CAR_Public/060922.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 189

                            Headlines

ABBOTT: Recalls Infant Formula Over Vitamin Content Discrepancy
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Affirms Tower Stock Suit Dismissal
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Reaches Settlement in Tex. Pacemaker Lawsuit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Congressmen File Brief in Chemical Spill Suit
CONCORD CAMERA: Reaches Settlement in Fla. Securities Fraud Suit

CONCORD CAMERA: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Court Mulls Class Status for Consumer Suit
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Reaches Settlement for Privacy Suits in Ill.
DOE RUN: Still Faces Damages Suits Over Mo. Mining Operations
DOE RUN: Still Faces Okla. Injury, Property Damages Litigations

DOE RUN: Still Faces Suit Over Lead Emissions at Miss. Smelter
E.I. DUPONT: Ohio Suit Over Treatment Plant Project Withdrawn
HIBERNIA FOODS: PwC Settles Shareholder Litigation for $2.8M
HOST AMERICA: Reply to Consolidated Securities Suit Due Sept. 29
ILLINOIS: Suit Against Chicago Over Rainblocker Enters Discovery

JDS UNIPHASE: SDL Investor Suit Enters Limited Discovery Stage
JDS UNIPHASE: Files Reply to ERISA Fraud Complaints in Calif.
JDS UNIPHASE: "Zelman" Securities Suit Continues in Calif. Court
JDS UNIPHASE: OCLI Shareholder Suit in Calif. Remains Inactive
JDS UNIPHASE: Oct. 1 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit

LEASECOMM CORP: Mass. Court Approves Settlement of Lease Lawsuit
LUPRON LITIGATION: Excellus Gets $1.1M in Lupron Suit Settlement
MATRIX BANCORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Firm From "Munoz" Suit
MICROFINANCIAL INC: Court Mulls Appeal of Stock Suit Dismissal
NORTH CAROLINA: Lawsuit Challenges Ban on Video Poker Machines

NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Hudson Rejects Students' Gang Policy Suit
SEGWAY INC: Recalls Personal Transporters to Upgrade Software
SERENA SOFTWARE: Settles Calif., Del. Suits Over Spyglass Merger
SOUTH AFRICA: Univ. Research to Back South Durban Pollution Suit
STARBUCKS COFFEE: May 2007 Trial Set for Labor Violations Suit

STARBUCKS CORP: Texas FLSA Violations Litigation Awaits Trial
STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Begins in Federal Antitrust Lawsuits
TRUE RELIGION: Recalls Fleece Hoodies Posing Strangulation Risk
UNITED KINGDOM: Lawsuit Planned Over Child-Porno Investigation
WORLDCOM INC: Two Ebbers Assets in Miss. Remain to be Sold


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Faces Gloves-Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Corp. Faces 1,900 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $441.7M Losses in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Power Still Faces Site Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tarragon Mgmt. to Pay $1M for CAA Breaches

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $283.5M Losses, Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heartland Estimates $912T-$920T for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Faces 1,794 Suits in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Accrues $1.11B for Liabilities in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chemicals Still Indemnifies Kraton

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 94 Hilco Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Reserves $7.3M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman's Claims Deal Persists
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $742.8M Provision for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Opposes Committee, FCR Trial Request

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Okays Owens Corning 6th Amended Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Man Sues Ill. Central, Norfolk in FELA Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Awards $3.9M in Suit v. Crane
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Reviews 4 Lawsuits v. Michelin
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Awards Carpenter GBP400T Damages

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie, NSW Govt, ATO Continue Payout Talks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Campaigner Urges MP to Support Demands
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 24 Workers File New Claims v. Ill. Central
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI Has $1.2M-$1.5M Liability at Maine Site


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
CONNETICS CORP: Schatz Nobel Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
JABIL CIRCUIT: Howard G. Smith Announces Fla. Stock Suit Filing
WITNESS SYSTEMS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


ABBOTT: Recalls Infant Formula Over Vitamin Content Discrepancy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott's Ross Products is voluntarily recalling these lots of
liquid ready-to-feed infant formula in 32-ounce plastic bottles:

     -- one lot of Similac Alimentum Advance liquid ready-to-
        feed infant formula (Stock Code #57512, Lot #401895V,
        use-by 1 May 2007 -- printed on the back of the bottle);

     -- two lots of Similac Advance with Iron liquid ready-to-
        feed infant formula (Stock Code #55961, Lots #40177RH
        and #40172RH, use-by 1 November 2007 - printed on the
        back of the bottle); and

     -- one lot of Similac Advance Hospital Discharge Kits that
        may have included some of the affected 32-ounce plastic
        bottles.

The lot number for these discharge kits (Stock Code #58986, Lot
#41699D5) can be found on the back of the bear tag attached to
the kit.

Abbott is voluntarily initiating this recall because some
bottles from these lots may not contain as much vitamin C as
indicated on the label.

Abbott discovered this problem as a result of consumer
complaints for an unusually dark formula color.  This problem is
due to an isolated bottle defect, which has been corrected by
the third-party supplier of the bottles.

No serious medical complaints have been reported.

Vitamin C is an essential nutrient needed for the growth and
repair of tissues in all parts of the body.  Vitamin C
deficiency symptoms could appear in infants if dietary intake is
inadequate for more than two to four weeks.  Symptoms of early
vitamin C deficiency include increased irritability with
generalized tenderness.  It is highly unlikely that an infant
will be fed affected bottles of the recalled formula exclusively
for a long enough period of time to cause vitamin C deficiency
symptoms.  However, if parents or caregivers have any questions
about their baby's health, they should contact their healthcare
provider.

No other liquid or powder infant formula products are involved
with this recall.

These infant formula lots were distributed between May 18, 2006,
and Sept. 5, 2006, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Guam.  If
consumers have purchased any of the specific lots mentioned
above at retail or received them from hospitals or doctor's
offices, they should contact Abbott's Ross Products Division at
1-800-624-3412.  Abbott will replace product from these lots
free of charge.


ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Affirms Tower Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of the securities class action against Tower Semiconductor,
Ltd., certain of its directors and shareholders, including
Alliance Semiconductor Corp.

In July 2003, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Tower certain of Tower's directors,
including N. Damodar Reddy.

The lawsuit alleges that a proxy solicitation by Tower seeking
approval from the Tower shareholders for a restructuring of a
financing agreement between Tower and certain investors
contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted
material information in violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and also alleges that certain defendants have
liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative
class of persons who were ordinary shareholders of Tower at the
close of business on April 1, 2002, the record date for voting
on certain matters proposed in a proxy statement issued by
Tower.

On Jan. 30, 2004, all the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.

On Aug. 19, 2004, Judge Kimba Wood granted defendants' motions
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  On
Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 1, 2006, the Second Circuit issued a ruling affirming
the dismissal.  Plaintiffs had until Aug. 31, 2006 to petition
the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

The suit is "De Vries, et al. v. Tower Semiconductor, et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-04999-KMW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Kimba M.
Wood.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Jeffrey S. Abraham and Lawrence
Donald Levit of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One Penn Plaza,
Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)-279-5050, Fax:
(212)-279-3655, E-mail: llevit@aftlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Daniel Lucas Cantor and Michael
R. Patrick of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New
York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail:
dcantor@omm.com.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Reaches Settlement in Tex. Pacemaker Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. reached a settlement in a product
liability lawsuit whose trial originally set Sept. 18 would have
been the first in state court, Staff and Wire.

Corpus Christi lawyer Mikal Watts, who's working for plaintiffs
who are area residents, confirmed that there has been a
confidential settlement in the case over faulty heart devices
made by Guidant Corp., a company Boston Scientific Corp.
acquired in April, the report said.

The suit was brought by Louis Motal and Beatrice Hinojosa, who
allegedly suffered mental anguish upon discovery that the
company's defibrillator heart devices can malfunction.

In June, Judge Hunter denied an appeal by Guidant Corp. on his
order to make public 22 documents that it said contain
potentially sensitive information (Class Action Reporter, June
12, 2006).  The judge ruled on June 5 that Guidant had
improperly designated as confidential the documents in one trial
exhibit.

The disclosure shows that Guidant drafted a letter warning
doctors of a dangerous electrical malfunction in some of its
defibrillator heart devices, but the letter was not sent, the
report said.  Instead, the company issued a more routine and
less-targeted "product update."

Guidant officials were reportedly worried about creating "undue
alarm" about the electrical problem.

According to the company, majority of the lawsuits allege no
physical injury, but clam compensation for medical monitoring
and anxiety.

Since 2005, Guidant faced hundreds of lawsuits related to
problems with implantable defibrillator devices that have been
linked to multiple deaths.

In its most recent regulatory filing, Boston Scientific said
there are now about 72 product liability class suits and about
477 individual suits pending in various state and federal courts
against Guidant.  More than 60 of those are in state court
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2006).

Most cases are filed in federal court, and federal cases have
been consolidated under "multi-district litigation" rules and
moved to a U.S. District Court in Minnesota.  The first federal
trial is scheduled to begin on March 15, 2007, according to
Staff and Wire.

Boston Scientific has set aside $381 million to defend itself
against the suits (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2006).  
According to a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the $381 million figure is an estimate of
legal costs to fight the lawsuits, and did not represent an
estimate of potential liability.

A number of health insurers, including several Blue Cross and
Blue Shield plans, have also sued Guidant to recover the
healthcare charges they say are associated with patients who
received faulty devices.

For more information, contact plaintiffs attorney Robert C.  
Hilliard, and Robert J. Patterson of Watts Law Firm, L.L.P.,  
Tower II Building, 14th Floor, 555 North Carancahua Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78478-0801 (Nueces Co.), Phone: 361-887-
0500, Fax: 361-887-0055.  The lead counsel for the Texas
plaintiffs is Robert Hilliard of Hilliard & Munoz.

Guidant's attorney is Elmore James Shepherd of Shook, Hardy &  
Bacon L.L.P., JP Morgan/Chase Tower, 600 Travis Street, Suite  
1600, Houston, Texas 77002-2911 (Ft. Bend, Harris & Montgomery  
Cos.), Phone: 713-227-8008, Fax: 713-227-9508.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Congressmen File Brief in Chemical Spill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seven members of Congress from Minnesota and North Dakota filed
a legal brief supporting plaintiffs appealing the dismissal of
the suit against Canadian Pacific Railway over a 2002 derailment
and chemical spill in Minot North Dakota, Associated Press
reports.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland, of Bismarck, who threw out
the case in March, ruled that the Federal Railroad Safety Act
pre- empts state law, making the railroad immune from legal
action (Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006).

North Dakota lawyer Mike Miller had filed a notice with the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the dismissal (Class
Action Reporter, June 7, 2006).

Recently, a brief was filed by Minnesota Senators Mark Dayton
and Norm Coleman and Representative Jim Oberstar and Jim
Ramstad, along with North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad and Byron
Dorgan and Representative Earl Pomeroy.  It argues that the
Federal Railroad Safety Act does not explicitly eliminate injury
lawsuits.  

"Congress did not intend any such pre-emption," the brief
stated.  Judge Hovland's ruling "is at odds with common sense,"
it added.  The congressional brief says that allowing railroads
to be shielded from liability "will only increase their
willingness to cut corners and endanger lives."

The Canadian railway class actions stemmed from the January 2002
derailment and massive release of anhydrous ammonia from five
ruptured tank cars in Minot, South Dakota.  Thirty-one cars on
the 112-car Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the west
edge of Minot and five broke open early on the morning of Jan.
18, 2002.  The National Transportation Safety Board said the
wreck was caused by inadequate track maintenance and
inspections, a conclusion disputed by Canadian Pacific.

The suit is "Mehl, et al. v. Canadian Pacific RR, et al., Case
No. 4:02-cv-00009-DLH-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L. Hovland with
referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mike J. Miller of Solberg Stewart Miller Johnson Tjon
         Kennelly, Ltd., P.O. BOX 1897, FARGO, ND 58107-1897,
         Phone: 701-237-3166, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com;
         and

     (2) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. Law
         firm, 106 W. 7 ST., PO Drawer H., Reserve, LA 70084,
         Phone: 985-536-1186.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) James S. Hill of Zuger Kirmis & Smith, 316 N. 5 ST.,
         P.O. Box 1695, Bismarck, ND 58502-1695, Phone: 701-223-
         2711, E-mail: jhill@zkslaw.com; and

     (2) Kevin M. Decker of Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS Center, 80
         S. 8TH ST., Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-977-8400.


CONCORD CAMERA: Reaches Settlement in Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the securities fraud class action
against Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers that is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
company filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its officers.

On Aug. 20, 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and in December 2002, the court granted the company's
motion and the complaint was dismissed.

In January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed
adding certain of the company's current and former directors as
defendants.  

Lead plaintiffs in the amended complaint sought to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock issued pursuant to the
company's Sept. 26, 2000 secondary offering or from Sept. 26,
2000 to June 22, 2001, inclusive.

On April 18, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on Aug. 27, 2004, the court dismissed all
claims against the defendants related to the secondary offering.

On Sept. 8, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons who
purchased the common stock between Jan. 18, 2001 and June 22,
2001, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.  

The allegations remaining in the amended complaint are centered
on claims:

      -- that the company failed to disclose, in periodic
         reports it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission and in press releases it made to the public
         during the class period regarding its operations and
         financial results;

      -- that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
         represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance
         due from then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc.; and

      -- that a material portion of its inventory consisted of
         customized components that had no alternative usage.

The amended complaint claims that such failures artificially
inflated the price of the common stock.  It seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and
unspecified other and further relief from the court.

Pursuant to a scheduling order of the court, trial in this
matter is scheduled to commence on Nov. 13, 2006.  

The company has reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs on the settlement of this lawsuit, according to the
company's Sept. 13, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 1, 2006.

The suit is "Berger, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Patricia Seitz.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net;

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400;

     (5) Emerson Poynter LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock, AR,
         72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
         tanya@emersonfirm.com; and

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.


CONCORD CAMERA: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers continue to
face a consolidated securities fraud class action that was filed
against it in 2004 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  

In August 2005, plaintiffs who purport to be shareholders of the
company amended their complaint to add a former officer of the
company as a defendant.  The lead plaintiff in the amended
complaint seeks to act as a representative of a class consisting
of all persons who purchased the company's common stock from
Aug. 14, 2003 to Aug. 31, 2004, inclusive, and who were
allegedly damaged thereby.

Allegations in the amended complaint are centered around claims
that the company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in
press releases it made to the public during the class period
regarding its operations and financial results:

      -- the full extent of the company's excess, obsolete and
         otherwise impaired inventory;

      -- the departure of a former officer from the company
         until several months after his departure; and

      -- that Kodak would cancel its design and manufacturing
         services contracts with the company due to the
         company's alleged infringement of Eastman Kodak Co.'s
         patents.

The amended complaint also alleges that the company improperly
recognized revenue contrary to accounting principles generally
accepted in the U.S. due to an inability to reasonably estimate
digital camera returns.  It claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the common stock.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other and further
relief from the court.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Sept. 13, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Martin Brustein, et al. v.
Concord Camera Corp., et al., Case No. 04-CV-61159," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Andrea M. Simonton.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (6) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Court Mulls Class Status for Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal has yet to rule on an appeal
regarding the denial of certification to a lawsuit filed by a
vehicle buyer against Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.

In June 2004, plaintiff Jeremy Henry filed a lawsuit against the
company in the California Superior Court, San Diego County,
alleging improper practices related to the notice given after
the repossession of a vehicle that he purchased.

The plaintiff asked to certify the suit as a class action, but
was denied.  He is now appealing the case before the California
Court of Appeal.  

Irvine, California-based Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CPSS) -- http://www.consumerportfolio.com/-- is a  
consumer finance company specializing in purchasing, selling and
servicing retail automobile installment purchase contracts
originated by licensed motor vehicle dealers in the sale of new
and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans.  The
company provides indirect financing to dealer customers with
limited credit histories, low-incomes or past credit problems.  
CPS does not lend money directly to consumers.  Rather, it
purchases installment contracts from dealers.  CPS purchases
contracts under any of several programs that it offers to
dealers.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Reaches Settlement for Privacy Suits in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. settled two purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois over allegations that the company
improperly accessed consumer credit information.

In August and September 2005, two plaintiffs represented by the
same law firm filed substantially identical lawsuits, each of
which purports to be a class action, and each of which alleges
that the company improperly accessed consumer credit
information.

The company has reached agreements in principle to settle these
cases, which await confirmation by the court, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suits are "Cavin v. Bill Jacobs Joliet, L.L.C. et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-05025," and "Smith v. Rockenbach Chevrolet Sales Inc
et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-05454," both filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Charles
R. Norgle, Sr. and Judge Ruben Castillo, respectively.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South LaSalle Street, 18th
Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail:
courtecl@aol.com.

Representing the U.S. is Eugene Joseph Kelley, Jr. of Arnstein &
Lehr, 120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60606-3913, Phone: (312) 876-7100, E-mail:
ejkelley@arnstein.com.


DOE RUN: Still Faces Damages Suits Over Mo. Mining Operations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corp. (d.b.a. The Doe Run Co.), remains a
defendant in lawsuits alleging damages from past mining
operations in St. Francois County, Missouri.  

The suits, filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
are:

      -- "Lee Ann Stotler and Keely Stotler v. Fluor
         Corporation, et al." (filed on January 10, 2002);

      -- "Layne Stotler v. Fluor Corp., et al." (filed on
         January 10, 2002);

      -- "Mullins v. Fluor Corp., et al." (filed on April
         15, 2002); and  

      -- "Mullins II v. Fluor Corp.," et al. (filed on April
         15, 2002.

The Lee Ann Stotler and Layne Stotler cases are class actions --
respectively, for property damages, and medical monitoring
concerning alleged damages caused by tailings and related
operations in Bonne Terre.  

The Mullins and Mullins II cases are for property damages and
medical monitoring concerning alleged damages caused by chat,
tailings and related operations in six areas in St. Francois
County, Missouri.

Missouri-based The Doe Run Co. -- http://www.doerun.com/-- is a  
privately held natural resources company dedicated to
environmentally responsible mineral production, metals
fabrication, recycling and reclamation.  The company and its
subsidiaries deliver products and services needed to provide
power, protection and convenience through premium products and
associated metals including lead, zinc, copper, gold and silver.


DOE RUN: Still Faces Okla. Injury, Property Damages Litigations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corp. (d.b.a. The Doe Run Co.), remains a
defendant in several purported class actions that were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
alleging either personal injury and property damage or both.

Two class actions, "Cole, et al. v. Asarco, Inc., et al.," filed
May 14, 2003, and "Evans, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al.," filed
Feb. 9, 2004, are alleging personal injury and property damage
in Picher, Oklahoma and Quapaw, Oklahoma respectively.

Another class action, "The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, et al. v.
Asarco, Inc., et al.," was filed on Dec. 10, 2003 against seven
companies, including Doe Run.  This action alleges damages to
natural resources and to property of members of the Quapaw
Tribe.

Missouri-based The Doe Run Co. -- http://www.doerun.com/-- is a  
privately held natural resources company dedicated to
environmentally responsible mineral production, metals
fabrication, recycling and reclamation.  The company and its
subsidiaries deliver products and services needed to provide
power, protection and convenience through premium products and
associated metals including lead, zinc, copper, gold and silver.


DOE RUN: Still Faces Suit Over Lead Emissions at Miss. Smelter
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corp. (d.b.a. The Doe Run Co.), remains a
defendant in lawsuits alleging certain damages from lead
emissions stemming from its operations at the Herculaneum,
Missouri smelter.  

The cases, brought in the Circuit Court of the City of St.
Louis, are (Class Action Reporter, March 29, 2006):

      -- "Meyer, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et al." (formerly
         known as Mitchell, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et
         al.) (filed on July 9, 2001);

      -- "Doyle, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et al." (filed  
         July 9, 2001); and  

      -- "Johnson, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et al." (filed
         Sept. 9, 2003).

In the Doyle and Johnson cases, the plaintiffs seek to have
certified a class of property owners in a certain section of
Herculaneum, alleging that property values have been damaged due
to the operations of the smelter.  

In the Meyer case, plaintiffs seek to have certified a class of
children who lived in Herculaneum during a period of time when
they were six years old or younger and children born to mothers
who lived in Herculaneum during their pregnancies.  The remedy
sought is medical monitoring for the class.

The trial court has granted the property class action in Doyle,
but has denied the medical monitoring class action in Meyer.  
Both decisions are being appealed.

Missouri-based The Doe Run Co. -- http://www.doerun.com/-- is a  
privately held natural resources company dedicated to
environmentally responsible mineral production, metals
fabrication, recycling and reclamation.  The company and its
subsidiaries deliver products and services needed to provide
power, protection and convenience through premium products and
associated metals including lead, zinc, copper, gold and silver.


E.I. DUPONT: Ohio Suit Over Treatment Plant Project Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Southeastern Ohio water district, The Little Hocking Water
Association, withdrew a suit filed in May against E.I. DuPont De
Nemours & Co. in Washington County Common Pleas Court,
Associated Press reports.

The suit accuses the company of threatening not to build a water
treatment plant to filter out a likely cancer-causing agent it
uses to make Teflon at its Washington Works plant in West
Virginia.

The water district said it was withdrawing its lawsuit so that
it and DuPont could concentrate on getting a treatment system
built.  DuPont said it hopes the district will accept its offer
to build the water filtration system.

                         2004 Settlement

In 2004, Circuit Court Judge George W. Hill of Wood County, West
Virginia approved the terms of an almost $70 million medical
study of up to 80,000 people who drank water contaminated with
C8, a chemical used to make Teflon at DuPont Co.'s Washington
Works plant in West Virginia (Class Action Reporter, Nov 25.
2004).

As previously reported in the Sept. 13, 2004 issue of the
Class Action Reporter, critical components of the proposed
settlement include C-8 water treatment facilities for area
communities and creation of an expert panel to conduct a
community study to assist it in evaluating whether there is a
probable link between C-8 exposure and any human disease.  

The settlement also calls for cash payments and expenditures
valued at $85 million, plus attorneys' fees, expenses of $22.6
million as well as contingent medical monitoring funding.

The settlement proceeds will be directed into the Ohio and West
Virginia communities in the vicinity of the Washington Works
plant that comprise the class bringing the suit.  As part of the
settlement, DuPont has agreed to an initial cash payment of $70
million, $20 million of which will be used for health and
education projects.

In addition, DuPont will also offer to provide six area water
districts - Little Hocking, Lubeck, Belpre, Tuppers Plains,
Mason County and Pomeroy - a state-of-the-art water treatment
system designed to reduce the level of C-8 in the water supply
to the lowest practicable levels as specified by the water
districts.  The U.S. will offer the same technology or its
equivalent to residents of those districts whose sole source of
drinking water is a private well.  The company estimated the
cost for water treatment at $10 million.

The other key component to the settlement is the creation of an
independent panel of experts to evaluate available scientific
evidence on the extent of any probable link between exposure to
PFOA and any human disease, including birth defects.  Toward
that end, this independent panel will also design and conduct a
health study in the communities exposed to PFOA.  

The court approved the settlement in 2005.


HIBERNIA FOODS: PwC Settles Shareholder Litigation for $2.8M
------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers entered an agreement in principle to
settle for $2.8 million claims filed against it as auditor of
collapsed Irish firm Hibernia Foods, The Sunday Business Post
reports.

The settlement has been approved by a New York court.  It does
not force the accounting firm to admit to any liability and the
company is still maintaining that it did nothing wrong.  

Previously, PwC asked the court to dismiss complaints against
it, but failed.  The auditor is accused of failing to warn
defendants on the company's precarious financial situation 14
months before it went into receivership.

Other defendants in the suit are Hibernia Foods, its former
chairman Oliver Murphy, Chief Financial Officer Colm Delves.  
The suit was brought on behalf of purchases of Hibernia's shares
between August 1999 and October 2003.

The suit against Hibernia claims the company manipulated its
financial statements by failing to timely record write-downs in
the value of property, plant and equipment from 2000 to 2002,
artificially overstating assets and understating net losses.  It
also claims that the defendants failed to disclose the nature
and extent of deep discounts offered to customers from 1999 to
2002.

Mr. Murphy and Mr. Delves are accused of engaging in business
practices that helped to artificially inflate the price of
Hibernia's stock, and of failing to act in the best interests of
the company.  They are also accused of selling shares worth $26
million and $4.4 million respectively during this period.  U.S.
Securities & Exchange Commission documents, seen by The Sunday
Business Post, however, show that the two men did not dispose of
any of their shares during the dates set out in the class
action.

The status of the case against Mr. Murphy and Mr. Delves became
uncertain after Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman partners, Steve
Schulman and David Bershad, who are leading the Hibernia action,
took leave of absence from the firm after being indicted on
charges that they participated in a scheme to pay kickbacks to
clients.

Hibernia went into receivership in October 2003 because of a
EUR24 million ($30.5 million) debt owed to GMAC, a subsidiary of
General Motors.


HOST AMERICA: Reply to Consolidated Securities Suit Due Sept. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Host America Corp. is a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

In August 2005 and Sept. 2005, 12 putative class action
complaints were filed, naming as defendants the company,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, and David J. Murphy.  One or more of the
complaints also named Gilbert Rossomando, Peter Sarmanian, Roger
D. Lockhart and EnergyNsync, Inc.

The complaints are:

      -- "Mintz v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
         05-cv-1260-SRU (filed on Aug. 9, 2005);

      -- "RFC Securities LLC v. Host America Corp., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 05-cv-01269-JBA (filed on Aug. 11,
         2005);"

      -- "Collins v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action
         No. 05-cv-01270-JBA (filed on Aug. 11, 2005);"

      -- "Conlin v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
         05-cv-01291-WWE (filed on Aug. 15, 2005);"

      -- "Sutton v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action 05-
         cv-01292-JBA (filed on Aug. 15, 2005);"

      -- "Dombrowski v. Host American Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 05-cv-01329-RNC (filed on Aug. 19, 2005);"

      -- "Yorks v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
         05-cv-1250 (filed on Aug. 8, 2005);"

      -- "Sullivan v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action
         No. 05-01391 (filed on Sept. 2, 2005);"

      -- "George Theall v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 05-cv-1389 (JBA) (filed Sept. 1, 2005);"

      -- "Sonia Kilgore v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 05-cv-1435 (JBA)(filed Sept. 12, 2005);"

      -- "Jonathan Destler v. Host America Corp., et al., No.
         05-cv-01479 (JBA) (filed Sept. 21, 2005);" and

      -- "Brett Reeves v. Host America Corp. et al., Civil
         Action No. 05-cv-01511 (JBA) (filed Sept. 27,
         2005)."
          
The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between
July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005.  In general, plaintiffs alleged
that the company's July 12, 2005 press release contained
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's commercial relationship with Wal-Mart.

The complaints alleged that these statements harmed the
purported class by artificially inflating the price of the
company's securities and that certain defendants personally
benefited from the inflated price by selling stock during the
alleged class period.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages based on alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On Sept. 21, 2005, as amended on Sept. 26, 2005, the court
issued a Consolidation and Scheduling Order, consolidating the
class actions as, "In re Host America Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 05-cv-1250 (JBA)."

On June 15, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint for violations of the securities laws.  The
consolidated complaint, which supersedes the previously filed
class action complaints, names as defendants the company,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, David J. Murphy, Peter Sarmanian and Roger
D. Lockhart, and purports to be brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased our publicly traded securities between July 12,
2005 and Sept. 1, 2005.

The consolidated complaint is based on substantially the same
allegations as the earlier filed complaints, and adds
allegations based on the company's disclosure in May 2006
concerning the resignation of the company's former independent
auditors.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages based on alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Under the
current scheduling order, the time for the company to respond to
the consolidated complaint is Sept. 29, 2006.

The suit is "Yorks v. Host America Corp et al. Case No. 3:05-cv-
01250-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elias A. Alexiades, 215 Church Street, 2nd Floor, New
         Haven, CT 06510, Phone: 203-777-4720, Fax: 203-777-
         4722, E-mail: alexiades@mindspring.com;

     (2) Jeffrey P. Campisi of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP - NY
         805 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-687-1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail:
         jcampisi@kaplanfox.com; and

     (3) Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov Stone & Bonner, 485
         Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone:
         212-239-4340, Fax: 212-239-4310, E-mail:
         tciarlone@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants is Peter M. Casey of Greenberg &
Traurig-MA, One International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:
617-310-6048, Fax: 617-310-6001, E-mail: caseyp@gtlaw.com.


ILLINOIS: Suit Against Chicago Over Rainblocker Enters Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery will continue until December in a class action filed
against Chicago over the city's implementation of a Rainblocker
system designed to prevent flooding, according to Alan Schmidt
of The Edgebrook-Sauganash Times Review.

The complaint was filed five years ago on behalf of Ronald
Costello and others who suffered damages because of flooding in
the city.  It accuses Chicago of failing to implement and
maintain the system.  It seeks monetary damages for everyone who
had property that was flooded as a result of the installation,
operation and maintenance of the system.

According to the complaint, the city hired contractor Harza
Engineering as the project coordinator in 1998.  Harza managed
the installation of rainblockers in Skokie, Evanston, Arlington
Heights and other municipalities.  It allegedly warned the city
that the system would only work on certain conditions.  Pilot
projects were conducted in some Chicago neighborhood, but the
city failed to put in place enough monitoring or study of the
pilot areas.

Chicago initially contended that it was protected from weather-
related liability claims by the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.  But
a 2003 Illinois Supreme Court opinion in "William Van Meter vs.
The Darien Park District," case allowed the case to go forward,
according to the plaintiff's attorney, Jim Niewiara, an attorney
with Quinlan & Carroll, Ltd.

The suit was certified in March.  It argues that a government
entity is prohibited from taking or damaging private property
"for public use without just compensation as provided by the
law" as stated in Illinois' Constitution.

The class includes "all persons or entities that have sustained
damage to real or personal property as a result of the diversion
of storm water from public streets to private property resulting
from the City of Chicago's installation, operation, and
maintenance of a modification to the City's sewer system and
inlet control design, known at the Rainblocker System, beginning
in August 2001."

A trial date is not yet known, the report said.

The suit "Costello v. The city of Chicago," is before Cook
County Judge Nancy J. Arnold.

Quinlan & Carroll, Ltd., 30 North La Salle Street, Suite 2900
Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Cook Co.), Phone: 312-263-0900
Telecopier: 312-263-5013, Web Site: http://www.qclaw.com.


JDS UNIPHASE: SDL Investor Suit Enters Limited Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery has begun in the class action filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent the former shareholders of
SDL Ltd. against the former directors of the company.

The suit is asserting that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the events alleged in the securities
litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.

The plaintiffs in the SDL action, "Cook v. Scifres, Master File
No. CV814824 (Santa Clara Super. Ct.)," purport to represent a
class of former shareholders of SDL who exchanged their SDL
shares for JDS Uniphase shares when the company acquired SDL.  
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 12, 2005.  

The complaint names the former directors of SDL as defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of disclosure, and seeks unspecified damages.

Defendants demurred to the complaint on Oct. 12, 2005.  

On Aug. 16, 2006, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to
amend.  The deadline for plaintiffs to file a second amended
complaint is Oct. 16, 2006.  A case management conference is
scheduled for Oct. 24, 2006.  Limited discovery in the SDL
action has occurred.  No trial date has been set in the SDL
action.

Milpitas, California-based JDS Uniphase Corp. (NASDAQ: JDSU) --
http://www.jdsuniphase.com/-- is a provider of broadband and  
optical products and solutions.  Its products are used in
communications, commercial and consumer applications, including
broadband and optical networks, brand protection, biotechnology,
semiconductor, aerospace and defense.  The storage and
distribution of high-speed data, audio and video, such as high-
definition television and multi-player games, is transitioning
from physical storage, compact discs, and digital video discs
and related distribution methods to digital transmission over
packet-based communications networks and storage on large-
capacity servers and hard drives.  JDSU addresses three major
markets: optical communications, communications test and
measurement, and commercial and consumer. To serve these
markets, JDSU operates in three principal segments: Optical
Communications; Communications Test & Measurement, and Advanced
Optical Technologies.  In addition, it operates the Lasers
business unit.


JDS UNIPHASE: Files Reply to ERISA Fraud Complaints in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action alleging violations
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act against JDS Uniphase
Corp., have moved to dismiss defendants' counterclaims for
breach of contract.

A consolidated action, "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case No. C-03-4743 WWS (MEJ)," is pending in the
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company, certain of its former and current officers and
directors, and certain other current and former JDSU employees
on behalf of a purported class of participants in the 401(k)
Plans of the company and Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and
the Plans.

On Oct. 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint alleges that defendants violated the ERISA by
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Plans and the Plans'
participants.

The amended complaint alleges a purported class period from Feb.
4, 2000, to the present and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable
remedies.  Certain individual defendants' motion to dismiss
portions of the amended complaint was granted with prejudice on
June 15, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30, 2006.
Defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006, and JDSU
asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.  Plaintiffs moved
to dismiss JDSU's counterclaims on Aug. 4, 2006.  Both sides
have begun taking discovery.  No trial date has been set.

The suit is "Pettit v. JDS Uniphase Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:03-cv-04743-WWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge William W.
Schwarzer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alan R. Plutzik of Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birhaeuser,
         LLP, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA
         94598, Phone: 925-945-0200, Fax: (925) 945-8792, E-
         mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com; and

     (2) Joseph H. Meltzer of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280
         King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-
         7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Paul Flum and Terri Garland of
Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone; 415/268-7000, Fax: 415-268-7522, E-mail:
paulflum@mofo.com and tgarland@mofo.com.


JDS UNIPHASE: "Zelman" Securities Suit Continues in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has yet to be decided in the purported securities
fraud class action, "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., Case No. 02-
4656," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to the company's
Sept. 14 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.


The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of debt securities that were allegedly linked to the
price of the company's common stock.  

The Zelman complaint states that an investment bank issued the
debt securities during the period from March 6, 2001 through
July 26, 2001.  It names the company and several of its former
officers and directors as defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5,
and seeks unspecified damages.

On Aug. 26, 2005, defendants answered the complaint.  On Nov.
16, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which defendants had not opposed.

At a case management conference on Nov. 18, 2005, the court
ordered that discovery in the Zelman action proceed according to
the same schedule as discovery, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp.
Securities Litigation, C-02-1486," which is pending in the same
court.

On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of their proposed form and method of class notice,
which defendants had not opposed.  No trial date has been set
yet, the company said in its regulatory filing.

The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04656," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Susan G. Kupfer of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 455 Market
         Street, Suite 1810, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415-972-8160, Fax: 415-972-8166, E-mail:
         skupfer@glancylaw.com; and

     (2) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830
         Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-371-6600, Fax: 212-751-2540, E-mail:
         ipress@kmslaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Holly H. Tambling of Morrison &
Foerster, LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482,
Phone: 415 268-7000, Fax: 415-268-7522, E-mail:
Htambling@mofo.com.


JDS UNIPHASE: OCLI Shareholder Suit in Calif. Remains Inactive
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The class action by plaintiffs purporting to represent the
former shareholders of The Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
(OCLI) is still inactive.

The suit is asserting that former directors of the company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the events
alleged in the securities litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.

Plaintiffs in the OCLI action, "Pang v. Dwight, No. 02-231989
(Sonoma Super. Ct.)," purport to represent a class of former
shareholders of OCLI who exchanged their OCLI shares for JDSU
shares when JDSU acquired OCLI.  

The complaint names the former directors of OCLI as defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of candor, and seeks unspecified damages.  No
activity has occurred in the OCLI action since the company's
last filing.

Milpitas, California-based JDS Uniphase Corp. (NASDAQ: JDSU) --
http://www.jdsuniphase.com/-- is a provider of broadband and  
optical products and solutions.  Its products are used in
communications, commercial and consumer applications, including
broadband and optical networks, brand protection, biotechnology,
semiconductor, aerospace and defense.  The storage and
distribution of high-speed data, audio and video, such as high-
definition television and multi-player games, is transitioning
from physical storage, compact discs, and digital video discs
and related distribution methods to digital transmission over
packet-based communications networks and storage on large-
capacity servers and hard drives.  JDSU addresses three major
markets: optical communications, communications test and
measurement, and commercial and consumer.  To serve these
markets, JDSU operates in three principal segments: Optical
Communications; Communications Test & Measurement, and Advanced
Optical Technologies.  In addition, it operates the Lasers
business unit.


JDS UNIPHASE: Oct. 1 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Northern District of California set
an Oct. 1, 2007 trial for the consolidated securities class
action against JDS Uniphase Corp.

Litigation under the federal securities laws has been pending
against the company and certain former and current officers and
directors since March 27, 2002.

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all the securities actions
then filed in or transferred to that court as, "In re JDS
Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-
02-1486 CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and
Trust Funds as lead plaintiff.

The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation" purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of those who acquired the company's securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of
subclasses consisting of those who acquired the company's common
stock pursuant to its acquisitions of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements
and omissions concerning demand for the company's products,
improperly recognized revenue, overstated the value of
inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims
against the company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and
Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.  Defendants
subsequently filed answers denying liability for the claims
asserted against them.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

On April 6, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of its proposed plan for providing notice of class
certification to members of the plaintiff class.

Discovery in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation" is ongoing.  Each party has noticed and taken
depositions of both party and non-party witnesses.

The deadline for fact discovery, except for depositions and
discovery arising from new information obtained at depositions,
is Sept. 29, 2006.  The closing date for completion of
depositions and discovery arising from new information obtained
at depositions is Dec. 1, 2006.  The closing date for expert
discovery is March 19, 2007.  

The next case management conference is scheduled for May 4,
2007, and trial is scheduled for Oct. 1, 2007.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken with referral
to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Reed R. Kathrein and Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
         415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058, Fax: 415-288-4534 and
         619-231-7423, E-mail: reedk@lerachlaw.com and
         e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) John Frith Stewart of Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay,
         Janes & Ber, 1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main
         Street, Louisville, KY 40202-4251, Phone: 502-568-5600.

Representing the defendants are, Philip T. Besirof and Jordan
David Eth of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 425 Market St., San
Francisco, CA, Phone: 94105-2482, Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-
268-7522, E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com and jeth@mofo.com.


LEASECOMM CORP: Mass. Court Approves Settlement of Lease Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Massachusetts approved a tentative
settlement for a purported class action filed against Leasecomm
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of MicroFinancial, Inc.

In March 2003, a purported class action was filed in Superior
Court in Massachusetts against Leasecomm and one of its dealers.
The class to be certified is a nationwide class, excluding
certain residents of the state of Texas, who signed identical or
substantially similar lease agreements with Leasecomm covering
the same product.

After the company had filed a motion to dismiss, but before the
motion to dismiss was heard by the court, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  

The amended complaint asserted claims against the company for
declaratory relief, absence of consideration, unconscionability,
and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section
11.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which was allowed in March 2004.  In May 2004, a purported class
action on behalf of the same named plaintiffs and asserting the
same claims was filed in Cambridge District Court.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which
was heard in August 2004, and denied by the district court.  

On Sept. 16, 2004, the company filed an answer and counterclaims
to the amended complaint denying the plaintiffs' allegations.

On March 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, which the court allowed.  The amended
complaint added a claim for usury against the company.  

The company filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims to the amended complaint denying the plaintiff's
allegations.

In May 2006, the litigation was settled and on June 1, 2006, the
court approved the settlement and entered an order dismissing
the case with prejudice.

Woburn, Massachusetts-based MicroFinancial, Inc. (AMEX: MFI) --
http://www.microfinancial.com/-- originates leases for products  
that typically have limited distribution channels and high
selling costs.  MicroFinancial primarily leases and rents low-
priced commercial equipment, which is used by these lessees in
their daily operations.  The company operates primarily through
its wholly owned subsidiaries, Leasecomm Corp. and TimePayment
Corp. LLC.  TimePayment is a specialized commercial finance
company that leases and rents microticket equipment and provides
other financing services with an average lease term of
approximately 44 months.  The company continues to service
leases, contracts and loans in all 50 states of the U.S. and its
territories.


LUPRON LITIGATION: Excellus Gets $1.1M in Lupron Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield received $1.1 million as
settlement in the class action filed against the makers of
prostate cancer medication Lupron, the Rochester Business
Journal reports.

A consolidated suit filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in Boston, charged that TAP
Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Abbott Laboratories and Takeda
Pharmaceutical Company Limited conspired to fraudulently market,
sell and distribute Lupron.

The class includes all persons or entities that purchased any
formulation of the drug Lupron from Jan. 1, 1985 until at least
Dec. 31, 2004, perhaps later.  

Excellus joined the lawsuit in 2002, a year after it was filed
in U.S. District Court in Boston under federal racketeering
influenced and corrupt organizations law.

The suit claimed that the companies forced consumers to pay
inflated prices for the drug by artificially inflating the
"Average Wholesale Price" of the drug, giving free samples to
doctors knowing they would charge patients and insurers for
them, and giving incentives to doctors so that they would
prescribe Lupron instead of cheaper alternatives.

In 2004, U.S. District Court Judge, Richard G. Stearns, granted
preliminary approval of a proposed $150 million settlement
between TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc. and a nationwide
class of consumers and third-party payors who purchased the drug
Lupron(R) (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2004).

Under the proposed settlement, TAP will pay $150 million on
behalf of all defendants.  After paying $55 million to certain
health plans, the remaining $95 million will go to consumers,
additional health plans and litigation costs and fees.

Several states, including Wisconsin and Illinois, withdrew from
the action in 2004, filing a separate suit in which they won a
$6 million settlement, some $4 million less than their share of
the $150 million would have been, the report said.

Lupron is primarily prescribed to treat prostate cancer in men,
endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women, and premature
puberty in children.

Lupron settlement on the net: http://www.lupronclaims.com.

The suit is "Porter v. Tap Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No.
1:01-cv-10861-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
         26th Floor, One Main Street, 4th Floor, Cambridge, MA
         02142, Phone: 617-482-3700, Fax: 617-482-3003, E-mail:
         Tom@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Elizabeth K. Ainslie of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
         LLP, 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
         215-751-2359, Fax: 215-751-2205, E-mail:
         eainslie@schnader.com;

     (3) Stephen D. Annand, Marlene F. Gibbons, Michael D.
         Hausfeld and Lisa M. Mezzetti all of Cohen, Milstein,
         Hausfeld & Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower,
         Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600;

     (4) Richard W. Cohen of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Slelinger, P.C., The Gateway-11th floor, One North
         Lexington Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601-1714, Phone:
         914-997-0500, Fax: 914-997-0035;

     (5) Michael J. Flannery of The David Danis Law Firm, P.C.,
         8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63105-
         7700, Phone: 314-725-7700;

     (6) Joseph D. Jackson, Jr. of Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin,
         McKnight & Barclift, 2008 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham,
         AL 35233, Phone: 205-271-1100, Fax: 202-271-1108, E-
         mail: jjackson@bddmc.com;

     (7) Todd A Seaver of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
         Pucillo, One LIberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:
         tseaver@bermanesq.com; and

     (8) Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax:
         617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Anita Bapooji Ryan, Monica Meier Franceschini and
         Joseph F. Savage, Jr. all of Goodwin Procter LLP,
         Exchange Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109,
         Phone: 617-570-1998 or 617-570-1539 or 617-570-1204,
         Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: abapooji@goodwinprocter.com
         or mfranceschini@goodwinprocter.com or
         jsavage@goodwinprocter.com;

     (2) Laura D. Cullison of Winston & Strawn, 35 West Wacker
         Drive, Chicago, IL 02109, Phone: 312-558-5600;

     (3) Daniel A. Curto of McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, 28
         State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-535-4036,
         Fax: 617-535-3800, E-mail: dcurto@mwe.com;

     (4) James R. Daly of Jones, Day, 77 West Wacker Drive,
         Chicago, IL 60601-1692, Phone: 312-782-3939;


     (5) Thomas J. Hennessey and Rheba Rutkowski both of Bingham
         McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110,
         Phone: 617-951-8000 or 617-951-8606, Fax: 617-951-8736,
         E-mail: thomas.hennessey@bingham.com or
         rheba.rutkowski@bingham.com;

     (6) George Lombardi and Eric W. Snapp both of Winston &
         Strawn, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
         312-558-5600; and

     (7) Matthew A. Wolfman of Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP,
         125 High Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-248-7000.


MATRIX BANCORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Firm From "Munoz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Bancorp, Inc. was dismissed as one of the defendants in
the purported class action, "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v.
Sterling Trust Company, et al.," which was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California.

Sterling Trust Company, Matrix Bancorp, Matrix Bank, The Vintage
Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. were named as
defendants in the purported class action, which was filed on
December 2001.  

The suit sought class-action status, requested unspecified
damages and alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of written contract on the part of
Sterling Trust.

In the fourth quarter of 2005, Sterling Trust was granted
summary judgment as to all claims against it by the plaintiffs.

In April of 2006, Sterling Trust received the order granting
summary judgment, which dismissed it, Matrix Bancorp, Matrix
Bank, The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings,
Inc. from the action.  

Matrix Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.matrixbancorp.com/-- is a  
unitary thrift holding company that, through its subsidiaries,
provides diversified financial services.  The company has four
segments.  The traditional banking subsidiary provides deposit
and lending services to its customers and also makes investments
in residential mortgage loans.  The mortgage-banking subsidiary
owns residential mortgage service rights and services the
mortgage loans underlying those MSRs, and has some minimal
mortgage origination activity.  The brokerage subsidiaries offer
brokerage and consulting services for residential MSRs and
brokerage services for loan activities and fixed income
activities, and small business association loans and securities.  
The trust services subsidiary provides services for only self-
directed individual retirement account, pension, profit sharing
accounts and escrow arrangements.


MICROFINANCIAL INC: Court Mulls Appeal of Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on an appeal against the dismissal of the amended
complaint in a purported securities class action against
MicroFinancial, Inc.

In October 2003, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.  The purported class consists of all persons who purchased
company securities between Feb. 5, and Oct. 30, 2002.

The complaint asserts that during this period the company made a
series of materially false or misleading statements about the
company's business, prospects and operations, including with
respect to certain lease provisions, the company's course of
dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the company's reserves for
credit losses.

In April 2004, an amended class action complaint was filed which
added additional defendants and expanded upon the prior
allegations with respect to the company.  The company has filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 13, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.  On July 12, 2006,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which is awaiting decision by
the court.  

The suit is "Wilson v. Microfinancial Inc., et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-11883-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) David A. Rosenfeld and Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley,
         Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
         Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-369-
         7100; and

     (3) Richard Maniskas of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706.

Representing the defendants are, Richard J. McCarthy and Barbara
L. Moore of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal Street, Boston,
MA 02110, Phone: 617-439-4444, Fax: 617-439-4170, E-mail:
rmccarthy@edwardsangell.com and bmoore@ealaw.com.


NORTH CAROLINA: Lawsuit Challenges Ban on Video Poker Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Video poker machine owners, players and storeowners filed a
class action on Sept. 15, challenging North Carolina's new law
banning the game machines, Citizen-Times.com reports.

The state is implementing a program to phase out the machines
until next summer.  On Oct. 1, it will only allow operators and
businesses to own two machines instead of three.  By March, it
will cut the number to one with a view to completely banning
them by the next summer.

The ban was planned on complaints that machine owners are
exceeding the legal payout of $10.  Others complained that
elderly family members were betting their Social Security checks
for another fix, according to the report.  There are an
estimated 10,000 legal machines in the state and 25,000 illegal  
ones.

A question is being raised why the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians is allowed to operate the machines.  The ban does not
apply to video poker machines at Harrah's Cherokee Casino.

"The state of North Carolina changed public policy to make
gambling legal by operating a lottery and by entering into a
contract with the Cherokee Indians," said Dan Boyce, a Raleigh
attorney representing the 18 plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The suit was filed in Wake County Superior Court.  It is asking
the court to declare the law unconstitutional.

For more information, contact Mr. Boyce at Boyce & Isley, PLLC,
Lawyers Weekly Building, Suite 100, 107 Fayetteville Street
Mall, P.O. Box 1990, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1990 (Wake
Co.), Phone: 919-833-7373, Fax: 919-833-7536.


NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Hudson Rejects Students' Gang Policy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson dismissed on Sept. 18 a
lawsuit filed against the Durham Public School System over
allegations administrators unfairly suspended black students and
labeled them gang members, The News & Observer reports.

Eight students filed the lawsuit in March, claiming that they
were mislabeled as gang members and unfairly suspended (Class
Action Reporter, March 29, 2006).  Patti Solari, one of
students' attorneys, had contended that the policy should be
revised and that students wrongfully suspended should be let
back into school.

The suit specifically alleges that the school denies equal
opportunity to education and due process, and that its
disciplinary measures have racial implications.  Named as
original defendants in the case are:

     -- Superintendent Ann Denlinger,
     -- Board Chairwoman Gail Heath,
     -- Vice Chairman Steve Martin,
     -- Board Member Steve Schewel,
     -- Board Member Heidi Carter,
     -- other school and public officials,
     -- past and present principals at Southern and Jordan high
        schools, and
     -- Sheriff Worth Hill and two of his deputies

The suit stems from a suspension record for school year 2004-
2005 that shows only 202 white male students have been suspended
for the period compared with 1,297 black males.

Ms. Solari planned to ask a judge to designate the lawsuit as a
class action.

Claims of racial discrimination against the two deputies who
work in the schools have been thrown out by Judge Hudson in
July.

On a Sept. 13 hearing, an attorney for the school system, Ann
Majestic, contended that the case was "baseless" since the
students failed to show they tried everything to appeal
suspension before taking the matter to court.  She pointed out
that state law requires that effort.

Ms. Solari, a North Carolina Central University law professor,
maintains that the students' stories show that school
administrators used a vague, "zero-tolerance" gang policy to
oust minorities.

She added that the current and former students weren't given
adequate notice of suspension, and those who appealed were not
taken seriously.

Seven of the students are black, the lawyer said.  One
plaintiff, Ms. Solari's daughter, is white but was discriminated
against due to her association with black students while at
Jordan High School.

Furthermore, Ms. Solari told the court at the hearing that there
is a "pattern and practice" of discrimination in the schools,
including the suspensions of three students after a fight at
Jordan in December.  The fight lasted less than two minutes,
according to her.

However, Ms. Majestic countered that Ms. Solari doesn't give
enough proof of a pattern.  She pointed out that the 52-page
lawsuit contradicts itself, makes accusations against people who
are not named as defendants and does not deliver the proof it
promises.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Patti Solari, 1512 S. Alston Avenue,
         Durham, NC 27707, Phone: (919) 530-6333, Fax: (919)
         530-6339; and

     (2) [Defendant] Ann L. Majestic of Tharrington Smith, LLP,
         209 Fayettevlle Street Mall, P.O. Box 1151, Raleigh, NC
         27602, Phone: (919) 821-4711, Fax: (919) 829-1583.


SEGWAY INC: Recalls Personal Transporters to Upgrade Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Segway Inc., of Bedford, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
23,500 units of Segway Personal Transporter, also known as the
Segway Human Transporter.

The company said the personal transporter can unexpectedly apply
reverse torque to the wheels, which can cause a rider to fall.  
This can occur when the device is tilted back by the Speed
Limiter and the rider comes off and then back onto the device
within a short period of time.

Segway Inc. has received six reports of the personal transporter
not operating properly, resulting in injuries to the head and
wrist of users.

This recall involves all Segway PT i167, i170 and i180 ("i
Series") models, the p133 ("p Series"), XT ("cross-terrain
transporter"), GT ("golf transporter") and i2 models.  

These units were sold to consumers and commercial customers.  
All e167 ("e Series") models, which were sold to commercial
users, also are included in this recall.  No other models are
involved in this recall.  The name, "Segway", appears on the
front bumper and/or on the handlebars of the personal
transporter.

The recalled personal transporters were manufactured in the U.S.
and are sold through Segway authorized dealers and distributors,
directly from Segway Inc., and by certain resellers from March
2002 through mid-September 2006 for prices ranging from $4,000
to $5,500.

Picture of the recalled personal transporter:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06258.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the Segway PT immediately
and contact the company to receive a free software upgrade.

For more information, call Segway Inc. at (800) 750-6557 between
8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.segway.com.

Segway Inc. and Segway authorized dealers and distributors are
directly notifying owners of these products.


SERENA SOFTWARE: Settles Calif., Del. Suits Over Spyglass Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Serena Software, Inc. settle purported class actions in
California and Delaware that was filed against the company and
its directors over an announced merger with Spyglass Merger
Corp.  

On Nov. 11, 2005, the company entered into and agreement and
plan of merger with Spyglass.  As a result of the announcement
of the acquisition and beginning on Nov. 11, 2005, several
purported class action complaints were filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court and the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo naming the company and the then
members of our board of directors as defendants.

In pursuing these actions, plaintiffs purported to represent
stockholders of the company who were similarly situated with the
plaintiffs.

Among other things, the complaints alleged that the company's
then directors breached the fiduciary duties owed to the
stockholders in approving the merger with Spyglass merger Corp.,
because they failed to take steps to maximize the value to the
company's public stockholders.

On Feb. 27, 2006, the company and the other defendants reached
an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of the actions.  

In connection with the settlement, the company agreed to make
available additional information to its stockholders.  Some of
that information was included in the merger proxy statement.  
The remaining additional information was contained in a company
press release, issued on Feb. 28, 2006.

In return, the plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the actions
and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with such
actions.

In addition, the company agreed to pay the legal fees and
expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, subject to the approval by the
respective courts.  

This payment did not affect the amount of merger consideration
that was paid to Serena's stockholders in the merger.  The
company and the other defendants continue to deny plaintiffs'
allegations in the actions but agreed to settle the purported
class actions to avoid costly litigation and the risk of delay
to the closing of the merger.

On July 31, 2006, the Superior Court conducted a hearing to
consider the settlement, but has not issued a final order
approving, modifying or rejecting the settlement.

San Mateo, California-based Serena Software, Inc. --
http://www.serena.com/-- is a provider of infrastructure  
software that focuses on managing change across Information
Technology environments.  The company's products and services
are used to manage and control change for organizations whose
business operations are dependent on their IT applications and
infrastructure.  The company has developed highly effective
solutions for automating process and controlling change for
application development, Web content and IT operations.  These
solutions enable its customers to improve IT governance,
mitigate risks, support regulatory compliance, and boost
productivity and quality.


SOUTH AFRICA: Univ. Research to Back South Durban Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance is using a
study published at the University of KwaZulu-Natal as the basis
for a class action that seeks to hold industries in the South
Durban Basin responsible for pollution in the area, according to
Edie Newsroom.

The study is expected to finally enable residents and workers in
the industrial zone to seek redress for the environmental and
health damages they've suffered as a result of the operation of
chemical plants in the area.  

The study published by the Centre for Occupational and
Environmental Health at the University of KwaZulu-Natal "offers
scientific evidence that air quality in the basin is worse than
elsewhere in the city and that the companies which run the
industrial installations are, at least in part, responsible for
this," according to the report.

The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance is demanding
free medical treatment for those affected by the pollution and
compensation for the families of those who have died as a result
of it.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: May 2007 Trial Set for Labor Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court scheduled a May 2007 trial
for the class action, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Co."

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips.  

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due.  Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.  

On March 30, 2006, the court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.  

The size of the class has yet to be determined.  Trial is
currently set for May 2007.

Seattle, Washington-based Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) --
http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and roasts whole bean  
coffees and sells them, along with fresh, rich-brewed coffees,
Italian-style espresso beverages, cold-blended beverages, a
variety of complementary food items, coffee-related accessories
and equipment, a selection of premium teas and a line of compact
discs, primarily through company-operated retail stores.

Starbucks also sells coffee and tea products and licenses its
trademark through other channels and, through certain of its
equity investees, Starbucks produces and sells bottled
Frappuccino coffee drinks and Starbucks DoubleShot espresso
drink and a line of superpremium ice creams.  All channels
outside the company-operated retail stores are collectively
known as Specialty Operations.  Starbucks has two operating
segments: U.S. and International, each of which includes
company-operated retail stores and Specialty Operations.


STARBUCKS CORP: Texas FLSA Violations Litigation Awaits Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial has yet to be set for the purported class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
against Starbucks Corp. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2006 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended July 2, 2006.

On March 11, 2005, a former employee of the company filed the
lawsuit, "James Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. and Does 1 through
100."

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the company
misclassified its retail assistant store managers as exempt from
the overtime provisions of the FLSA and that each assistant
manager therefore is entitled to overtime compensation for any
week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during the
three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for as
long as they remain an assistant manager thereafter.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include
allegations that he and other retail assistant store managers
were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek after they were re-classified
as non-exempt employees in September 2002.

In both claims, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
all current and former assistant store managers employed by the
company in the U.S. from March 11, 2002 until the present.

Plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of himself and the class,
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees and costs.

On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to all
putative class members under the opt-in procedures in section
16(b) of the FLSA.

On Nov. 29, 2005, the court entered an order authorizing notice
to the class of the existence of the lawsuit and their
opportunity to join as plaintiffs.  No trial date has been set
for the case.

The suit is "Falcon v. Starbucks Corp., et al., Case No. 4:05-
cv-00792," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Robert R. Debes, Jr. of The Debes Law Firm, 1900 W.
         Loop, Ste. 1910, Houston, TX 77027, Phone: 713-623-
         0900, Fax: 713-623-0951, E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com;
         and

     (2) Martin A. Shellist of Shellist Lazarz, LLP,
         3D/International Tower, 1900 West Loop South, Suite
         1910, Houston, TX 77027, Phone: 713-621-2277, Fax: 713-
         621-0993, E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net.

Representing the defendant is Fraser A. McAlpine of Akin Gump,
et al., 1111 Louisiana St., 44th Floor, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: 713-220-8129, Fax: 713-236-0822, E-mail:
fmcalpine@akingump.com.


STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Begins in Federal Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in several purported antitrust class actions
filed against Stericycle, Inc. in federal courts of the state of
Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.

                      Consolidated Lawsuits

In January 2003, the company was sued in federal court in
Arizona by a private plaintiff claiming anticompetitive conduct
in Arizona, Colorado and Utah from November 1997 to the present.  
The suit seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action on
behalf of all customers of the company in the three-state area
during this period.

Over the next several months, four similar suits were filed in
federal court in Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.  

These five lawsuits have been consolidated for multidistrict
proceedings in federal court in Utah, and the plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated class action complaint, superseding their
prior, separate complaints, alleging various anticompetitive
conduct, including monopolization of the market for medical
waste services.

In December 2004 the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and in October 2005 the court heard arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion.  The court has not yet issued a ruling.
Discovery in these proceedings is at an early stage.

                           Sixth Lawsuit

In December 2003, a sixth suit was filed in federal court in
Utah alleging monopolistic and other anticompetitive conduct in
California from 1999 through the present and seeking
certification of the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all
California customers of the company during this period.

In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and in October 2005 the court heard arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion.

The court has not yet issued a ruling.  Discovery in this
lawsuit, which is coordinated with discovery in the
multidistrict proceedings, is at an early stage.

                 Third-Party Hauler Litigation

In February 2003, the company was sued in federal court in Utah
by a third-party hauler of medical waste alleging various
anticompetitive conduct, including an alleged denial of access
to one of the company's incinerators.

Discovery in this lawsuit, which is consolidated with discovery
in the multidistrict proceedings, is at an early stage.

Lake Forest, Illinois-based Stericycle, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRCL) --
http://www.stericycle.com/-- is engaged in the management of  
medical waste, infection control and pharmaceutical returns and
the provision of related compliance services.  The company's
product and service offerings include Stericycle medical waste
management services; Bio Systems sharps management services that
reduce the risk of needle sticks in hospitals; an assortment of
products for infection control, and Direct Return pharmaceutical
returns and product recall management services under the
Stericycle Pharmaceutical Services unit.  Stericycle is a
regulated medical waste management company in North America,
serving approximately 333,000 customers throughout the U.S.,
Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2005, Stericycle, Inc. acquired four
pharmaceutical returns and product recall businesses: Automated
Health Technologies, Inc., Universal Solutions, Inc., L.L.
Horizons, Inc and NNC Group, LLC.


TRUE RELIGION: Recalls Fleece Hoodies Posing Strangulation Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
True Religion, of Los Angeles, California, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
150 units of True Religion brand fleece hoodies.

The company said a drawstring is threaded through the hood,
posing a strangulation hazard to children.  No incidents or
injuries have been reported.

The recalled hoodies have a drawstring through the hood.  The
products are black, pink, or blue and were sold in children
sizes XS, S, M, L, and XL.  The True Religion horseshoe design
is displayed on the front of the hoodie.  The name "True
Religion" appears inside the hoodie.

The recalled hoodies were manufactured in Mexico and are being
sold at Neiman Marcus stores nationwide and through its Web site
from April 2006 through July 2006 for about $106.

Picture of the recalled fleece hoodies:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06578.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the clothing immediately and
return the item directly to their local Neiman Marcus store for
a full refund.  Online purchasers should contact Neiman Marcus
for instructions on how to return the product.  Direct notices
from Neiman Marcus are being sent to consumers it has identified
who purchased the recalled hoodies.

For more information, contact Neiman Marcus at (800) 685-6695 if
you purchased the hoodie from a Neiman Marcus store, or visit
http://www.neimanmarcus.com.


UNITED KINGDOM: Lawsuit Planned Over Child-Porno Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 30 people have put their names to a class action set to be
launched against detectives behind a U.K. child-pornography
investigation launched four years ago, reports say.

Former suspects who say their lives have been devastated after
their houses were searched and their computers and accessories
seized are suing detectives behind Operation Ore.

According to the group, it has evidence that shows the basis for
the investigation was false.  

The investigators had used credit-card details of 7,200 people
believed to have paid for child porn on the Internet through the
Landslide database.  The data was supplied to British police by
U.S. detectives.  

The group also claims it has found evidence of fraudulent use of
credit-card details by some Web site users.

Brian Rothery is organizing the class action, according to The
Scotsman.  Most of those involved in the class action have been
cleared of wrongdoing.

More than 2,000 people have been convicted as a result of the
investigation.


WORLDCOM INC: Two Ebbers Assets in Miss. Remain to be Sold
----------------------------------------------------------
The manager of the trust created under a settlement agreement in
the WorldCom, Inc. securities litigation is yet to receive
viable bids for two Lincoln County, Mississippi properties that
once belonged to former Chief Executive Bernie Ebbers.

Development Specialists, Inc. Senior Consultant John Wheeler
said, the Brookhaven Country Club and a vacant lot in the city
remains to be sold.  

The country club has remained operational since being placed in
the trust.  It has an 18-hole golf course, eight tennis courts,
a pool and clubhouse.  Trustees said in early June they had
hoped to raise $1 to $1.2 million on the property.

Earlier, the trustees disposed of Columbus Lumber Co. in which
Mr. Ebbers once held a 68% interest (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
14, 2006).

A settlement of a suit filed against Mr. Ebbers by investors who
lost money when WorldCom collapsed in 2002, calls for him to pay
$5 million up front and to place the remainder of his assets in
a trust that is expected to be sold for an estimated $25 million
to $40 million.  All monies from the sale of Mr. Ebber's
property are to be deposited in a fiduciary fund for
disbursement to plaintiffs in the class action.


Parties interested in receiving a bid package, conducting due
diligence or viewing property and submitting offer for the
properties being sold by Development Specialists, must contact
the Trustee's counsel, Burr & Forman LLP, and the Trustee's
representatives:

     Development Specialists, Inc.
     Attn: Brian C. Weepie
     70 West Madison Street, Suite 2300
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 263-4141
     Fax: (312) 263-1180

         -- and --

     Development Specialists, Inc.
     Attn: Joseph J.Luzinski
     200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1818
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 374-2717
     Fax: (305) 374-2717

Headquartered in Clinton, Mississippi, WorldCom, Inc., now known
as MCI -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- is a pre-eminent global  
communications provider, operating in more than 65 countries and
maintaining one of the most expansive IP networks in the world.
The company filed for chapter 11 protection on July 21, 2002
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-13532).  The Bankruptcy Court
confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr. 20,
2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11
protection as MCI, Inc. (Troubled Company Reporter Vol. 10, No.
160)

The "WorldCom, Inc., Securities Litigation 02-Civ. 3288
(S.D.N.Y.)"  -- http://www.worldcomlitigation.com-- is a  
consolidated, certified class action pending in the Southern
District of New York before District Court Judge Denise L. Cote.  
It is being prosecuted on behalf of a court-certified class of
all individuals or entities who purchased or acquired publicly
traded securities of WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through
and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured thereby.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Faces Gloves-Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings Inc. defends in several lawsuits alleging past
exposure to asbestos contained in gloves sold by a Company
predecessor-in-interest.

One or more of the Company's products liability insurers defend
these actions.

Based in Kewanee, Ill., Boss Holdings Inc. subsidiary, Boss
Manufacturing Co., imports and markets gloves and protective
wear sold through mass merchandisers, hardware stores, and other
retailers in the U.S. and Canada. The Company was founded in
1893 as a manufacturer of work gloves. Its gloves and protective
gear account for about 70 percent of sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Corp. Faces 1,900 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America, a G-I Holdings Inc.
subsidiary, recorded about 1,900 alleged asbestos bodily injury
claims filed against it, as of July 2, 2006.

In connection with its formation, BMCA contractually assumed and
agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of liabilities for
claims against G-I Holdings.

On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
asbestos claim against BMCA. In an oral opinion on June 22,
2001, and written order on Feb. 22, 2002, the Court turned the
temporary restraints into a preliminary injunction, prohibiting
the bringing or prosecution of any asbestos claim against BMCA.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that BMCA has no successor liability for
asbestos claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings.

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants, subsequently filed a counterclaim against
BMCA seeking a declaration that BMCA has successor liability for
Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that BMCA is the alter
ego of G-I Holdings.

On May 13, 2003 the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court. This
matter is not to be heard by the District Court earlier than
February 2007.

Based in Wayne, N.J., Building Materials Corp. of America, which
does business as GAF Materials, deals in shingles and roofing
systems. The Company also makes flashing, vents, decorative
stone for fireplaces, and wrought iron balusters. The Company
was founded in 1886.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $441.7M Losses in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corporation recorded US$441,752,000
gross unpaid losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, compared with
US$480,529,000 for the same period in 2005.

For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company's gross
unpaid losses and ALAE was US$461,078,000. (Class Action
Reporter, May 12, 2006)

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company
recorded US$356,787,000 net unpaid losses and ALAE, compared
with US$375,731,000 for the same period in 2005.

For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company's net
unpaid losses and ALAE was US$367,183,000. (Class Action
Reporter, May 12, 2006)

No adjustment was made to asbestos, environmental or other
latent reserves in the six months ended June 30, 2006. In 2005,
the Company strengthened its asbestos, environmental and other
latent reserves by US$44,646,000.

Based in Morristown, New Jersey, Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.
offers property/casualty insurance products to businesses,
including management liability, automobile, and workers'
compensation coverage. The Company is a subsidiary of Fairfax
Financial Holdings Ltd.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Power Still Faces Site Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Power Co. LLC has experienced numerous claims relating to
damages for personal injuries alleged to arise from the exposure
to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and
maintenance activities conducted by Duke Power on its electric
generation plants during the 1960s and 1970s.

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

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Power Co. provides electricity
services to 2.2 million customers in North and South Carolina.
Operating in a 22,000-square mile service territory, the utility
has more than 100,000 miles of transmission and distribution
lines and has a generating capacity of nearly 20,000 MW from
interests in fossil-fueled, nuclear, and hydroelectric power
plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tarragon Mgmt. to Pay $1M for CAA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tarragon Corporation's subsidiary, Tarragon Management Inc.,
pleaded guilty to Clean Air Act violations on June 19, 2006, and
agreed to pay fines and community service payments totaling US$1
million for the offense, which was connected to renovations at
Pine Crest Village at Victoria Park.

In April 2003, the Company's contractor disturbed asbestos-
containing materials. These actions were investigated by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Florida for possible violations of federal
criminal laws.

On April 25, 2006, the U.S. Attorney charged TMI with one felony
count for failure to comply with Clean Air Act Work Practice
Standards for Asbestos in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Aside from the US$1 million charge, TMI also agreed to institute
an environmental compliance program and was placed on five years
probation with the right to seek an early termination after
three years of documented compliance with the program.

The U.S. Attorney also sued the contractor, and one current and
one former employee of Tarragon, with oversight responsibility
for the Pine Crest condominium conversion. Each employee
subsequently entered a plea of guilty to the charges against
them.

In 2005, the Company accrued a US$1 million loss contingency for
this matter. To date, the Company has incurred legal and other
professional fees and costs of relocation of residents in
connection with this matter of US$762,000. In March 2004,
remediation was completed at a cost of about US$795,000.

Based in New York City, N.Y., Tarragon Corp. through its two
primary divisions, Homebuilding and Investment, engages in the
development and renovation of single and multifamily residences
and communities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $283.5M Losses, Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corporation's asbestos-related gross unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses totaled US$283,506,000 for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, compared with
US$232,756,000 for the same periods in 2005.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's
asbestos-related net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
were US$137,386,000, compared with US$86,157,000 for the same
periods in 2005.

For the period ended March 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-
related gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were
US$280,981,000, compared with US$234,528,000 for the same period
in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006)

For the period ended March 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-
related net unpaid losses and LAE were US$137,656,000, compared
with US$84,812,000 for the same period in 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, June 9, 2006)

As of June 30, 2006, gross unpaid asbestos and environmental
losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$322.8 million,
compared with US$315.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's net losses
and LAE for asbestos claims decreased US$12.3 million, compared
with US$900,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2006.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the US$12.3 million
benefit for net asbestos losses and LAE incurred is comprised of
a US$5 million net reserve increase which was reduced by the
US$17.3 million benefit recognized as a result of the
amortization of the deferred gain related to the 1995 Stop Loss
Agreement.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, net asbestos losses
and LAE reflect a US$900,000 benefit as a result of the
amortization of the deferred gain related to the 1995 Stop Loss
Agreement.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company estimated US$137.4 million
asbestos losses and LAE reserves, net of reinsurance.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's survival ratio for A&E
related liabilities was 12 years.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. writes
treaty reinsurance through its London Market, EuroAsia, and
Americas divisions. Its casualty lines include general and auto
liability, professional liability, and accident and health. The
Company offers marine, aerospace, and surety reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heartland Estimates $912T-$920T for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Partners L.P. projected that the remediation for a 14-
acre property it sold to the City of Bozeman, Mont. will cost
from US$912,000 to US$920,000.

The total remediation cost included work performed by Bozeman
plus more remediation, which may be required for the south half
of the property.

In 2001, the Company sold to Bozeman the asbestos ore-
contaminated property. As part of the sale, the City of Bozeman
released the Company from all environmental liability. The City
of Bozeman performed a cleanup of the property's north half.

In September 2003, the Company received a letter from the
Department of Environmental Quality requesting an investigation
of possible asbestos ore on the south half of the property sold
to the City of Bozeman and a neighboring property.

In a Nov. 3, 2004 letter, the DEQ notified the Company that
Bozeman had initiated a proceeding under the Montana Controlled
Allocation of Liability Act with regard to the sold property. In
the proceeding, the DEQ will allocate environmental liability
among potentially liable parties.

More studies by Bozeman on the south half of the property
indicate that no further remediation will be required for the
south half of the property. The estimated range of costs for the
neighboring property is US$111,000 to US$176,000.

The Company has reserved an aggregate of US$126,000 for all
claims and liabilities associated with this property and the
neighboring property.

Heartland Partners L.P. was formed on Oct. 6, 1988. Its
partnership agreement provided Heartland's existence would
continue until Dec. 31, 2065. The Company was organized to
engage in the ownership, purchasing, development, leasing,
marketing, construction and sale of real estate properties.

On April 28, 2006, the Chicago, Ill.-based Company filed a
petition to liquidate under Ch. 11 of the federal bankruptcy
laws. The Company is now attempting to dispose of its remaining
real estate holdings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Faces 1,794 Suits in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant in about 1,794 pending
claims involving about 2,141 individuals, as of June 30, 2006.
The claimants alleged personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company was named co-defendant with
other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing
products in about 1,692 claims involving about 2,036
individuals. (Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2006)

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted 304
new claims filed, compared with 621 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2005. For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted
15 settlements, compared with 24 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted 198
dismissals, compared with 732 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's non-current insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$8,950,000 as of June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31,
2005.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$23,439,000 as of June 30, 2006, compared with US$28,369,000
as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$9,740,000, compared with US$9,500,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company spent
US$11,321,000 for asbestos liabilities, compared with
US$12,927,000 for the same period in 2005.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the
six months ended June 30, 2006 were US$1.1 million, compared
with US$1.3 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the estimated range of liability for
settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to
be filed through 2011 was US$9.5 million to US$18.8 million.

At June 30, 2006, the Company has recorded US$9.7 million for
the estimated minimum liability.

Based in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc. produces
Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and
it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates
supplier. The Company makes industrial products like adhesive-
coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect materials
during handling and for varied applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Accrues $1.11B for Liabilities in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation had accrued US$1.115 billion, as of
June 30, 2006, for asbestos and certain other personal injury
liabilities. At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company accrued the same
amount.

The Company's subsidiary, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.,
continues to defend against suits, some of which involved claims
of multiple persons, in which the plaintiffs alleged that
certain of their injuries were caused by exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products produced or sold by KACC or as a
result of employment or association with KACC.

As of the Feb. 12, 2002 bankruptcy filing date, about 112,000
asbestos-related claims were pending. The suits related to
products KACC had not sold for more than 20 years.

The Company estimated that its total liability for asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile personal injury claims was
expected to be between about US$1.1 billion and US$2.4 billion.
Accordingly, the Company reflected an accrued liability of
US$1.115 billion for the minimum end of the expected range.

KACC said it had insurance coverage available that would recover
a substantial portion of its asbestos-related costs. The Company
stated that substantial recoveries from the insurance carriers
were probable and had estimated the amount of remaining solvent
insurance coverage to be from US$1.4 billion to US$1.5 billion.

The Company previously disclosed that it would be able to
recover from insurers amounts totaling about US$965 million,
which was reduced to US$963.3 million at June 30, 2006 due to
certain subsequent recoveries.

Based in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser Aluminum Corp. operates
11 fabricated products manufacturing plants in the U.S. and
Canada and a minority-owned aluminum smelting facility in the
U.K. The Company's main customers are in the aerospace,
industrial, and transportation markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chemicals Still Indemnifies Kraton
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Chemicals Ltd. continues to indemnify Kraton Polymers LLC
against certain asbestos liabilities and obligations, including
those involving third parties.

This agreement has been put in place since Kraton's separation
from Shell Chemicals in February 2001.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that Kraton has acquired.

Claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals alleging
workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio facility.

Moreover, Kraton and Shell Chemicals have entered into a consent
order relating to certain environmental remediation at the
Belpre facility.

Based in Houston, Tex., Kraton Polymers LLC's styrenic block
copolymers are used in a variety of plastic, rubber, and
chemicals, as well as for improving the stability of asphalt.
The Kraton family of polymers is used in adhesives, toys, and
packaging, and to make shoe soles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 94 Hilco Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corporation faces asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, with 94 plaintiffs, from predecessor Hilco
Inc., in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County.
The Company has never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs, seven sued in 2006, 15 sued in 2005,
43 sued in 2004, 27 sued in 2003, and two sued in 2002.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company noted 105 other plaintiffs that
have had their actions dismissed and eight other plaintiffs that
have settled for a total of US$3,313,000. There has been no
judgment against Hilco.

Twenty-four plaintiffs named the Company's subsidiary, Universal
Supply Group Inc. Of these, two sued in 1999, one sued in 2000,
five sued in 2001, eleven sued in 2005, and five sued in 2006.
Six plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed
and, of the total US$3,313,000 of settled actions, two
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500. After
these dismissed and settled actions, 16 plaintiffs that name
Universal still exist.

The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims,
and insurance companies are defending the interests of the
Company and Hilco in these cases.

The material litigation that was brought against Hilco was
Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corp., filed on April 26, 2004 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,
Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 under an agreement reached in connection with a
US$10,000,000 jury verdict rendered on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company
was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

Based in Hicksville, N.Y., Colonial Commercial Corp., through
subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group, and
American/Universal Supply Inc., supplies HVAC products, climate-
control systems, and plumbing fixtures to more than 5,000
customers in New York and New Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Reserves $7.3M for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation's product and general liability
claims reserve, including asbestos-related liabilities, was
US$7.3 million on July 2, 2006, compared with US$8 million on
July 3, 2005.

The Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions that
typically relate to product liability, including asbestos-
related liability.

The Company is generally self-insured for claims up to US$2
million a claim. Accordingly, a reserve is maintained for the
estimated costs of those claims.


COMPANY PROFILE
Briggs & Stratton Corp.  
12301 W. Wirth St.
Wauwatosa, Wis.  
Phone: 414-259-5333
Fax: 414-259-5773
http://www.briggsandstratton.com

Description:
The Company makes air-cooled gas engines for use in lawn mowers
and garden tillers. Through its chief subsidiary, Briggs &
Stratton Power Products Group, the company also manufactures
portable generators, pressure washers, switches, welders, and
other related products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman's Claims Deal Persists
------------------------------------------------------------
Collins & Aikman Corp.'s primary insurance carriers continue to
handle the Company's defense and indemnity costs. The deal was
set to expire in August 2006; however, an evergreen clause
extends the term indefinitely absent a termination notice.

The Company and its subsidiaries were parties to about 1,400
pending cases, as of the May 17, 2005 bankruptcy filing date,
alleging asbestos-related liability in connection with the
Debtors former boiler operations, which were sold in 1966.

The Debtors have paid US$3.9 million in total defense costs, and
US$2.1 million in total indemnity claims, in which the Debtors'
primary insurance carriers have covered these costs under a
claims handling agreement.

The Debtors have primary, excess and umbrella insurance coverage
for various periods available for asbestos-related boiler and
other claims. Under the current claims handling agreement, the
Debtors' primary carriers have agreed to cover about 82 percent
of certain defense and settlement costs up to a limit of about
US$73 million for all claims made.

The excess insurance coverage, which varies in availability from
year to year, is about US$619 million in aggregate for all
claims made.

The Debtors have also been named in asbestos suits related to
their prior retail lumber and building materials business. In
1988, the Debtors divested their retail lumber and building
materials business to Wickes Lumber Co., now known as Wickes
Inc.

Wickes assumed responsibility for all liabilities linked with
this business, including those associated with certain asbestos-
related claims. The Debtors have agreed to give Wickes access to
their general liability insurance policies to cover those
liabilities.

In 2004, Wickes filed a voluntary petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As of the filing
date, 4,000 claims were pending against Wickes.

Based in Southfield, Mich., Collins & Aikman Corp. makes plastic
automotive interior and exterior trim and a range of other car
interior products. Other products include molded carpet,
acoustic systems, floormats, convertible tops, and luggage
compartment trim.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $742.8M Provision for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV recorded a US$742.8 million provision
for asbestos-related claims, according to a Company media
release dated Aug. 17, 2006 and filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The effect of the strengthening of the Australian dollar on the
AUD1 billion net asbestos provision was an expense of US$27.2
million. As a result, operating profit for the quarter declined
to US$35.5 million.  

The asbestos provision is based on an estimate of future
Australian asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with the
Final Funding Agreement that was signed with the New South Wales
Government on Dec. 1, 2005.

The Company is continuing discussions with the Australian Tax
Office and other stakeholders, including the NSW Government,
with a view to satisfying one of the remaining conditions
precedent to the FFA.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's
operating profit, excluding the effect of foreign exchange on
the asbestos provision it recorded last quarter, increased 12
percent compared with the same quarter last year, to US$62.7
million from US$55.9 million.

The 1st quarter highlights included a 16 percent increase in net
sales to US$415.5 million and a 9 percent increase in gross
profit to US$157.7 million.

Earnings before interest and tax, which fell 21 percent from
US$86.9 million to US$68.9 million compared with the same
quarter last year, was impacted by the effect of foreign
exchange on the asbestos provision. EBIT excluding the US$27.2
million impact of foreign exchange on the asbestos provision
increased 11 percent to US$96.1 million.

Diluted earnings per share excluding the effect of foreign
exchange on the asbestos provision increased from US12.1 cents
to US13.4 cents.

Diluted earnings per share for the quarter decreased from US12.1
cents in the prior corresponding quarter to US7.6 cents.

Based in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding,
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company
makes fiber-reinforced concrete pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business and roofing through Artisan Roofing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Opposes Committee, FCR Trial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek J. Baker, Esq., at Reed Smith, LLP, in Pittsburgh, Pa.,
asserts that the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for
the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors and Robert C. Pate, the future
claims representative, do not have a right to a jury trial in
their attempts to hold ASARCO LLC responsible for the Asbestos
Debtors' tort liabilities.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for ASARCO LLC
asserts that the Asbestos Committee and the FCR failed to timely
submit a jury trial demand. The Asbestos Committee and the FCR
had the chance to demand a jury trial in their Amended Complaint
and in ASARCO's Estimation Motion, Mr. Baker notes.

The ASARCO Committee maintains that the Asbestos Committee and
the FCR cannot satisfy the Court's procedural requirements to
conduct a jury trial. Alter Ego Theories are not triable by a
jury, rather they are equitable in nature, Mr. Baker argues. In
addition, by consenting to the presentation of the Alter Ego
Theories in the claims allowance process, the Asbestos Committee
and the FCR waived their rights to a jury's adjudication of the
issues, Mr. Baker says.

Hence, the ASARCO Committee asks the Court to deny the Asbestos
Committee and the FCR's request for a jury trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a litigant's jury trial rights
only in actions at law. The Alter Ego Claims, however, are
equitable in nature for which no jury trial right exists, Jack
L. Kinzie, Esq., at Baker Botts L.L.P., in Dallas, Tex.,
asserts.

The matter is not a dispute between individual claimants and
ASARCO, but one between the Asbestos Debtors and ASARCO, Mr.
Kinzie adds.

Assuming arguendo that the Asbestos Committee and the FCR have a
right to a jury trial, ASARCO asserts that that right was
clearly waived by filing the complaint and the FCR's
counterclaim.

In addition, a time-consuming jury trial would be an
inappropriate method for estimating the Alter Ego Claims because
it would be inconsistent with the policy under Chapter 11 to
accomplish a reorganization quickly and efficiently, Mr. Kinzie
avers. Also, courts have not utilized jury trials in estimation
proceedings.

At the outset, ASARCO would like to emphasize the importance of
distinguishing between the Asbestos Committee and the FCR's
rights, and those of the constituents they represent. "The issue
before the Court is whether the Asbestos Committee and the FCR
have a right to a jury trial on the Asbestos Debtors' alter ego
claims against ASARCO, not whether the individual asbestos
claimants have a jury trial right on their personal injury
claims," Mr. Kinzie emphasizes.

If the Asbestos Committee and the FCR succeed on their equitable
alter ego claims, the asbestos claims could then be asserted
against ASARCO and would be liquidated for purposes of
distribution pursuant to procedures provided for in its plan of
reorganization, which would include a jury trial right in the
home district court. The monetary relief, however, belongs to
the individual holders of asbestos claims and demands, not to
their representatives.

ASARCO LLC asks the Bankruptcy Court to deny the Asbestos
Committee and the FCR's demand for a jury trial.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 29; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Okays Owens Corning 6th Amended Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald issued a bench ruling confirming Owens
Corning's Sixth Amended Plan of Reorganization after dismissing
the two remaining objections at a hearing in Pittsburgh, Pa.,
according to published reports.

The Bankruptcy Court will issue a formal written order
confirming the Plan soon, The Associated Press says.

Judge Fitzgerald overruled the objections filed by Joel
Ackerman, on behalf of holders of Owens Corning 7.25 percent
Deutschemark Bear Bonds due Dec. 2, 2006; and the family of a
man who died of asbestos cancer in 1981, The Toledo Blade
reports.

Judge Fitzgerald told the man's daughters in a telephonic
hearing that the decedent's estate would likely be paid from the
asbestos personal injury trust to be established under the Plan.

Owens Corning's bankruptcy counsel, Norman Pernick, Esq., at
Saul Ewing, in Wilmington, Del., had advised the Court that 17
of the 19 objections to the Plan -- including oppositions by the
U.S. Trustee, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Internal
Revenue Service -- have been resolved prior to the Confirmation
Hearing, the Blade says. Mr. Pernick said minor changes would be
made to the Plan to reflect those settlements.

Upon the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation, the Plan will be sent
to Judge John Fullam of the U.S. District Court for approval.

Owens Corning hopes to emerge from bankruptcy by Oct. 31, 2006,
to avoid payment of US$30,000,000 to extend until Dec. 15, 2006
a stock underwriting agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, the
Blade notes.

(Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 142; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Man Sues Ill. Central, Norfolk in FELA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Borntreger filed a Federal Employers' Liability Act
lawsuit against Norfolk Southern Railway Co. and Illinois
Central Railroad, on Sept. 13, 2006, in Madison County Circuit
Court, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

A fireman and engineer for Norfolk from 1957-1986, Mr.
Borntreger claimed he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or
otherwise absorbed asbestos and other chemicals, which caused
him to develop mesothelioma.

According to the complaint, Mr. Borntreger worked for Illinois
Central Railroad from 1950-1955. On Dec. 9, 2005, he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Borntreger claimed the railroad firms failed to provide safe
working conditions, failed to provide safe and adequate tools,
failed to warn of the dangers of the asbestos and other
chemicals, and failed to comply with Occupational Safety and
Health Administration regulations.

According to the complaint, Mr. Borntreger has become obligated
for medical expenses, suffered pain and has been impaired in his
normal pursuits of life.

Represented by Patrick O'Brien of St. Louis, Ill., Mr.
Borntreger seeks damages in excess of US$100,000 plus all costs
of the suit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Awards $3.9M in Suit v. Crane
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California awarded US$3.9
million to the family of U.S. Navy veteran Joseph Henson Norris
in an asbestos-related lawsuit against Crane Co., Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

Attorneys for the family of Mr. Norris said the former U.S. Navy
gunner's mate died in August 2006 of mesothelioma caused by
exposure to asbestos in the gaskets and packing materials while
aboard the U.S.S. Bremerton in the 1950s.

The Company said it was continuing to weigh an appeal and said
that its products did not cause Mr. Norris' death. A Company
spokesman said it used asbestos-containing parts made by third
parties in pump valves.

The spokesman said the Company was the remaining defendant in
the wrongful-death suit because the other firms had gone out of
business and the U.S. Navy is shielded from liability.

The Company spokesman said that similar claims have been settled
out of court.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified Company
that makes various industrial products, including fluid handling
equipment, aerospace components, engineered materials,
merchandising systems, and controls. The Company serves the
power generation, general aviation, commercial construction,
food and beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Reviews 4 Lawsuits v. Michelin
----------------------------------------------------------------
A French court in Clermont-Ferrand, France opened hearings into
four lawsuits accusing Compagnie Generale des Etablissements
Michelin of negligence for exposing its workers to dangerous
asbestos levels, The Associated Press reports.

About 40 people have sued Michelin for asbestos-related claims.
The Court was examining four of them by a former worker and
widows of three others who died from complications of lung
cancer, contracted after they were exposed to asbestos. The
workers were exposed in the 1960s and 1970s.

Jean-Paul Teissonniere, the victims' lawyers, said asbestos'
dangers were known as far back as 1965 and alleged that Michelin
sought to keep them secret from their employees. He said the
four workers in question had insulated 4,600 feet of pipes with
asbestos each month as late as 1973.

Sophie Deschamps, Michelin's lawyer, insisted at the hearings
that the Company denied having exposed workers to asbestos
knowingly.

The Company is accused of negligence and risks fines. A judgment
in the case is expected Nov. 16, 2006.

On Nov. 9, 2006, the Court is to review 19 other asbestos-
related suits against Michelin. The Company was found guilty in
a similar case in the town of Epinal in northeast France, but
the Company appealed.

Based in Clermont-Ferrand, France, Compagnie Generale des
Etablissements Michelin sells about 36,000 products, including
tires, wheels, and inner tubes used on passenger cars and
trucks, aircraft, bicycles, and agricultural vehicles. Other
products include travel publications like road maps and travel
guides.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Awards Carpenter GBP400T Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amarjeet Singh Dahele, a carpenter from East Ham in the United
Kingdom, was awarded a GBP400,000 damages settlement in the High
Court, after almost 30 years of working with asbestos, Newham
Recorder reports.

Mr. Dahele, aged 52, was regularly exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers while working on three high-storey blocks of flats in
Stratford between 1975 and 1977.

According to Mr. Dahele's lawyers, he was required to saw and
drill asbestos sheets and, as scaffolding was removed from above
him as he worked his way down the buildings, he was showered
with asbestos-laden dust and debris.

In October 2005, Mr. Dahele was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Dahele sued Thomas Bates and Son Ltd., of (The Old Brick
Works) in Romford, his former employer, who admitted full
liability in the case after cross-examining him. The Company
agreed to pay the GBP400,000 damages, plus Department of Social
Security benefits of GBP3,900.50, plus Mr. Dahele's legal costs.

Harminder Bains, Mr. Dahele's lawyers, said that the defendants
had conceded his claim for nursing care and equipment in full,
including GBP20,000 of private chemotherapy treatment, and that
his compensation for lost earnings should be reduced by only 25
percent due to his reduced life expectancy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie, NSW Govt, ATO Continue Payout Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV, the New South Wales Government, and
the Australian Tax Office continue to hold talks over possible
changes to the funding arrangements for its asbestos
compensation deal, The Age reports.

Hardie said it was continuing to negotiate with the NSW Govt. in
relation to limited amendments to the final funding agreement
and related agreements.

The deal hit a snag in June 2006 after the ATO ruled that a fund
worth up to AUD4.5 billion, which Hardie had agreed to set up to
compensate victims of the asbestos products it used to make,
would not have charity status for tax purposes.

However, Hardie said it had met with the ATO to seek fresh
decisions in relation to the tax treatment of the Special
Purpose Fund, once the proposed amendments to the FFA had been
agreed to.

The Company said the ATO had been cooperative in its decision to
treat the issue of the fund's tax treatment as a priority.

Hardie said the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation,
the current compensation fund, presently had enough money to
meet claims until early 2007. It was now looking at options for
providing interim assistance to the MRCF to obtain funding if
negotiations regarding the FFA were pushed back further and if
existing funding was exhausted before the agreement could be
implemented.

The NSW Govt. extended the deadline for Hardie to satisfy
conditions under the FFA to Sept. 30, 2006.

Based in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding,
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company
makes fiber-reinforced concrete pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business and roofing through Artisan Roofing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Campaigner Urges MP to Support Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Daniells, the founder of the York Asbestos Support Group,
has called on MP Hugh Bayley to back proposals to give faster
payouts to mesothelioma victims, The Press reports.

Ms. Daniells asked Mr. Bayley to support a new scheme proposed
by the work and pensions minister to deal swiftly with victims'
claims when he visited her firm's offices in Rowntree Wharf.

Ms. Daniells, a lawyer with Corries Solicitors specializing in
asbestos-related illness, formed the group to give a voice to
York's asbestos victims, including those who worked at the
former Carriageworks site.

Ms. Daniells said the Government was considering introducing
legislation to effectively reverse a House of Lords decision
that caused difficulties for many individuals trying to claim
compensation.

Ms. Daniells said she wanted to make sure victims and support
groups were listened to as part of a Government consultation
into how people will in future be compensated.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 24 Workers File New Claims v. Ill. Central
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-four former employees have slapped Illinois Central
Railroad with more asbestos-related claims, five months after
almost 50 workers sued the Railroad in Memphis, Tenn. for
alleged asbestos exposure, The Daily News reports.

The 24 employees are joining the previous group of employees,
who were past and present Illinois Central workers, in each
seeking up to US$750,000 in a series of suits filed in September
in Shelby County Circuit Court. Most of the workers in the
second round of suits are from the Mid-South, many from Shelby
County.

Almost all are retired and once worked at various points in the
rail yards, of which Illinois Central had two in South Memphis.
In 1988, the Canadian National Railway bought the Railroad.

Illinois Central is named in the litigation because the working
conditions at issue in the suits relate to the period prior to
the Company's purchase, said the plaintiffs' attorney
Christopher Gilreath.

Memphis is a major operating point on CN's North American
network.

Mr. Gilreath said, "We're still in the discovery phase, and
we'll be there for a while. We don't have any trial dates yet,
and the state of the first batch of cases is that Illinois
Central's counsel and I have been working pretty well together
on sharing some initial discovery information."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI Has $1.2M-$1.5M Liability at Maine Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. estimated between US$1.2 million and
US$1.5 million as the total cost of site investigation,
remediation, maintenance, and monitoring for a parcel of land at
its formerly owned sheet vinyl plant in Lisbon, Maine.

The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection has
asked current owner Miller Industries Inc. to clean up the
dumpsite laden with exposed asbestos and other hazardous
substances.

In September 2005, Miller filed a lawsuit, alleging that the
Company and one other defendant are liable for costs to clean up
the dumpsite and a second parcel of land, which is alleged to
contain polychlorinated biphenyls.

The Company's latest Quarterly Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission did not name its co-defendant in the
Miller suit.

On Sept. 22, 2005, the suit, styled "Miller Industries Inc. v.
American Biltrite Inc. et al," was filed in the Androscoggin
Superior Court of Maine. Miller sought indemnification or
contribution from the Company for the cleanup of both parcels of
land.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the Superior Court of Maine dismissed the suit
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

In January 2006, the Maine DEP notified the Company that it
believed ABI is a potentially responsible party for the cleanup
of the second parcel of land.

Before the start of the Miller suit, the Company had been
investigating and reviewing the condition of the first parcel of
land and its potential liability for its share of any cleanup
costs.

Under the agreement between the Company and The Biltrite Corp.,
TBC is liable for 37.5 percent of costs incurred by the Company
for the Maine Sites.

Based in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc. produces
Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and
it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates
supplier. The Company makes industrial products like adhesive-
coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect materials
during handling and for varied applications.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Aspen Technology Inc. between Feb.
6, 2006 and Sept. 6, 2006.  The class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Aspen securities.  No class
has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Nov. 7, 2006, in which to move for
lead plaintiff status in the case.  

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. of Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888) 638-4847, E-
mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


CONNETICS CORP: Schatz Nobel Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Connetics Corp. between June 28, 2004 and May 3, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Connetics violated federal securities
laws by issuing false statements about the company's most
important new drug, Velac, concerning findings that would likely
prevent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

Specifically, it is alleged that defendants concealed:

      -- the carcinogenicity study of Velac had indicated that
         89 out of 160 mice treated with Velac developed tumors;

      -- prior to the class period, Connetics had been informed
         by a panel of toxicology experts that they were unaware
         of any drug with similar results to Velac ever being
         approved by the FDA;

      -- Connetics' new Velac drug would be deemed unsafe by the
         FDA and would not provide the revenue and income
         promised;

      -- the company would not be able to achieve the operating
         results for 2006-2007 as projected due to its inability
         to launch Velac; and

      -- Connetics was falsifying its financials for at least
         2005 and likely earlier due to improper accounting for
         rebates.

On May 3, 2006, Connetics announced it could not file its
quarterly report on time due to a restatement of its financial
results.

On this news, the company's shares collapsed 45% from the class
period high.  During the class period, while the stock was
artificially inflated, defendants sold millions of dollars worth
of stock.

Interested parties have until Nov. 17, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status in the case.  

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com,
Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  


JABIL CIRCUIT: Howard G. Smith Announces Fla. Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action has
been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of
Jabil Circuit Inc. between Sept. 19, 2001 and June 21, 2006.  
The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Jabil Circuit securities.  
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Nov. 20, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status in the case.  

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. of Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888) 638-4847, E-
mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


WITNESS SYSTEMS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a securities class action
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Witness Systems, Inc.
between April 23, 2004 and Aug. 11, 2006.  The class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Witness Systems.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

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