CAR_Public/061103.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 3, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 219

                            Headlines

ALIENWARE CORP: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Overheating Laptops
AMERICAN HONDA: Dec. 28 Hearing Set for "Collins" Settlement
ATICO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coffee Makers After Injury Reports
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
BOEING CO: Plaintiffs in Labor Suit Appeal Dismissal of Claims

CENTEX CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Profit Sharing Plan
COOPER COMMUNITIES: Residents Near Lake Granada Withdraw Suit
CRAY INC: State Superior Court Dismisses All Wash. Litigations
D'ARRIGO BROS: Settles Suit Over Unpaid Travel Time for $3.6M
DELTA FAUCET: Recalls MultiChoice Bathtub Valves for Repair

FLORIDA: Court Issues Split Verdict in "Spot Deliveries" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Suit Over Faulty Vehicle Part Builds up
ITT WATER: Expands Recall of Pumps for Fire Suppression Systems
KETTERING TOWER: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Oct. 26 Tower Fire
MEDAREX INC: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants

MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Dismisses Portion of Iowa Antitrust Suit
MONTANA POWER: Mont. Court Allows ERISA Breach Suit to Proceed
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. Consumer Fraud Suit Gets Certification
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch
PAPER MAGIC: Recalls Halloween Decor Kits Posing Choking Hazard

PETCO ANIMAL: Sale to Texas Pacific, Leonard Green Goes Ahead
TIME SPORT INT'L: Recalls Bicycle Pedals with Faulty Bearing Cap
UNITED AIRLINES: Court Denies Appeal in Illinois ESOP Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: SPLC Files Lawsuit Challenging ICE Raids in Ga.
WAL-MART STORES: Mass. Court Postpones Trial for Labor Lawsuit

WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Footstools After Reports of Breakage
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Water Heaters
XETHANOL CORP: Dismisses Merit of Securities Fraud Charges

             
                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exelon Generation Reserves $48M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $194M for Liabilities in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Electrolux Rise to 1,505 in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Decrease to 50T in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Faces Insurance Coverage Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faces Claims v. Fel-Pro
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Liabilities Hit $1.551B in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Records $1.3B for T&N Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex and Wagner Liability Stays at $213.6M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wagner Faces Insurance Suits by 3rd Parties

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 33,591 Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Junks Suit v. Moscow CableCom Unit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star Tech Settles 23 of 47 Suits at 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohm and Haas Reserves for Premises Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aqua-Chem Pursues $10M Demand v. Coca-Cola

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Receivable Stays at $91.5M in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Continues to Face 3rd Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $585M for Litigation in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Still Defends v. Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Settles Property Damage Claims for $62M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp Pays $890M to Asbestos Trust in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Liability Stays at $512.5M in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Raises Reserves by $155M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Govt Extends Hardie Deadline to Nov. 14
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Emerges From Ch 11 Bankruptcy

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miner Settles "Fear of Dying" Suit with CSR
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. 77 Defendants Filed in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Objects to USG Move to Disallow Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Schmidt Grants ASARCO Injunction Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Links Loss to $16.7M A&E Development


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONNETICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 17
WARNER CHILCOTT: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Filing
XETHANOL CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********


ALIENWARE CORP: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Overheating Laptops
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alienware Corp. faces a purported consumer class action in
Miami-Dade Circuit Court, The Miami Herald reports.

William McAda of Tallahassee, alleging his notebook computer
overheats, resulting in its complete failure, filed the suit
against the Miami-based company on Oct. 27.  The suit seeks
class-action certification.

According to the report, Alienware Vice President Mark Vena said
that the company only learned of the lawsuit on Oct 30, 2006,
and that it was investigating the allegations.  

Mr. McAda's suit blames a design defect, not the battery, for
his Alienware Area-51 m7700 notebook's overheating issues.  In
essence, he states that the computer's heat-removal system
otherwise known as a heatsink, doesn't adequately remove heat
produced by the processor, battery and other components.

The 19-page suit states that Mr. McAda sent back the computer to
Alienware for repair in April, about 10 months after he bought
it.  But he says he was told the damage was not covered under
the three-year warranty he purchased and would cost $470 to fix.  
He refused to pay.

The suit claims that Alienware knew that if it were to delay the
release of the notebooks or issue recall in order to redesign
the heat-removal system, it would likely lose millions of
dollars in profit.  

The suit estimates that the size of the class in Florida alone
could reach into the thousands, with damages to each less than
$3,000.  It wants Alienware to pay restitution and unspecified
damages.

Alienware was acquired in recent months by computer maker Dell,
Inc.  It now operates as a subsidiary of the Texas-based
company.

For more details, contact Jeffrey B. Kaplan of Dimond Kaplan &
Rothstein, P.A., 200 S. E. 1st Street, Suite 708, Miami, FL
33131, Phone: (305) 374-1926, Fax: (305) 374-1961, Web site:
http://www.dkrpa.comand http://www.mystocklosses.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: Dec. 28 Hearing Set for "Collins" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California for the County of
Alameda will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 28, 2006, at 9:00
a.m., for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Chris Collins,
et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc."

The hearing will be held before Judge Ronald M. Sabraw in the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, 1221 Oak St.,
Department 22, Oakland, California 94512.

Any objection or exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made by Dec. 11, 2006.

The suit covers anyone who owned or leased a 2000-2001 Honda
Accord, 1999-2001 Honda Odyssey, 2000-2001 Honda Prelude, 2001-
2002 Acura 3.2 CL, 1999-2002 Acura 3.2TL and certain 2003 Acura
3.2 CL & TL.

Plaintiffs allege that automatic transmissions in the affected
vehicles contain defects that may result in the partial or
complete failure of the transmission.

The vehicles covered in the settlement must have an original
purchase or lease date of Nov. 21, 1998 or later and must also
have 109,000 miles in service on Aug. 21, 2006.

For more details, contact Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge, LLP, 600
West Broadway, Suite 1100, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 1-866-
907-5635 and 1-800-356-9451, Web site:
http://www.hondatransmissionsettlement.com.


ATICO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coffee Makers After Injury Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atico International USA, Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 54,000 units of Espresso Express Espresso
Makers.

The company said the espresso maker's heating element can
forcefully separate from its base during the brewing cycle.  
This poses burn and impact injury hazards to nearby consumers.

Atico International has received 42 reports of incidents
involving the heating element forcefully separating from its
base.  Among these incidents, there were nine reports of minor
scald burns and seven reports of consumers being hit by parts of
the espresso maker.

The Espresso Maker has a black base and a silver water
reservoir.  The coffee carafe is smoke-colored plastic with a
back handle.  The words "EspressoExpress" are imprinted on the
black base.  The item number is W14A7166, which is located
underneath the base.

The recalled espresso makers were manufactured in China and are
being sold at CVS Pharmacy, Farmacias El Amal, Happy Harry's,
Navarro Discount Pharmacies, Kerr Drug, Bartell Drug and Lewis
Drug from August 2005 through October 2005 for between $15 and
$30.

Pictures of the recalled espresso makers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07022a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07022b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07022c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
espresso makers and contact Atico for product verification and
instructions on returning the product for a refund.

For more information, call Atico International USA, Inc. at
(877) 546-4835 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit: http://www.aticousa.com.


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Barnes & Noble, Inc.

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

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

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

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull
& Brody 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-
337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com, Website:
http://www.ssbny.com.


BOEING CO: Plaintiffs in Labor Suit Appeal Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The briefing for the appeal by a class of salaried Heritage
Boeing employees regarding compensation claims that U.S.
District Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed, has been completed.

In March 1998, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represented a
national class of black Boeing Co. employees who claim the
company discriminates against blacks in handing out promotions,
and harasses and retaliates against them when complaints are
raised.

The court appointed Hagens Berman lead counsel representing
plaintiffs, putting the suit back on track after the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a proposed settlement.

The suit alleges that discrimination and retaliation against
African Americans is commonplace at Boeing manufacturing plants.  
Boeing reached a $15 million settlement with the original
plaintiffs in 1999, but a group of African-American employees,
along with Rev. Jesse Jackson, argued that the settlement was
grossly inadequate and appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

In January 2005, Judge Pechman certified the class action
against Boeing.

In the same month, Hagens Berman filed an additional race
discrimination class action against The Boeing Co. on behalf of
African American employees at non-Heritage Boeing sites.  

Non-Heritage Boeing sites include the McDonnell Douglas Corp.
and segments of Rockwell International that were acquired by
Boeing.

Though a similar race discrimination case was certified against
Boeing on Jan. 21, 2005, the judge limited the nationwide class
of employees to Heritage Boeing sites only.  

This complaint is a response to that ruling, and seeks
certification of a separate, nationwide class of hourly and
salaried employees at non-Heritage locations.

In September 2005, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed an
opposition to Boeing's motion for partial summary judgment and
decertification of the settlement class.

On June 26, 2006, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed an appeal
with the Ninth Circuit, on behalf of the class of salaried
Heritage Boeing employees, regarding the compensation claims
that Judge Pechman dismissed.

Two issues are presented for review by the Ninth Circuit:

     -- whether the district court erred by granting partial
        summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds,
        limiting the claims for discrimination in compensation
        to the time period on or after May 28, 2000; and

     -- whether the district court erred by later decertifying
        the class as to its claims for discrimination in
        compensation.

The briefing for the appeal was completed on Sept. 6, 2006.  

The suit was brought on behalf of Mara Ferrai, Rhonda Capps,
Kevin Biglow, Doreen Ferguson, Beverly Trotter against The
Boeing Co.

The suit is case no. 06-35196 on Appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman, Craig R.
Spiegel, Ivy D. Arai at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301
Fifth Ave., Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98101, Phone: (206)
623-7292.


CENTEX CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Profit Sharing Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas-based Centex Corp. faces a purported, but as yet
uncertified, class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the administrative committee
of the company's profit sharing plan, the company and certain of
the company's current and former directors and executive
officers.

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the suit alleges:

     -- breach of fiduciary duty,
     -- violation of disclosure obligations to plan  
        participants,
     -- failure to monitor the performance of plan fiduciaries,
     -- breach of duty of loyalty and
     -- violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
        of 1974 in connection with investments by the profit
        sharing plan in shares of the company's common stock.

This action was brought by certain former employees of the
company and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees
and equitable and injunctive relief.

The company believes that this action is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.

Texas-based Centex Corp. (NYSE: CTX) -- http://www.centex.com--  
is a residential construction company whose principal operations
are focused on residential and commercial construction and
related activities, including mortgage financing.

The suit is "Nemec et al. v. Hannigan et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01451," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

Representing plaintiffs are Roger F. Claxton and Robert J. Hill
both of Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103,
Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583,
E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net or claxtonhill@airmail.net.


COOPER COMMUNITIES: Residents Near Lake Granada Withdraw Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Residents in Hot Springs Village in Arkansas voluntarily
withdrew a lawsuit filed against the developer of Lake Granada,
the Hot Springs Village Voice reports.

In August, Circuit Judge Robert W. Garrett refused to certify
the lawsuit filed by a Lake Grenada homeowner against Cooper
Communities, Inc., and the Hot Springs Village Property Owners'
Association (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 30, 2006).

In February, Hot Springs Village property owners Jim and Phylis
Armogida asked the Saline County Circuit Court in Arkansas to
expand a suit they filed against developer Cooper Communities
into a class action (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006).

The suit, which the Armogida's filed with another couple, could
include some 90 other property owners.  It is seeking guaranteed
water supply to the man-made lake near the couple's property.

According to the report, the lawsuit accuses Cooper of deceit
and fraud in creating a 55-acre lake and selling lots and
shoreline homes around it in the late 1990s and early 2000s even
though it could not guarantee it would always be full of water.  

It doesn't ask for damages but wants Cooper ordered to come up
with a permanent solution to keeping the lake filled.  Lake
water could drop by seven feet in a dry year, and not two as
forecasted.

The Property Owners' Association was dragged to the lawsuit
after Cooper conveyed ownership of Lake Granada to the POA.

Mr. Armogida said after the withdrawal of the suit, "The major
reason for dismissing the action now is the POA's opposition and
its apparent interest in fixing Lake Granada."  

After the suit was filed, the lake's dam leaked and Cooper
agreed to drain the water and make repairs, according to the
report.

Mr. Armogida and others say the repair is not a long-term
solution to their request for a guaranteed water level in front
of their homes.


CRAY INC: State Superior Court Dismisses All Wash. Litigations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cray, Inc. reported that on Nov. 1, 2006, Judge Michael S.
Spearman of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for
King County approved plaintiff's dismissal of the consolidated
derivative action filed in that court against certain current
and former directors and officers of the company.

This dismissal, which was without prejudice, ends all of the
litigation involving Cray and its current and former directors
and officers that first began in May 2005 with the filing of
securities class actions and derivative actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of the State of
Washington.

Two state court derivative actions were filed in December 2005
in King County Superior Court and later consolidated by that
Court.

Judge Thomas S. Zilly dismissed the consolidated federal
securities class action, "Limantour v. Cray Incorporated et al.,
Case no. 2:05-cv-00943-TSZ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington and consolidated federal
derivative action in rulings in late April 2006, and entered
judgment against the plaintiffs in September 2006 (May 5, 2006).

"On behalf of the company and the individual defendants, we are
very pleased that the litigation has ended," said Peter J.
Ungaro, Cray president and chief executive officer. "We thank
our counsel, Stoel Rives and Lane Powell, for their great work
on behalf of the company and the individual defendants. I am
particularly gratified that we did not have to make any payments
or concessions to any of the plaintiffs to end this litigation."

For more information, contact:

     Cray/Media:
     Steve Conway
     Phone: 651/592-7441
     E-mail: sttico@aol.com

     Investors:
     Victor Chynoweth
     Phone: 206/701-2094
     E-mail: vic@cray.com


D'ARRIGO BROS: Settles Suit Over Unpaid Travel Time for $3.6M
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of a class action filed by more than 3,000 field
workers against D'Arrigo Bros Co. of California was determined
to be at least $3.6 million, Associated Press reports.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ordered the settlement of the
suit over unpaid compensation for travel time of workers in
2004, but the amount wasn't decided at that time.  

From Aug. 4, 1997 to April 15, 2000, farm workers were required
to ride D'Arrigo buses from a Salinas parking lot and Salinas
Valley work sites, but they were not paid for the travel time,
according to the United Farm Workers union, the report said.

The company did not admit wrongdoing in the case.


DELTA FAUCET: Recalls MultiChoice Bathtub Valves for Repair
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Faucet Co., of Indianapolis, Indiana, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
105,000 units of Universal MultiChoice Valves used in bathtubs
and showers.

The company said the device in the valve that limits the amount
of hot water that can flow from the shower head or bathtub spout
can disengage after being manually set, causing consumers to
come in contact with water that is hotter than expected.  This
poses a risk of scalding injuries.

Delta Faucet has six reports of incidents with the valve.  No
injuries have been reported.

The Universal Multichoice Valves were sold under the Delta brand
name.  The valves are used in bathtubs and showers to regulate
the temperature of the water flow.  The valves are located
inside the shower head or bathtub spout.

These recalled head valves were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold to commercial plumbers and building subcontractors
nationwide from March 2006 to May 2006 and in Indiana and Ohio
from October 2005 to May 2006.  Plumbing packages containing the
valve cartridges sold for between $80 and $200 and separate
replacement valve cartridges were sold for about $30.

Pictures of the recalled head valves:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07505a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07505b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the bathtub and shower heads
with the recalled valves immediately.  Delta is contacting
consumers with the recalled valves to provide them with a free
upgrade kit.  Consumers should always test the water temperature
before entering a tub or shower.  Contact Delta Faucet if you do
not receive an upgrade kit.

For more information, contact Delta Faucet at (800) 336-6696
between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, or visit
the company's Web site: http://www.deltafaucet.com


FLORIDA: Court Issues Split Verdict in "Spot Deliveries" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A split verdict was handed down in two Duval County lawsuits
seeking class-action status on behalf of car buyers challenging
a common financing practice, David Bauerlein of The Florida
Times-Union reports.

In an Oct. 20, 2006 ruling, Circuit Judge John Skinner gave
class-action status to certain customers of Coggin Toyota at the
Avenues.  

However, in a separate yet similar lawsuit, Circuit Judge Karen
Cole ruled on Oct. 23, 2006 against certifying as a class action
a lawsuit against Coggin Nissan.

The Jacksonville Area Legal Aid filed both lawsuits on behalf of
car buyers, challenging a widespread practice in Florida
automobile sales called "spot deliveries."  

In "spot deliveries" dealers turn over the car on the spot to
customers, even though the financing has not been finalized for
the buyer's loan.  

Dealers usually get financing at terms agreed to by the
customer, but when that doesn't happen, the customer must either
return the vehicle or agree to a bigger down payment, higher
interest rate or a co-signer for the loan.

Neither judge in the respective cases ruled on the lawsuits'
contention that spot deliveries violate state and federal
consumer protection laws.  The state agency regulating car sales
in Florida considers spot deliveries to be legal.

Commenting on the split decision, Kevin Smith, attorney for
Coggin explains that the decisions are only the first step in a
long process and that he and his client still believe that it
has done nothing wrong.

Judge Skinner's rule applies class-action status to customers
who obtained their vehicles with spot deliveries at the Coggin
dealership since April 19, 2000.

In his ruling, Judge Cole decided not to grant class action for
Coggin Nissan customers because their experiences with spot
deliveries varied too much.

For more details, contact Kevin T. Smith, 151 College Drive,
Unit 5, Orange Park, Florida 32065, Phone: 904-276-6171, Fax:
904-276-1751, E-mail: bnlawfll@bnlaw.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Suit Over Faulty Vehicle Part Builds up
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 50 owners of General Motors vehicles in Nova Scotia
have joined a possible national class action filed against
General Motors of Canada Ltd. and its U.S. parent General Motors
Corp., in Ontario, according to The Chronicle Herald.

The suit alleges that certain Buicks, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles
and Pontiacs made between 1995 and 2003 have a defective intake
manifold gasket that degrades prematurely, causing coolant to
leak into the engine, and damaging it, the report said.

A statement of claim was filed with the Nova Scotia Supreme
Court last spring.  The statement of claim filed with courts in
several provinces alleges the defect was corrected when General
Motors introduced a new gasket in 2004 but that General Motors
was negligent because it failed to inform customers and did not
issue a recall on affected vehicles.   The claim dates back to
1995.

Colin Stevenson of Toronto law firm Stevenson LLP and Harvin
Pitc as well as Koskie Minsky LLP are representing the
plaintiffs in Canada.  They have set up the Web site
http://www.gmcanadianclassaction.cafor customers to submit a  
claim.


ITT WATER: Expands Recall of Pumps for Fire Suppression Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Water Technology Inc., of Auburn, New York, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 3,000 additional units of Goulds Pumps, Bell & Gossett and
Red Jacket Water Products Brand Pumps for Fire Suppression
Systems.

In August, ITT Water Technology Inc., of Auburn, New York,
recalled about 18,300 units of Goulds Pumps, Bell & Gossett and
Red Jacket Water Products brand pumps for fire suppression
systems (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 4, 2006).

The company said a mechanical part on these pumps was not fully
secured, which can lead to the pump failing during use.  If
pumps sold with fire suppression systems fail, the risk of fire
damage increases.  The pump itself does not pose a fire hazard.  
These pumps were previously recalled for the same hazard in
August 2006.  The recall has now been expanded to include
additional date codes and the dates sold have been expanded.

ITT Water Technology Inc. has received one report of a pump
failing to start during a system test.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled pumps are general in purpose, but are sometimes
used in fire suppression systems. The pumps were sold under the
Goulds Pumps, Bell & Gossett and Red Jacket Water Products
brands.  The pumps can be identified by having Model NPE, NPO,
MCC, MCS, SM or Series 3530 on their nameplate.  Recalled pumps
were manufactured between December 2005 and Sept. 7, 2006.  They
have date code M05, A06, B06, C06, D06, E06, F06, G06, H06 or
J06. The date code is the first three digits of the serial
number on the pump nameplate.

These pumps were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold at
pump distributors nationwide from December 2005 through
September 2006 for about $800.

Pictures of the recalled pumps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244f.jpg

Installers of fire suppression systems will be contacted by ITT
Water Technology Inc. to schedule an inspection and replacement.
Please contact ITT Water Technology Inc. if you have not been
contacted yet.

For more information, call ITT Water Technology Inc. at (800)
984-9199 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit one of the company's Web sites: http://www.goulds.comor  
http://www.bellgossett.comor  
http://www.redjacketwaterproducts.com.


KETTERING TOWER: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Oct. 26 Tower Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kettering Tower Partners LLC and Neyer Mangement are named as
defendants in a lawsuit filed in Montgomery County Common Pleas
Court to recover losses suffered by businesses affected by the
Oct. 26 Kettering Tower fire, the Dayton Business Journal.

The suit, which seeks to become a class action covering 85
businesses and individuals affected by the Oct. 26 fire, alleges
that the fire forced numerous businesses to cease operations for
a substantial period of time, which resulted in:

     -- numerous losses, including the use of their office
        space;

     -- loss of business, customers and profit;

     -- loss of business information, office equipment and
        supplies; and

     -- the ability to perform ordinary business functions.

The suit also claims the businesses suffered annoyance and
discomfort during and after the evacuation and closure of
Kettering Tower.

The suit was filed by Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz on behalf
of Kettering Tower tenants Gregory C. Gibson Co. LPA, Gregory
Gibson and Stephen O'Keefe, and seeks unspecified damages at
least in excess of $25,000 and related fees.

The Kettering Tower is 441,000 square feet and is home to such
companies as the Dayton Development Coalition, Dayton Racquet
Club, Chase bank and law firm Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

More than 800 people work in the 30-story tower, which was built
in 1969 and sold to Mermelstein's New York investment firm
Kettering Tower Partners LLC last year.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz, Talbott
Tower, 131 N. Ludlow St. Suite 1400, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Phone:
937-223-8888.


MEDAREX INC: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Medarex, Inc.

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

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

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

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-
337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com, Website:
http://www.ssbny.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Dismisses Portion of Iowa Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg in Polk County dismissed a
portion of a lawsuit filed against Microsoft Corp. that alleges
it violated the state's competition laws, KCCI 8 Des Moines
reports.

Judge Rosenberg dismissed the portion of the case that claimed
Microsoft's actions stifled many innovations that never reached
consumers, causing them to pay more for software products.

According to Microsoft attorney Rich Wallis the ruling focuses
the case on whether Microsoft overcharged customers, which the
company denies. He said consumers received good value from
Microsoft products at an affordable price.

Earlier, Judge Rosenberg denied Microsoft Corp.'s motion to
decertify the consumer antitrust class action after finding that
no significant changes have been made in the case to warrant
dismissal of the class (Class Action Reporter, Oct 31, 2006).  

He concluded that decertifying the class would require him to
determine the merits of the case before hearing the evidence and
testimony in court.

Microsoft sought to decertify the class, claiming that
plaintiffs' attorneys cannot show that all class members were
injured by alleged anticompetitive conduct and that amended
court documents make new allegations that are not applicable to
the class action.

In October, the judge declined to disqualify Des Moines attorney
Roxanne Conlin from the consumer antitrust class actions ruling
that Ms. Conlin's actions were not unethical (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006).  Even if the documents were
confidential, they were not prejudicial.

Microsoft Corp. lawyers sought for the removal of Ms. Conlin
from the antitrust suit, claiming she was unethical when she
solicited confidential information from a former employee of a
company that had worked for Microsoft on a previous antitrust
case (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006).  

Plaintiffs claim Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by
monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade in the markets
for Intel-compatible:  

      -- personal computer operating system software, and  

      -- applications software, including word processing,  
         spreadsheet and office-suite software.  

The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed Class Members by:  

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;  

      -- denying class members free choice in software products  
         and the benefits of software innovation; and  

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security  
         breaches.  

Plaintiffs also allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.  

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.

However, Microsoft denies the claims and maintains that it
developed and sold high quality software products at fair and
reasonable prices.

Specifically, Microsoft contends that it did not overcharge for
its software and that consumers benefited from being able to
purchase high quality software products.

Microsoft also contends that consumers benefited from being able
to purchase high quality products that were continually improved
and enhanced through Microsoft's research and development
efforts.  

Further, Microsoft contends that it developed products that
responded to consumer desires and that were more attractive to
consumers than the products offered by its competitors.

According Ms. Conlin, her experts have estimated that
individuals and businesses were overcharged as much as $453
million for Microsoft products in the past 12 years, since a
lack of competition has inflated the cost of the company's
products (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2006).  

In Iowa, about 5.1 million licenses for Microsoft Windows have
been issued, 1.8 million for Office, 446,373 for Word and about
21,349 for Excel.  

A trial is scheduled to begin on or after Nov. 13, 2006.  

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com

The counsels representing the Class Members are:  

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,  
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: (515) 283-  
         1111, Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:  
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:  
         http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com/;and     

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500  
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN  
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, Email:  
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.

Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &  
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,  
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:  
tulchind@sullcrom.com.


MONTANA POWER: Mont. Court Allows ERISA Breach Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sam Haddon of the U.S. District of Montana refused to
dismiss a suit filed against Montana Power Co. over allegations
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations.

In the same order, Judge Haddon scheduled a hearing for
plaintiff's motion for class certification on July 28, 2006.  No
update on this is yet available.

In September 2002, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represented
employees of the now defunct Montana Power Co. who claim two of
the company's top officers as well as other members of the
retirement plan committee caused employees to lose tens of
millions of dollars in retirement savings during the company's
recent and unsuccessful transformation from a stable gas and
electric company to the highly speculative telecommunications
company Touch America Inc.

The lawsuit claims these and other yet to be named officers hid
crucial information regarding the company's performance in the
telecommunications field and failed to protect the pension plan
in order to carry out their plan to transform the company and
earn lucrative multi-million-dollar bonuses.

The proposed class action represents all participant or
beneficiaries of the Montana Power Co. Retirement Plan, and
seeks restitution for their retirement plan losses.

The suit is "In Re Touch America Holdings, Inc., ERISA
Litigation, Case No. CV-02-106-BU-SEH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana under Judge Sam
Haddon.


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. Consumer Fraud Suit Gets Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted class-action status to a lawsuit
claming NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. paid mortgage brokers extra fees
to arrange loans with higher interest rates, Inman News reports.

Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed
to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made
on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).

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

A lawyer for eight Washington state residents who sued NovaStar
in December told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that at least
1,000 people were affected, and that the premiums cost the
borrowers $3,000 on average, the report said.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in February.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

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

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

Representing the defendants are:  

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

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


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forty-three women filed a suit in San Francisco Superior Court
against Ortho Evra birth control patch manufacturer Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc.,
and McKisson Corp., the distributor of the product, the Red
Herring reports.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Shawn Khorrami, the women
alleged they suffered severe side effects from Ortho Evra such
as strokes, heart attacks, blood clots, and deep vein
thrombosis.

The birth control patch is worn on the skin, but unlike oral
contraceptives, it releases estrogen and progestin directly into
the bloodstream.

Ortho Evra exposes women to 60 percent more estrogen than
typical oral contraceptives, thus potentially increasing risks
of harmful side effects. The patch was granted FDA approval in
2001 despite a warning that two women who used it during
clinical testing had developed deep-vein thrombosis.

So far, 500 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits for problems related
to the use of Ortho Evra, according to U.S. Securities and
Exchange documents filed by Ortho-McNeil parent Johnson &
Johnson.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the
increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra.

In the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time
that women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more
estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a
birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen.  The patch is
only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen.

For more information on Ortho Evra lawsuits, visit:

             http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.com

Plaintiffs' counsel is The Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami, 14550
Haynes Street, Third Floor, Van Nuys, California 91411, Phone:
818-947-5111, Fax: 818-947-5121, Website:
http://www.shawnkhorrami.com.


PAPER MAGIC: Recalls Halloween Decor Kits Posing Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paper Magic Group Inc., of Scranton, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 97,000 units of:

     -- Mr. Potato Head "Make a Monster Pumpkin"
     -- Mr. Potato Head "Make a Fireman Pumpkin" and
     -- Mrs. Potato Head "Make a Diva Pumpkin".

The company said the pumpkin decoration kits contain small parts
that pose a choking hazard to young children.  No incidents or
injuries have been reported.

The recalled kits include plastic ears, eyes, noses, mouth,
hands, shoes, hats, eyeglasses and jewelry that are used to
decorate Halloween pumpkins.  The recall includes Mr. Potato
Head "Make a Monster Pumpkin" and "Make a Fireman Pumpkin" and
Mrs. Potato Head "Make a Diva Pumpkin."  The products are
labeled for ages 2 and older.  Products with small parts
intended for children under 3 years old are prohibited due to a
choking hazard.

These recalled Halloween pumpkin decoration kits were
manufactured in China and are sold exclusively at Target Stores
nationwide from September through October 2006 for about $5.

Pictures of the recalled Halloween pumpkin decoration kits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07013a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07013b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07013c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these pumpkin decorating
kits immediately and return them to the nearest Target store for
a full refund.

For more information, contact Paper Magic Group Inc. toll-free
at (866) 394-5047 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.papermagic.com.


PETCO ANIMAL: Sale to Texas Pacific, Leonard Green Goes Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., a leading specialty retailer of
premium pet food, supplies and services, said on Oct. 26 that it
completed the going-private transaction in which PETCO has been
acquired by private equity investment firms Texas Pacific Group
and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.

As a result of the transaction, which PETCO stockholders
approved on Oct. 23, each issued and outstanding share of PETCO
common stock was canceled and converted automatically into the
right to receive $29 in cash, without interest.

Attorneys representing dissident shareholders failed to convince
The San Diego Superior Court to block the Oct. 23 meeting of
Petco shareholders to vote on the proposed sale of the company.  
The shareholders wanted a temporary injunction halting the
meeting so that shareholders could be provided with additional
information on how the company's board chose Leonard Green &
Partners and Texas Pacific's bid over a higher offer from
PetSmart.

The company is facing a class action by shareholders.  The
investors' attorney indicated at the time that despite the
court's decision, the class action brought by his clients
against PETCO's directors and executives in July would proceed.  

The suit seek between $300 million and $400 million in damages
from the company, claiming that PETCO's board and management
were unduly influenced in their decision by their close ties to
Leonard Green and Texas Pacific.  A trial date, however, has not
yet been set.

PETCO remains headquartered in San Diego under existing
management.  PETCO's common stock, formerly traded on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market (Nasdaq: PETC), will no longer be publicly
traded.

For more details, contact Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800)
449-4900, E-mail: darrenr@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/.


TIME SPORT INT'L: Recalls Bicycle Pedals with Faulty Bearing Cap
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Sport International/ATAC 2001 Inc., of Montecito,
California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 18,000 units of Time RXS Titan
Carbon, RXS Carbon, RXS and RXE bicycle pedals.

The company said the pedal's bearing cap can fail causing the
pedal to come off the bicycle.  This poses a fall hazard for
riders.

The firm has received reports of eight incidents in which the
pedal came off the bicycle, resulting in minor injuries.

The recalled pedals are black or gray.  They are made of
composite material and are mounted to either a steel or titanium
pedal axle and bearing unit by using a threaded aluminum bearing
cap.  Pedals that have a gold dot on the underside of the pedal
body just inside where the bearing cap is mounted to the pedal
body are not included in this recall.

These recalled pedals were manufactured in France and are being
sold at bicycle stores, mail order, and online bicycle dealers
nationwide from October 2004 through August 2006 for between $75
and $300.

Pictures of the recalled pedals:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07014a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07014b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07014d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07014c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled pedals
immediately and contact TIME SPORT INTERNATIONAL to arrange for
the pedals to be inspected and, if necessary, receive a free
repair.

For more information, contact TIME SPORT INTERNATIONAL at (800)
240-8051 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.TIMESPORTUSA.com.


UNITED AIRLINES: Court Denies Appeal in Illinois ESOP Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh-Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an appeal to the
summary judgment dismissing all claims against State Street Bank
& Trust in the employee-owners suit filed against United
Airlines in the U.S. District Court for the North District of
Illinois.  

In February 2002, a group of United Airlines employees filed a
lawsuit against the airline's employee stock ownership plan
(ESOP) and its trustees, claiming those charged with protecting
the interests of the employee-owners failed in their duties,
costing the employee-owners billions of dollars.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago by Seattle attorney
Steve Berman, the suit claims the UAL ESOP committee -- all
employees of UAL -- was not objective in its decision to hold
UAL stock as it plummeted in value even before the Sept. 11,
2001 attack, which further weakened the stock price.

The proposed class action seeks to represent thousands of
employees who are or were participants or beneficiaries of the
UAL ESOP as of July 19, 2001.

According to the complaint, the plan trustees fell short of
their duty when they failed to move ESOP holdings to less risky,
more appropriate investments, all while failing to disclose that
the stock was an imprudent investment.

The suit claims that UAL was in deep financial difficulty well
before the Sept. 11 attack, and the plan trustees ignored the
warning signs, including grim forecasts by the UAL leadership.  
Even after the Sept. 11 attack, UAL CEO James Goodwin noted that
the problems at UAL were deep and systemic.

According to the complaint, it took many more months after Mr.
Goodwin's statement before the plan trustees brought in State
Street Bank for a truly independent look.

In September 2002, the UAL ESOP committee acknowledged this
conflict of interest in a series of company documents and hired
State Street Bank to provide independent recommendations, the
complaint states.  In the same month, State Street Bank
concluded that the ESOP was over-invested in UAL stock, and
began selling UAL stock.  By month's end, State Street had sold
9.4 million shares.

The plaintiffs charge that this delay cost the employees
billions of dollars by not selling UAL stock when it was
apparent it was far too risky an investment.

While the UAL ESOP states that it should be invested exclusively
in UAL stock, that did not override the plan administrators'
responsibility to protect the plan members, the suit states.

In contrast, Berman points to a similar case in which the
American Airlines 401(k) plan dumped its own stock, concluding
it was too risky an investment.  "In this case, the trustees of
the plan fulfilled their responsibility to safeguard the
investments of the plan participants," Mr. Berman added.

The UAL Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) was formed in 1994
as a vehicle to recapitalize the airline. The employees invested
several billion dollars in exchange for 55 percent ownership in
UAL.  The employees also gave UAL significant wage and benefit
concessions as part of the package.

        Amended Complaint Includes State Street Bank

In July 2004, the Federal District Court Judge Der-Yeghiayan
granted plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint in the
class action.  The court rules require that a plaintiff obtain
permission before making substantive changes to a complaint.

The original complaint, filed Feb. 28, 2003, represents a class
of UAL employees, seeking to recover approximately $2 billion
dollars in losses they suffered when United Airlines stock
declined as the company descended into bankruptcy.

The most significant change in the amended complaint is the
addition of State Street Bank and Trust Co. (State Street) as a
defendant.  The amended complaint claims that State Street
breached its fiduciary duties as trustee of the ESOP.  The ESOP
committee and its members remain defendants, although their
liability is limited to coverage provided under any available
insurance policy or policies.

The claims against State Street were added as a result of
documents Hagens Berman obtained pursuant to a stipulation in
the bankruptcy court between the ESOP Plaintiffs, the ESOP
Committee, and UAL.  As a result of the stipulation, the
bankruptcy court entered an order on June 18, 2004 that allowed
Plaintiffs' claims to proceed in the district court.

In February 2005, U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan judge
cleared the way for United Airlines employees to move forward
with the nationwide class action.  The employees represented int
the suit numbers 70,000.

                           Settlement

In August 2005, class plaintiffs and the United Airlines ESOP
Committee reached a proposed partial settlement.  The suit
against the remaining defendant, State Street Bank & Trust Co.,
will still proceed.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and
scheduled a final approval hearing for Oct. 12, 2005.  In
October 2005, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendant State Street Bank & Trust, and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims against State Street.  State Street was the one remaining
defendant in this action after the partial settlement with the
ESOP Committee Defendants.  Therefore, the trial that had been
scheduled to begin on Oct. 17, 2005 was canceled.  

Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the summary judgment decision in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In October 2005, the court also granted final approval to the
partial settlement with the ESOP Committee.  In November 2005,
State Street filed a notice appealing the partial settlement
with the ESOP Committee.

                      Plaintiffs' Appeals

In the same month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit consolidated Plaintiffs' appeal of the trial court's
grant of summary judgment with State Street's appeal of the
partial settlement.

In December 2005, plaintiffs filed their brief appealing the
trial court's summary judgment order and asked the Seventh
Circuit to allow the case to go to trial.

In January 2006, State Street filed its brief asking the Seventh
Circuit to uphold the trial court's summary judgment order and
to reverse the trial court's order approving the partial
settlement.

In February 2006, plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support
of their appeal of the trial court's summary judgment order and
request for the Seventh Circuit to uphold the trial court's
order approving the partial settlement.

In June 2006, The Seventh-Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
appeal to the summary judgment dismissing all claims against
State Street, finding that State Street did not have a duty to
advise the ESOP committee to diversify plaintiffs' stocks prior
to the dramatic value decline in 2001 and 2002.

The suit is "Jerry Summers, et al. v. State Street Bank & Trust
Co. and UAL Corp. ESOP Committee, et al., Case Nos. 05-4005, 05-
4317."


UNITED STATES: SPLC Files Lawsuit Challenging ICE Raids in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a purported racial
discrimination class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to The U.S. Newswire.

According to the suit, agents of ICE conducted illegal searches
and relied on racial and ethnic profiling while carrying out a
massive series of raids that terrorized residents of several
towns in southeast Georgia in early September.

Filed on Nov. 1, 2006, the lawsuit charges that ICE agents
illegally detained, searched and harassed Latinos solely because
of their appearance -- in violation of their Fourth and Fifth
Amendment rights -- during an extensive campaign to drive them
out of the area.

Plaintiffs are five U.S. citizens of Mexican descent and a
landlord who suffered damage to his rental properties when ICE
agents broke into numerous trailers that were rented by Latinos.

They are:

      -- Marie Justeen Mancha,
      -- Maria Christina Martinez,
      -- Ranulfo Perez,
      -- Maria Margarita Morales,
      -- Gladis Alicia Espitia, and
      -- David Robinson.

The raids across several towns in at least three counties began
on Sept. 1 and lasted for several weeks.  Involving dozens of
ICE agents, it was ostensibly intended to locate undocumented
immigrants who worked at a poultry plant in Stillmore, Ga., a
town of about 1,000 people in Emanuel County.

However, rather than conduct a raid only at the plant, the
agents fanned out across residential areas, according to the
suit.  

The raids evolved into stopping motorists, breaking into
people's homes and threatening people with tear gas and guns.  
Hundreds of people were terrorized with many actually fleeing
into the woods.

Mary Bauer, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's
Immigrant Justice Project and attorney for the plaintiffs, said
that this kind of dragnet tactics are completely inconsistent
with the country's constitutional guarantees.

She added that the raids traumatized hundreds of residents. Ms
Bauer specifically pointed out: "many children continue to live
in fear that they will be taken away by immigration officials
merely because of the color of their skin."

The suit seeks not only compensatory and punitive damages but a
court order enjoining ICE from using similar tactics in the
future.

The SPLC is asking the court to approve the injunctive relief
claim as a class action on behalf of all Latinos in the affected
area.

The suit is "Mancha, et al. v. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02650-TWT," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary C. Bauer of Southern Poverty Law Center, P.O. Box
         2087, Montgomery, AL 36102-2087, Phone: 334-956-8200,
         E-mail: mbauer@splcenter.org; and

     (2) George Brian Spears of The Law Office of Brian Spears,
         1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30306, Phone:
         404-872-7086, Fax: 404-892-1128, E-mail:
         Bspears@mindspring.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Mass. Court Postpones Trial for Labor Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 25 trial in a purported class action filed by workers
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in Massachusetts was postponed so
the judge can reconsider which claims will be heard, the
workers' attorney said, according to a report by Bloomberg News.  
The report did not specify a new date for the hearing.

In September, Middlesex Superior Judge Thomas Murtagh allowed to
go to trial allegations that the retailer violated state law by
shortchanging workers, but threw out claims that the employees
are not given enough meal breaks (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
29).

The judge ruled that the workers could not pursue their meal  
break claims because "there is no compensable law for missed,
interrupted, or shortened meal periods," invoked by their  
lawyers.

The judge noted that under a separate section of the law, the  
workers could have filed complaints with the Massachusetts  
attorney general's office within 90 days after the violations  
occurred, or filed a civil claim for damages within three years.

Boston attorney Robert Bonsignore filed the suit in July,  
alleging that the Arkansas company violated an implied contract  
when it did not honor its own corporate policies saying workers  
were entitled to meal breaks based on the total number of hours  
worked (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006).  The workers  
allege they were routinely denied time to eat during their  
shifts.

According to Mr. Bonsignore, there was secret manipulation of  
electronic pay records and at times, managers inserted unpaid  
meal breaks or clocked people out a minute after they clocked  
in, without any overtime paid at all.

Bay State employees are represented by Robert J. Bonsignore of  
Bonsignore & Brewer, 23 Forest Street, Medford, MA 02155, Phone:  
781-391-9400, Fax: 781-391-9496, E-mail: rbonsignore@aol.com,  
Web site: http://www.bandblaw.net/contact.shtml.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Footstools After Reports of Breakage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 165,000 units of Home Trends wood footstools.

The company said that due to improper construction, the stool
can break and collapse, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Wal-Mart has received nine reports of the footstools breaking.  
There have been seven reports of injuries, including a broken
toe, neck and shoulder soreness, cuts, bruises, swelling, a
slight concussion, and whiplash.

The footstool is a natural-colored wood footstool.  The standing
surface is 11 1/2-inches by 11 1/2-inches with a 4-inch-long
oval opening in the center.  The stool is 11 1/2-inches tall.  
The recalled footstool can be identified by a white sticker
underneath the step that contains the UPC number 87065900001.

The recalled footstools were manufactured in Malaysia and are
being sold at Wal-Mart stores exclusively nationwide from
December 2005 through September 2006 for about $10.

Pictures of the recalled footstools:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07016a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07016b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
return it to Wal-Mart for a full refund.

For more information on the recall, contact Wal-Mart toll free
at (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.walmartstores.comfor more  
information.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Water Heaters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp. faces a purported consumer fraud class action in
a California court over malfunctioning gas water heaters,
according to Joseph S. Enoch of ConsumerAffairs.com.

Attorney Richard Doherty filed a motion seeking class
certification in the California case, which was filed against
Whirlpool and the gas water heater's manufacturer, American
Water Heater Co. (AWHC).

An Aug. 21, 2007 trial is slated for the case.  Lawyers in the
case said they might try similar Whirlpool/AWHC class actions in
other states depending on the success of the California case.

Benton, Michigan-based Whirlpool Corp. (NYSE: WHR) --
http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a global manufacturer and  
marketer of home appliances.  It manufactures and markets a full
line of major appliances and related products, primarily for
home use.  Its principal products are laundry appliances,
refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances, dishwashers,
room air-conditioning equipment, and mixers and other small
household appliances.  Whirlpool also produces hermetic
compressors for refrigeration systems.  The company manufactures
in 12 countries under nine brand names and markets products to
distributors and retailers in more than 170 countries.


XETHANOL CORP: Dismisses Merit of Securities Fraud Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Xethanol Corp. reiterated to its shareholders the inaccuracy of
recent news announcements regarding the filing of lawsuits by a
number of law firms against the company.

In an open letter to its shareholders, Xethanol stated that the
allegations contained in the complaints are very similar in
nature to those made in August of this year by an on-line web
newsletter whose owner admitted to having shorted the shares of
Xethanol in advance of the publication of its negative article
about the company.

Xethanol previously responded to that article's allegations and
insinuations, and demonstrated that they are either without
foundation or irrelevant.

Nevertheless, the decline in share price following the
publication of the web article apparently has prompted these law
firms to file their actions.

Louis Bernstein President and interim Chief Executive Officer of
Xethanol assured shareholders that the management and board of
directors of Xethanol recognize and appreciate shareholders'
concern about these law firms' press releases and filings.

The company believes that these lawsuits, as well as any future
copycat lawsuits, are meritless.  Pure and simple, they
explicitly bootstrap from the unfounded allegations and
insinuations propagated by last summer's negative on-line
publication about Xethanol, according to the statement.

Earlier, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Xethanol Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and
Aug. 8, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006).

The a biotechnology driven ethanol company and certain of its
officers and directors are charged with issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that Xethanol:

      -- misrepresented management's experience and standard of
         ethics;

      -- omitted disclosing a series of related party
         transactions and association with investors who had
         alarming records of stock fraud and related shareholder
         abuses;

      -- materially overstated the company's profitability by
         under-reporting the true costs associated with
         completing a biomass to ethanol production facility,
         and by failing to make proper adjustments to the
         company's financial reports;

      -- lacked any reasonable basis to assert that the company
         was operating according to plan or could achieve the
         near-term commercialization of biomass ethanol
         production, or achieve the guidance sponsored and/or
         endorsed by the company; and

      -- caused plaintiffs and other Class members to purchase
         Xethanol common stock at artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-
467-1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exelon Generation Reserves $48M for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp.'s subsidiary Exelon Generation Co. LLC has reserved
about US$48 million, at Sept. 30, 2006, for asbestos-related
injury claims, compared with US$50 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, about US$9 million of this amount related
to 120 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$39 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2030.

At June 30, 2006, Exelon Generation has reserved about US$48
million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

In the 2005-2nd second quarter, Generation engaged independent
actuaries to determine if a reasonable estimate of future losses
could be calculated associated with asbestos personal injury
actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by
Generation or were previously owned by Company subsidiaries
Commonwealth Edison Co. and PECO Energy Co.

Generation recorded an undiscounted US$43 million pre-tax charge
for its estimated portion of all estimated future asbestos-
related personal injury claims estimated to be presented through
2030.

The US$43 million pre-tax charge was recorded as part of
operating and maintenance expense in Generation's Consolidated
Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income in 2005 and
reduced net income by US$27 million after tax.

Headquartered in Chicago, Ill., Exelon Corp. distributes
electricity to more than 5 million customers in northern
Illinois and in southeastern Pennsylvania through ComEd and
PECO. Generation holds the Company's power plants, which produce
almost 26,000 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $194M for Liabilities in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. recorded US$194 million for asbestos or respirator mask
liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2006, compared with US$210 million
as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had US$202 million in asbestos
or respirator mask liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18,
2006)

The Company had US$397 million for asbestos or respirator mask
insurance receivables as of Sept. 30, 2006, compared with US$447
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had US$439 million asbestos or
respirator mask insurance receivables. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 18, 2006)

The Company, as of Sept. 30, 2006, was a co-defendant in
lawsuits in various courts that represented about 28,800
individual claimants, a decrease from the about 50,400
individual claimants with actions pending at Sept. 30, 2005.

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

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

As of June 30, 2006, the Company co-defended in asbestos or
respirator mask suits that represented about 33,000 individual
claimants, a decrease from about 56,300 individual claimants
with actions pending at June 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 18, 2006)

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. operates through six
segments: display and graphics; health care; safety, security,
and protection; electro and communications; transportation and
industrial; and consumer and office. Products include Scotchgard
fabric protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite scouring
products, and Scotch tapes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Electrolux Rise to 1,505 in 3Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
AB Electrolux, as of Sept. 30, 2006, faced about 1,505 pending
asbestos-related cases with 8,350 plaintiffs, up from 1,162
pending cases with 8,050 plaintiffs.

During the 2006-3rd quarter, a total of 407 new cases with about
520 plaintiffs were filed and 64 pending cases with about 220
plaintiffs were resolved. About 6,480 of the plaintiffs related
to cases pending in the state of Mississippi.

Litigation and claims related to asbestos are pending against
the Group in the United States. Almost all of the cases refer to
externally supplied components used in industrial products made
by discontinued operations before early 1970s.

Many of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs who have made
identical allegations against many other defendants who are not
part of the Electrolux Group.

Headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, AB Electrolux makes washing
machines, stoves, refrigerators, and freezers under the AEG,
Electrolux, Eureka, Frigidaire, and Zanussi names. The Company
also makes vacuum cleaners under Electrolux and Eureka brands.
The Company's products are sold in about 90 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Decrease to 50T in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, had about 50,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 40,000
of the claims are pending in three jurisdictions where
significant tort reform activities are underway.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had about 61,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 51,000
of the outstanding claims were pending in three jurisdictions
where significant tort reform activities are underway. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

The Company said it believed its involvement was limited because
these claims were related to automotive friction products that
were made many years ago and had encapsulated asbestos.

The Company expects that most of the pending asbestos product
liability claims where it is a defendant will result in no
payment being made by the Company or its insurers.

In the nine months of 2006, of about 20,700 claims resolved, 132
claims, or 0.6 percent, resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

In 2005, of about 38,000 claims resolved, 295 claims, or 0.8
percent, resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or
on behalf of the Company.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had a receivable of US$8.5
million due to funding settlements before reimbursement by some
of the secondary layer insurers.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$34.8 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$34.8 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in the declaratory judgment action
referred to below. At Dec. 31, 2005, the comparable value of the
insurance receivable and accrued liability was US$41 million.

Based in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. makes power train
products for automakers. Its power train products include four-
wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive transfer cases, as well as
automatic transmission and timing-chain systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Faces Insurance Coverage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. faces an asbestos-related declaratory judgment
action filed by Continental Casualty Co. and related firms
against the Company and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers.

In the lawsuit filed on January 2004 in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Ill., CNA provided the Company with both primary
and additional layer insurance. In conjunction with other
insurers, CNA is currently defending and indemnifying the
Company in its pending asbestos-related product liability
claims.

The suit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding
the apportionment matter. Appeals of the interim order were
denied. However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at
the end of the action.

Moreover, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related
product claims.

Based in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. makes power train
products for automakers. Its power train products include four-
wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive transfer cases, as well as
automatic transmission and timing-chain systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faces Claims v. Fel-Pro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. faces asbestos-related claims regarding its
Fel-Pro subsidiary, according to the Company's quarterly report,
on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Prior to Restructuring Proceedings, Fel-Pro was named in
asbestos product liability cases involving gasket or packing
products. As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Fel-
Pro was a defendant in about 34,000 pending claims.

Over 32,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court,
where, prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, they were
pending. All claims alleging exposure to Company and Fel-Pro
products have been stayed as a result of the Restructuring
Proceedings.

Prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in
its own name as a defendant in multiple lawsuits brought by
claimants alleging injury from exposure to asbestos due to its
ownership of certain assets involved in gasket making.

As of the Petition Date, the Company had about 61,500 pre-
petition pending claims. Over 40,000 of these claims were
transferred to a federal court, where, prior to the
Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending.

Notices of complaints continue to be received post-petition and
are in violation of the automatic stay.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco,
and Signal-Stat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Liabilities Hit $1.551B in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp.'s asbestos-related liabilities totaled
US$1.551 billion as of Sept. 30, 2006, compared with US$1.532
billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related liabilities
were US$1.543. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

The Company's asbestos-related insurance recoverable, as of
Sept. 30, 2006, was US$835 million, compared with US$777.4
billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco,
and Signal-Stat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Records $1.3B for T&N Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded about US$1.3
billion asbestos-related liability for T&N Ltd., the Company's
U.K. subsidiary, and two U.S. subsidiaries.

The liability represented the Company's estimate before the
Restructuring Proceedings for claims currently pending and
those, which the Company estimated to be asserted and paid
through 2012.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$1.326 billion
asbestos liability for the T&N Companies. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

The T&N Companies face court actions in the U.S. alleging
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products. To a lesser extent, T&N Ltd. is also
subject to asbestos-disease litigation in the U.K. and France.  

As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2006 Petition Date, T&N Ltd. had
about 115,000 pending personal injury claims. The two U.S.
subsidiaries were defendants in about 199,000 pending personal
injury claims.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's US$675 million insurance
recoverable asset included an exchange rate premium of about
US$64 million.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco,
and Signal-Stat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex and Wagner Liability Stays at $213.6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. recorded a combined US$213.6 million
asbestos-related liability for two of its businesses, Abex and
Wagner, for the periods ending Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006.

The US$213.6M liability, comprised of US$129.5 million in Abex
liabilities and US$84.1 million in Wagner liabilities,
represented the Company's estimate before Restructuring
Proceedings for claims currently pending and those which were
reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012.

Formerly owned by Cooper Industries LLC, Abex and Wagner face
U.S. court actions alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. These claims mainly
involve vehicle safety and performance products.

As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Abex had about
66,000 pending claims and Wagner had about 33,000 pending
claims. The Company includes as a pending claim open served
claims, settled but not documented claims and settled but not
paid claims.

The Company's liability regarding claims alleging exposure to
Wagner products arose from the 1998 stock purchase from Cooper
of the corporate successor by merger to Wagner Electric Co.

The Company's liability regarding claims alleging exposure to
Abex products arose from a contractual liability entered into in
1994 by a Company predecessor whose stock the Company bought in
1998.

In July 2006, Cooper, Pneumo Abex Corp., the Company, the
asbestos claimants committee, the representative for future
asbestos claimants, and other relevant parties, signed a non-
binding term sheet reflecting a global settlement that will
provide two alternative means of resolving all of Cooper's and
Pneumo's claims against the Company arising out of the Abex
asbestos litigation and the related alleged indemnity
obligations.

As of Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the asbestos-related
insurance recoverable of Abex was US$112 million.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco,
and Signal-Stat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wagner Faces Insurance Suits by 3rd Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wagner, a Federal-Mogul Corp. business, faces asbestos-related
insurance litigation filed by third-party companies, including
Dresser Industries Inc.

Wagner is one of two Federal-Mogul businesses formerly owned by
Cooper Industries LLC.

Wagner maintains product liability insurance coverage for a time
that it made asbestos products. This coverage is shared with
other third-party firms, including Dresser.

Dresser initiated an adversary action against the Debtors and
insurance carriers in the Company's Restructuring Proceedings.

In the complaint, Dresser alleged that it has rights under
certain primary and excess general liability insurance policies
that may be shared with a Debtor, Federal-Mogul Products as the
successor to Wagner Electric Corp.

Dresser sought declaration of the parties' respective rights and
obligations under the policies and a partition of the competing
rights of Dresser and FMP under the policies. FMP answered
Dresser's complaint and filed cross-claims against the
defendant-insurers seeking a declaration of FMP's rights to the
policies.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Wagner insurance recoverable was
US$47.6 million.

On Nov. 4, 2004, FMP, Dresser and Cooper Industries Inc. and
certain of the insurers entered into a partitioning agreement.
The Parties agreed as to the manner in which the limits of
liability, self-insured retentions, deductibles and any other
self-insurance features, and the erosion thereof, are to be
partitioned among FMP, Dresser and Cooper.

In a separate agreement, FMP, Cooper, and Pneumo have agreed to
a method for dividing the FMP-Cooper portion of the partitioned
limits among those three entities.  

On Sept. 19, 2006, FMP filed a complaint in the Superior Court
of New Jersey against all of the defendant insurers in the
Adversary Proceeding.

The New Jersey Complaint tracks the cross-claims asserted by FMP
against the defendant insurers in the Adversary Proceeding, and
seeks a declaration as to FMP's coverage rights under the
policies as well as damages for breach of contract and bad
faith.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco,
and Signal-Stat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 33,591 Claims in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about
33,591 plaintiffs at Sept. 30, 2006, down from 33,604 plaintiffs
as of June 30, 2006.

In the asbestos cases, the claimants alleged that exposure to
asbestos in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop
adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other
lung cancers.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 21,330 of
those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense verdicts,
four were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which were
satisfied and two of which are subject to appeal) and 346 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc.
makes arc-welding, cutting products, and welding supplies,
including arc-welding power sources, automated wire-feeding
systems, and consumable electrodes for arc welding.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Junks Suit v. Moscow CableCom Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County of New
York, on June 2006, granted Moscow CableCom subsidiary's
unopposed motion for relief, thereby dismissing the matter, in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Loretta and Brent Brienza.

Filed in March 2004, the suit, Index 104076-04, was filed
against A.W. Chesterton Co. et al.

The subsidiary, JM Ney, now known as Andersen Land Corp., was
served with a summons and a complaint in the Brienza matter and
one other matter that has since been dismissed.

In the Brienza suit, JM Ney and in excess of 100 other parties
were named as defendants in an asbestos-related civil action for
negligence and product liability.

Plaintiffs in the suit claimed damages from being exposed to
asbestos and asbestos products allegedly made or supplied by the
defendants, including JM Ney's former dental division.  

Based on the answers to the interrogatories that have been
supplied by the plaintiffs' attorneys, it did not appear to the
Company that JM Ney made any products containing asbestos that
are the subject of the suit.

Headquartered in New York, N.Y., Moscow CableCom Corp., formerly
Andersen Group, has investments in broadband communications in
Moscow, Russia. The Company is building a communications network
in Moscow through a license to provide broadband communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star Tech Settles 23 of 47 Suits at 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Star Technologies Inc.'s subsidiary, Lone Star Steel Co.,
has settled 23 out of 47 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Of the 47 suits, 23 have been settled or are pending settlement
for about US$400,000 in the aggregate and 15 have been dismissed
or are pending dismissal.

In the last seven years, Steel has been named as a defendant in
47 suits alleging that certain individuals were exposed to
asbestos on the defendants' premises. The plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages.  

Steel did not make or distribute any products with asbestos.
Some or all of these claims may not be covered by the Company's
insurance.  

In 2003, Lone Star's subsidiary, Zinklahoma Inc., inactive since
1989, has been named a defendant in seven suits alleging that
the plaintiffs had contracted mesothelioma from exposure to
asbestos in products made by the defendants and John Zink Co.  

Five of these suits have been dismissed and one was settled for
less than US$100,000. In 1987, Lone Star acquired Zink's stock
and, in 1989, sold the assets of the former Zink to Koch
Industries Inc. and renamed the now-inactive subsidiary
Zinklahoma Inc. Lone Star retained, and agreed to indemnify Koch
against, certain pre-closing liabilities of Zink.  

Koch continues to operate the business as John Zink Co. LLC.

Moreover, Zink LLC has been named in 12 suits in which the
plaintiffs, six of whom have mesothelioma, alleged exposure to
asbestos in Zink's products. Four of these suits have been
dismissed.

Koch seeks indemnification from Lone Star with respect to the
eight pending suits alleging exposure to asbestos.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Lone Star Technologies Inc.'s
oil field products include casing, tubing, and line pipe. The
Company's specialty tubing is used in precision mechanical
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohm and Haas Reserves for Premises Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm and Haas Co. has reserved an undisclosed amount for
premises asbestos-related cases that it said are probable and
estimable, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form
10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the
Company, which had asbestos on its premises. These premises
cases have been dismissed or settled for minimal amounts because
of the minimal likelihood of exposure at the Company's
facilities.

The Company noted pending lawsuits filed against Morton
International Inc. related to employee exposure to asbestos at a
manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La. with more suits
expected.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related
matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol
Corp., which merged with Morton in 1982. To date, settlement
amounts have been minimal and many cases have closed with no
payment.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pa., Rohm and Haas Co. operates
150 manufacturing and research sites worldwide. Sales take place
in more than 100 countries and total more than US$6 billion
annually. In 1999, Rohm and Haas acquired Morton International,
maker of Morton salt and of specialty chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aqua-Chem Pursues $10M Demand v. Coca-Cola
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua-Chem Inc., a former subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Co.,
continues to demand from the Company about US$10 million for
out-of-pocket asbestos litigation-related expenses.

From 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem. An Aqua-Chem
division made certain boilers that had gaskets that Aqua-Chem
purchased from outside suppliers.

Several years after the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem
received its first lawsuit linked to asbestos, a component of
some of the gaskets. In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the
Company that it was obligated for certain costs and expenses
associated with its asbestos litigation.

Aqua-Chem has also demanded that the Company acknowledge a
continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities
and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the
applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance.

The parties entered into litigation to resolve this dispute,
which was stayed pending the outcome of litigation filed in
Wisconsin by certain Aqua-Chem insurers. In that case, five
plaintiff insurance firms filed a declaratory judgment action
against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance firms
seeking a determination of the parties' rights and liabilities
under policies issued by the insurers and reimbursement for
amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their obligations.

That litigation remains pending, and the Company said it has
substantial legal and factual defenses to the insurers' claims.

Aqua-Chem and the Company subsequently reached settlements with
six of the insurers in the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation, and those insurers will pay funds into an escrow
account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims
against Aqua-Chem.

Aqua-Chem has also reached a settlement with an additional
insurer regarding payment of that insurer's policy proceeds for
Aqua-Chem's asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Ga., The Coca-Cola Co. owns four soft-
drink brands: Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta, and Sprite. The firm
sells about 400 drink brands, including coffee, juice, sports
drinks, and tea, in about 200 nations. The Company owns about 36
percent of Coke bottler Coca-Cola Enterprises.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Receivable Stays at $91.5M in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Holdings Inc.'s non-current insurance receivable for
asbestos-related liabilities, as of Sept. 30, 2006, remained at
US$91.5 million, according to the Company's quarterly report, on
Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current insurance
receivable for asbestos-related liabilities was US$91.5 million,
compared with US$88.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's asbestos-
related liability amounted to US$3.190 billion, subject to
compromise.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$7 million asbestos-related insurance recoveries, which is
part of adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash
provided by operating activities.

On Dec. 6, 2000, Company subsidiary Armstrong World Industries
Inc. filed a voluntary petition for relief under Ch. 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to use the court-supervised
reorganization process to achieve a resolution of Armstrong
World's asbestos-related liability.

On Oct. 2, 2006, Armstrong World's plan of reorganization, as
confirmed by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware by order dated Aug. 18, 2006, became effective, and
Armstrong World emerged from Ch. 11.

The Company is dissolving itself as part of Armstrong World's
Ch. 11 reorganization plan, in which Armstrong World will emerge
as the primary operating company.

Headquartered in Lancaster, Pa., Armstrong Holdings Inc. is the
holding company for Armstrong World and its Armstrong Floor
Products unit. Armstrong World makes flooring products,
acoustical ceilings, suspended-ceiling systems for finishing and
refurbishing commercial, industrial, and residential structures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Continues to Face 3rd Party Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems Inc., with other third parties,
continues to face several lawsuits related to illnesses from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The complaints do not specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company's products.

Since the cases are in their initial stages, it is uncertain
whether any plaintiffs have asbestos illnesses or dealt with the
Company's products, much less whether any plaintiffs were
exposed to an asbestos-containing component part of the
Company's product or whether that part could have been a
contributing factor to the alleged illness.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of
its exposure related to these claims.

Based in Raleigh, N.C., Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides
metering and Automatic Meter Reading solutions for water, gas,
electric, and heat utilities as well as sub-metering entities
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $585M for Litigation in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. recorded US$585 million as non-current asbestos
litigation reserve as of Sept. 30, 2006, compared with US$521
million for the same period in 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
litigation reserve was US$592 million, compared with US$534
million for the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 4, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
insurance receivable was US$444 million, compared with US$370
million for the same period in 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
insurance receivable was US$446 million, compared with US$374
million as of June 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4,
2006)

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc.'s Chemicals unit
has two subsidiaries. Ashland Distribution buys chemicals and
plastics, then blends and repackages them for distribution.
Ashland Specialty Chemical makes specialty resins and polymers,
adhesives, and chemicals for water treatment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Still Defends v. Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corp. co-defends against personal injury suits from
alleged exposure to asbestos contained in products made by the
Company.

The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that were
dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for
minimal amounts below the expected defense costs.

The outcome of these suits or the potential for liability cannot
be determined at this time.

Headquartered in Batavia, N.Y., Graham Corp. makes vacuum
systems, pumps, compressors, and heat exchangers. The Company
sells its equipment to manufacturers in the petroleum, plastics,
chemicals, food processing, and other industries, where its gear
is used in processes ranging from power generation to brewing
beer and making soap.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Settles Property Damage Claims for $62M
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corp., in October 2006, made about US$62 million in payments
under asbestos property damage settlements, according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In the 2006-3rd quarter, the Company reversed US$17 million of
its reserve for asbestos-related claims.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company reversed US$27 million of
its reserve for asbestos-related claims.

As a result of the bar date for filing asbestos property damage
claims in the Debtors' Ch. 11 proceedings, about 1,400 asbestos
property damage claims were filed by the bar date and more than
70 claims were filed after the bar date. More than 950 claims
were disallowed or withdrawn, leaving about 520 claims pending.

The Debtors have reached written agreements or agreements in
principle to settle all of the remaining asbestos property
damage claims with the exception of one small claim brought by a
residential homeowner.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp Pays $890M to Asbestos Trust in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corp., for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, recorded
US$890 million as payment to the Company's asbestos trust,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On June 25, 2001, the Company and 10 U.S. subsidiaries filed for
reorganization under Ch. 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

On June 16, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the First Amended
Plan of Reorganization of the Company and its Debtor
Subsidiaries. The Plan became effective on June 20, 2006.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company made total payments of
US$909 million for asbestos-related claims. These payments
included the US$890 million payment to the Trust and US$19
million of payments related to the settlement of other asbestos-
related claims included within the asbestos reserve.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$17 million as reversal of asbestos claims reserve. For the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$44
million reversal of asbestos claims reserve.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current note payable to the
asbestos trust was US$10 million.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current contingent note
payable to the asbestos trust was US$3.050 billion.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Liability Stays at $512.5M in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded a US$512.5
million asbestos settlement liability, unchanged from Sept. 30,
2005, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 25, 2006,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's asbestos
settlement liability was US$512.5 million. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

For the quarters and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006 and Sept.
30, 2005, the Company's effects of assumed issuance of asbestos
settlement shares amounted to US$9 million.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, N.J., Sealed Air Corp.'s main
product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films,
absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors and
supermarkets to protect meat and poultry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Raises Reserves by $155M
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., in the 2006-3rd quarter,
increased asbestos reserves by US$155 million, according to a
Company press release, dated Oct. 26, 2006, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Resulting in a US$102 million after-tax charge, the increase was
in connection with the completion of its annual asbestos review.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., The St. Paul Travelers
Companies Inc. offers personal and commercial liability and
casualty, property, workers' compensation, auto, marine, and
other coverage to companies in North America and the U.K.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Govt Extends Hardie Deadline to Nov. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Government has extended to Nov. 14, 2006
James Hardie Industries NV's deadline to finalize the funding
deal for compensation for victims of its asbestos products,
news.com.au reports.

The deadline for finalizing the fund has been repeatedly pushed
back from its original date of July 31, 2006.

Hardie's prior deadline expired on Oct. 31, 2006 with the
Company yet to reach an agreement with the Australian Taxation
Office over the status of the compensation fund.

The deal was thrown into doubt after a June 2006 ATO ruling that
the fund, worth up to AUD4.5 billion over 40 years, could not be
treated as a charity for tax purposes.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation president Barry Robson tagged the
two-week extension as "another rabbit out of the hat" and said
he had little hope the deal would be finalized immediately.

Mr. Robson said he did not blame the NSW Govt. for the delays
but said Hardie should back down in its standoff with the ATO.

Headquartered 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: Owens Corning Emerges From Ch 11 Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning, on Oct. 31, 2006, emerged from Ch. 11 bankruptcy,
more than five years after the Company sought relief from
creditors over health claims related to its asbestos products,
The Associated Press reports.

Judge Judith Fitzgerald at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware approved the Company's exit plan in
September 2006.

The Company said its exit financing would come from a
combination of new equity and new debt financing.

The Company said its exit plan shifts the Company's US$7 billion
in asbestos liabilities off its books and into a trust that will
be established for the plaintiffs.

Owens Corning will pay more than US$5 billion to asbestos
claimants and as much as US$2.27 billion to holders of bank
debt.

Company President and CEO Dave Brown said, "We have met the
commitments that we made to our creditors and asbestos claimants
at the start of this process."

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning makes fiberglass and
composite materials. Its building materials unit makes thermal,
acoustic and foam insulation, and exterior products like roofing
shingles, vinyl windows and siding, stone veneer building
products, housewrap, patio doors, and rain gutters. The
Company's composite materials unit makes glass fiber materials
that industrial customers combine with plastic resins to make
composite products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miner Settles "Fear of Dying" Suit with CSR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Diseases Society said the asbestos-related case
between Arturo Della Maddalena, a former Wittenoom, Australia
mine worker, and CSR Ltd. has been settled out of court, ABC
NewsOnline reports.

CSR operated an asbestos mine in Western Australia.

In October 2004, Western Australia's Court of Appeal found that
Mr. Della Maddalena had developed a psychiatric disorder
resulting from his fear of dying of mesothelioma and should be
compensated.

Early in 2006, the High Court allowed an appeal by CSR and its
subsidiary Midalco, formerly known as Australian Blue Asbestos,
and ordered that the case be re-tried.

The settlement terms cannot be disclosed but there is no
admission of liability from the companies involved.

Headquartered in Chatswood, Australia, CSR Ltd. deals with
construction materials like plasterboard, cement fiber products,
roof tile, clay brick, and insulation. The Company operates
about 40 plants in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. 77 Defendants Filed in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Neil, representing Kassie Van Neil Jr., and Roger Thompson
filed separate asbestos-related lawsuits, with a total of 77
defendants, in Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia, The West
Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Neil's suit, filed on Oct. 15, 2006, names 56 defendants
while Mr. Thompson's suit names 21 defendants.

Mrs. Neil's suit said Mr. Neil, of Gauley Bridge, W.Va., was a
mechanic at Ford Motor Co. from 1961 to 1970. He also worked at
Cedar Coal Co., Union Carbide Corp., and DuPont Corp. from 1984
to 2000.

The Neils' complaints said that, on May 19, 2005, Mr. Neil was
diagnosed with mesothelioma and died 12 days later at the age of
73.

Mrs. Neil seeks punitive damages and compensatory damages for
her sorrow and mental anguish.

In the other suit, Mr. Thompson claimed to have been exposed to
asbestos insulation while employed by St. Gobain Ceramics and
Plastics.

Mr. Thompson said he worked at the refractory plant in
Buckhannon, W.Va. from 1971 to 2004 and was "required to handle
and did handle and use asbestos products supplied to the
plaintiff by the defendant corporations."

Among the defendants in Mr. Thompson's suit are state
corporations Nitro Industrial Coverings Inc. and A&I Co.

The Thompson suit, seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
added that Mr. Thompson was "exposed to asbestos insulation from
a steam-generating boiler, associated piping, kilns, furnaces
and dryers used in the manufacturing process for refractory
products, and the components of the refractory products and
other sources of breathable asbestos fibers."

J. David Cecil represents Mrs. Neil while John Skaggs of The
Calwell Practice represents Mr. Thompson.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case Nos. 06-C-2154 and 06-C-2170 would be
assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Objects to USG Move to Disallow Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patsy R. Neal objects to USG Corp. and the Reorganized Debtors'
request to disallow her Claim No. 4123, which asserts damages
for the asbestos-related death of her husband, Charles Neal,
from lung cancer. Mrs. Neal says that her late husband worked
for over 40 years with United States Gypsum Co.'s facility in
Chicago, Ill.

Ms. Neal contends that she meets the Reorganized Debtors'
requirement that "asbestos-containing materials are present in
the claimant's building" because she alleges that asbestos was
present in the facility where her husband worked.

Ms. Neal asserts that her husband was involved in cleaning the
facility's kiln where he was exposed to the chemicals that that
were used in making U.S. Gypsum's products. Ms. Neal says that
her husband was also involved in the manufacture of U.S.
Gypsum's insulation, plastic board and joint compound products,
which she alleges contains asbestos.

Mr. Neal inhaled the asbestos materials in the areas of the
factory where he would worked, which caused the lung cancer that
led to his death, Ms. Neal says.

(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 125; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Schmidt Grants ASARCO Injunction Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Schmidt grants ASARCO LLC's and the other Debtors'
request for a preliminary injunction subject to the treatment of
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. pursuant to the Debtors' Settlement
with certain participating London Market Insurers.

All entities that have held or asserted an Enjoined Claim are
stayed, enjoined and restrained from taking any action for the
purpose of collecting, recovering or receiving payments with
respect to any Enjoined Claim.

The Court clarifies that an "Enjoined Claim" includes:

(a) Any claim, demand, or cause of action relating in any way to
the Subject Insurance Policies or other Insurance Rights; or

(b) Any Asbestos Claim, made by a non-party to the Settlement
Agreement, against any participating LMC, including without
limitation, all claims, demands and causes of action whether by
way of direct action or otherwise.

Judge Schmidt makes it clear that an Enjoined Claim includes
only those claims asserted against any participating London
Market Insurer, and does not include the rights of Asbestos
Claims holders to assert those Asbestos Claims against any
Debtor or the Trust.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 30; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Links Loss to $16.7M A&E Development
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corp.'s underwriting loss, for the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2006, was mainly due to US$16.7 million of loss
reserve development on asbestos and environmental exposures.

The Company's "Other" segment produced an underwriting loss of
US$16.9 million, for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, and
US$22.9 million, for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

This compared with an underwriting loss of US$24.7 million, for
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2005, and US$28 million, for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

The underwriting loss for the quarter and nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2005 was mainly due to US$31.3 million of loss reserve
development on A&E exposures and related reinsurance bad debt,
partially offset by favorable development of loss reserves in
other discontinued lines of business.

Headquartered in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corp. sells specialty
insurance products and programs to various niche markets. The
Company's main subsidiaries are Essex Insurance Co., Shand
Morahan, Markel Insurance, and Investors Underwriting Managers.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CONNETICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a Nov. 17, 2006,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased publicly
traded securities of Connetics Corp. between June 28, 2004 and
May 3, 2006.  The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

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 and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Connetics
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.  

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, 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.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Warner Chilcott Limited pursuant and/or traceable to
the company's initial public offering on or about Sept. 20, 2006
through Sept. 26, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Warner Chilcott and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false statements.  

Specifically, the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the IPO contained untrue statements of material facts,
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the
rules and regulations governing its preparation.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that at the time of the IPO, Warner Chilcott had ceased
shipments of Ovcon 35, its top selling birth control pill,
thereby eliminating a primary revenue stream for the company.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Warner Chilcott announced developments in a
lawsuit brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission and
filed a supplement to the Registration Statement in which it
disclosed that, among other things, it had ceased shipments of
Ovcon 35 in September 2006 when it launched Ovcon Chewable.

In response to these disclosures the price of Warner Chilcott
common stock dropped from $15.00 per share to $12.60 per share.

Interested parties may move for lead plaintiff status no later
than Jan. 2, 2007.

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


XETHANOL CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Xethanol Corp. from
Jan. 31, 2006 through Aug. 8, 2006.

The complaint charges Xethanol and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     -- that its Hopkinton, Iowa Permeate Refining plant was not
        being refurbished; rather the plant laid vacant and
        uninhabited with its doors locked;

     -- that the company lacked credible management personnel;

     -- that Xethanol engaged in an alarmingly high number of
        related party transactions (such that the company used a
        reverse merger into a shell corporation to avoid
        disclosing these facts);

     -- that the company materially underreported the true cost
        of completing a biomass to ethanol production facility
        and failed to take proper adjustments, which enabled
        defendants to materially overstate its profitability;

     -- that, because the company lacked the necessary personnel
        and controls to issue accurate financial reports and
        projections, the company's financial statements were
        presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
        Principles; and

     -- that, as a result, the company's statements regarding
        its prospects for biomass ethanol production were
        lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On Aug. 7, 2006, while the market was open, ShareSleuth.com, a
forensic securities investigations website, published a report
which criticized Xethanol and its management.  

Specifically, the report questioned Xethanol's position that it
could achieve commercialization of ethanol and noted that many
of Xethanol's financiers had been disciplined by regulatory
agencies.  

The report also claimed that defendant Christopher d'Arnaud-
Taylor, Xethanol's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, had
falsified his work experience and qualifications on his resume.

News of this caused a sharp decline of Xethanol shares. Between
Aug. 8, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006, shares of Xethanol tumbled from
$6.91 per share to $5.25 per share, a two-day decline of more
than $1.60 per share.

Interested parties may move for appointment as lead plaintiff no
later than Dec. 26, 2006.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *