CAR_Public/060908.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 8, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 179

                            Headlines

1ST SOURCE: Settles Fraudulent Marketing Lawsuit in Fla. for $1M
BC FERRY: Defendants Named in Suit Over Queen of North Sinking
BENZENE LITIGATION: Defendants' Deadline to Counter Suit Ends
CALLAN ASSOCIATES: Retired School Admin. Sues Pension Consultant
C.H. ROBINSON: Reaches $15M Settlement in Labor Bias Lawsuit

CHICAGO BRIDGE: To Seek Dismissal of N.Y. Shareholder Complaint
CHOICEPOINT INC: Court Allows Renewal of Motion in FCRA Suit
CHOICEPOINT INC: Fla. Court Considers Motion in DPPA Litigation
CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Litigation
CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit

CLUB HORIZON: Stabbing Victim Wants to Close Spring Valley Club
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Okla. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Suit
DVI INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Penn. Securities Suit Settlement
FIRST CHOICE: Police Depts. Mull Asking Class Status for Suit
GUITAR CENTER: Still Faces RICO Lawsuit Over Fla. Operations

HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Suit in Israel Over "Titulim" Diapers
LITHIA MOTORS: Alaska Consumer Suit Yet to Receive Class Status
LUPRON LITIGATION: Illinois to Receive $1.86M in Settlement
MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools Get Windfall From $22.6M Settlement
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Mo. Court Mulls Class Status for Stock Suit

NOVASTAR HOME: Calif. Court Approves Labor Suit Settlement
NOVASTAR HOME: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Suit in La.
NOVASTAR HOME: Still Faces Consolidated RESPA Litigation in Ga.
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Still Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Wash.
RANDOM HOUSE: Deal Nears in Lawsuit Over "Memoir", Report Says

RCN CORP: Discovery to Begin Soon in N.J. ERISA Violations Suit
REPSOL YPF: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Amended Securities Suit
SLM CORP: D.C. Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Consumer Suit
SONY BMG: Reaches Settlement in XCP, MediaMax Lawsuit in Canada
STARTEK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Colo.

THOMAS KINKADE: Investors, Collectors Plan Suit Over Stock Fall
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
UTSTARCOM INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
VALERO ENERGY: Seeks New Trial for Blue Island Refinery Case
VIGNETTE CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval

V.I. TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $435M Liability in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 161,440 U.S. Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Face 329 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Unit Has 3 Suits in Miss. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Has 4 Lawsuits in Miss. Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Units Face Pending Suits in 26 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Reserves $158M for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Sets Aside $25M for A&E Coverages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Parker Drilling Unit in Discovery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Remain at 380

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $169M for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus International Named in 300 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Corp. Has 555 Suits With 10T Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PSI Energy, CG&E Confront 130 Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Faces 76T Claims in Respirator Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aon Corp. Estimates $4M Liabilities in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.163B for Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Has 8 Suits in Ala. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 3 Third-Party Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records 14.9T Claims in 2Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Zurn Industries Drop to 59T in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Records $7.02M Liability in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Rogers Corp. Drop to 160 in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. RPM Int'l. Units Rise to 10,580
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Spends $10.6M on Defense

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lummus Global Claims Resolved, ABB Ltd Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota, Others to Contribute JPY340M Yearly
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Sue 46 Companies in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Oversee Cleanup of N.J. Grace Plant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Argues "Non-Products" Claims


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLE COMPUTER: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
IMAX CORP: Faces Securities Act Violation Lawsuit in Canada
SUNTERRA CORP: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Suit in Nev.


                            *********

1ST SOURCE: Settles Fraudulent Marketing Lawsuit in Fla. for $1M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. won a $1 million settlement in a lawsuit
against 1st Source Information Specialists Inc. over the use of
illegal and deceptive practices to obtain and sell wireless
customer call detail records, the Kansas City Business Journal
reports.

Early this year, Sprint Nextel filed a lawsuit against the
parent company of four online data brokers that use illegal and
deceptive practices to obtain and sell wireless customer call
detail records (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2006).

Sprint Nextel states within the complaint that 1st  
Source Information Specialists Inc., parent company of  
http://www.locatecell.com,http://www.celltolls.com,
http://www.datafind.organd http://www.peoplesearchamerica.com,
employs fraudulent tactics, such as posing as customers seeking
information about their own accounts, to access cell phone logs
and phone numbers.

In the suit filed in Florida, Sprint Nextel said the schemes
conducted by these fraudulent online services invade the privacy
of Sprint Nextel's customers.  Sprint Nextel has requested both
temporary and permanent injunctions against 1st Source
Information Specialists Inc.

According to Heidi Salow, senior counsel at Sprint Nextel's
office of privacy, the settlement sends a strong message that
Sprint Nextel does not tolerate the deceptive practices.

Although it reached a settlement with 1st Source and one of its
executives, Sprint Nextel said its case continues against other
individuals involved in the alleged fraud.

Sprint Nextel also has reached an undisclosed settlement with
data broker All Star Investigations Inc. and has a pending
lawsuit against San Marco & Associates for selling customer
records, the report said.

Sprint Nextel on the Net: http://www.sprint.com/mr;Investor    
Relations: Kurt Fawkes, Phone: 800-259-3755; E-mail:  
investor.relations@sprint.com.


BC FERRY: Defendants Named in Suit Over Queen of North Sinking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice David Tysoe of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
approved the addition of three crewmembers of the sunken Queen
of the North vessel as defendants in a class action against
Canada's B.C. Ferry Corp., according to Yahoo! Canada News.

The workers are accused of recklessness through "temporary
abandonment of their duty" and "failure to keep a proper
lookout."

The suit was filed by Nanaimo couple Alexander and Maria Kotai,
originally, against B.C. Ferry.  It now names as defendants the
ship's captain Colin Henthorne, Fourth Officer Carl Lilgert and
deckhand Karen Bricker.

James Hanson, lawyer for the couple, said under provisions of
the Marine Liability Act, there is a presumption of negligence
when a ship sinks, which limits the amount of compensation that
can be recovered.  

Bringing into light the issue of abandonment, he said, "brings
us within the higher standard of care and higher degree of
wrongdoing or recklessness."  Proof of recklessness entitles
plaintiffs to greater compensation.

He said plaintiffs have no evidence that B.C. Ferry Corp. was
reckless, and they won't try to assert that if the class action
is certified.

The Queen of the North sank on March 22 after plowing into Gil
Island.   Its 99 passengers and crew safely evacuated the ship,
but two were unable to get off.  They have been presumed dead.


BENZENE LITIGATION: Defendants' Deadline to Counter Suit Ends
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants named in the lawsuit filed by nine former Uniroyal
employees have until this week to respond to the suit, according
to WEAU.Com.

In July, the Uniroyal employees filed a lawsuit against numerous
benzene manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers, alleging
that exposure to the dangerous chemical at the plant caused
their cancer.

Defendants in the suit include:

     -- Exxon Mobil Corp.,
     -- Texaco Inc.,
     -- American Oil Co.,
     -- Land O' Lakes, and
     -- Shell Chemical.

The suit alleges that employees developed cancer from being
exposed to benzene, which was used at the defunct plant as a
solvent to clean and repair equipment.

Attorneys of the former employees say there are studies linking
benzene to blood-related cancers such as leukemia and multiple
myeloma.

"The injuries are serious.  There's a great deal of medical
expense.  A lot of people have suffered wage loss and loss of
earning capacity," said attorney Michael Brose.

The Uniroyal plant closed 15 years ago.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Brose of Doar, Drill &
Skow, S.C., 103 N. Knowles Ave., New Richmond, WI 54017, Phone:  
(715) 246-2211 or (800) 390-2211 (Toll Free).


CALLAN ASSOCIATES: Retired School Admin. Sues Pension Consultant
----------------------------------------------------------------
A retired school official in Lake Forest, Illinois filed a
lawsuit against San Francisco-based Callan Associates, the
consultant for the state's teacher retirement fund, the Chicago
Tribune reports.

Patrick Patt, a retired school superintendent, alleged in his
complaint that Callan violated its duty to serve only the
interests of the members of the Teachers' Retirement System by
receiving fees from money managers, who paid him to attend
seminars.

Officials at Callan face similar allegations in a lawsuit by
city officials in San Diego.

The conflict of interest allegedly breaches Illinois Pension
Code.  The suit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court,
Illinois.  It seeks class-action status, and the return of fees
from Teachers' Retirement System to the state fund.

Teachers' Retirement System is not named as a defendant in the
suit.  Callan was a primary investment consultant to the
retirement fund from December 2001 to March 2006.

According to Mr. Patt's attorneys, they also will investigate
whether Callan's influence regarding the choice of investment
managers caused the retirement fund to lose money as part of the
litigation.

Representing the plaintiff is attorney Brian McTigue at     
McTigue Law Firm, Suite 220, 5513 Connecticut Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20015, Phone: (202) 364-6900, Fax: (202) 364-
9960.


C.H. ROBINSON: Reaches $15M Settlement in Labor Bias Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 18, 2006 fairness hearing was set for the $15 million
settlement in the labor related class action pending in the U.S.
District Court of Minnesota against C.H. Robinson Worldwide,
Inc.

During 2002, the company was named as a defendant in two
lawsuits by a number of present and former employees.  The first
lawsuit alleged a hostile working environment, unequal pay,
promotions, and opportunities for women, and failure to pay
overtime.  The second lawsuit alleges a failure to pay overtime.
The plaintiffs in both lawsuits sought unspecified monetary and
non-monetary damages and class action certification.

On March 31, 2005, the judge issued an order denying class
certification for the hostile working environment claims, and
allowing class certification for certain claims of gender
discrimination in pay and promotion.

The judge also granted the company's motions for summary
judgment as to the hostile working environment claims of 10 of
the named plaintiffs, and dismissed those claims.

The gender discrimination class claims and the remaining two
hostile work environment claims were settled in principle on
April 11, 2006, which was preliminarily approved by the court on
June 12, 2006.

The settlement consists of $15 million for all damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees, to be allocated as determined by the court.
The proposed settlement also includes programmatic relief
offered by C.H. Robinson.  As a condition of the settlement, the
company made no admission of liability.

The $15 million is within the company's insurance coverage
limits, and has been fully funded by the insurance carriers.  
The insurance carriers have reserved the right to seek a court
ruling that a portion of that settlement is not covered under
the applicable policies but C.H. Robinson will vigorously oppose
any such effort.

The final approval hearing is scheduled for Sept. 18, 2006.

The suit is "Carlson, et al. v. C.H. Robinson World (0:02-cv-
03780-JNE-JJG)" filed in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota
under Judge Joan N. Ericksen with referral to Jeanne J. Graham.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Susan M. Coler of Sprenger & Lang PLLC - Mpls, 310 4th
         Ave. S Ste 600, Mpls, MN 55415, Phone: (612) 871-8910,
         Fax: 6128719270, E-mail: scoler@sprengerlang.com; and
  
     (2) Michael D. Lieder of Sprenger & Lang - DC, 1614 20th
         St. NW, Washington, DC 20009, Phone: 202-265-8010, Fax:
         202-332-6652, E-mail: mlieder@sprengerlang.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robyn E. Anderson of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
         800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015,
         Phone: (612) 349-8500, Fax: 612-339-4181, E-mail:
         reanderson@rkmc.com; and

    (ii) Kari Thoe Crone of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
         800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015,
         Phone: (612) 349-8500, Fax: 6123394181, E-mail:
         ktcrone@rkmc.com.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: To Seek Dismissal of N.Y. Shareholder Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated amended complaint in the shareholder class action
against the company and its officers that was filed U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, "Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case
No 06 CV 1283," was filed on Feb. 17, 2006 against the company,
Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and Richard E. Goodrich.   

It was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from March 9, 2005 through Feb. 3, 2006 and were
damaged thereby.

The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws and
alleges, among other things, that the company materially
overstated the company's financial results during the class
period by misapplying percentage-of-completion accounting and
did not follow the company's publicly stated revenue recognition
policies.

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations and with similar, but not exactly the same,
class periods were filed.

On July 5, 2006, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed in the Welmon action, consolidating all previously filed
actions.  

The company and the individual defendants plan to file a motion
to dismiss the complaint, which is to be heard by the court in
October 2006 after briefing is completed.

The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Catherine A. Torell of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY
         10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-mail:
         ctorell@cmht.com;

     (2) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (LIs), 58 South Service
         Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-
         7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Arthur N. Abbey of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, US,
         Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
         aabbey@abbeygardy.com; and

     (4) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-907-0878, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mai:
         ebelfi@labaton.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Court Allows Renewal of Motion in FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
allowed ChoicePoint, Inc. to renew its motion for summary
judgment in the consolidated class action, "Harrington, et al. v
ChoicePoint, Case No. 05-1294," which alleges violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The company is a defendant in a purported class action that
resulted from the consolidation of four previously filed class
actions.

The plaintiffs' first amended consolidated class action
complaint against ChoicePoint Inc. and three subsidiaries
alleges violations of the FCRA and certain California statutes.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of a national
class of persons about whom ChoicePoint provided a consumer
report as defined in the FCRA to rogue customers, as well as
five California classes of affected persons.  Plaintiffs seek
actual, statutory and exemplary damages and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was
denied without prejudice on March 1, 2006.  At the conclusion of
four months of discovery, the court stated the company could
renew its motion.

On June 15, 2005, a similar purported class action, "Wilson v.
ChoicePoint Inc., Case No. 1-05-CV-1604," was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
Georgia.

The plaintiffs allege violations of:

     -- FCRA,
     -- the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and
     -- Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and

purport to represent a national class of persons whose consumer
credit reports as defined in the FCRA or personal or highly
restricted personal information as defined in the DPPA was
disclosed to third parties as a result of acts or omissions by
ChoicePoint.

Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and fees and costs.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the court granted ChoicePoint's motion to
transfer the Wilson case to the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California.  

On July 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court consolidated the
Wilson case with the Harrington case.

The suit is, "Jennifer Harrington v. Choicepoint Inc., Case No.
2:05-cv-01294-MRP-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer
with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert M. Bramson of Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
         Birkhaeuser, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut
         Creek, CA 94598, Phone: 925-945-0200, E-mail:
         rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com; and

     (2) John Glugoski of Righetti & Wynne, 456 Montgomery St.,
         Ste. 1400, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-983-
         0900, E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Laurie S Fulton of Williams & Connolly, 725 12th
         Street, Northwest, Washington, DC 20005-5901, Phone:
         202-434-5787;

    (ii) Jeffrey A. Kent of Poindexter & Doutre, 624 S Grand
         Ave., Ste. 2420, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3325, Phone:  
         213-628-8297, E-mail: jkent@pdlawyers.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Fla. Court Considers Motion in DPPA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
has yet to rule on defendants' motion in the purported class
action, "Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions Inc., et al.,"
which alleges violation of Driver's Privacy Protection Act and
names ChoicePoint, Inc. as one of the defendants.

A class action against ChoicePoint was filed on Aug. 11, 2003,
alleging that the company obtained, disclosed and used
information obtained from the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV) in violation of DPPA.

The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of individuals whose
personal information from Florida DHSMV records has been
obtained, disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other
allegedly impermissible uses by the company without the express
written consent of the individual.

A number of the company's competitors have also been sued in the
same or similar litigation in Florida.  This complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and other relief.

The company has joined with the other defendants in a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiffs' "obtaining"
claim.  The court has not ruled on the pending motion, according
to the company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the purported class action
against ChoicePoint, Inc. that is alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On May 20, 2005, the class action was filed against the company
and certain individuals who are alleged to be fiduciaries under
the ChoicePoint Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.  

The suit alleged violations of ERISA fiduciary rules through the
acquisition and retention of ChoicePoint stock by the Plan on
and after Nov. 24, 2004.  Plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.

On April 14, 2006, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss,
which remains pending before the court.

The suit is "Mellot v. ChoicePoint Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-01340-JTC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 4th Floor, 295
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: 212-983-
         1300, Fax: 212-983-0383, E-mail:
         tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com;

     (2) Lisa T. Millican of Greenfield Millican, P.C., 800 The
         Grant Building, 44 Broad Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303,
         Phone: 404-522-1122, E-mail:
         lisa.millican@lawofficepc.com;

     (3) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, Suite 1005, Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018,
         Phone: 212-868-3610, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com;
         and

     (4) Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, 2499 Glades
         Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-392-
         4750, Fax: 561-392-4775, E-mail:
         kvianale@vianalelaw.com;


CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in the securities fraud class action against
ChoicePoint, Inc.

On March 4, 2005, a purchaser of the company's securities filed
a lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading information in
connection with the fraudulent data access.

Additional similar complaints were filed by other purchasers of
the company's securities in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 10, 2005 and in the
Northern District of Georgia on March 11, 2005, March 22, 2005
and March 24, 2005.

By court order, the cases pending in the California were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia.  By order dated Aug. 5, 2005, the court consolidated
the pending cases into a single consolidated action, "In re
ChoicePoint Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:05-CV-00686."

On Nov. 14, 2005, the court entered an order appointing the
Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff for
the proposed plaintiff class.  

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 13, 2006,
seeking certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief.

On March 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which remains pending before the
court.  All proceedings in the case are stayed while the motion
is pending.

The suit is "In re ChoicePoint Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:05-
CV-00686," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree
         Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309,
         Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: mdc@classlaw.com;

     (2) Edward P. Dietrich of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Suite 1900, 655 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: edd@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Christopher Kim of Lim Ruger & Kim, Suite 2800, 1055
         West 7th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-955-
         9500.

Representing the defendants is Tracy Cobb Braintwain of King &
Spalding, LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521,
Phone: 404-572-2714, Fax: 404-572-5139, E-mail:
tbraintwain@kslaw.com.


CLUB HORIZON: Stabbing Victim Wants to Close Spring Valley Club
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Spring Valley, New York man who was stabbed at Club Horizon in
April is seeking class-action status for his suit against the
nightclub, according to Steve Lieberman of The Journal News.

The suit was filed by Jessie D. Grisby in state Supreme Court in
New York city in July.  The suit claims the club failed to
provide security resulting to the stabbing incident.

On Aug. 29, Mr. Griby amended the suit to add his parents
Deborah J. McCarroll and Jesse M. Grisby as plaintiffs.  A
shooting in the parking lot of the club earlier last month
prompted the request to turn the suit into a class action,
according to David MacCartney, lawyer for the plaintiff.  The
plaintiff wants the club closed.

Mr. MacCartney said the lawsuit is based on village code that
says a building can be closed if it is "dangerous to the health,
morals, safety, or general welfare of the people of the
village."  The suit argues that the club is a public-safety
problem because its presence caused and promoted violence and
other crimes.  It cites more than 30 examples of such incidents
in the area.

Spring Valley also filed complaints with the State Liquor
Authority seeking to revoke the club's license to sell alcohol.

The club's attorney is Ronald Koppelman.

MacCartney is member at Feerick Lynch MacCartney PLLC, 96 South
Broadway, Nyack, New York 10960 (Rockland Co.), Phone: 845-353-
2000, Fax: 845-353-2789.


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Okla. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against Dobson Communications Corp. and
certain of its officers and directors.

Beginning on Oct. 22, 2004, securities class actions were filed
against the company and several of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.  
They allege violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between
May 6, 2003 and Aug. 9, 2004.

The suits allege among other things:

      -- that the company concealed significant decreases in
         revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its
         business, including that the company's rate of growth
         in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and
         that the company had experienced negative growth in
         October 2003;

      -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming
         customer, had notified the company that it wanted to
         dispose of its equity interest in the company that it
         had held since the company's initial public offering,
         significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing
         roaming capacity from the company;

      -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         company;

      -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

      -- that the company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits further allege that the company issued various
positive statements concerning its financial prospects and
subscriber information, the speed of the deployment of its GSM
network and the continued growth in its roaming minutes, and
that those statements were false and misleading.

The court consolidated these actions into "Central Laborers
Pension Fund v. Dobson Communications, et al., Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C."  

On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
were filed.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to
dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005.  The company filed its reply briefs on
Oct. 3, 2005.  

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Dobson
Communications, et al., Case No. CIV-04-1394-C," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge
Robin J. Cauthron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart W. Emmons, William B. Federman and Jennifer F.
         Sherrill of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave.,
         Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-
         1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com,
         wfederman@aol.com and jfs@federmanlaw.com.

     (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory Castaldo of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         tborum@sbclasslaw.com and gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey A. Berger of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP-
         Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
         312-701-8583, Fax: 312-706-8400, E-mail:
         jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com; and  

    (ii) Warren F Bickford, IV, Fellers Snider Blankenship
         Bailey & Tippens-OKC, 100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820, Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax:
         405-232-9659, E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com.


DVI INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Penn. Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a hearing on Nov. 9, 2006 at 10 a.m. regarding partial
settlements of the class action "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336."

The class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of DVI (its common stock and 9
7/8% Senior Notes), between Aug. 10, 1999 and Aug. 13, 2003,
both dates inclusive.

Excluded from the settlement class are defendants; any entity in
which a defendant has a controlling interest or is a part or
subsidiary of, or is controlled by a defendant; the officers,
directors, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors and assigns of any of the defendants; plaintiffs
named in the WM High Yield Fund, et al. v. O'Hanlon, et al., No.
04-CV-3423 (Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in the courtroom of the Honorable
Legrome D. Davis.

Deadline to file for exclusion [is Octover 12, 2006].  
Claims [must be filed by January 3, 2007].

In 2003, the company was named defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit alleged the company issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between Nov. 7, 2001 and June
27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI's
publicly traded securities.

The complaint alleged that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the company had failed to timely write down the
         value of certain assets which had become impaired;

     (2) that the company's accounting and financial reporting
         policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-
         recurring) transactions were inadequate;

     (3) that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the company; and

     (4) that as a result, the values of the company's assets,
         net income and earnings per share were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

The class period ended June 27, 2003.  On that date, DVI shocked
the investing public when it announced that the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission had rejected its March 30, 2003
quarterly report because it had not been reviewed by an
independent auditor.

The company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider
the need for the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net
income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per
share for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net
income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically
reduced.

Specifically, $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its earnings per share
for the nine months ended March 31, 2003 was reduced by $0.10,
or 44.45% and its net income for fiscal year ended June 30, 2002
was reduced by $1.395 million or 34.12%, reduced the company's
net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003.

Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling
from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on
June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very
high trading volume.

Under the settlement, defendants shall pay $1.175 million to be
paid into an interest-bearing attorney escrow account under the
control of counsel for lead plaintiffs pursuant to the following
schedule and instructions:

     a. 10% of the Settlement Amount upon execution of the MOU
        (previously received by Lead Counsel);

     b. 10% of the Settlement Amount upon execution of the
        Stipulation of Settlement;

     c. 25% of the Settlement Amount forty-five (45) days after
        execution of the Stipulation of Settlement;

     d. 25% of the Settlement Amount sixty-five (65) days after
        execution of the Stipulation of Settlement;

     e. $352,500.00 (30% of the Settlement Amount) one hundred
        and twenty (120) days after execution of the Stipulation
        of Settlement;

     f. all interest earned in the Escrow Account shall accrue
        solely for the benefit of Lead Plaintiffs and the Class,
        unless the Final Order and Judgment does not become
        final or defendants elect to exercise its option
        pursuant to paragraph 28 hereof, in which case, Lead
        Plaintiffs shall promptly return the entire Settlement
        Amount and any and all interest accrued thereon to
        defendants, less Notice and Administrative Expenses and
        any Taxes upon the Settlement Fund; and

     g. Except for Notice and Administrative Expenses as
        reasonably required and costs incurred in connection
        with the taxation of the Settlement Fund, no monies
        shall be released from the Escrow Account to, or for the
        benefit of, Lead Plaintiffs or the Class for
        distribution to the Class unless and until the Final
        Order and Judgment becomes Final.

A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order and is available free
of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1145

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Antonia M. Apps of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd and
         Evans, PLLC, 1615 M. Street, North West, Suite 400,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-326-7900;

     (2) Thomas V. Ayala of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701
         Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-963-
         5719, E-mail: tayala@morganlewis.com; and

     (3) Gregory Ballard of Cadwalader wickersham & Taft LLP,
         One World, Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone:
         212-504-6701, E-mail: gregory.ballard@cwt.com.

Representing the plaintiffs is M. Reas Bowman of Krislov &
Associates Ltd, 20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1350, Chicago, IL 60606,
Phone: 312-506-0500.


FIRST CHOICE: Police Depts. Mull Asking Class Status for Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several plaintiffs are preparing a possible class action against
First Choice Armor & Equipment over faulty bulletproof vests,
The Lowell Sun in Massachusetts reports.

The suit was filed Jan. 5 in the U.S. District Court in Boston,
and hasn't yet received class status.

The Lowell Police Department joined the suit in November with
other plaintiffs Southern States Police Benevolent Association
Inc., Dennis Wilcox and George King.

Parties have until Nov. 15 to argue in favor and against the
proposal to turn it into a class-action suit, according to the
report.

David M. Cohen of Atlanta-based law firm Carr, Tabb & Pope --
http://www.ctplaw.com/-- is representing Lowell and the other  
plaintiffs.


GUITAR CENTER: Still Faces RICO Lawsuit Over Fla. Operations
------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center, Inc. and its chief executive officer remain
defendants in a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida that alleges
violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, several antitrust laws and trade practices.

On Nov. 29, 2005, a case was filed against company and other
defendants, including its chief executive officer.  The
complaint specifically asserts violations of:

     -- RICO and a corresponding:

        * Florida statute,
        * Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
        * Section 2 of the Clayton Act (as amended by the
          Robinson-Patman Act),
        * the Antidumping Act of 1916,
        * the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, and
        * the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act;

as well as

     -- tortious interference with business relationship under
        Florida law and civil conspiracy under Florida law.

The violations are in connection with the claimed inability of
Ace Pro Sound and Recording, L.L.C. to obtain vendor lines for
its store.

The complaint purports to be a class action on behalf of all
current and former retail sellers of musical instruments and/or
sound equipment and/or recording equipment with stores located
in geographical regions in the U.S. wherein some or all of the
defendants have carried on business, and seeks compensatory
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On March 6, 2006, defendants, jointly and separately, filed
responsive pleadings comprised of four motions to dismiss and a
motion to strike.  

On or about March 21, 2006, plaintiff sought leave of the court
to file an amended complaint, which was granted by the court.
Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on April 10, 2006.

The amended complaint abandoned an alleged violation of the
Antidumping Act of 1916, and now asserts, among other things,
additional common law violations.  

The suit is "Ace Pro Sound and v. Albertson, et al., Case No.
05-CV-23098," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael L. Feinstein of Michael
L. Feinstein, P.A., 888 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida 33301, (Broward Co.), Phone: 954-767-9662,
Fax: 954-527-0848.

Representing the company is Douglas E. Ede of The Law Offices of
Salas, Ede, Peterson & Lage, L.L.C., 6333 Sunset Drive, Miami,
Florida 33143, Phone: (305) 663-0000, Fax: (305) 663-0989, E-
mail: dede@sepllaw.com, Web site: http://www.sepllaw.com.


HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Suit in Israel Over "Titulim" Diapers
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd. announced that a petition for
approval of a class action was filed against Hogla-Kimberly
Ltd., an affiliated company.

According to the petition Hogla-Kimberly has reduced the number
of units of diapers in a package of its "Titulim" brand and thus
misled the public under the Israeli Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff estimates the scope of the class action to be
NIS47 million ($10.8 million).  Hogla-Kimberly rejects the
claims and intends to defend itself against the action.


LITHIA MOTORS: Alaska Consumer Suit Yet to Receive Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Anchorage has yet
to certify as a class action the lawsuit, "Jackie Lee Neese et
al. v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et al., Case No.
3AN-06-04815CI," which names as defendants several subsidiaries
of Lithia Motors, Inc.

On May 30, 2006, four of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries
located in Alaska were served with a lawsuit alleging that the
dealerships failed to comply with Alaska law relating to various
disclosures required during the sale of a used vehicle.  

The complainant seeks to represent other similarly situated
customers.  The court has not yet certified the suit as a class
action.

Medford, Oregon-based Lithia Motors, Inc. (NYSE: LAD) --
http://www.lithia.com/-- is an operator of automotive  
franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles and services.  
As of March 6, 2006, the company offered 25 brands of new
vehicles through 187 franchises in 93 stores in the Western U.S.
and over the Internet.  As of March 6, 2006, the company
operated 16 stores in Oregon, 14 in Texas, 12 in Washington, 11
in California, seven in Idaho, seven in Colorado, seven in
Alaska, seven in Montana, six in Nevada, three in Nebraska, two
in South Dakota and one in New Mexico.

The company sells new and used cars and light trucks; sell
replacement parts; provide vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint
and repair services, and arrange related financing, service
contracts, protection products and credit insurance for its
automotive customers.


LUPRON LITIGATION: Illinois to Receive $1.86M in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that her office
has brokered a $1.86 million settlement agreement with makers of
a prostate cancer medication over allegations that the
pharmaceutical companies published inflated prices for their
medication.  The settlement money will be distributed to 19
clinics throughout Illinois to provide cancer-related services
to low-income patients.  It is part of a national class action,
according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Ms. Madigan announced a $130,000 grant to the Southern Illinois
Healthcare Foundation.  The settlement funds will help provide
much needed medical oncology services for East St. Louis
residents, more comprehensive cancer screening and help fund
community awareness and outreach education concerning cancer.
Funds will be used so that oncology services continue to be
available in East St. Louis on a twice weekly basis.

Ms. Madigan said the settlement agreement was reached with:

     -- TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.,
     -- Abbott Laboratories, and
     -- Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Limited.  

The three pharmaceutical companies produce and distribute the
prostate cancer drug Lupron.

In 2005, Ms. Madigan filed a lawsuit in Illinois against the
manufacturers of Lupron for violations related to the Average
Wholesale Price for the medication alleging that the drug makers
fraudulently published inflated prices for prescription
medications such as Lupron, forcing government programs and
Illinois Medicare consumers to overpay hundreds of millions in
drug costs.

Ms. Madigan's office is distributing the grants to free clinics
and federally qualified health clinics, which use a sliding fee
scale for uninsured patients.  Each clinic will use its share of
the Lupron settlement money to provide improved cancer-related
services for the low-income patients.

The 19 grants, ranging from $50,000 to $300,000, will be
distributed to these clinics:

Clinic Location                                    Grant Amount
---------------                                     ------------

Abundant Health Resource Clinic Carbondale        $50,000
AGAPE Care Team Health Services Tampico             $100,000
Bureau County Health & Wellness Clinic Princeton  $50,000
Community Health Chicago                         $300,000
Community Health Care Clinic Normal                  $150,000
Community Outreach Clinic Quincy                    $50,000
Community Nurse Health Association LaGrange        $50,000
Crusader Central Clinic Association Rockford       $100,000
Denny Clinic Chicago                               $100,000
DuPage Community Clinic Wheaton                   $150,000
Family Health Partnership Clinic Woodstock        $80,000
Hands of Hope Family Clinic Marion                    $50,000
Health Reach Community Clinic Waukegan             $150,000
Livingston Family Care Center Pontiac              $50,000
Morgan Scott Volunteer Health Clinic Jacksonville   $50,000
Southern Illinois Healthcare Foundation East St. Louis$130,000
St. Francis Community Clinic Peoria              $150,000
St. Teresa/Azzarelli Outreach Clinic Kankakee         $50,000
Will-Grundy Medical Clinic Joliet                     $50,000


MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools Get Windfall From $22.6M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont Public Schools in Nebraska received more than $106,000
in vouchers from the $22.6 million settlement of a consumer
class action against the Microsoft Corp., The Fremont Tribune
reports.

The law firm of Yost, Schafersman, Lamme, Hillis, Mitchell and  
Schultz filed the suit on behalf of Nebraska schools in Dodge  
County District Court.  The suit alleged that company violated  
Nebraska's antitrust and unfair competition laws.  

Under the settlement, the company agreed to issue up to $22.6  
million in vouchers to Nebraska business officials and residents  
who bought certain Microsoft products between Feb. 28, 1997, and  
Dec. 31, 2002.  Since all individuals and/or businesses that  
bought products did not file for vouchers, the unclaimed money  
was then dispersed among Nebraska's public schools in need.

According to Mark Shepard, Fremont Public Schools business  
director, based on Microsoft products purchased in the specified  
time frame, the district originally received $18,000 in vouchers  
to be used toward the purchase of any computer hardware and/or  
software it chose.

For more details, contact Bob Hillis of Yost, Schafersman,  
Lamme, Hillis, Mitchell & Schulz, PC, 81 West 5th St., Fremont,  
NE 68025, Phone: (402)


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Mo. Court Mulls Class Status for Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri has
yet to rule on a motion for class certification of the
consolidated securities suit against NovaStar Financial, Inc.

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class actions against the company and three of its executive
officers were filed and consolidated into a single action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.

The plaintiffs purported to bring this consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004.

On Jan. 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion.  
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains pending,
according to the company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Ortrie D.
Smith.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bruce D. Bernstein and Michael B. Eisenkraft of
         Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-594-5300;

     (2) James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP,
         1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: (404) 607-6871, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-
         mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com; and

     (3) William W. Wickersham of Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP, 299
         Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10171, Phone:
         212-894-7200.

Representing the defendants are Erin Bansal and William F.
Alderman of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: (415)
773-5759, E-mail: walderman@orrick.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Calif. Court Approves Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave final approval to the settlement of a purported class
action filed by loan officers of NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc.,
against the company.

In July 2004, an employee of NHMI, a wholly owned subsidiary of
the NovaStar Financial, Inc., filed a class and collective
action lawsuit against NHMI and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. in
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.

Subsequently, NHMI and NMI removed the matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California and NMI
was removed from the lawsuit.  

The putative class is comprised of all past and present
employees of NHMI who were employed from July 30, 2001 (2000 in
California) through Nov. 18, 2005 in the capacity generally
described as Loan Officer.

The plaintiffs alleged that NHMI failed to pay them overtime and
minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California state laws.

In January 2005, the plaintiffs and NHMI agreed upon a
nationwide settlement in the amount of $3.3 million on behalf of
a class of all NHMI Loan Officers covering the period commencing
July 30, 2001 (2000 in California) to May 1, 2006.

The settlement covers all claims for minimum wage, overtime,
meal and rest periods, record keeping, and penalties under
California and federal law during the class period, and was
approved by the court on May 1, 2006.  

Since not all class members elected to be part of the
settlement, the company obligation related to the settlement is
approximately $1.7 million.

The suit is "Dawn Robertson v. Novastar Mortgage Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-08444-SGL-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California under Judge Stephen G. Larson
with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael S. Duberchin of the Michael S. Duberchin Law
         Offices, 4768 Park Granada, Suite 212, Calabasas, CA
         91302-3349, Phone: 818-222-7484;

     (2) Andre E. Jardini of Knapp Petersen & Clarke, 500 N.
         Brand Blvd., 20th Fl., Glendale, CA 91203-1094, Phone:
         818-547-5000, E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com;

     (3) Dennis F. Moss of Spiro Moss Barness Harrison and
         Barge, 11377 West Olympic Blvd, 5th Floor, Los Angeles,
         CA 90064, Phone: 310-235-2468, E-mail:
         secretary@smbhblaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Maria A. Audero and Paul Grossman
of Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker, 515 South Flower Street,
25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-683-6000, E-mail:
mariaaudero@paulhastings.com and paulgrossman@paulhastings.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Suit in La.
------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. remains defendant in a putative
class action filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, alleging violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The suit was filed in December 2005.  It claims that the company
violated FCRA in connection with its use of pre-approved offers
of credit and its failure to make certain disclosures required
by federal law.

Plaintiff sought, on his own behalf, as well as for others
similarly situated, statutory damages, other nominal damages,
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Pearson v. Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-01377-JVP-DLD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under Judge John V. Parker with
referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Philip Bohrer of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson
         Highway, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-
         925-5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
         phil@bohrerlaw.com; and

     (2) Scott E. Brady, 8712 Jefferson Hwy, Ste. B, Baton
         Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-924-7636, Fax: 225-231-
         7000, E-mail: scott@bradylawfirmllc.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) James Rodney Chastain, Jr., Kean, Miller-B.R., P.O. Box
         3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999,
         Fax: 225-388-9133, E-mail:
         sonny.chastain@keanmiller.com; and

    (ii) Tara E. Montgomery of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
         D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge,
         LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 388-9133, E-
         mail: tara.montgomery@keanmiller.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Still Faces Consolidated RESPA Litigation in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. remains a defendant in a
consolidated class action alleging violations of the federal
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).  The suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia.

In April 2005, three putative class actions filed against the
company and certain of its affiliates were consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia as, "In Re NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc.
Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, MDL-1677."

These cases alleged that the company improperly shared
settlement service fees with limited liability companies in
which it had an interest, violating the fee splitting and anti-
referral provisions of RESPA, certain state laws and civil
conspiracy.

Plaintiffs sought treble damages with respect to the RESPA
claims, disgorgement of fees with respect to the state law
claims as well as other damages, injunctive relief and attorney
fees.

The suit is "In Re NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. Mortgage Lending
Practices Litigation, MDL-1677," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia under Judge William
T. Moore.  


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Still Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative
consumer fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed
to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made
on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans,
excess interest charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and
finances, treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and attorney fees.

The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew Phineas Bergman of Law Office Of Matthew
         Bergman, 705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601, Seattle, WA 98104,
         Phone: 206-957-9510, E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com; and

     (2) Ari Y. Brown of Bergman & Frockt, 705 Second Avenue,
         Ste. 1601, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: 206-957-9510, E-
         mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Donald C Brown, Jr. of Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider,
         1300 19TH ST., NW, 5TH FL., Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-628-2000, E-mail: brown@wbsk.com; and

    (ii) Sal Mungia of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson
         & Daheim, P.O. BOX 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401-1157, Phone:
         253-620-6500, Fax: 1-253-620-6565, E-mail:
         smungia@gth-law.com.


RANDOM HOUSE: Deal Nears in Lawsuit Over "Memoir", Report Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Random House, the publisher of "A Million Little Pieces," is
close to settling class actions filed against it following the
admission by the author of the book to fabrications in the
"memoir, Radar reports.

"A memo of understanding is circulating among the various
plaintiffs right now," a source close to the proceedings told
Radar.

Readers who bought the book before Random House publicly
admitted its falsity will be eligible for a full refund, the
report said.  

"The whole settlement will not be large," says the source.

James Frey, the author of the book, admitted earlier this year
on "Larry King Live" at CNN that he added some details to his
story, but insisted that is part of memoir-writing.

Suits over the book were filed, among others, by:

     -- E. Powell Miller of Miller Shea and Bingham Farms lawyer
        Mark S. Baumkel of Provizer & Phillips in the U.S.
        District Court in Detroit (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
        24, 2006);

     -- Montreal resident Joshua Adam Levy in a Quebec Superior
        Court on behalf of Quebec readers who he claims were
        defrauded by what they see as a literary fraud,
        according to CTV.ca News (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
        13).  

        Mr. Levy sued the book's author, James Frey, publisher
        Random House Inc., and its Canadian arm, Random House of
        Canada Ltd. for marketing the book as non-fiction.  He
        is demanding $2 million as reimbursement for the class;

     -- Jennifer Cohn, a Manhattan social worker, who claimed
        she was 'injured' by the book and asking $10 million in
        compensation;  

     -- Karen Futernick in federal court in Manhattan on
        Jan. 27, seeking the return of $14.95 she spent for the
        book Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006);

     -- Sara Brackenrich in U.S. District court against Mr.
        Frey, Doubleday & Co. Inc., Random House Inc., Vintage
        Anchor Publishing Inc. and Borders Group Inc. (Class
        Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006);

     -- Mike Myers in Washington federal court (Class Action
        Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006); and

     -- Chicago law firm Dale and lawyer Thomas Pakenas against
        Doubleday Books in a Cook County, Illinois court,
        alleging consumer fraud (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17,
        2006).  

Random House on the Net: http://www.randomhouse.com/.


RCN CORP: Discovery to Begin Soon in N.J. ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is set to commence in the consolidated class action
against RCN Corp. that was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

In September 2004, as part of the company's Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, certain participants and beneficiaries
of the former RCN Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (Savings
Plan) asserted claims against the company and its current and
former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers for alleged violations of ERISA.

Plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to properly manage and monitor the
Savings Plan in light of the drop in the trading price of the
company's then-outstanding common stock, which comprised a
portion of the aggregate contributions made to the Savings Plan.

In April 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York permitted the filing of a consolidated
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against RCN Corp. and its current and
former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers, subject to the limitation that the plaintiffs would
not be permitted to enforce a judgment against the company in
excess of any applicable RCN insurance coverage.  The class
action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005.

In March 2006, the class action complaint was dismissed as to
all defendants, except for

      -- the company and certain former directors of RCN with
         respect to an alleged "failure to monitor" the Savings
         Plan, and

      -- certain individuals who comprised the former
         administrative committee of the Savings Plan with
         respect to an alleged failure to prudently invest
         Savings Plan assets, in each case during late 2003 and
         early 2004 when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
         occurred.

Discovery with respect to the remaining defendants is
anticipated to commence this month.

The suit is "In re: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
04-CV-5068 (SRC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler.

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

Representing the company is Edward Cerasia, II of Proskauer
Rose, LLP, One Newark Center, 18th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5211,
Phone: (973) 274-3200, E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com.


REPSOL YPF: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed an amended class action
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Repsol YPF, S.A. (REP)
between July 28, 2005 and Jan. 27, 2006 inclusive, the AFX
reports.

The amended complaint claims company executives "knowingly or
recklessly made numerous false and misleading statements
concerning the company's business and financial results".

Repsol will respond to the suit within 60 days and is
"optimistic of a favorable outcome," a Financial Times report
said.

The complaint filed early this year charges Repsol and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2006).  
Repsol engages in the exploration, development, and production
of crude oil and natural gas primarily in Spain and Argentina.

The complaint alleges that defendants' issued a series of false
and misleading statements to the market artificially inflating
the company's stock.  More specifically, the Defendants failed
to disclose these materially adverse facts to the market:

     (1) that the company's proven reserves were materially
         overstated;

     (2) that changes in Bolivia's legal framework, were
         negatively effecting the company's Bolivian gas
         production operation;

     (3) that the company was experiencing production problems
         in Argentina;

     (4) that the company had to take an asset impairment charge
         of EUR50 million; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
         positive statements about its reserves and business
         growth lacked in all reasonable basis when made.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the company announced that it was reducing its
proven oil and gas reserves estimates by 25%.  On this news,
shares of Repsol ADRs fell $2.12 per share, or 7%, on Jan. 26,
2006, to close at $27.99 per share.  The company's stock
continued to decline on Jan. 27, 2006, when it fell $1.34 per
share, or 4.79%, to close at $26.65 per share.  Plaintiff seeks
to recover damages.

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway --
http://www.sbclasslaw.com--  Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free),  
1-610-667-7706, On the Net: E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


SLM CORP: D.C. Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a trial court
ruling that dismisses the amended complaint in a purported
consumer fraud class action against SLM Corp.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
brought by three Wisconsin residents on Dec. 20, 2001 in the
Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit sought to bring a nationwide class action on behalf
of all borrowers who allegedly paid "undisclosed improper and
excessive" late fees over the past three years.

Plaintiffs sought damages of $1,500 per violation plus punitive
damages and claimed that the class consisted of two million
borrowers.

In addition, plaintiffs alleged that the company charged
excessive interest by capitalizing interest quarterly in
violation of the promissory note.

On Feb. 27, 2003, the Superior Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  On March 4,
2004, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the
Superior Court's decision granting the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead
the first count, which alleged violations of the state Consumer
Protection Procedures Act.

On Sept. 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint.  On Oct. 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint with the Superior Court for
failure to state a claim and non-compliance with the Court of
Appeals' ruling.

On Dec. 27, 2004, the Superior Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
appealed the Superior Court's dismissal order to the Court of
Appeals.

On June 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion
reversing the order of the trial court dismissing the amended
complaint.

The Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the complaint
but concluded that the trial court improperly relied upon facts
extrinsic to the complaint.

The company does not believe that it is reasonably likely that a
nationwide class will be certified.  The Court of Appeals noted
in its decision that the plaintiffs failed to file a motion for
class certification within the time required by the District of
Columbia rules.

Reston, Virginia-based SLM Corp., also known as Sallie Mae,
(NYSE: SLM) -- http://www.salliemae.com/-- is a holding company  
that trough its subsidiaries is engaged in education finance.  
It provides funding, delivery and servicing support for
education loans in the U.S., primarily through its participation
in the Federal Family Education Loan Program.  The company
provides a range of financial services, processing capabilities
and information technology to meet the needs of educational
institutions, lenders, students and their families, guarantee
agencies and the U.S. Department of Education.  The company also
provides fee-based related products and services, and earns fees
for student loan and guarantee servicing, and student loan
default management and loan collections.


SONY BMG: Reaches Settlement in XCP, MediaMax Lawsuit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony BMG Music (Canada) Inc. reached a settlement in a class
action filed by persons in Canada, who purchased a music CD from
SONY BMG between Aug. 1, 2003 and Aug. 10, 2006, which carried
XCP or MediaMax software.

The suit commenced in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec in
late 2005 and early 2006, also names as defendants SunnComm
International Inc., and First 4 Internet, Ltd.

These actions allege that the Media Max and XCP software fails
to disclose limits on use of the CDs, violates the privacy
rights of users, creates security vulnerabilities, and is
difficult to uninstall.

The Ontario class proceeding includes the claims of all
settlement class members who reside outside the provinces of
British Columbia and Quebec.  The Quebec and British Columbia
class proceeding includes all of the class members who reside in
the province of Quebec and British Columbia respectively.

The proposed class includes:

"all natural persons in Canada who purchased, received, came
into possession of or otherwise used one or more MediaMax CDs
and/or XCP CDs from Aug. 1, 2003 through Aug. 10, 2006 excluding
the employees of Released Parties, SONY BMG resellers or
distributors of the XCP CDs and MediaMax CDs, and any persons or
entities that have previously executed releases discharging SONY
BMG from liability concerning or encompassing any or all claims"
against the product.

Under the settlement:

     -- All XCP class members who return their CD to SONY BMG or
        provide SONY BMG with a receipt indicating the return or
        exchange of their CD to its place of purchase will
        receive a replacement hard copy CD of the same title
        without the software, and will be able to download from
        the SONY BMG website free MP3 digital music files of the
        same album.  XCP class members can then choose either of
        two additional compensation  options:  

        * a cheque for $8.40 and a promotional code exchangeable
          for one free album download from among a list of
          approximately 200 available albums, or

        * a promotional code exchangeable for three of the
          free album downloads;

     -- MediaMax 3.0 class members who provide proof of purchase
        will be able to download free MP3 digital files of the
        tracks on the MediaMax CD;

     -- MediaMax 5.0 class members who provide proof of purchase
        will be able to download free MP3 digital files of the
        tracks on the MediaMax CD, and will receive a
        promotional code for one free album download.

Remedial undertakings by SONY BMG include:

     -- it will agree not to manufacture audio CDs with XCP or
        MediaMax Software in Canada, or to distribute CDs with
        XCP Software in Canada;

     -- it will agree to advise the courts if and when it uses
        Content Protection Software on CDs sold in Canada that
        has not been reviewed under the U.S. Settlement
        Agreement;

     -- it has affirmed, and an independent auditor has found,
        that it has not collected any personally identifiable
        information from consumers without consent, and it will
        agree to take commercially reasonable steps to destroy,
        at least every 10 business days, all IP addresses logged
        from hits made to its servers; and

     -- it waives certain provisions of the EULA associated with
        the XCP and MediaMax CDs.

SONY BMG denies any wrongdoing or liability associated with the
XCP and MediaMax Software.  

Class counsel's fees and disbursements, and taxes thereon in an
amount to be fixed by the court, will be paid by SONY BMG in
addition to the other settlement terms.

Hearings to decide whether to approve the settlement will be
held in:


Ontario                  Sept. 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
                         361 University Avenue, Toronto

Quebec                   Sept. 28, 2006, at 9:00a.m.
                         1 Rue Notre Dame East, Montreal

British Columbia         Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
                         850 Burdett Avenue, Victoria

Objections are due on Sept. 18, 2006.  Compensation will be paid
to the class until Dec. 31, 2006:


                  Contact Information


Quebec class members          KUGLER, KANDESTIN
                              (Attention; Pierre Boivin)
                              1 Place Ville-Marie, Suite 2101,
                              Montreal Quebec H3B 2C6
                              Phone: 514-878-2861  
                              Fax: 514-875-8424  
                              Email: info@kugler-kandestin.com
                         

Other provinces, territories  SUTTS, STROSBERG  
                              600-251 Goyeau Street,
                              Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4
                              Phone: 1-519-561-6248   
                              Fax: 519-561-6203
  
                              MERCHANT LAW GROUP
                              340-251 3rd Avenue S. W.             
                              203-895 Belville Street
                              Calgary, Alberta T2P 3T3              
                              Victoria, B.C.  V8V 1W9
                              Phone: 866-225-7777  
                              Fax: 403-237-9775

                              HOTZ LAWYERS  
                              203-100 Upper Madison Avenue,
                              Toronto, Ontario M2N 6M4
                              Phone: 416-590-7823  
                              Fax: 647-430-8269

On the Net: http://cdtechsettlement.sonybmg.ca


STARTEK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the consolidated securities class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against
StarTek, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have moved to dismiss the case.

Initially, the company and others were named as defendants in
two purported class actions in the U.S. District Court, District
of Colorado:

      -- "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. StarTek,
         Inc., et al.," filed on July 8, 2005; and

      -- "John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al.," filed on July
         20, 2005.

The federal court later consolidated those actions.  The
consolidated action is a purported class action brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of the company's
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between Feb.
26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and in press releases issued during the
class period, and that the market price of the company's common
stock was artificially inflated as a result.

It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of
the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.

On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the action in its entirety.

The suit is "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Startek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01265-PSF-OES," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under
Judge Phillip S. Figa.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Matthew M. Wolf, Allen & Vellone,
P.C., 1600 Stout Street, #1100, Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone:
303-534-4499, E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com.  

Representing the company are James E. Nesland and Matthew Voss
of Cooley Godward, LLP-Colorado, 380 Interlocken Crescent, #900
Broomfield, CO 80021-8023, U.S.A., Phone: 720-566-4000, Fax:
720-566-4099, E-mail: neslandje@cooley.com and mvoss@cooley.com.


THOMAS KINKADE: Investors, Collectors Plan Suit Over Stock Fall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class actions are being prepared against art dealer Thomas
Kinkade Co., Michigan lawyer Norman Yatooma said, according to a
report by Tony Burchyns of the Gilroy Dispatch.

Two class actions will be filed Sept. 11 on behalf of
shareholders and collectors who are accusing the owner, Mr.
Kinkade, of intentionally devaluing stock in his public company,
Media Arts Group, Inc., so he could buy it back cheaply, Mr.
Yatooma said.

Plaintiffs are saying Mr. Kinkade dumped a large inventory of
original paintings to discount stores to reduce prices of
artwork in his galleries.  All the while, he allegedly blames a
national economic downtown after Sept. 11, 2001 for reduced
sales at his galleries, and depressed stock prices.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is also investigating Mr.
Kinkade and other company executives over allegations that they
fraudulently induced investors to open galleries and drove them
out of business by unfair practices and policies.

The company is based in Morgan Hill, California.


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action against Tripath Technology, Inc.

Beginning on Nov. 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed four separate
complaints purporting to be class actions alleging that the
company and certain of the company's present or former officers
and/or directors, Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, David Eichler and Graham
Wright, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs purported to represent a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Tripath
securities between Jan. 29, 2004 and Oct. 22, 2004.

The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
company and the individual defendants made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to financial results and with
respect to the company's business, prospects and operations in
the company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, press releases and other disclosures.  

It seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees, costs and such other relief as may be
awarded by the Court.

On Dec. 22, 2004, the court entered a stipulation and order
consolidating all of these complaints and ordering that the
defendants need not respond to any of these complaints until
after plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint.

On Jan. 4, 2005, plaintiffs filed motions for the appointment of
lead plaintiff.  The court, by order dated Jan. 28, 2005,
appointed Robert Poteet as the sole lead plaintiff and approved
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as lead counsel.

On Jul. 11, 2005, the company entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement, which was filed with the court on Jul. 12,
2005.  The settlement class consists of all persons who
purchased the securities of the company between Jan. 29, 2004
and Jun. 13, 2005, inclusive.

Under the terms of the stipulation, the parties agreed that the
issuance of 2.45 million shares of Tripath common stock, which
shall be exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10)
of the Securities Act, and a payment of $200,000 in cash would
dismiss the class action.  

The stipulation remains subject to the satisfaction of various
conditions, including without limitation final approval of the
Stipulation by the court, including a finding that the 2.45
million shares of Tripath common stock to be issued are exempt
from registration.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the court entered a Preliminary Order for
Notice and Hearing in Connection with Settlement Proceedings.

Following an Apr. 11, 2006 hearing, the court entered an order
and final judgment on Apr. 18, 2006, which finally approved the
settlement, awarded attorneys' fees and authorized the
reimbursement of expenses and entered judgment dismissing all of
the complaints on the merits and with prejudice in favor of the
defendants.  Approximately $1.8 million has been accrued for
this matter.

The suit is "In re: Tripath Technology Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C 04 4681 SBA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert S. Green, Green Welling
LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, Email:
RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.   

Representing the defendant is Gilbert R. Serota, Howard Rice
Nemerovski Canady Falk, Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor, San
Franciso, CA 94111-4065, Phone: 415-434-1600, Fax: 415-217-5910,
E-mail: gserota@hrice.com.


UTSTARCOM INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTSTARCOM, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class actions
alleging federal securities violations were filed against the
company and various officers and directors.  The actions were
later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint on July 26, 2005.  The First Amended
Complaint alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and was brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the company's stock after April 16,
2003 and before Sept. 20, 2004.

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005.

In addition to the company defendants, the plaintiffs are also
suing Softbank Corp.  Plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of
damages in an unspecified amount.

The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with
referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Michael M. Goldberg of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310/201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
         Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-
         493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
         boris.feldman@wsgr.com; and

    (ii) Scott Christensen Hall of Sullivan & Cromwell, 1870
         Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone: 650-461-
         5600, Fax: 650-461-5700, E-mail: halls@sullcrom.com.


VALERO ENERGY: Seeks New Trial for Blue Island Refinery Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corp. filed motions for a new trial, remittitur
and judgment, notwithstanding the Nov. 21, 2005 verdict in the
class action, "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et
al., Case No. 95-L 014703," which was filed in the Judicial
Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois.

The company assumed this class action after its acquisition of
Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement on Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release to
the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of heavy
metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery on
Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary evacuation
of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes:

      -- persons purportedly affected by the Oct. 7, 1994
         catalyst release, but with no permanent health effects;

      -- persons with medical expenses for dependents
         purportedly affected by the Oct. 7, 1994 release;
         and  

      -- local residents claiming property damage or who have
         suffered loss of use and enjoyment of their property
         over a period of several years.

Following three weeks of trial, on Nov. 21, 2005, the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiffs of $80.1 million in
compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages.

In January 2006, the company filed motions for new trial,
remittitur and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing,
among other things, rampant misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel
and improper class certification.

San Antonio, Texas-based Valero Energy Corp. (NYSE: VLO) --
http://www.valero.com/-- owns and operates 18 refineries  
located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba that produce refined
products, such as reformulated gasoline, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur diesel fuel and oxygenates.

The company also produces conventional gasoline, distillates,
jet fuel, asphalt, petrochemicals, lubricants and other refined
products. Its business is organized into two segments: refining
and retail.  The refining segment includes refining operations,
wholesale marketing, product supply and distribution, and
transportation operations.  The retail segment is segregated
into two geographic regions: the U.S. System and the Northeast
System.  On Sept. 1, 2005, Valero completed the merger of
Premcor Inc. with and into Valero Energy Corp.


VIGNETTE CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Vignette Corp., according to the company's Aug. 9, 2006 form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended June 30, 2006.

On Oct. 26, 2001, a class action, "Leon Leybovich v. Vignette
Corp., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that
purchased Vignette common stock between Feb. 18, 1999 and Dec.
6, 2000.

Also named as defendants were four underwriters involved in the
company's initial public offering of Vignette stock in February
1999 and the company's secondary public offering of Vignette
stock in December 1999:

     -- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.,
     -- Hambrecht & Quist, LLC,
     -- Dain Rauscher Wessels, and
     -- U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.

A consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
based on, among other things, claims that the four underwriters
awarded material portions of the shares in the company's initial
and secondary public offerings to certain customers in exchange
for excessive commissions.

Plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters engaged in "tie-in
arrangements" whereby certain customers were allocated shares of
company stock sold in its initial and secondary public offerings
in exchange for an agreement to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

With respect to the company, the complaint alleges that the
company and its officers and directors failed to disclose the
existence of these purported excessive commissions and tie-in
arrangements in the prospectus and registration statement for
the company's initial public offering and the prospectus and
registration statement for the company's secondary public
offering.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On Oct.
9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal
filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
complaint against the company.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the court
certified a class in six of the other nearly identical actions
and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong
guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the
remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a
class in the company's case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the company, the individual defendants, the plaintiff class and
the vast majority of the other issuer defendants.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The company would agree
to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to
assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the
company may have against its underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.  

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.

It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement and related agreements will be covered by existing
insurance.

The company currently is not aware of any material limitations
on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation
to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers.  Its carriers are
solvent, and the company is not aware of any uncertainties as to
the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any
recovery by plaintiffs.  Therefore, the company does not expect
that the settlement will involve any payment by the company.  

Even if material limitations on the expected recovery of any
potential financial obligation to the plaintiffs from the
company's insurance carriers should arise, the company's maximum
financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement
agreement is less than $3.4 million.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been
made.  

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


V.I. TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court approved the settlement of an overtime
lawsuit filed by a former employee of V.I. Technologies, Inc.  

On Feb. 2, 2005, V.I. Technologies, now known as Panacos
Pharmaceuticals Inc., was served with a complaint filed in New
York State Court by a former employee of that company's plant in
Melville.  V.I. Technologies divested the Melville plant to
Precision Pharma Services, Inc. in August 2001.  Precision is
also a party to the suit.

The suit was a class action in which the lead plaintiff,
representing the class, claimed that V.I. Technologies underpaid
overtime to employees of the processing plant.

The complaint alleged an amount in excess of $125,000 in unpaid
overtime plus the costs of the action and reasonable attorney's
fees due from the two defendants.

The company and the lead plaintiff submitted a jointly proposed
settlement with the U.S. District Court and received a final
ruling in favor of the proposed settlement in June 2006.
Settlement payments were made in the quarter ended June 30,
2006.  

Watertown, Massachusetts-based Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PANC), -- http://www.panacos.com/-- formerly known as  
V.I. Technologies, Inc., is a development-stage biotechnology
company that seeks to develop next-generation, anti-infective
products through the discovery and development of small-molecule
oral drugs designed to treat human immunodeficiency virus and
other major human viral diseases.  

In March 2005, V.I. Technologies, Inc. merged with the former
Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  Following the merger, the
combined company was known as V.I. Technologies, Inc. until the
name was changed to Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in August
2005.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $435M Liability in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s total non-current asbestos-related
liability was US$435,023,000 as of June 30, 2006, compared with
US$466,163,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's total non-current asbestos-
related liability was US$447,953,000. (Class Action Reporter,
June 9, 2006)

The Company's total non-current asbestos-related insurance
recovery receivable was US$382,227,000 as of June 30, 2006,
compared with US$321,008,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company
recorded a US$79,590,000 net gain on asbestos settlement.

Several of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries face
asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims
pending in the United States and United Kingdom.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work performed by the Company's units during and before the
1970s.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 161,440 U.S. Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. recorded 161,440 open asbestos-related
claims pending in the United States for the three months ended
June 30, 2006, compared with 165,900 open claims for the three
months ended July 5, 2005.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted
2,590 claims filed, compared with 4,420 claims filed for the
three months ended July 1, 2005.

The Company resolved 5,390 claims for the three months ended
June 30, 2006, compared with 6,320 resolved claims for the three
months ended July 1, 2005.

At the end of the 2006-1st quarter, the Company had 164,240 open
asbestos-related claims pending in the U.S., compared with
167,800 claims at the end of the 2005-4th quarter. (Class Action
Reporter, June 9, 2006)

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had US$399 million asbestos-
related assets, compared with US$320 million as of Dec. 31,
2005. As of June 30, 2006, the Company had US$478,400,000
asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$516,000,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company spent US$19,200,000 on asbestos litigation, defense,
and case resolution for the three months ended June 30, 2006,
and US$37,600,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2006. This
compared with US$22,300,000 for the three months ended July 1,
2005, and US$44,800,000 for the six months ended July 1, 2005.

The Company funded US$19,100,000 of the payments during the
three months ended June 30, 2006, and US$35,500,000 during the
six months ended June 30, 2006.

Through June 30, 2006, total cumulative indemnity costs paid
were about US$538,500,000 and total cumulative defense costs
paid were about US$146,400,000. The overall average combined
indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim since 1993 has
been about US$2,300.

As of June 30, 2006, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated US$186,100,000 relating to open claims
being valued and an estimated liability of US$292,300,000
relating to future unasserted claims through year-end 2020.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company estimated US$46,100,000 as the
value of its asbestos insurance asset contested by its
subsidiaries' insurers in ongoing litigation.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Face 329 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United Kingdom
recorded 329 open asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2006.
To date, 800 claims have been filed against the Company's U.K.
subsidiaries.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's U.K. subsidiaries had 325
open asbestos-related claims. To date, 783 claims have been
filed against the Company's U.K. subsidiaries. (Class Action
Reporter, June 9, 2006)

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$27,700,000 comprised of an estimated liability relating to
open claims of US$2,900,000 and an estimated liability relating
to future unasserted claims of US$24,800,000.

Of the total, US$1,100,000 was recorded in accrued expenses and
US$26,600,000 was recorded in asbestos-related liability.

The liability and asset estimates are based on a recent U.K.
court of appeal ruling that pleural plaque claims do not amount
to a compensable injury. If the ruling would be reversed, the
asbestos liability and asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$66,200,000.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Unit Has 3 Suits in Miss. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
An indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Noble Corporation is a
named defendant in three asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the subsidiary was served as a named defendant
in two suits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi involving numerous other unaffiliated firms as co-
defendants.

In December 2004, the subsidiary was served as a named defendant
in a third suit filed in Mississippi Circuit Court.

The suits seek monetary damages on behalf of about 131 named
individuals alleging personal injury, including claims under the
Jones Act, purportedly resulting from asbestos exposure on
drilling rigs and associated facilities from 1965 through 1986.

While the suits continue to be in procedural stages,
supplemental pleadings filed by plaintiffs reflect that about 21
or fewer of the 131 named individuals may have claims that they
were employed by the Company's subsidiary or otherwise
associated with its drilling operations.

Of these 21, eight have followed applicable court orders to
amend their complaints against the Company by the applicable
deadline.

Based in Sugar Land, Tex., Noble Corp., which used to be known
as Noble Drilling, operates in waters off the coasts of five
continents and has a fleet of 60 offshore drilling units. The
Company also provides labor contract drilling, well site, and
project management services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Has 4 Lawsuits in Miss. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Co. contends with four asbestos-related lawsuits
filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in
Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report, on
Form 10-Q, for the period ended June 30, 2006 and filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2004, certain Company predecessors were named as
defendants in the four suits, which included 118 individuals
alleging that they suffer illnesses from exposure to asbestos
and seeking damages.

The suits assert claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and
strict liability, all based on the status of the Company's
predecessors as Jones Act employers.

These cases include defendants, who are alleged to have been the
Jones Act employers of these plaintiffs and made, distributed or
utilized asbestos-containing products. About 25 plaintiffs have
identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer.

To date, plaintiffs have not identified any of the Company or
predecessors' products to contain asbestos. Four individuals
filed amended suits against the Company and the rest of the
original 114 claims have been dismissed.

The Company has also been named in more asbestos-related cases.
The allegations in these cases include claims that the Company
provided some unspecified product or service, which contained or
utilized asbestos.

Some of the allegations involved claims that the Company is the
successor to the Byron Jackson Co. To date, the Company has been
successful in obtaining dismissals of these cases without any
payment in settlements or judgments.

Based in Houston, Tex., BJ Services Co. provides pressure-
pumping services used to protect oil formation, wellbore, and
casing pipe during drilling and well completion. The Company
operates onshore and offshore in most of the world's major oil
and gas producing regions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Units Face Pending Suits in 26 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries have been named in
lawsuits pending in 26 states, claiming asbestos-related
personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
made with asbestos-containing components.

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

Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

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

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

Based in Northbrook, Ill., IDEX Corp. makes pump products,
dispensing equipment, and other engineered products. Investment
firm Ariel Capital Management, Inc. owns 22 percent of the
Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Reserves $158M for A&E Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Group Inc. reserved US$158 million gross, US$148.3
million net, loss reserves for asbestos and environmental claims
for the period ending June 30, 2006.

For the period ending March 31, 2006, the Company reserved
US$161.2 million gross, US$151.2 million net, loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims. (Class Action Reporter, June
6, 2006)

For the period ending June 30, 2005, the Company reserved
US$173.1 million gross, US$158.8 million net, loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims.

The Company has discontinued underwriting certain lines of
business. However, the Company still is obligated to pay losses
incurred on these lines, which include asbestos and
environmental liabilities, general liability, and medical
malpractice policies written in past years.

The Company regularly monitors the activity of claims within the
run-off lines, particularly those claims related to asbestos and
environmental liabilities.

Based in San Antonio, Tex., Argonaut Group Inc. is a holding
company that underwrites specialty property & casualty insurance
products throughout the United States.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Sets Aside $25M for A&E Coverages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance Holdings
LLC, has asbestos and environmental reserves for unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses that includes US$25 million of
gross reserves and US$25 million of net reserves at June 30,
2006.

The reserves are for liability coverages related to asbestos and
environmental impairment claims that arose from reinsurance
assumed by an affiliate, Capitol Indemnity Corp., between 1969
and 1976.

Capitol Indemnity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capitol
Transamerica Corp., exited this business in 1976. CATA, an
Alleghany subsidiary, assumed Capitol Indemnity's claims.

At March 31, 2006, Alleghany Insurance's reserve for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses included US$25.2 million for
gross reserves and US$25.1 million for net reserves for
liability coverage related to asbestos and environmental
impairment claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2006)

Loss reserve estimates for environmental and asbestos exposures
included case reserves, which reflect reserves for legal and
other loss adjustment expenses and for claims incurred but not
reported reserves.

For asbestos and environmental reinsurance claims, CATA
established case reserves by receiving case reserve amounts from
its ceding companies, and verifies these amounts against
reinsurance contract terms, analyzing from the first dollar of
loss incurred by the primary insurer.

Based in New York City, N.Y. Alleghany Corp.'s main operating
subsidiaries include Capitol Transamerica, which spearheads the
Company's insurance arm and provides property/casualty,
fidelity, and surety insurance. The Company has commercial and
residential real estate interests in California.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Parker Drilling Unit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Parker Drilling Co. subsidiary contends with an asbestos-
related case filed by 88 plaintiffs, and pending in the District
Court for the Parish of Jefferson in Louisiana, according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended
June 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs sued more than 200 defendants
and complaining of exposure to asbestos, chemicals, noise, and
metals during their work as Jones Act seamen. The plaintiffs
seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In its early stages of discovery, the case would determine
whether or not the Company employed the plaintiffs or otherwise
have any connection with its operations during the relevant
period. A plaintiff's social security earnings statement
indicated that he was employed by the Company's subsidiary in
1971-72.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named as co-defendants in complaints that
have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi by persons who alleged that they were employed by
some of the named defendants between around 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other unrelated
firms, including firms that allegedly made asbestos-containing
drilling related products.

The complaints alleged that the Company's units and other
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 asserted claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act.

These complaints have been severed and venue of the claims
transferred to the county in which the plaintiff resides or the
county in which the cause of action allegedly accrued.

The Company has joined with other co-defendants in moving to
compel discovery to determine which plaintiffs have an
employment relationship with which defendant. Out of 355 amended
complaints received to date, only one plaintiff has identified
the Company as an employer.
  
Based in Houston, Tex., Parker Drilling Co. owns 64 rigs,
including 34 land rigs, 19 US-based barge drilling and workover
rigs, and four international deep drilling barges. The Company
drills worldwide and has worked in more than 50 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Remain at 380
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in about 380
asbestos-related injury cases asserting claims on behalf of
about 10,000 plaintiffs at June 30, 2006 and March 31, 2006.

These asbestos cases related to production and sale of asbestos-
containing products and alleged theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability. The cases
sought compensatory and punitive damages.

In the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claimed damages in
excess of a specified amount, a minimum amount enough to
establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed
or do not specify the monetary damages sought. Jurisdictional
minimums range from US$25,000 to US$75,000.

The Company noted four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs,
which plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages based on
potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged US$3 million in
compensatory damages for four separate causes of action and US$1
million for another cause of action and US$10 million in
punitive damages.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged US$20 million in
compensatory damages for three separate causes of action and
US$5 million for another cause of action and US$20 million in
punitive damages.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product made or sold by the Company or its
subsidiaries.

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through
Park-Ohio Industries and its subsidiaries, provides logistics
services and makes engineered products for the aerospace, auto,
semiconductor, and other industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $169M for A&E Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation reserved US$169.8 million
gross, US$132.6 million net, for asbestos and environmental
claims at June 30, 2006, compared with US$170.7 million gross,
US$132.2 million net, at Dec. 31, 2005.

At March 31, 2006, the Company reserved US$172.7 million gross,
US$132.2 million net, for asbestos and environmental claims.
(Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2006)

Most of the Company's asbestos and environmental claim reserves
stem from its participation in assumed reinsurance treaties and
insurance pools. Those participations were discontinued 15 or
more years ago and have since been in run-off status.

The overall A&E reserves the Company established respond to the
paid claim and case reserve activity reported to the Company as
well as available survival ratios, which represent the number of
years' average paid losses for the three or five most recent
calendar years that are encompassed by an insurer's A&E reserve
level at any point in time.

The Company's average five-year survival ratios were 6.8 years,
gross, and 10 years, net of reinsurance, as of June 30, 2006,
and 7.4 years, gross, and 10.4 years, net of reinsurance, as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

Incurred net losses for asbestos and environmental claims have
averaged 3.3 percent of General Insurance Group net incurred
losses for the five years ended Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Chicago, Ill., Old Republic International Corp. is an
insurance holding company operating in three areas: Old Republic
General Insurance offers general insurance including commercial
property and liability. The Company's Mortgage Guaranty unit
offers mortgage guaranty insurance. Its Title Insurance Groups
specialize in title insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus International Named in 300 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc. has been named co-defendant in about
300 personal injury liability cases, involving about 580
plaintiffs, alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and
other substances, as of June 30, 2006.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company had 303 personal injury
liability cases alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and
other substances. (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006)

The cases are pending in courts in various states. In these
cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense.

These cases are in various pre-trial stages.

Based in South Milwaukee, Wis., Bucyrus International Inc.
provides replacement parts and services, which accounts for more
than 70 percent of sales, to the surface mining industry.
Bucyrus also makes large excavation machinery used for surface
mining.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Corp. Has 555 Suits With 10T Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation's utility units: Entergy Gulf States Inc.,
Entergy Louisiana LLC, Entergy Mississippi Inc., and Entergy New
Orleans Inc., are faced with about 555 asbestos-related lawsuits
involving about 10,000 claims.

Suits have been filed in federal and state courts in Texas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi by contractor employees in the 1950-
1980 timeframe against Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana,
Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for damages caused
by alleged exposure to asbestos or other hazardous material. The
utilities are tagged as premises owners of power plants.

The Company has established reserves that should be enough to
cover any exposure. Moreover, negotiations continue with
insurers to recover added reimbursement.

Based in New Orleans, La., Entergy Corp.'s utility units
distribute electricity to 2.7 million customers in Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The Company also provides
natural gas to nearly 240,000 customers in Louisiana.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PSI Energy, CG&E Confront 130 Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiaries, PSI Energy Inc. and The
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., have been named defendants and
co-defendants in about 130 pending lawsuits, most of which are
PSI cases, related to asbestos at their electric generating
stations.

CG&E has been named in fewer than 10 cases and as a result has
no settlement history for asbestos cases.

On April 3, 2006, the Company acquired Cinergy Corp., PSI's &
CG&E's former parent, in a US$9 billion stock swap.

In the suits, plaintiffs claimed exposure to asbestos-containing
products in their work as outside contractors in the building
and maintenance of PSI and CG&E generating stations. The
plaintiffs further claimed that PSI and CG&E should be held
liable for their injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty
to warn and protect them from any asbestos exposure.  

Of these suits, one case filed against PSI has been tried to
verdict. The jury returned a verdict against PSI on a negligence
claim and a verdict for PSI on punitive damages.

PSI appealed this decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. In
October 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the jury's
verdict. PSI paid the US$630,000 judgment in the 2005-4th
quarter. Moreover, PSI has settled over 150 other claims.

The Company estimated that the range of reasonably possible
exposure in existing and future suits over the next 50 years
could range from an immaterial amount to about US$60 million.  

The Company has numerous claims relating to damages for personal
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos related to construction and maintenance activities by
Duke Power Co. LLC on its electric generation plants during the
1960s and 1970s.

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

Based in Charlotte, N.C. Duke Energy Corp.'s regulated U.S.
utilities, in 2005, had a generating capacity of 20,000 MW and
distributed power to 2.2 million customers in the Carolinas, and
natural gas to 1.2 million Canadians. After the acquisition, the
Company has 3.7 million electric customers, 1.7 million gas
customers, and revenues of US$27.2 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Faces 76T Claims in Respirator Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation's subsidiary recorded about 76,000 claimants
in pending respirator cases asserting asbestos and silica
exposure as of June 30, 2006.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's subsidiary had asbestos and
silica respirator cases with about 82,000 claimants. (Class
Action Reporter, May 26, 2006)

The Company has exposure related with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from American
Optical Corp. in an April 1990 asset transaction.

The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis and silicosis, allegedly resulting
from the use of AO respirators that were negligently designed or
labeled.

At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded about US$18 million, or
US$31 million on an undiscounted basis, reserve to cover its
share of liability for existing and future respirator liability
claims. The reserve's book value is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the
expected cash flow period.

Based in Boston, Mass., Cabot Corp. produces carbon black, a
reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables,
and coatings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aon Corp. Estimates $4M Liabilities in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation has US$4 million insurance liabilities, net of
reinsurance recoverables and other assets of US$77 million, as
of June 30, 2006, for exposure claims.

The insurance liabilities are estimates of known and future
claims to be settled over the next 20 to 30 years, with regards
to asbestos, pollution, and other health exposures.

These liabilities relate to the Company's acquisition of
Alexander & Alexander Services Inc. Before acquisition, A&A
ceased its property and casualty insurance underwriting
operations in 1985, some of which were then placed into run-off,
with the rest sold in 1987.

In connection with those sales, A&A indemnified the purchaser
for estimated and potential liabilities. The liabilities
included provisions to cover future losses attributable to
insurance pooling arrangements, a stop-loss reinsurance
agreement, and actions or omissions by underwriting agencies
previously managed by an A&A unit.

Based in Chicago, Ill., Aon Corp. is an insurance brokerage firm
and a reinsurance broker. The firm operates in three major
segments: commercial brokerage, consulting services, and
consumer insurance underwriting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.163B for Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc.'s asbestos-related reserve for
losses and loss expenses, for the six months ended June 30,
2006, was US$4.163 billion gross, US$1.748 billion net, compared
with US$2.504 billion gross, US$1.036 billion net, for the same
period in 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's reserve
for asbestos and environmental losses and loss expenses was
US$5.035 billion gross, US$2.125 billion net, compared with
US$3.410 billion gross, US$1.453 billion net, for the same
period in 2005.

The Company's incurred but not reported reserve for asbestos-
related losses and loss expenses was US$3.1 billion gross,
US$1.351 billion net, at June 30, 2006, compared with US$1.710
billion gross, US$753 million net, at June 30, 2005.

The Company's IBNR reserve for asbestos and environmental losses
and loss expenses was US$3.662 billion gross, US$1.592 billion
net, at June 30, 2006, compared with US$2.253 billion gross,
US$1.017 billion net, at June 30, 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company had 7,180
asbestos-related claims, compared with 7,447 claims for the same
period in 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company had 16,997
asbestos and environmental claims, compared with 15,109 claims
for the same period in 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related survival ratio
for claims was 13.2 gross, 15.9 net, compared with 9.5 gross,
12.6 net, at June 30, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos and environmental
survival ratio for claims was 11.1 gross, 11.9 net, compared
with 8.4 gross, 10.0 net, at June 30, 2005. The Company's
survival ratios were based on a three-year average payment.

Based in New York City, N.Y., American International Group
Inc.'s U.S. services include the provision of property-casualty,
life, and specialty insurance to commercial, institutional, and
individual customers. The Company provides reinsurance, life
insurance and retirement services, asset management and
financial services in more than 130 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Has 8 Suits in Ala. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. is a named defendant in eight asbestos-
related lawsuits filed in Alabama State Court by a total of
about 215 individual plaintiffs. Each case names over 100
defendants.

In the cases, the plaintiffs claimed exposure to asbestos while
working at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama resulting in
mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness. They
claimed that they were exposed to asbestos in products that were
made by the defendants. In six of the cases, plaintiffs also
asserted wrongful death claims.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered over 2,040 cases
pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada,
Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and
California to the Company for defense and indemnification. With
respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that Katy indemnify
it for a US$200,000 settlement.

Sterling based its tender of the complaints on the provisions in
a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties where Sterling
bought the LaBour Pump Co. business and other assets from the
Company. Sterling has not sued Katy in connection with these
matters.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

LaBour Pump, a former Company subsidiary, has been named as a
defendant in over 325 similar cases in New Jersey. These cases
have also been tendered by Sterling.

Based in Arlington, Va., Katy Industries Inc. makes maintenance
products like cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. The
Company also makes electric-corded products like extension
cords, surge protectors, and garden lighting. The Company was
established in 1967.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 3 Third-Party Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, had three
third-party payor actions pending against it as of June 30,
2006.

Asbestos manufacturers, insurance firms, union health and
welfare trust funds, and others have filed the actions.

Since 1954, Liggett and other U.S. cigarette manufacturers
defend in direct and third-party actions on the theory that
cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to
have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to
secondary smoke from cigarettes.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, Liggett incurred legal
fees and other litigation costs totaling about US$1,090,000,
compared with US$1,221,000 for the same period in 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, Liggett incurred legal
fees and other litigation costs totaling about US$2,463,000,
compared with US$2,451,000 for the same period in 2005.

In a California state court action styled Fibreboard Corp., et
al., v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., the plaintiff sought
reimbursement for damages paid to asbestos victims for medical
and other relief, which damages are allegedly attributable to
tobacco companies. Motions to dismiss have been stayed since
December 2001.

Based in Miami, Fla., Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett unit makes
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select and Eve, OMNI-
branded "reduced-carcinogen" cigarettes, and several generic
lines of cigarettes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records 14.9T Claims in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation recorded about 14,900 open
asbestos-related claims for the six months ended June 30, 2006,
compared with about 16,700 claims for the three months ended
March 31, 2006.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company paid
US$5,421,000 gross for settlement and defense costs. In the same
period, the Company settled or dismissed about 1,462 claims.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components used in some products of
certain of the Company's subsidiaries. Those subsidiaries, and
in some cases the Corporation, co-defend in cases filed in
various state and federal courts.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement with insurers responsible for majority of its
historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability. Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying
Insurers accept financial responsibility, for majority of the
Asbestos Liabilities. In 2006, the Company concluded an
agreement bringing into the Coverage Arrangement the only
relevant historical primary insurer who had not previously
participated in the Coverage Arrangement.

The Company incurred uninsured legal costs in connection with
advice on certain matters pertaining to these asbestos cases
including insurance litigation, case management and other
issues.

Those costs amounted to about US$304,000,000 for the six months
ended June 30, 2006 and US$126,000,000 for the three months
ended June 30, 2006. These amounts compared with about
US$429,000,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and
US$236,000,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2005.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pa., Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. makes metal
products. Its forged steel rolls unit makes forged hardened-
steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and
liquid processing segment makes centrifugal pumps for
refrigeration and power generation, finned-tube heat-exchange
coils, and air-handling systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Zurn Industries Drop to 59T in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacuzzi Brands Inc. recorded about 59,000 asbestos-related
claims pending against its subsidiary, Zurn Industries Inc. as
of June 30, 2006, compared with 69,900 claims as of Sept. 30,
2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the pending claims against Zurn were
included in about 4,700 lawsuits, in which Zurn and an average
of 70 other firms are named as defendants. The suits alleged
damages of about US$10.9 billion against all defendants.

As of March 31, 2006, Zurn had about 65,200 asbestos-related
claims pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006)

During the 2006-3rd quarter, about 1,600 new asbestos claims
were filed against Zurn, compared with 5,000 during the nine
months ended 2006. During the 2005-3rd quarter, about 2,600 new
asbestos claims were filed against Zurn, compared with 9,200
during the nine months ended 2005.

During the 2006-3rd quarter, about 14,300 claims were paid or
pending payment, compared with about 16,000 claims during the
nine months ended 2006. During the 2006-3rd quarter, about 6,100
claims were dismissed or pending dismissal, compared with about
10,800 claims during the nine months ended 2006.

Since its first asbestos claim in the 1980s, Zurn has paid or
dismissed or agreed to settle or dismiss about 131,800 asbestos
claims including dismissals or agreements to dismiss of about
35,000 of those claims through June 30, 2006.

As of June 30, 2006, Zurn estimated that its available insurance
to cover its potential asbestos liability was about US$287
million. As of June 30, 2006 and Sept. 30, 2005, Zurn recorded a
receivable from its insurance carriers of US$153 million.

As a result of the past insolvency of certain of Zurn's
insurance carriers, coverage analysis revealed that certain gaps
exist in Zurn's insurance coverage, but only if and after Zurn
used about US$217 million of its remaining average of US$287
million insurance coverage.

Based in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jacuzzi Brands Inc. manufactures
and distributes bath and plumbing products. The Company sells
its products worldwide, although the U.S. accounts for almost
three-fourths of sales. The Company acquired Zurn Industries in
June 1998.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Records $7.02M Liability in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation recorded US$7,023,000 current asbestos-
related liabilities as of July 2, 2006 and Jan. 1, 2006,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for
the period ended July 2, 2006 and filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

As of July 2, 2006 and Jan. 1, 2006, the Company's long-term
asbestos-related liabilities were US$30,867,000.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$7,023,000 as of July 2, 2006 and Jan. 1, 2006, and its
long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$30,581,000 as of July 2, 2006 and Jan. 1, 2006.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty materials are
used in electronic and consumer products. Its products include
printed circuit board laminates and polyester-based industrial
laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications,
mobile radios, and direct broadcast TV.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Rogers Corp. Drop to 160 in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation recorded about 160 pending asbestos-related
claims filed against it as of July 1, 2006, compared with 215
pending claims as of Jan. 1, 2006. The claims were filed in
Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi courts.

As of April 2, 2006, the Company had about 224 asbestos-related
claims. (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006)

The Company has been named co-defendant in some of these claims.
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to
the Company's asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages.

The Company had made some limited products, which had
encapsulated asbestos, but stopped making them in 1987.

Cases involving the Company name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants.
The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims.

In the first half of 2006, the Company was able to have about 40
claims dismissed, including 18 in the 2006-2nd quarter, and
settled 10 claims, including 4 in the 2006-2nd quarter.

For 2005, the Company disclosed that about 99 claims were
dismissed. However, in the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company
received new information from its legal counsel reporting that
about 158 claims were dismissed during 2005. About 12 claims
were settled in 2005.

The Company's insurance carriers have paid most of the costs,
including the costs associated with the small number of cases
that have been settled.

Payments related to those settlements were about US$2 million in
the first half of 2006, including about US$1 million in the
2006-2nd quarter, and US$4.4 million in all of 2005.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty materials are
used in electronic and consumer products. Its products include
printed circuit board laminates and polyester-based industrial
laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications,
mobile radios, and direct broadcast TV.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. RPM Int'l. Units Rise to 10,580
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of RPM International Inc. had a total of 10,580
active asbestos cases as of May 31, 2006, compared with 8,646
cases as of May 31, 2005.

As of Feb. 28, 2006, the Company's subsidiaries faced 10,175
active asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, April 21,
2006)

Certain Company subsidiaries, mainly Bondex International Inc.,
are faced with asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in
various state courts. Most of the current claims are pending in
Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida.

These cases sought unspecified damages for asbestos diseases
based on alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products made
by the Company's subsidiaries.

In many cases, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that any
injuries they have incurred, in fact, resulted from exposure to
one of its subsidiaries' products. In such cases, the
subsidiaries are generally dismissed without payment.

For the fourth quarter ended May 31, 2006, the Company's
subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of 106 claims
and made total payments of US$12.9 million, which included
US$7.1 million defense costs paid during the current quarter.
For the comparable period ended May 31, 2005, dismissals and
settlements covered 305 claims and total payments were US$11.1
million, which included US$8.1 million defense costs paid during
the quarter.

For the year ended May 31, 2006, the Company's subsidiaries
secured dismissals and settlements of 945 claims and made total
payments of US$59.9 million, which included US$24 million
defense costs paid during the current year. For the comparable
period ended May 31, 2005, dismissals and settlements covered
982 claims and total payments were US$67.4 million, which
included US$20.8 million defense costs paid during the year.

For the year ended May 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-
related liabilities were US$58,925,000, compared with
US$55,000,000 for the same period in 2005.

For the year ended May 31, 2006, the Company's non-current
asbestos-related liabilities were US$362,360,000, compared with
US$46,172,000 for the same period in 2005.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home repair
products. The Company is divided into two units: industrial
products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks
and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints,
patch and repair products, and hobby paints).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Spends $10.6M on Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. recorded about US$10.6 million
asbestos-related defense costs for the nine-month period ended
July 1, 2006.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company recorded
about US$9.1 million, which represented a portion of its past
defense costs for asbestos claims from one insurance carrier.
(Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006)

The Company has been named defendant in lawsuits alleging
injuries from exposure to asbestos-containing products, based on
the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The
Company is a co-defendant in each case.

The Company recovered a substantial portion of past defense
costs from one carrier during the second quarter of fiscal 2006
and that carrier has agreed to cover a portion of the future
defense costs.

Based in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., formerly
The Scotts Co., manufactures and markets horticultural and turf
products. Its garden and indoor plant care items include grass
seeds, fertilizers, herbicides, potting soils, and related
tools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lummus Global Claims Resolved, ABB Ltd Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering firm ABB Ltd. said that it has resolved asbestos-
related claims against its U.S. subsidiary ABB Lummus Global
Inc., putting an end to its asbestos woes and paving the way for
the sale of the unit, Reuters reports.

The Company said the U.S. District Court affirmed a settlement
plan, which became effective on Aug. 31, 2006 and will cost the
Company around US$40 million in compensation payments to
claimants who had been exposed to asbestos.

The move came five months after a U.S. Court confirmed the
Company's US$1.43 billion settlement plan for its larger U.S.
unit Combustion Engineering Inc.

An ABB spokesman said the cost of around US$40 million of the
Lummus plan had already been provided for. The plan runs for 12
years, the spokesman added.

Lummus, which filed for bankruptcy in 2006 to give it a chance
to settle its asbestos liabilities, has now exited Chapter 11
protection.

Based in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd.'s power technologies
division provides the power supply industry with equipment and
services for transmission, distribution, and automation. The
automation technologies unit offers equipment used to monitor
and control processes in plants and utilities. The Company used
to be called Asea Brown Boveri.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota, Others to Contribute JPY340M Yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of Japan's Environment Ministry approved a proposal
calling for Kubota Corporation and other firms to provide a
total of JPY340 million annually to the private sector's share
in the new compensation law for asbestos victims, The Japan
Times reports.

Nichias Corporation and a few others are expected to be in a
special category of firms meeting certain conditions, including
having high death rates from mesothelioma and other asbestos-
induced health problems.

The sum is part of the total JPY7.4 billion the Ministry plans
to collect to fund the law that went into effect in March 2006.

The Government will collect the proposed sum for four years from
fiscal 2007, and will revise the amount as required in
accordance with the review of the compensation system.

Based in Osaka, Japan, Kubota Corp. makes tractors and farm
equipment like rice transplanters and combine harvesters. The
Company produces iron ductile pipe used in water-supply systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Sue 46 Companies in W.Va. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spouses, Rosemary and John T. Rudez, and Dorcas Burdette filed
two asbestos-related lawsuits against a total of 46 defendants
in Kanawha Circuit Court, W. Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

On Aug. 21, 2006, the Rudez couple filed their case against 37
defendants. Mr. Rudez, 82-years-old, was diagnosed with lung
cancer on Sept. 20, 2005.

From 1946-1985, Mr. Rudez worked as a bricklayer at steel mills
and power plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Mr. Rudez said he worked at: U.S. Steel Homestead; Clairton;
Donora; Edgar Thompson; Irgin, Coke and Chemical; Duquesne
Works: J&L Hazelwood and South Side; Youngstown Sheet and Tube;
General Electric; Glenshaw Glass Co.; Hussey Cooper; Shenango
Steel Co.; Duquesne Light at the Elrama Plant; Wheeling Steel;
Weirton Steel.

On Aug. 22, 2006, Ms. Burdette filed the second lawsuit as the
personal representative of the Estate of George Young, who died
on June 27, 2006 from mesothelioma. Her suit names nine
defendants, including two West Virginia corporations.

Those defendants are: A&I Co. of South Charleston; Anchor
Packing Co. of North Carolina; Atlas Industries of Pennsylvania;
A.W. Chesterton Co. of Massachusetts; Georgia-Pacific Corp. of
Georgia; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of New York; Owens-
Illinois of Ohio; Viacom of Pennsylvania; and Vimasco Corp. of
Nitro.

Mr. Young worked as a mechanic at Charleston's Gasoline Alley
Garage before owning and operating Young's TV Service from 1954-
1985.

John Skaggs of The Calwell Practice in Charleston, W.Va.
represents Ms. Burdette.

Craig Coleman of Pittsburgh, Pa. law firm, Caroselli, Beachler,
McTiernan and Conboyin, represents the Rudez couple.

Case Nos. 06-C-1666 and 1676 seek compensatory and punitive
damages and will be assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Oversee Cleanup of N.J. Grace Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
The federal Environmental Protection Agency will be supervising
the final removal of the asbestos-contaminated soil from W.R.
Grace & Co.'s former plant grounds in Hamilton, N.J., The Times
reports.

From 1948 until 1991, the N.J. plant processed vermiculite
shipped from a mine in Libby, Mont. Testing of the ore revealed
that it was tainted with Tremolite, a deadly form of asbestos.  

The EPA announced that contractors for the owners of the land
would begin moving equipment to the former factory site on
Industrial Drive in anticipation of the removal of some 6,500
tons of tainted soil that still remain there.

In 2004, the EPA began the cleanup of the site, in which about
9,000 tons of soil were removed after having been tested by the
EPA to have asbestos in concentrations as high as 40 percent in
some samples.

EPA Regional Administrator Alan J. Steinberg said, "Thousands of
tons of contaminated soil have already been removed and we have
sampled the surrounding area to ensure that local residents were
not being affected."

The EPA will supervise the remaining soil removal, which
officials expect will take about three months. The work will
begin with the mobilization of equipment and clearing of brush
that covers the contaminated area, said EPA spokesman Ben Barry.

The EPA has ordered Amtrak and American Premier Underwriters,
the successor to the Penn Central Railroad, the owners of the
property, to pay for the cleanup under Superfund law. Amtrak
officials have estimated the cost of the second phase of cleanup
at about US$1 million. The first round of cleanup cost the two
firms about US$1.4 million.

Last year, former state Attorney General Peter Harvey filed a
US$1.6-billion lawsuit against Grace for allegedly providing
false information to state regulators when the Hamilton, N.J.
plant was closed in 1994.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured from
six product groups into two major units. Grace's Davison
Chemicals unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts,
and refining catalysts that help produce refined products from
crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes concrete and
cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing
chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Argues "Non-Products" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zurich International (Bermuda) Ltd., Owens Corning, and the
Debtors dispute Zurich's liability under certain insurance
policies for claims that Owens Corning characterizes as "non-
products" asbestos claims.

Brian L. Kasprzak, Esq., at Marks, O'neill, O'Brien & Courtney,
P.C., in Wilmington, Del., relates that despite the Plan's
neutrality provisions purportedly reserving the right of
insurers, the Plan also states that "an estimation of the OC
Asbestos Personal Injury Claims is not binding and has no
collateral estoppel effect" with respect to defined insurers who
have interests that are analogous to that of Zurich.

Due to confusion and ambiguity that results from the interplay
between the Plan's provisions, Zurich asks Judge Fitzgerald to
clarify that the estimation:

-- As to personal injury claims in the Plan are solely for Plan
confirmation purposes; and

-- Does not have any binding or collateral estoppel effect on
Zurich.

Zurich further wants to be named among the insurers listed in
the Plan.

Mr. Kasprzak insists that resolution of the confusion and
ambiguity inherent to the Plan is necessary to insure insurance
neutrality and to prevent the Debtor and the resulting trust
from attempting to improperly use the Court's orders and the
Plan in subsequent coverage disputes.

(Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 140; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


APPLE COMPUTER: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Apple Computer, Inc.
(AAPL) between Dec. 1, 2005 and Aug. 11, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against defendant Apple and one or more
of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 24,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.  


IMAX CORP: Faces Securities Act Violation Lawsuit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP filed a class suit against Toronto-based IMAX Corp.
claiming $500 million in damages and an additional $100 million
in punitive damages as a result of alleged misrepresentations
concerning IMAX's 2005 earnings.

The suit, the first seeking leave under new investor protection
legislation Bill 198, names as defendants:

     -- IMAX Corp.,
     -- IMAX co-Chairman and co-Chief Executive Richard Gelfond,
     -- Co-CEO Bradley Wechsler, and
     -- former Chief Financial Officer Francis Joyce

The statement of claim alleges that the company's 2005 earnings
were misrepresented on a Feb. 17, 2006 news release, and in
subsequent IMAX disclosures, by recognizing revenue from
theatres that had yet to open.  It further alleges that, as a
result, IMAX's shares traded at artificially inflated prices.

On Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX disclosed that it was being investigated
by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it had not
met earnings targets and that it had identified a material
weakness in the internal controls surrounding the analysis and
recording of a complex film accounting transaction in the second
quarter of 2006.  Share prices fell 40 percent that day alone,
and by Aug. 24, IMAX stock hit a low of $4.91.

"Bill 198 was passed to protect investors from exactly this kind
of situation.  Investors made decisions based on the information
that the company provided and ended up seeing a significant
decline in the value of their investment.  A number of investors
were hurt very badly," Charles Wright, lawyer and Siskinds class
action expert, said.

Bill 198, called into force by the Ontario government on Dec.
31, 2005, gives individual retail and institutional investors
stronger protection against securities fraud. Under Bill 198,
the investor is no longer required to prove reliance upon the
defendants' misrepresentations. Prior to Bill 198, there was no
statutory civil liability for misrepresentations made by
companies outside a prospectus, and suing under the common law
was difficult due to the need to prove detrimental reliance.

"Bill 198 will help ensure that people can invest in Canadian
companies without fear of fraud. It was long overdue in Canada,"
said Dimitri Lascaris, also a Siskinds securities class action
lawyer and expert. Mr. Lascaris added that Bill 198 still
imposes hurdles to investor relief that are not imposed upon
investors suing in the U.S.

Plaintiffs are represented by Charles M. Wright of Siskinds
Desmeules-Quebec Affiliate Office, 43 Rue Buade, Bur 320, Quebec
City, Quebec, Canada, G1R 4A2, Phone: (418) 694-2009, Fax: (418)
694-0281, E-mail: charles.wright@siskinds.com; and Dimitri
Lascaris of Siskinds Desmeules-Toronto Office, 390 Bay Street,
Suite 1102, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5H 2Y2, Phone: (416) 362-
8334, Fax: (416) 368-5454, E-mail:
dimitri.lascaris@siskinds.com.


SUNTERRA CORP: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Suit in Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, filed a securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Sunterra Corp. during the
period from April 15, 2003 through June 22, 2006.

The deadline to move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff
is Sept. 11, 2006.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn,
Phone: 1-800- 721-3900, E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com and
jnykolyn@zsz.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  * * *