chapter 11 plan takes
effect.

Judge Bernstein said it appears Quigley's trust would not be
able to pay all the asbestos claims, so a 90 percent dilution
will apply. Therefore, the votes of the asbestos claimants who
settled with Pfizer should also be diluted 90 percent, Judge
Bernstein added.

Trial lawyers said the Pfizer settlement was designed to stack
the deck against their non-settling clients in Quigley's Chapter
11 case. The settlement left Pfizer off the hook for liability
to about 80 percent of those claiming injury, but left the
asbestos claimants free to go after Quigley.

Asbestos claimants who settled with Pfizer agreed that, if the
Chapter 11 plan trust was not enough to cover all asbestos
claims, they would agree to discount their claims by 90 percent.

Quigley's Chapter 11 plan was hammered out in the settlement
talks with Pfizer, Judge Bernstein said. It is supposed to put
in place a US$645 million trust to cover asbestos claims.

"We'll be modifying our plan appropriately and promptly," said
Michael Cook, attorney for Quigley.

Quigley Co. Inc. is a Pfizer-owned shell Company that has been
working for years to resolve hundreds of thousands of personal-
injury claims stemming from asbestos-containing products that
Pfizer used to make.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Oversees Removal Work at Michelin Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is overseeing the
asbestos removal work in the former Michelin Powerhouse building
in Milltown, New Jersey, according to a U.S. EPA press release
dated August 11, 2006.

The Michelin Powerhouse site includes the powerhouse building,
an adjacent 100,000-gallon above-ground oil storage tank, two
large brick smokestacks, a steel water tower and the area
between the powerhouse and the Mill Pond.

Beginning in the late 1800s, the Powerhouse served as the power
generating station for the surrounding industrial complex. In
1977, the industrial park was connected to the local power grid
and the Powerhouse was abandoned and left to decay.

"This building is an industrial relic from days gone by that has
become a danger to the surrounding community after years of
decay," said Regional Administrator Alan J. Steinberg. "Removing
asbestos is a critical step that will allow the demolition of
the building and, most importantly, allow the site to be
returned to productive use."

During a site evaluation, the U.S. EPA found severely
deteriorated asbestos-containing pipe and tank insulation
falling from overhead tanks and piping and covering much of the
floor. Samples of soil and ash were collected for analysis and
indicated the presence of arsenic and lead.

Under EPA oversight, contractors will remove exposed asbestos
insulation and materials that may have been contaminated with
asbestos from the building and will also remove contaminated
soil from areas of the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Court Bans "Bundling" of Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Supreme Court issued an administrative order
restraining the "bundling" of asbestos-related personal injury
cases, Business Insurance reports.

Bundling occurs when personal injury cases are joined with other
related cases for settlement. The order bans bundling except for
discovery, holding "that each case should be decided on its own
merits, and not in conjunction with other cases."

Justice Stephen J. Markman said he believed that, "unlike other
remedial proposals, such as the establishment of an inactive
asbestos docket," the Court had the power to issue an unbundling
order.

Justice Markman added that the order will "help restore
traditional principles of due process in asbestos cases by
ensuring that they are resolved on the basis of their individual
merit, and that they do not serve merely as 'leverage' to the
resolution of other cases."

Justice Markman also wrote that the order would "advance the
interests of the most seriously ill asbestos plaintiffs, whose
interests have not always been well-served by the present system
where available funds for compensation have been diminished or
exhausted by payments for claims made by less seriously ill
claimants."

Mark Behrens, a partner in the Washington office of Kansas City,
Missouri-based Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, said that legislation
that would establish a statewide inactive docket has been
introduced in Michigan.

Asbestos litigation reform advocates have pushed-with success in
several states-for so-called inactive dockets, where claimants
may not pursue a personal injury action until they have
manifested specific physical impairments.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Man Gets $10.3M in Lawsuit v. Thorpe Insulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco Superior Court jury awarded US$10.3 million in
economic and non-economic damages in an asbestos case filed by
mesothelioma victim George Barnes and his wife, Darlene, against
Thorpe Insulation Co., the lone defendant at trial.

The jury identified US$9 million in non-economic damages for
physical pain or mental suffering in its verdict. The rest, all
economic damages, included US$210,000 for medical bills,
US$861,083 for past and future income, and US$178,974 for the
loss of Mr. Barnes' services around his family's two-acre
property. The jury found Mrs. Barnes' loss of consortium worth
another US$100,000.

There were no punitive damages. Attorney Jeffrey Kaiser of Levin
Simes Kaiser & Gornick said the Barneses did not argue
negligence.

When Judge Diane Wick makes a final ruling on the Thorpe
Insulation's liability, Mr. Barnes will probably only be
entitled to about US$2.3 million from the Company, Mr. Kaiser
said.

The jury attributed 15 percent of Mr. Barnes' harm to Thorpe
Insulation, five percent to Mr. Barnes himself, 55 percent to
his former employer, the U.S. Navy, and 25 percent to other
manufacturers and distributors.

Mr. Barnes did settle with several other defendants, Mr. Kaiser
said.

Senior attorney Martha Berman of Levin Simes Kaiser & Gornick
represented George and Darlene Barnes at trial.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


IMAX CORP: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of IMAX Corp. from Feb. 17, 2006
through Aug. 9, 2006.

The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against IMAX, and certain of its officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
through the dissemination of false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning IMAX's financial health and business
prospects.

During February and March 2006, the company issued press
releases touting the company's financial success, and indicated
the company's willingness to explore financial options.  A press
release issued as late as May 9, 2006 continued to mislead
investors concerning IMAX's true financial condition.

Then on Aug. 9, 2006, the company shocked the market by
announcing that it was being investigated by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and that the company had uncovered a
"material weakness" in its revenue accounting.

The press release also stated the company had yet to find an
investor to effectuate a merger or purchase.  After these
announcements the company's stock substantially dropped.

The complaint further alleges that IMAX and its top executives
knew during the Class Period that revenue was being improperly
recognized, but failed to make the necessary adjustments, thus
artificially inflating the stock.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court no later than Oct. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


SAFENET INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of plaintiff Michael J. Golde and all
similarly situated purchasers or acquirers of SafeNet, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SFNT) common stock between March 31, 2003 to May 18,
2006.

The complaint alleges that:

     -- defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
        Act of 1933; Defendants SafeNet, Caputo and Argo
        violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act;

     -- defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
        thereunder;

     -- defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
        and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and,

     -- all of the individual Defendants violated Section 20(a)
        of the Exchange Act.

The suit is "Golde v. Safenet, Inc. et al" and is filed as a
related case to a previously filed action "Police & Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. SafeNet, Inc., et
al.", which was filed on Aug. 1, 2006, and was assigned to the
Honorable Paul A. Crotty.

In addition to the claims asserted in the Aug. 1 action, this
action also asserts claims on behalf of the former shareholders
of Rainbow Technologies, Inc. who approved the March 2004 merger
of Rainbow with SafeNet and who exchanged their shares of
Rainbow for shares of SafeNet as a result of the acquisition.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 2, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

The suit is "Golde v. Safenet, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
06194-UA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is Douglas M. McKeige of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-554-1481, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
mail: Doug@blbglaw.com.


SAFENET INC: Public Pension Fund Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of plaintiff Police & Fire Retirement System
of the City of Detroit and all similarly situated purchasers of
SafeNet, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFNT) common stock between March 31, 2003
to May 18, 2006.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading proxy statements and
periodic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

The complaint alleges that defendants manipulated the granting
of stock options to provide themselves with unlawful benefits
and, during the second and third quarters of 2005, defendants
also engaged in improper accounting of revenues and costs
relating to certain long-term delivery contracts.

Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     -- that all defendants violated Section 14(a) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and
        Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder;

     -- that defendants SafeNet, Anthony A. Caputo, Kenneth A.
        Mueller, Carole D. Argo, Thomas A. Brooks, Ira A. Hunt,
        Jr., Bruce R. Thaw and Arthur L. Money violated Section
        10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
        thereunder; and

     -- that all of the Individual Defendants violated Section
        20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In three separate recent disclosures, SafeNet announced:

     (1) the need to restate financial results for the second
         and third quarters of 2005 arising from improper
         booking of costs and revenues related to its long term
         contracts;

     (2) the termination of its CFO; and

     (3) pending investigations by the SEC and the Office of the
         United States Attorney for the Southern District of New
         York.

The price of SafeNet stock declined in response to each
disclosure.

On July 26, 2006, SafeNet confirmed that it would be restating
its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2002, that its
financial statements for the year ended 2002 should no longer be
relied upon, and that it may restate other periods as well.

The suit is "Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. SafeNet, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-05797-PAC,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Paul A. Crotty.

Representing the plaintiffs are Douglas M. McKeige and Gerald
Harlan Silk both of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann,
L.L.P., 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6028,
Phone: (212) 554-1481 or (212) 554 1282, Fax: (212) 554 1444, E-
mail: jerry@blbglaw.com.


WITNESS SYSTEMS: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice, LLC, filed a securities fraud class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia against Witness Systems, Inc., David B. Gould,
Nicholas Discombe, William Evans, Joel G. Katz, Thomas J.
Crotty, and Loren Wimpfheimer.

The case was filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Witness Systems stock between
April 23, 2004, and Aug. 11, 2006, and were allegedly damaged
thereby.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose to the
investing public that the defendants had engaged in the
backdating of stock options grants to certain officers of the
company and by failing to account properly for expenses arising
from the backdating.

The complaint further alleges that defendants thus violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and filed false and
misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint also contends that one or more of the defendants
engaged in substantial and suspicious insider trading while in
possession of material, non-public knowledge of the alleged
backdating scheme.

On July 27, 2006, defendant Evans, the company's chief financial
officer, disclosed that the company was reviewing its stock
options grants.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the company announced that its Board of
Directors had formed a special committee to investigate the
stock option practices because the company had identified some
"discrepancies."

The company delayed the filing of its Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2006, pending the outcome of the investigation.

The company admitted that it "believes it will need to record
additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense
in prior periods . . . (which) will total approximately $10
million."

As a result of the internal investigation, the Board stated that
the Company's previously issued financial statements from
February 2000 through June 30, 2006, should no longer be relied
upon.

Just three days later, on Aug. 11, 2006, the company disclosed
that it intended to restate its prior financials and revealed
that NASDAQ informed it on Aug. 11 that the Company may be
subject to delisting as a result of the matters disclosed thus
far.

The price of Witness Systems common stock has fallen from its
July 27, 2006, closing price of $18.19 per share to as low as
$12.76 per share. The stock closed at $12.91 per share on Aug.
11, 2006.

For more details, contact Sheila Feerick or Lauren S. Antonino,
Esq. of Motley Rice, LLC, Phone: 843-216-9046, E-mail:
investorsupport@motleyrice.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  * * *