CAR_Public/061110.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 10, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 224

                            Headlines

AGENT ORANGE: Canada Loses Bid to Sue Dow Chemical, Monsanto
ALLIANCE GAMING: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Nev.
APOLLO GROUP: SSLL Refutes Securities Fraud Claims of Two Firms
APPLE COMPUTER: Consumer Files Lawsuit Over Defective G4 iBooks
BAYER CORP: Dismissal of Baycol Suit in Madison County Appealed

BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Suits Over Tissue, Bone Theft Consolidated
BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues to Face Claims Over Beryllium Emission
CANADA: Retired Veterans Sue Government Over CBW Experiments
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Face Market Manipulation Cases
CHEMED CORP: Ill. Court Approves Plumbing Lawsuit Settlement

CHILE: Seven Banks Face $22.9M Suit Over Mortgage Loan Fees
COLUMBIA NATURAL: 2007 Trial Set in W. Va. Royalty Owners' Suit
CORNING INC: Ill. Court Orders Mediation in "Muniz" Litigation
E. I. DU PONT: Faces PFOA Contamination Lawsuits in W.Va., N.J.
HCA INC: Settles Tenn. Litigation Over Hercules Merger Agreement

LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Court Dismisses Investors' Suit v. Government
MAMMA.COM INC: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $3.15M
MARTHA STEWART: Settles N.Y. Securities Litigation for $30M
MILLS CORP: Iowa, Miss. Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs in Stock Suit
NETWORK APPLIANCE: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Option Grants

NORBOURG GROUP: Regulator Named in Suit by Canadian Investors
NORTH COAST: Faces Suit in W.Va. Over Non-Payment of Royalties
PEGASUS COMMS: Nov. Final Hearing Set for $2.95M Suit Settlement
PRIMUS FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement for "Borlay" Suit in Tenn.
TOYOTA MOTORS: Recalls Scion TC Over Possible Injury Hazards

TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Settles Neb. Securities Lawsuit for $24.5M
ULTICOM INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
VANDERBILT MORTGAGE: S.C. Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Insurance
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Calif. Nurses' Overtime Suit for $19M

WILLIAMS COS: Feb. 9 Trial Set for the Okla. Lawsuit Settlement
WILLIAMS COS: Seeks Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suits in La.
WMH TOOL: Recalls Wilton Mitre Saws Over Laceration Hazards
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Orthopedic Implants


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $3M Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Faces 1,000 Claims in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Records $304M Liability in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Receives 4,000 New Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Automotive Units Continue to Face Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 640 Pending Cases in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.17M for Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed From Most Miss. Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Knoth Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Reports $4.3M Loss in 3Q06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Inc. Spends $28.7M in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries' Claims Stay at 116T in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Gets $166M Receivables in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco Increases Reserves by $25M in 3Q2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records 113,707 Claims in 3Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Settles N.Y. Suit v. Carriers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $136M in Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $45M Defense Costs in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.273B Liabilities in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Cases Remain at 1,161 in 3Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CONSOL Unit Faces 24,801 Claims in 6 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PharmaNet Sets Aside $3.6M for Remediation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases with 7T Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CPChem, ConocoPhillips Dispute Over Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel's Cases Increase from 230 to 250

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Units Face Antoine Lawsuit in La.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Records B&W Liability at $468.4M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Continues to Face Miss. Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KWELM Pays $2.3M More to Goodrich in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $422.3M Losses in 3Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Gains $36.1M from Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Developers Pay $350T for Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Awards $5.5M to Hoogerwerf Widow
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14 Suits v. 169 Companies Filed in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries to Start Paying $450M in '07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alberta Town Locals to be Evicted over Risk
ASBESTOS ALERT: Getty Realty, Subsidiary Face Suit in Ill. Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONNETICS CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Calif.
IKANOS COMMS: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
PEGASUS WIRELESS: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Calif.


                            *********

AGENT ORANGE: Canada Loses Bid to Sue Dow Chemical, Monsanto
------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitoba Court denied the Canadian government's motion to
stay proceedings so that it could file a third-party action
against Agent Orange manufacturers The Dow Chemical Company and
Monsanto Co.

In a purported class action suit, "Dobbie, et al. v. The
Attorney General of Canada," pending in the Federal Court of
Canada in Ottawa, Canada, individuals who either served at or
live by a Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick,
brought an action against the Canadian government for injuries
supposedly suffered as the result of exposure to a variety of
chemicals used by it during the course of a 30-year program to
control weeds and vegetation at the facility.

On May 3, 2006, the Federal Court granted the government's
motion to stay proceedings so that it could file a third-party
action in this litigation against The Dow Chemical Company and
Monsanto Co., as manufacturers of Agent Orange.

Thereafter, purported class action lawsuits have been filed by
plaintiffs against the Canadian government in at least three
provinces, including Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Ontario.  On
Sept. 29, 2006, the Manitoba Court denied the Canadian
government's motion to stay the proceedings before it.


ALLIANCE GAMING: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Nev.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Gaming Corp., now known as Bally Technologies, Inc.,
remains a defendant in a consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.

In June 2004, putative class actions were filed against Alliance
Gaming and its officers, Robert Miodunski, Robert Saxton, Mark
Lerner, and Steven Des Champs.

The nearly identical complaints alleged violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended stemming from
revised earnings guidance, declines in the stock price, and
sales of stock by insiders.  The complaints sought damages in
unspecified amounts.

The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed
motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead counsel
and a lead plaintiff, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint, all as is customary in such cases.

The company and the other defendants have moved for summary
judgment, and the motion is being briefed, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2005.

The first identified complaint is "Tyler, et al. v. Alliance
Gaming Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-CV-821," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Kent
J. DawsonHon.

The plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (3) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com;

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

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com; and

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


APOLLO GROUP: SSLL Refutes Securities Fraud Claims of Two Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. (SSLL)
revealed that, on Nov. 5, 2006 and Nov. 6, 2006, two other law
firms issued press releases misleadingly implying that they had
filed securities class actions against Apollo Group, Inc. and
soliciting inquiries and offering advice without obligation.

When in fact, neither law firm filed, nor have they filed to-
date, a class action against Apollo in connection with the
backdating of options.

The only class action filed to-date against Apollo in connection
with the company's backdating of options is the one filed by
SSLL on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds.

On Nov. 2, SSLL filed a class action against Apollo Group Inc.
and certain key officers and/or directors in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
7, 2006).

This action was brought on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Apollo securities during the period between
Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006 in connection with false and
misleading statements and omissions of material information
concerning the "backdating" of options granted by the Company.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, the firm announced that it had initiated this securities
class action against Apollo in a press release issued later that
day.

Since the filing, Apollo has announced that a restatement of its
historical financial statements will be certain "to record
additional charges for compensation expenses" relating to its
stock options granting practices.  

While the exact amount of the additional charges, resulting tax
and accounting impact, or the applicable periods to be restated
are yet to be determined; Apollo filed a Form 8-K on providing
details on the deficiencies uncovered in its ongoing
investigation.  

The company said it expects to restate financial results at
least as far back as 2001 and that it may face "significant" tax
liability.  

As stated in our previous press release, the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds
have brought the current lawsuit on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities during the
period between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.   

The deadline to seek lead plaintiff status in the case expires
Jan. 2, 2007.  

The suit is "Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds, Case
No. 2:06-at-11185," which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.

Representing plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Robert O. Dyer of Dyer & Butler LLP, 2800 N. Central  
         Ave., Ste 100, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-288-0588,  
         Fax: 602-288-0587, E-mail: rdyer@dyerbutlerlaw.com; and

     (2) Jay P. Saltzman, Esq. and Ashley Kim, Esq. of  
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., 9 Fulton  
         Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038, Phone:
         (212) 964-0046, Fax: (212) 267-8137 and (866) 348-7700,  
         Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: Consumer Files Lawsuit Over Defective G4 iBooks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc., faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California over
allegations that the G4 series iBook laptops have abnormally
high failure rates, The Courthouse News reports.

The suit, "Alan Vitt, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No.
06-07152," alleges that the failure rates can be attributed to a
design flaw in the computers' logic board.  It was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the laptops that were sold by the
company in the U.S.

According to the suit, the company knew of the defect, however,
it continued to sell the computers through false and misleading
advertising.

Contrary to the reputed quality of Apple products, the logic
boards in the iBook G4 are not reliable and do not function
properly.  The laptops have at least one serious flaw that
causes the logic boards to fail.

The suit seeks restitution and fees, and an injunction ordering
the company to warn consumers.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?14bb

For more details, contact Henry H. Rossbacher, James S. Cahill
and Talin Khachaturian Tenley of The Rossbacher Firm, 811,
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1650, Loa Angeles, CA 90017-2666, Phone:
(213) 895-6500, Fax: (213) 895-6161.


BAYER CORP: Dismissal of Baycol Suit in Madison County Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Stephen Tillery of Belleville, Illinois is appealing
the dismissal of a consumer fraud class action against Bayer
Corp., according to a report by Steve Gonzalez of The Madison
St. Clair Record.

Madison County Circuit Judge Lola Maddox dismissed the suit in
August, ruling it mirrors a certified class action against Bayer
in St. Clair County.  

The suit alleges Bayer engaged in deceptive advertising, hiding
possible side effects of cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol, which
was withdrawn from the U.S. market in August 2001 after it, was
linked to about 100 deaths.  

Nellie J. Martin of Granite City and Georgina Toothaker of
Collinsville filed the suit on July 15, 2004 in Madison County
Circuit Court.  

In dismissing the suit, Judge Maddox ruled that the class in the
St. Clair County suit and the proposed class in the Madison
County suit are virtually identical.

According to the report, the class in St. Clair County excludes
all persons with claims for personal injury or property damage
from Baycol while the Madison County class excludes only claims
for personal injury or property damage but not claims for
monetary damage by persons also having claims for personal
injury or property damage from Baycol.

Judge Maddox also refused Mr. Tillery's motion to certify a
nationwide class.

For more details, contact Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery,
LLC, Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300, St.
Louis, MO 63101, Phone: (314) 241-4844, Fax: (314) 588-7036, E-
mail: stillery@koreintillery.com, Web site:
http://www.koreintillery.com/.


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Suits Over Tissue, Bone Theft Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits over the nationwide theft of human tissues and
bones from cadavers for use in surgeries have been consolidated
in New Jersey, according to Jim Ritter of The Health Reporter.

The leader of the scheme, Michael Mastromarino, owner of
Biomedical Tissue Services, Inc., has been charged of operating
a corrupt $4.6 million enterprise to harvest human tissue from
funeral homes and sell it for use in transplants and research.

Other defendants in the suit include Regeneration Technologies
Inc., which processed and sterilized the body parts, and a
subsidiary of Medtronic Sofamor Danek that distributed tissues.
Plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the suit.

Previous issues of Class Action Reporter, mentions these cases
against Biomedical Tissue:

     -- a suit filed by New Jersey lawyer Ken Andres Jr. in
        Superior Court in Atlantic County, New Jersey in
        December;

     -- a suit filed by plaintiff Brian Springer in Marion,
        Indiana Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10,
        2006);

     -- a $210 million suit filed by Greg Monforton, President-
        Elect of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, in
        Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Class Action Reporter, Mar.
        24, 2006);

     -- "Jackson v. Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. et al.
        (2:06-cv-01323-WJM-RJH)," filed in the U.S. District
        Court of New Jersey (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 27,
        2006); and

     -- "Symonds v. Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., et al.,
        Case No. 3:06-cv-03020-MWB," filed in the U.S. District
        Court for the Northern District of Iowa (Class Action
        Reporter, Apr. 28, 2006).


BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues to Face Claims Over Beryllium Emission
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials
Inc., discloses that as of Sept. 29, it was a defendant in 12
proceedings in various state and federal courts brought by
plaintiffs alleging that they have contracted, or have been
placed at risk of contracting, chronic beryllium disease or
other lung conditions as a result of exposure to beryllium.

Plaintiffs in beryllium cases seek recovery under negligence and
various other legal theories and seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in many cases of an unspecified sum.  Spouses of some
plaintiffs claim loss of consortium.

During the third quarter of 2006, the number of beryllium cases
decreased from 14, involving 56 plaintiffs, as of June 30, 2006
to 12 cases, involving 53 plaintiffs, as of Sept. 29, 2006.  

During the third quarter, one third-party case, involving two
plaintiffs, was settled and dismissed, and one purported class
action, involving one named plaintiff, was dismissed.

The 12 pending beryllium cases as of Sept. 29, 2006 fall into
two categories:

     -- nine cases involving third-party individual plaintiffs,
        with 13 individuals, and six spouses who have filed
        claims as part of their spouse's case and two children
        who have filed claims as part of their parent's case;
        and

     -- three purported class actions, involving 32 plaintiffs.

Claims brought by third-party plaintiffs, typically employees of
our customers or contractors, are generally covered by varying
levels of insurance.

            "Marin et al. v. Brushman Wellman Inc."

The first purported class action is "Manuel Marin, et al., v.
Brush Wellman Inc.," filed in Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, case number BC299055, on July 15, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry
and Susan Perry.  The defendants are:

     -- Brush Wellman,
     -- Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and
     -- Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A first amended complaint was filed on September 15, 2004,
naming five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.  The plaintiffs allege that
they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at the
Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately 250
members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or
its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.

They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability --
design defect, strict liability -- failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair business
practices.  

The suit seeks injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical
and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and
costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.  

Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.  Defendant
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. was dismissed on May 5, 2005.

            "Parker, et al., v. Brush Wellman Inc."

The second purported class action is "Neal Parker, et al., v.
Brush Wellman Inc.," filed in Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, case number 2004CV80827, on January 29, 2004.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, case number 04-CV-606, on May 4, 2004.  The
named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King,
Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and
Patricia Burns.  

The defendants are:

     -- Brush Wellman;
     -- Schmiede Machine and Tool Corp.;
     -- Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass
        Sales;
     -- Axsys Technologies Inc.;
     -- Alcoa, Inc.;
     -- McCann Aerospace Machining Corp.;
     -- Cobb Tool, Inc.; and
     -- Lockheed Martin Corp.

Messrs. Parker, Carlton, King and Burns and Ms. Watkins are
current employees of Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired
employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns and Ms. Watkins are family
members.  

Plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability,
fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages.  

They seek a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to
fund a court-supervised medical monitoring program, attorneys'
fees and punitive damages.

On March 29, 2005, the court entered an order directing
plaintiffs to amend their pleading to segregate out those
plaintiffs who have endured only subclinical, cellular and
subcellular effects from those who have sustained actionable
tort injuries, and that following such amendment, the court will
enter an order:

     -- dismissing the claims asserted by the former subset of
        claimants, dismissing Count I of the complaint, which
        sought the creation of a medical monitoring fund; and

     -- dismissing the claims against defendant Axsys
        Technologies Inc.

On April 20, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Substituted Amended
Complaint for Damages, contending that each of the eight named
plaintiffs and the individuals listed on the attachment to the
original complaint, and each of the putative class members have
sustained personal injuries.

Plaintiffs though allege that they identified five individuals
whose injuries have manifested themselves such that they have
been detected by physical examination and/or laboratory test.

On March 10, 2006, the court entered an order construing
defendants' motion to enforce the March 29, 2005 Order as a
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted summary judgment in the
company's favor.

However, plaintiffs have filed an appeal, and the case is now in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, case number
06-12243-D.

    "Paz, et al. v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al."

The third purported class action is "George Paz, et al. v. Brush
Engineered Materials Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, case number
1:04CV597, on June 30, 2004.  

The named plaintiffs are George Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis,
Donald Jones, Ernest Bryan, Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie
Ladner, Henry Polk, Roy Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann
Harris, Judith Lemon, Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz.  

The defendants are:

     -- Brush Engineered Materials Inc.;
     -- Brush Wellman Inc.;
     -- Wess-Del Inc.; and the Boeing Co.

Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund as a result of their alleged exposure to products
containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and expenses, and general
and equitable relief.  

They purport to sue on behalf of a class of:

     -- present or former Defense Contract Management
        Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted quality
        assurance work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing
        Co. at its facility in Canoga Park, California;

     -- present and former employees of Boeing at Stennis; and

     -- spouses and children of those individuals.

Messrs. Paz and Lewis and Ms. Faciane represent current and
former DCMA employees at Stennis.  Mr. Jones represents DCMA
employees at Canoga Park.  Messrs. Bryan, Condiff, Ladner, Polk,
Tootle and Stewart and Ms. Condiff represent Boeing employees at
Stennis.  Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner and Ms. Paz are
family members.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2004, which
was granted and judgment was entered on Jan. 11, 2005; however,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal.  

Brush Engineered Materials Inc. was dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction on the same date, which plaintiffs did not
appeal.  

On April 7, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, in case number 05-60157, certified the question
regarding whether Mississippi has a medical monitoring cause of
action to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  The case is now in the
Supreme Court of Mississippi, case number 2006-FC-00771-SCT.

            "Anthony v. Brush Wellman Inc., et al."

One purported class action has been dismissed.  The fourth
purported class action was "Gary Anthony v. Brush Wellman Inc.,
et al.," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, case number 01718, on March 3, 2005.  The
case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, case number 05-CV-1202, on March 14,
2005.  

The only named plaintiff was Gary Anthony.  The defendants were:

     -- Brush Wellman Inc.,
     -- Gary Kowalski, and
     -- Dickinson & Associates Manufacturers Representatives

The plaintiff purported to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who had ever been exposed to beryllium for a period
of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.  The
plaintiff brought claims for negligence.  

The case sought the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures
for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys'
fees and expenses.  Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state
court, which the district court denied on Feb. 14, 2006.  

On Feb. 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  On Aug. 15, 2006, the Court of
Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal as improper.  

On Aug. 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of
the underlying action in the U.S. District Court, which was
approved by the court on Aug. 22, 2006; however, the court
further ordered that the action was dismissed without prejudice
for plaintiff to refile.


CANADA: Retired Veterans Sue Government Over CBW Experiments
------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government faces a nationwide class action in
Federal Court in Ottawa over allegations that retired armed
forces personnel were exposed to chemical and biological warfare
(CBW) experiments during their time on Canadian Forces bases
(CFB), Veronica Rhodes of The Regina Leader-Post reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 4, 2006.  Plaintiffs' attorney, Tony
Merchant of the Merchant Law Group, said that besides the case,
a statement of claim was also filed in British Columbia.  He
added that there would be further filings in Quebec, Manitoba
and Atlantic Canada.  

The statement of claim filed at Regina's Court of Queen's Bench
names the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of
National Defense as defendants.

Three specific plaintiffs as representative of the class were
named in the case.  They are:

      -- Lenard Roy Link,
      -- William A. Heidt, and
      -- Winston Churchill Spurr.

Plaintiffs, according to the statement of claim, are retired
armed forces personnel that suffered injuries as a result of
chemical and biological warfare compounds while they served at
CFB Suffield in Alberta, CFB Wainwright or the Sarcee Training
Camp in Alberta between 1941 and 1976.  Also included are those
who served at CFB Petawawa or the Chemical Warfare Laboratory in
Ontario between 1940 and 1945.

Due to the class members' exposure to chemical or biological
warfare compounds, the suit alleges that they experienced
illness, disease, physical affliction, mental suffering,
premature death, loss of companionship, reduced income and
diminished quality of life due to illness, enhanced risk of
future injury, as well as medical treatment, critical care and
recovery expenses not otherwise covered.

Plaintiffs are seeking general, special, and aggravated and
punitive damages for each member of the class to be determined
at trial.

Mr. Merchant revealed that he has been in contact with roughly
650 people across Canada for the lawsuit, however he stressed
that the total that could possibly be part of the class could
reach 4,400 people.

For mor details, contact TONY MERCHANT, Q.C., Phone: 1 866 982
7777, E-mail: TMerchant@merchantlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.merchantlaw.com/.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Face Market Manipulation Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpoint Energy Inc. continues to face lawsuits in relation
to alleged manipulation of electricity and natural gas markets
in California and certain other western states during an energy
crisis in 2000-2001.

A large number of lawsuits have been filed against numerous
market participants and remain pending in federal court in
California, Colorado and Nevada and in state court in California
and Nevada in connection with the operation of the electricity
and natural gas markets in California and certain other western
states in 2000-2001, a time of power shortages and significant
increases in prices.

These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
are based on a number of legal theories, including violation of
state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and
unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act, false claims statutes and similar
theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to
governmental entities.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which include state officials and
governmental entities as well as private litigants, are seeking
a variety of forms of relief, including recovery of compensatory
damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, interest due, disgorgement, civil penalties and
fines, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and divestiture of assets.

Centerpoint Energy's former subsidiary, Reliant Resources, Inc.,
now Reliant Energy, Inc., was a participant in the California
markets, owning generating plants in the state and participating
in both electricity and natural gas trading in that state and in
western power markets generally.

The Centerpoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy have been named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted
between 2001 and 2006 and are pending in California state court
in San Diego County, in Nevada state court in Clark County, in
federal district court in Colorado, Nevada and the Northern
District of California and before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

However, Centerpoint Energy, CenterPoint Houston and Reliant
Energy were not participants in the electricity or natural gas
markets in California.  Centerpoint Energy and Reliant Energy
have been dismissed from certain of the lawsuits, either
voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by order of the court, and
Centerpoint Energy believes it is not a proper defendant in the
remaining cases and will continue to seek dismissal from such
remaining cases.

Several of the electricity complaints have been dismissed, and
several of the dismissals have been affirmed by appellate
courts.  Others have been resolved by the settlement.  Four of
the gas complaints have also been dismissed based on defendants'
claims of federal preemption and the filed rate doctrine, and
these dismissals have been appealed.  In June 2005, a San Diego
state court refused to dismiss other gas complaints on the same
basis.  The other gas cases remain in the early procedural
stages.

                        FERC Settlement

On August 12, 2005, Reliant Resources reached a settlement with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) enforcement
staff, the states of California, Washington and Oregon,
California's three largest investor-owned utilities, classes of
consumers from California and other western states, and a number
of California city and county government entities that resolves
their claims against RRI related to the operation of the
electricity markets in California and certain other western
states in 2000-2001.

The settlement also resolves the claims of the three states and
the investor-owned utilities related to the 2000-2001 natural
gas markets.  The settlement has been approved by the FERC, by
the California Public Utilities Commission, and by the courts in
which the electricity class action cases are pending.

Two parties have appealed the courts' approval of the settlement
to the California Court of Appeals.  A party in the FERC
proceedings filed a motion for rehearing of the FERC's order
approving the settlement, which the FERC denied on May 30, 2006.  
That party has filed for review of the FERC's orders in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

Centerpoint Energy is not a party to the settlement, but may
rely on the settlement as a defense to any claims brought
against it related to the time when Centerpoint Energy was an
affiliate of Reliant Resources.  The terms of the settlement do
not require payment by Centerpoint Energy.


CHEMED CORP: Ill. Court Approves Plumbing Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois
gave preliminary approval to a class action over allegations
that unlicensed employees of Chemed Corp. performed certain
Roto-Rooter plumbing in Illinois, according to the company's
Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Customer Robert Harris filed the suit on behalf of a class of
customers in 32 states that allegedly paid for plumbing work
performed by unlicensed employees.  

Plaintiff also moved for partial summary judgment on grounds the
licensed apprentice plumber who installed his faucet did not
work under the direct personal supervision of a licensed master
plumber.

On Jun. 19, 2002, a trial judge certified an Illinois-only
plaintiffs class and granted summary judgment for the named
party plaintiff on the issue of liability, finding violation of
the Illinois Plumbing License Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, through Roto-Rooter's representation of the licensed
apprentice as a plumber.  The court has not yet ruled on
certification of a class in the remaining 31 states.

In December 2004, the company reached a tentative resolution of
the matter with the plaintiff.  The court approved the
settlement in July 2006.  The company accrued $3.1 million in
2004 as the anticipated cost of settling the litigation.

Ohio-based Chemed Corp. (NYSE: CHE) -- http://www.chemed.com/--  
operates through two wholly owned subsidiaries, VITAS Healthcare
Corp. (VITAS) and Roto-Rooter Group, Inc. (Roto-Rooter), which
also constitute the Company's operating segments.  VITAS focuses
on hospice care for terminally ill patients.  Through its team
of doctors, nurses, home health aides, social workers, clergy
and volunteers, VITAS provides direct medical services to
patients, as well as spiritual and emotional counseling to both
patients and their families.  Roto-Rooter is focused on
providing plumbing and drain cleaning services to both
residential and commercial customers.


CHILE: Seven Banks Face $22.9M Suit Over Mortgage Loan Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Chilean consumer rights group filed a $22.9 million (12
billion-peso) class action was filed against seven local banks
for allegedly charging extra operating costs associated with
mortgage loans, The El Mercurio reports.

The banks named in the suit are:

      -- Santander Santiago (NYSE: SAN),
      -- Banco de Chile (NYSE: BCH),
      -- Corp Banca (NYSE: BCA),
      -- the Chilean unit of Spain's BBVA (NYSE: BBV)
      -- the Chilean unit of Bank of America (NYSE: BAC),
      -- Banco Internacional, and
      -- state-owned BancoEstado.

BancoEstado is still facing another potential $16.5 million
payout as it was sued in 20005 by 3 million of its customers for
allegedly charging extra savings account maintenance fees on top
of value added tax.

The BancoEstado lawsuit was the first class action lawsuit to be
heard by a Chilean court ever.  Class action lawsuits were
legalized in the country under a new consumer rights law in
October 2004.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: 2007 Trial Set in W. Va. Royalty Owners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the litigation, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc., Roane County," which is pending in West
Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, is set for the first
quarter of 2007.

Royalty owners, filed a lawsuit in early 2003 against Columbia
Natural Resources, Inc., alleging that CNR underpaid royalties
by improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a
fair value for the gas produced from their leases.

Plaintiffs seek the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive
damages claiming that CNR fraudulently concealed the deduction
of post-production charges.  

The court has certified the case as a class action that includes
any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due
royalties from CNR, and its predecessors or successors, on lands
lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

All claims by the government of the United States are excluded
from the class.  CNR appealed the decision certifying the class
and the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals denied the
appeal.  

Although NiSource Inc., CNR parent, sold CNR in 2003, NiSource
remains obligated to manage this litigation and also remains at
least partly liable for any damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

In December 2004, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to add
NiSource and Columbia as defendants.  The trial was originally
scheduled for the first quarter of 2006, but was continued
indefinitely, pending review by the West Virginia Supreme Court
on the deductibility of post-production expenses.

On June 15, 2006, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled against
the defendants on this issue.  The trial court has scheduled the
trial of this case for the first quarter of 2007.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
under Judge Thomas Evans III.

Representing the plaintiffs is Marvin Masters of Charleston (181  
Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301, (Kanawha Co.),  
Phone: 304-342-3106, Fax: 304-342-3189.  

Representing the defendants is Timothy Miller, 400 Fifth Third
Center, 700 Virginia Street, East, P.O. Box 1791 Charleston,
West Virginia 25326 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-344-5800, Fax:
304-344-9566.


CORNING INC: Ill. Court Orders Mediation in "Muniz" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
ordered a mediation session to take place for certain parties
including Corning, Inc., in the class action, "Ann Muniz v.
Rexnord Corp."

In August 2005, Corning was named as a fourth party defendant in
the class action, which claims an unspecified amount of damages
and asserting various personal injury and property damage claims
against a number of corporate defendants.  

These claims allegedly arise from the release of solvents from
the operations of several manufacturers at the Ellsworth
Industrial Park into soil and ground water.  

As of June 2006, the district court allowed two cross-claims for
contribution against Corning and two third-party complaints for
contribution against Corning.  

The summary judgment motions of Corning and three companies
asserting contribution claims against Corning are fully briefed
and await a ruling by the court.  

On July 10, 2006, plaintiffs settled with a number of defendants
and third-party defendants for $15.75 million, and the settling
defendants are mediating allocation.  

The court had ordered mediation with a magistrate judge on Oct.
10, 2006 among non-settling parties, including Corning.  The
Muniz case is scheduled for trial in November 2006.

The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp, et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02405," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.

Representing the plaintiffs is Myron Milton Cherry of Myron M.
Cherry & Associates, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2100, E-mail:
mcherry@cherry-law.com.

Representing the company is Brent Ian Clark of Seyfarth Shaw,
LLP, 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60603-
4205, Phone: (312) 346-8000, E-mail: bclark@seyfarth.com.


E. I. DU PONT: Faces PFOA Contamination Lawsuits in W.Va., N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. faces three purported class
actions, alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in excess of 0.05 parts per
billion (ppb) due to alleged releases from certain of its
plants, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

PFOA, also known as C8, is an artificial acid that has many
industrial uses. (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/)

One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court on
behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but
was removed on the company's motion to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia.

The other two purported class actions were filed in New Jersey.
One was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals who
allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.

The second was filed in state court on behalf of customers
serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department
and was removed to New Jersey federal district court on DuPont's
motion.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com-- operates globally,  
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


HCA INC: Settles Tenn. Litigation Over Hercules Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
HCA Inc. and the other named parties have entered into a
memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in
connection with six purported class action lawsuits, previously
consolidated, filed in the Chancery Court for Davidson County,
Tennessee in relation to its merger with a subsidiary of
Hercules Holding II, LLC.

In August, HCA and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in purported class actions filed in Tennessee and
Delaware courts in relation to the merger it entered with
Hercules Holding and its wholly owned subsidiary, Hercules
Acquisition Corp. on July 24, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
21, 2006).

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Hercules Acquisition
will be merged with and into the company, with HCA continuing as
the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hercules Holding, which is owned by a consortium of private
investment funds affiliated with Bain Capital Partners LLC,
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Merrill Lynch Global
Private Equity, collectively known as the Sponsors.

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other
things, that the merger is the product of a flawed process, that
the consideration to be paid to the company's shareholders in
the merger is unfair and inadequate, and breach of fiduciary
duty.  

They further allege that the Sponsors abetted the actions of the
company's officers and directors in breaching their fiduciary
duties to the company's shareholders.  

The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger.

On Aug. 3, 2006, the Chancery Court consolidated these actions
and all later-filed actions as "In re HCA Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 06-1816-III."

Under the terms of the memorandum, HCA, the other named parties
and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit subject to
court approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, Hercules Holding II,
LLC, the entity formed by the private equity sponsor group in
connection with the proposed transaction, has agreed to waive
that portion in excess of $220 million of any termination fee
that it has a right to receive under the merger agreement.  

Also, HCA and the other defendants have agreed not to assert
that a shareholder's demand for appraisal is untimely under
Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware (DGCL) where such shareholder has submitted a written
demand for appraisal within 30 calendar days of the shareholders
meeting held to adopt the merger agreement (with any such
deadline being extended to the following business day should the
30th day fall on a holiday or weekend).

HCA and the other defendants also have agreed not to assert
that:

      -- the surviving corporation in the merger or a
         shareholder who is entitled to appraisal rights may not
         file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State
         of Delaware demanding a determination of the value of
         the shares held by all such shareholders if such
         petition is not filed within 120 days of the effective
         time of the merger so long as such petition is filed
         within 150 days of the effective time;

      -- a shareholder may not withdraw such shareholder's
         demand for appraisal and accept the terms offered by
         the merger if such withdrawal is not made within 60
         days of the effective time of the merger so long as
         such withdrawal is made within 90 days of the effective
         time of the merger; and

      -- that a shareholder may not, upon written request,
         receive from the surviving corporation a statement
         setting forth the aggregate number of shares not voted
         in favor of the merger with respect to which demands
         for appraisal have been received and the aggregate
         number of holders of such shares if such request is not
         made within 120 days of the effective time of the
         merger so long as such request is made within 150 days
         of the effective time.

The memorandum will be null and void and of no force and effect
if the merger is not approved by the affirmative vote of a
majority of the shares of common stock outstanding and entitled
to vote at the meeting, the merger agreement is terminated under
circumstances where the merger has not been previously
consummated or final court approval of the settlement of the
class action lawsuits does not occur for any reason.

In addition, the plaintiffs will have the right to terminate the
memorandum if a majority of the shares voted on the proposal to
adopt the merger agreement (excluding shares held by Dr. Frist
and certain entities affiliated with Dr. Frist) are not voted
"for" such proposal.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, HCA has also agreed to
provide additional information to shareholders through publicly
available filings in order to supplement the proxy statement
that has been provided to HCA's shareholders in connection with
the special meeting of shareholders concerning the proposed
merger to occur on Nov. 16, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., local time, at
HCA's executive offices located at One Park Plaza, Nashville,
Tennessee 37203.

HCA has filed the supplemental disclosure with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and such disclosure may be accessed on
the Investor Relations page of the Company's website:
http://www.hcahealthcare.com.

Nashville, Tennessee-based HCA Inc. (NYSE: HCA) --
http://www.hcahealthcare.com-- is a healthcare services company  
that owns and operates hospitals and related healthcare entities
through its affiliates.

For more information contact (Investors) Mark Kimbrough, HCA,
Inc., Phone: +1-615-344-2688, or (Media) Jeff Prescott, HCA,
Inc., Phone: +1-615-344-5708, Website:
http://www.hcahealthcare.com.


LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Court Dismisses Investors' Suit v. Government
----------------------------------------------------------------
London's High Court dismisses a purported class action filed by
Lloyd's of London investors against the British government for
big financial losses they suffered during the 1980s and 1990s,
The Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges that the Treasury failed to regulate the
insurer properly.  The investors, known as Names, claim they
made heavy losses at Lloyd's because the market's watchdog,
failed to implement key European Union directives (Class Action
Reporter, July 18, 2006).

The E.U. directives include a measure that dictates how much
insurers should hold in reserves when writing certain types of
business.

However, the court, after a preliminary hearing, disagreed with
the claims made and ruled that the insurance directive did not
grant any relevant rights to the investors, and that their
claims were "statute-barred."

In concluding that the suit, which seeks over GBP1 billion in
compensation, should be dismissed, the court pointed out that
there is no grant of rights to Names on whatever basis they seek
to claim it.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Chris Stockwell, if they
succeed in the first legal stage, he anticipates the class to
swell well beyond the billion-pound mark (Class Action Reporter,
July 7, 2006).

However, if they are defeated on these initial procedural
points, the Names will appeal the decision to the U.K. Court of
Appeal.  If they fail there, they will take it to the European
Court of Human Rights.


MAMMA.COM INC: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $3.15M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mamma.com Inc. entered into an agreement to settle a class
action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The settlement, which must be approved by the court, would
resolve all claims asserted against the company and the
individual officer defendants.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, plaintiffs would
receive $3.15 million, $2.5 million of which would be paid by
the company's insurance carrier and $650,000 from the company.

The securities class actions filed against Mamma.com Inc. were
on behalf of purchasers of Mamma.com Inc. publicly traded
securities between March 2, 2004 and Feb. 15, 2005.

The complaints charge Mamma.com and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

The complaints allege that during the class period, defendants
caused Mamma.com's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  

As a result of this inflation, Mamma.com was able to complete a
private offering, raising proceeds of $16.6 million on the sale
of stock and warrants in June 2004.

The settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing by the
company or the officers of the company who are individual
defendants.  

The company has always maintained and continues to believe that
neither the company nor any of the individual officers named
committed any wrongdoing.  

However, given the potential cost and uncertainty of continued
litigation, the company believes that the settlement is in the
company's best interests.

Guy Faure, the Company's President and CEO, stated: "We are
gratified that the litigation is likely to be settled and on
favorable terms.  We can now turn all of our attention and
resources to continuing to build and pursue our business model
and sharpen our focus on achieving profitability and enhancing
shareholder value."

Mamma Media Solutions(TM) is a leading provider of award winning
search technology for both the Web and desktop space, delivered
through http://www.mamma.comand http://www.copernic.com
respectively.  The company is also a top provider of online
marketing solutions to advertisers, providing keyword and
graphic ad placement on its large publisher network.

The first identified complaint is "Kevin Montoya, et al. v.
Mamma.com Inc., et al."  The law firm for the plaintiffs is
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA,
19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


MARTHA STEWART: Settles N.Y. Securities Litigation for $30M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. agreed to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company
and certain of its officers and directors, the AP WorldStream
reports.

According to a regulatory filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the total settlement is expected to cost
$30 million, about $15 million of which the company expects to
pay. Its insurers will shoulder about $10 million and Ms.
Stewart the rest.

Accordingly, the company has recorded a litigation reserve of
approximately $18.2 million against third quarter 2006 earnings.
This one-time charge includes incurred and anticipated legal
fees, is net of insurance reimbursement, and does not include
that portion of the anticipated settlement expected to be paid
by Ms. Stewart.  The company expects that the final settlement
amount will be paid either in cash or in a mix of cash and
company stock.

On Feb. 3, 2003, the company was named as a defendant in a
consolidated and amended class action complaint filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of persons who
purchased common stock in the company between Jan. 8, 2002 and
Oct. 2, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2006).

The consolidated suit is captioned, "In re Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)."
Besides the company, it also names Martha Stewart and seven of
its other present or former officers, Gregory R. Blatt, Sharon
L. Patrick, and five other company officers, as defendants.  

All such individuals other than Martha Stewart are collectively
referred to herein as the individual defendants.  The action
consolidated seven class actions previously filed in the
Southern District of New York.  

The claims in the consolidated class action complaint arose out
of Ms. Stewart's sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock
on Dec. 27, 2001.  The plaintiffs assert violations of Sections
10(b) (and rules promulgated thereunder), 20(a) and 20A of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the company, Ms. Stewart and the
individual defendants omitted material information and made
statements about Ms. Stewart's sale that were materially false
and misleading.   

They also allege that, as a result of these false and misleading
statements, the market price of the company's stock was inflated
during the putative class periods and dropped after the alleged
falsity of the statements became public.  

Plaintiffs further alleged that the individual defendants traded
MSO stock while in possession of material non-public
information, but as explained below, all such allegations have
been dismissed.

The consolidated class action complaint seeks certification as a
class action, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further
relief as determined by the court.

By stipulation of the parties, and an order of the court entered
Nov. 10, 2003, all claims asserted in the consolidated class
action complaint pursuant to Section 20A (Insider Trading) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act against the individual
defendants, and all remaining claims against the individual
defendants, other than Mr. Blatt and Ms. Patrick, were dismissed
without prejudice.

On May 19, 2003, the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint was denied.  The matter
remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.

Negotiations on the settlement are continuing and it's subject
to court approval.

The suit is "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge John E. Sprizzo.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Craig Finkel of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600, E-
         mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com;

     (2) Salvatore Jo Graziano of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
         Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,  
         NY 10119, Phone: 212-554-1538, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
         mail: SGraziano@blbglaw.com; and

     (3) Mark David Smilow of Weiss & Yourman, 551 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025,  
         Fax: (212) 682-3010, E-mail: msmilow@weisslurie.com.

Representing the defendants are Gregory Arthur Markel and Martin
L. Seidel of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP, (NYC), One
World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone: (212) 504-
6112 and 212-504-5643, Fax: (212) 504-6666 and 212-504-6387, E-
mail: greg.markel@cwt.com and martin.seidel@cwt.com.


MILLS CORP: Iowa, Miss. Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Massachusetts lost its bid to become lead plaintiff
in the securities fraud class action filed against The Mills
Corp., The Boston Globe reports.  Iowa and Mississippi are now
the co-lead plaintiffs, the report said.

The motion seeking become lead plaintiff was filed on March 21
in Federal Court in Virginia by Attorney General Tom Reilly and
Treasurer Timothy Cahill (Class Action Reporter, March 23,
2006).  

Massachusetts is seeking the return of more than $5 million in
dollars in lost state pension funds that were invested in Mills
Corp. stocks.

Mills Corp. announced on Feb. 16 it was restating its financial
results for the past three years to correct accounting errors
and overstatement of its operations funds.  

The announcement sparked a flurry of lawsuits in January
alleging that the company defrauded investors by issuing false
statements about its financial condition and the status of pre-
development projects from Aug. 14, 2003, to Jan. 1, 2006.

The Mills Corp. -- http://www.millscorp.com-- is a real estate  
investment trust that develops and manages shopping centers
across the country.

One of the suits is "Peili Ling, et al. v. The Mills Corp. et
al., Case No. 06-CV-00076," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge Claude M. Hilton.


NETWORK APPLIANCE: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated 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 Network Appliance, 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 on the suit, 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.


NORBOURG GROUP: Regulator Named in Suit by Canadian Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers mounting a class action by investors against failed
investment company Norbourg Group filed their initial petition
in court on Oct. 31.

The suit names Canadian financial regulator Autorite des marches
financiers as co-defendant, reports say.

The financial regulator is accused of not acting early enough to
protect investors.  It discovered a $130 million dollar
discrepancy in the company's results only last summer.

The securities regulator has filed 51 security act charges of
fraud, manipulation of mutual fund values and falsified
documents against Vincent Lacroix, Norbourg's former chief
executive.  One of the lawyers representing the investors is
Serge Letourneau.

For more details, contact Serge Letourneau of Lavery De Billy,
Bureau 500, 925 Chemin, St. Louis, Quebec, PQ, Canada, Phone:
(418) 688-5000, Fax: (418) 688-3458.


NORTH COAST: Faces Suit in W.Va. Over Non-Payment of Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Coast Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of EXCO Resources, Inc.,
faces a putative class action over the payment of royalties in
the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, according to
EXCO Resources' Nov. 2 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "PRC Holdings, LLC, et al. v. North Coast Energy,
Inc., Civil Action No. 06-C-80E," was filed on Oct. 11, 2006.  
Certain landowners and lessors in West Virginia brought it for
themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated landowners
and lessors in West Virginia.

Specifically, the suit alleges that North Coast has not been
paying royalties to the plaintiffs in the manner required under
the applicable leases, has provided misleading documentation to
the plaintiffs regarding the royalties due, and has breached
various other contractual, statutory and fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs with regard to the payment of royalties.

In the case, "The Estate of Garrison Tawney v. Columbia Natural
Resources, LLC," announced in June 2006, the West Virginia
Supreme Court held that language such as "at the wellhead" and
similar language contained in leases when used in describing how
to calculate royalties due lessors was ambiguous and, therefore,
should be construed strictly against the lessee.

Accordingly, in the absence of express language in a lease that
is intended allocate between a lessor and lessee post-production
costs such as the costs of marketing the product and
transporting it to the point of sale, no post-production costs
may be deducted from the lessor's royalty payment due from the
lessee.

The claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed
against the company are similar to the claims alleged in the
Tawney case.

Plaintiffs are seeking common law and statutory compensatory and
punitive damages, interest and costs and other remedies.  

Dallas, Texas-based EXCO Resources, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXCO) --
http://www.excoresources.com/-- is a public oil and natural gas  
acquisition, exploitation, development, and production company
with principal operations in Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.


PEGASUS COMMS: Nov. Final Hearing Set for $2.95M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold on Nov. 21, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. a fairness hearing on
the proposed $2.95 million settlement of the class action,
"Madden v. Pagon, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05868-AB."

The class consists of all persons and entities that have
purchased any common or preferred stock of Pegasus
Communications Corp. or any of its subsidiaries from Nov. 8,
2000 through June 2, 2004.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in the courtroom of the Honorable
Anita B. Brody

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is October 12,
2006.  Deadline to file claims is December 13, 2006.

Terms under the proposed settlement:

     -- $2,950,000 in cash plus accrued interest will be paid to
        the plaintiffs;

     -- plaintiffs' counsel will be awarded attorney's fees and
        reimbursement of expenses; and

     -- the lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice.

On Nov. 8, 2005, Pegasus Communications Corp. the company's
chief executive officer, and two former chief financial
officers, were named defendant in a putative securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The class action plaintiff's claims are based on the allegation
that certain public statements made by Pegasus Communications
during the period from November 2000 to March 2004 were false
and misleading for substantially the same reasons set forth by
AIG Global Investments Corp. plaintiffs.  

The suit is "Madden v. Pagon, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05868-
AB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania under Judge Anita B. Brody.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq., LLC, P.O.  
         BOX 30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235,  
         E-mail: jacobagoldberg@comcast.net; and

     (2) Laurence Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 350 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, US, Phone: 212-
         686-1060.

Representing the defendants are Robert L. Hickok and Christopher  
J. Huber of Pepper Hamilton, LLP, 3000 Two Logan Sq., 18th &  
Arch Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: 215-981-4583 and  
215-981-4446, E-mail: hickokr@pepperlaw.com and
huberc@pepperlaw.com.


PRIMUS FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement for "Borlay" Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Primus Financial Services, Inc., a brand of Ford Motor Credit
Co., settled the class action, "Borlay v. PRIMUS," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for Middle District of
Tennessee, The Paddock Talk reports.

Originally filed as "Claybrook v. PRIMUS," the case is one of
several filed against major automotive lenders and the only one
to be tried.  It was settled before the court entered a
decision.

The suit, filed on April 16, 2002, challenges a longstanding
industry practice in which the annual percentage rate (APR)
dealers negotiate with customers may be higher than the buy rate
on the contract.

The buy rate is the rate at which the bank, credit union or
other source will purchase a contract from a dealer.  The
difference between the APR and the buy rate is the dealer's
revenue on the financing transaction.

PRIMUS and the other Ford Motor Credit Co. brands extend credit
to customers indirectly, by purchasing retail installments sales
contracts entered into by consumers and dealers.  

Their credit approval and pricing decisions are based on
objective criteria -- such as credit history, debt-to-income
ratio and statistical analysis of the customer's ability to make
payments -- that are applied equally to all applications.

Under the settlement, which is subject to the court's approval,
the company agrees to preserve existing rate caps. In essence
PRIMUS will be required to continue to limit the difference
between the buy rate and the APR on contracts it purchases from
dealers.  These limits are the same on all other Ford Motor
Credit brands.  

The current limits, which will be maintained under the terms of
the settlement, are 2.5 percent on contracts with terms up to 60
months and 2 percent on contracts with terms of 61 to 72 months.
There will be a new 1.5 percent limit on any contracts with
terms of 73 months or longer.  The company's standard contracts
are for 72 months or less.

In addition to the above-mentioned stipulations, the company
will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys $1.9 million in fees and up
to $550,000 in court-approved expenses.

The company will also pay the three named plaintiffs a total of
$40,000, with individual payments ranging from $10,000 to
$20,000.

The suit is "Claybrook, et al v. Primus Auto Financ, et al.,
Case No. 3:02-cv-00382," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart Rossman of The National Consumer Law Center, 77
         Summer Street FL 10, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: (617)
         542-8010; and

     (2) John A. Barney of Shelley I. Stiles & Associates, 5214
         Maryland Way, Suite 402, Brentwood, TN 37027, Phone:
         (615) 371-8969, E-mail: jbarney@brentwoodlaw.com.


TOYOTA MOTORS: Recalls Scion TC Over Possible Injury Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motors, in cooperation with the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 29,542 2005
and 2006 model year Scion TC Toyotas because the side and
curtain airbags may deploy if the car door is closed with too
much force, ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

NHTSA warns that the airbags "could cause personal injury if an
occupant is seated on the same side of the vehicle as that door
that is closed with a high rate of force."

The airbags are so sensitive that NHTSA is advising Scion TC
owners to use "minimal force to close the driver and passenger
doors."

The danger of airbags inadvertently deploying can occur when the
door is slammed shut with the ignition in the on position or
"within 90 seconds of turning the ignition key from the on
position to the off position."

Toyota dealers will replace the two side airbag sensors and
install a urethane pad in the front doors free of charge.

Scion TC owners can call Toyota at 1-866-548-1851.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Settles Neb. Securities Lawsuit for $24.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The court-appointed lead counsel for lead plaintiff, Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System, in a securities class
action against Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. signed a
Stipulation of Settlement, on behalf of its client to settle the
suit for $24.5 million in cash.  

The proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval,
will resolve claims brought by Genesee County, as lead
plaintiff, on behalf of a class of persons and entities that
purchased the common stock of Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc. between Jan. 21, 1999 and Nov.19, 2002.

In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed against
the company and certain individuals alleging violations of  
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

Pursuant to a court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as lead plaintiff.  The court appointed Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as lead counsel.

On March 22, 2005, the court issued an order certifying the
class.

In the litigation, Genesee County generally alleged that TSA and
certain of its former executives, during the class period,
prematurely recognized millions of dollars of revenue from
certain software licensing arrangements and issued annual and
quarterly financial statements that did not conform with
generally accepted accounting principles, in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The parties expect to file the Settlement Agreement and exhibits
with the court and seek preliminary approval of the settlement
shortly.  

The Genesee County Employees' Retirement System is a multiple-
employer public pension plan that provides retirement and
survivor benefits for general and police, roads, mental health,
sanitation, library and other employees of Genesee County and
its various offices, boards, and department, and employees,
embracing the City of Flint and environs.  

The Retirement System is overseen by an elected and appointed
nine-member Board of Retirement Commissioners, and presently
holds more than $473 million in assets on behalf of
approximately 2,800 beneficiaries.

The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems  
Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," filed in
the U.S. District Court in Nebraska under Judge Joseph F.  
Bataillon.   

Representing the lead plaintiff is Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
-- http://www.labaton.com.


ULTICOM INC: Faces Lawsuit 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 Ulticom, 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 on the suit, 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.


VANDERBILT MORTGAGE: S.C. Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Insurance  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents in Horry County, South Carolina filed two class
actions against Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance Inc. over the
way it collects monthly payments and sells homeowners insurance,
the Myrtle Beach Sun News reports.

The first suit accuses the company of making harassing telephone
calls to collect monthly payments that were not late.  

The second lawsuit, brought by six Horry County residents and
people from Florence and Summerville, claims the company forces
customers to buy expensive homeowners even if they already had
homeowners insurance through different companies.  In essence,
it claims that Vanderbilt Mortgage is forcing the insurance on
them because it receives commission on sales.

Failure to pay or refusal by the customer meant an extra late
fee to their mortgage payments.  The company continued to bill
them for the unnecessary insurance or threatened to foreclose on
their homes, the suit states.

The homeowners who filed the lawsuit are:

      -- Douglas and Kelly Leung of Myrtle Beach;
      -- April Moore of Myrtle Beach;
      -- Robert Darbee of Conway;
      -- Ernestine Jaeger of Conway;
      -- Kathleen Aponte of Conway;
      -- Shawn and Lisa Firestine of Florence; and
      -- Claria and Chastity Gethers of Summerville.

They are also suing American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida,
which provided the insurance coverage through Vanderbilt
Mortgage, which has asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.

Vanderbilt Mortgage is affiliated with Clayton Homes.  It has
290,000 customers nationwide.

Represents Vanderbilt Mortgage and Clayton Homes is B. Rush
Smith, III, partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP,
Meridian, 17th Floor, 1320 Main Street (29201), P.O. Box 11070,
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1070 (Lexington & Richland Cos.),
Phone: 803-255-9492, Fax: 803-255-9026.

Representing two Horry County homeowners in one of the lawsuits
is David Breen, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (Horry Co.).


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
VITAS Healthcare Corp., a subsidiary of Chemed Corp., is party
to a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, in September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith
Knoche and Joyce White.

The case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide
meal and rest periods to a purported class of California
admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives.  It
seeks payment of penalties, interest and plaintiffs' attorney
fees.  

The company contests these allegations, according to the Chemed
Corp.'s Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Ohio-based Chemed Corp. (NYSE: CHE) -- http://www.chemed.com/--  
operates through two wholly owned subsidiaries, VITAS Healthcare
Corp. (VITAS) and Roto-Rooter Group, Inc. (Roto-Rooter), which
also constitute the Company's operating segments.  VITAS focuses
on hospice care for terminally ill patients.  Through its team
of doctors, nurses, home health aides, social workers, clergy
and volunteers, VITAS provides direct medical services to
patients, as well as spiritual and emotional counseling to both
patients and their families.  Roto-Rooter is focused on
providing plumbing and drain cleaning services to both
residential and commercial customers.


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Calif. Nurses' Overtime Suit for $19M
---------------------------------------------------------------
VITAS Healthcare Corp., a subsidiary of Chemed Corp., settled a
class action alleging failure to pay overtime wages and to
provide meal and break periods to California nurses, home health
aides and licensed clinical social workers.  

Ann Marie Costa, Ana Jimenez, Mariea Ruteaya and Gracetta Wilson
filed the suit against the company in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and Vitas opposed this
motion.  The company later reached an agreement, subject to
court approval, with the plaintiff class to resolve this matter
for $19 million, inclusive of plaintiffs' class attorneys' fees
and the costs of settlement administration, according to the
Chemed Corp.'s Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.  

Ohio-based Chemed Corp. (NYSE: CHE) -- http://www.chemed.com/--  
operates through two wholly owned subsidiaries, VITAS Healthcare
Corp. (VITAS) and Roto-Rooter Group, Inc. (Roto-Rooter), which
also constitute the Company's operating segments.  VITAS focuses
on hospice care for terminally ill patients.  Through its team
of doctors, nurses, home health aides, social workers, clergy
and volunteers, VITAS provides direct medical services to
patients, as well as spiritual and emotional counseling to both
patients and their families.  Roto-Rooter is focused on
providing plumbing and drain cleaning services to both
residential and commercial customers.


WILLIAMS COS: Feb. 9 Trial Set for the Okla. Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 9, 2007 fairness hearing was slated for the settlement of
a class action filed by securities holders of WilTel
Communications, previously an owned subsidiary of Williams
Companies, Inc., known as Williams Communications.

On and after Jan. 29, 2002, multiple securities fraud class
actions were filed against the company and co-defendants, WilTel
Communications, and certain corporate officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The
defendants were accused of acting jointly and separately to
inflate the stock price of both companies.

Other suits allege similar causes of action related to a public
offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE PACS
offering.  

These cases were also filed in 2002 against the company, certain
corporate officers, all members of its board of directors and
all of the offerings' underwriters.  WilTel is no longer a
defendant as a result of its bankruptcy.

These cases were all consolidated and an order was issued
requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the
company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders.  The
underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and
defense from these cases.

The company said that if it grants the requested
indemnifications to the underwriters, any related settlement
costs would not be covered by its insurance policies.  The
company is currently covering the cost of defending the
underwriters.  

In 2002, the amended complaints of the WilTel securities holders
and of the company's securities holders added numerous claims
related to the company's Power segment.  The parties went
through discovery, and an Aug. 16, 2006 trial date was set.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement-in-principle to settle the claims of its securities
holders for a total payment of $290 million.  

On Oct.4, 2006, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and the settlement amount will be paid into escrow
pending final approval.

Of the total settlement amount, the company expects to pay
approximately $145 million in cash to fund the settlement, and
expect the balance to be funded by our insurers.  

The exact amount of the company's payment is subject to final
determination and timing of certain insurer coverage
allocations.  

The court has set a hearing on the fairness of the settlement on
Feb. 9, 2007.   The company has entered into indemnity
agreements with certain of our insurers to ensure their timely
payment related to this settlement.  

The carrying value of the company's estimated liability related
to these agreements is immaterial, as it believes the likelihood
of any future performance is remote.  

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the company has recorded pre-tax charges
of approximately $165 million for this settlement and related
legal costs, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re: Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-
CV-72-H," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot with referral
to Judge Frank H. McCarthy.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) R. Robyn Assaf of Kirby McInerney & Squire, (OKC), 4312
         N. Classen, Oklahoma City, OK 73118, Phone: 405-525-
         0777, Fax: 557-0777;

     (2) Brian Barry of Brian Barry Law Office, 1801 Ave. Of The    
         Stars, Ste. 307, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-
         0831, Fax: 310-788-0841, E-mail: BriBarry1@yahoo.com;

     (3) Laurie Bernice Ashton of Keller Rohrback, LLP, 3101 N
         Central Ave., Ste. 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone:
         602-248-0088, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail:
         lashton@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (4) Wayne T. Boulton of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 1 Corporate
         Ctr., Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103-3202, Phone: 860-
         493-6292, Fax: 493-6290.


WILLIAMS COS: Seeks Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suits in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., along with other defendants, seek
to dismiss several class action petitions claiming compensation
for damages caused by hurricanes that struck Louisiana in 2005.  

The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana in September and October 2005.  Plaintiffs
are purporting to represent all persons, businesses and entities
in the State of Louisiana who have suffered damage as a result
of the winds and storm surge from the hurricanes.  

They allege that the operating activities of the two sub-classes
of defendants, which are all oil and gas pipelines that dredged
pipeline canals or installed pipelines in the marshes of south
Louisiana, including Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
(Transco), and all oil and gas exploration and production
companies which drilled for oil and gas or dredged canals in the
marshes of south Louisiana, have altered marshland ecology and
caused marshland destruction which otherwise would have averted
all or almost all of the destruction and loss of life caused by
the hurricanes.

Plaintiffs request that the court allow the lawsuits to proceed
as class actions and seek legal and equitable relief in an
unspecified amount.  

On Apr. 17, 2006, all defendants, including the company, filed
their joint motion to dismiss the class action petitions on
various grounds.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the court granted our and the other
defendants' joint motion to dismiss the class action petitions
on various grounds.

In August 2006, an additional class action case containing
substantially identical allegations was filed against the same
defendants, including Transco.

On Oct. 20, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
latest case on the same basis as the motion filed in the earlier
cases, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based The Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB) -
- http://www.williams.com/-- is a natural gas company that  
primarily finds, produces, gathers, processes and transports
natural gas.


WMH TOOL: Recalls Wilton Mitre Saws Over Laceration Hazards
-----------------------------------------------------------
WMH Tool Group Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is recalling about 38,000
Wilton Mitre Saws because of safety hazard, the
ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The company said the aluminum cast pivot joint that connects the
base of the saw to the head assembly, which contains the saw
blade, can crack under extreme pressure or force, causing the
blade assembly to unexpectedly break free from the stationary
base.  This poses a laceration hazard to consumers.

WMH is aware of four reports of cracked pivot housings, one of
which resulted in the separation of the saw blade from the base.
No injuries have been reported relating to this hazard.

The recall involves all Wilton-brand, 10-inch Compound Mitre
Saws, including models with the Laser Line feature with model
numbers 99164 and 99192.  The model number is written on a black
label on the motor housing.

The saws were sold at home and hardware stores nationwide from
January 2002 through October 2006 for between $100 and $140.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these saws and
return them to the store where purchased for a full refund.  No
repair is available.

For additional information, contact WMH Customer Service toll-
free at (877) 328-7200 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET any day of
the week, or go to the firm's Web site:
http://www.wmhtoolgroup.com.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Orthopedic Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., faces at least six class actions by
purchasers of artificial hips and knees claiming the company
participated in a price-fixing conspiracy, according to
Bloomberg.

Buyers of the orthopedic implants, the company said in a
regulatory filing, filed the lawsuits in July against the
Warsaw-based company and several competitors in the $7-billion-
a-year industry.

In June, the company, Stryker Corp., Johnson & Johnson, Biomet,
Inc., and Smith & Nephew Plc said they received subpoenas from
the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust division related to a
price-fixing investigation.  The lawsuits were filed within
weeks against the firms.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $3M Cleanup Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners LP, as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$3
million in current liabilities for remediation, compared with
US$4 million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

The liabilities were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, materials with asbestos, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, and outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquid and natural gas
assets.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$3.3 million in
current liabilities for remediation. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 4, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$4.2 million in
long-term liabilities, compared with US$4.8 million as of Dec.
31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$4.9 million in
long-term liabilities, compared with US$4.8 million as of Dec.
31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Enbridge Energy Partners LP,
which was formerly known as Lakehead Pipe Line Partners, owns
the 1,900-mile US portion of the world's longest liquid
petroleum pipeline. Enbridge Energy Management LLC owns an 18
percent stake in the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Faces 1,000 Claims in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Co. is facing about 1,000 pending asbestos-
related claims, which the Company intends to defend or to settle
on acceptable terms.

The Company had about 1,500 pending asbestos claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

The Company co-defends in lawsuits in various state courts in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to asbestos exposure at
the Company's manufacturing sites. These cases have historically
been dismissed or settled.

In some recently filed cases, plaintiffs alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing products made by the Company. Based on its
investigation to date, the Company has information that it made
limited amounts of an asbestos-containing plastic product
between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s.

The Company's investigation has found no evidence that any of
the plaintiffs worked with or around any product alleged to have
been made by the Company.

The Company has an agreement with an insurer that issued primary
general liability insurance to certain Company predecessors
before the mid-1970s, under which that insurer will provide
coverage for a portion of certain of the Company's defense costs
and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with
asbestos suits.

Based in Kingsport, Tenn., Eastman Chemical Co. has developed
into a producer of chemicals, fibers, and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Records $304M Liability in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corp.'s asbestos-related liability, for the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2006, was US$304 million, compared with
US$315 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-
related liability was US$306 million, compared with US$318
million for the six months ended June 30, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 18, 2006)

The Company's current asbestos-related liability, for the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2006, was US$16 million, compared with
US$17 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company paid US$7
million for asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$9
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

The Company faces suits in which current and former employees
allege exposure to asbestos. Moreover, the Company has received
claims for asbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

In most cases, the claimants do not have credible medical
evidence of physical impairment resulting from the alleged
exposures. Moreover, most claims filed against the Company do
not specify an amount of alleged damages.

At Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, about 16 percent of the
recorded liability was related to asserted claims, and about 84
percent was related to unasserted claims.

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Receives 4,000 New Claims in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company
Inc., during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, received
about 4,000 new asbestos-related claims.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, Crown Cork settled
or dismissed about 3,000 claims for a total of US$9 million and
had about 80,000 claims outstanding at the end of the period.

During the six months ended June 30, 2006, Crown Cork received
about 3,000 new asbestos-related claims. For the period, Crown
Cork settled or dismissed about 3,000 claims for a total of US$4
million and had about 79,000 claims outstanding at the end of
the period. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims was US$199 million. The Company
estimates that its probable and estimable liability for pending
and future asbestos-related claims would range between US$199
million and US$257 million.

The accrual balance of US$199 million included US$124 million
for unasserted claims and US$5 million for committed settlements
that would be paid over time.

Crown Cork faces lawsuits filed throughout the United States by
persons alleging bodily injury as a result of asbestos exposure.
These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S.
company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork bought in 1963.  
  
Before 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976. The fund was
depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for
asbestos-related costs.
  
Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pa., Crown Holdings Inc.,
formerly Crown Cork & Seal Co., produces consumer packaging like
aerosol cans, food and beverage cans, paint cans, plastic
bottles and other containers, and a variety of metal caps,
crowns, and closures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Automotive Units Continue to Face Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Corp. subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-
related claims, which seek damages for illnesses alleged to have
resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components
sold by the subsidiaries.

The Company said it believes that most of the claimants were
assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers.

Most of these claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers
and suppliers of asbestos-containing products.

The Company said that, to the extent any of the products sold by
the Company's units and at issue in these cases contained
asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated.

Based upon years of experience with those claims, the Company
said it believes that a small proportion of the claimants has or
will ever develop any asbestos-related impairment.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 640 Pending Cases in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corp.'s U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA
Holdings Inc., face about 640 asbestos-related cases, as of
Sept. 30, 2006, 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.

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, 13 new cases were
filed against the Company and 24 cases were resolved.

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

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc. faced about 650 asbestos-
related cases. In the three months ended June 30, 2006, 18 new
cases were filed against the Company and 26 cases were resolved.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

Headquartered in Dallas, Tex., Celanese Corp. operates as global
hybrid chemical firm. The Company processes chemical raw
materials, such as ethylene and propylene, and natural products,
including natural gas and wood pulp, into value-added chemicals
and chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.17M for Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc., in the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006, reserved US$37,179,000, gross of reinsurance, for asbestos
liability, compared with US$56,838,000, gross of reinsurance,
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company reserved
US$21,387,000, net of reinsurance, for asbestos liability,
compared with US$30,372,000, net of reinsurance, for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2005.

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

The reserves the Company has established for asbestos exposures
at Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005 are for:

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

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

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

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

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

At Sept. 30, 2006, ceded asbestos paid and unpaid losses
recoverable were US$25.7 million of which US$14.2 million was
due from Equitas Ltd. The Company expects that it will pay about
70 percent of the gross asbestos reserves over the next two
years.

Cash flow from operations was US$92.7 million for the nine
months of 2006, compared with US$168 million for the comparable
period in 2005. The 2006 cash flow was reduced by gross loss
payments US$19.9 million for settled asbestos claims of which
US$10.7 million are expected to be collected from reinsurers in
subsequent accounting periods.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed From Most Miss. Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co. Inc., as of Nov. 1, 2006, has been dismissed from
most of the asbestos cases, which were filed in Mississippi,
against the Company, 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in asbestos cases in
Mississippi and six asbestos cases in Illinois.

As of Nov. 1, 2006, the Company has been dismissed from four of
the Illinois cases.

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's exposure to asbestos involved products the Company
purchased from third parties.

Headquartered in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co. Inc. designs and makes
high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and
industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components,
landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products
generate almost 90 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Knoth Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky reversed and remanded a ruling
of the McCracken Circuit Court in an asbestos-related Federal
Employer's Liability Act lawsuit filed by Toby Wood Knoth
against Illinois Central Railroad Co.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Robert W. Dyche III, Laurance B.
VanMeter, and David C. Buckingham, handed down the decision of
Case No. 2005-CA-001882-MR on June 2, 2006.

From 1965 to 1982, Mr. Knoth worked as a trackman for Illinois
Central. In 1989, he made a claim against Illinois Central for
work-related hearing loss.  

Mr. Knoth received US$10,000 as settlement and signed a general
release that purported to free Illinois Central from liability
for all known and unknown injuries as a result of exposure to a
laundry list of harmful substances including asbestos.

Mr. Knoth was diagnosed with asbestos-related disease after
screening in July 2002. On Sept. 13, 2002, he filed a complaint
under FELA in the Circuit Court.  

In his complaint, Mr. Knoth alleged that he contracted the
disease as a result of exposure to asbestos products during the
course of his employment. The Circuit Court granted summary
judgment to Illinois Central. Mr. Knoth appealed.

The primary issue in this case is whether the general release
Mr. Knoth signed is valid. He had no known claim for asbestos-
related lung disease until it was diagnosed in 2002. Thus, the
Appeals Court ruled that summary judgment was inappropriate.

The Appeals Court did not address Illinois Central's argument
regarding the tender back of consideration for the original
settlement because this was not properly preserved for review.

In conclusion, the Appeals Court reversed and remanded the
Circuit Court's judgment.

Kenneth L. Sales, Joseph D. Satterley, Paul J. Kelley, and D.
Matthew Kannady of Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley
of Louisville, Ky. represented Toby Wood Knoth.

L. Miller Grumley Bradley & Freed Paducah, Kentucky Thomas R.
Peters Mark R. Kurz Gundlach, Lee, Eggmann, Boyle & Roessler LLC
Belleville, Ill. represented Illinois Central Railroad Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Reports $4.3M Loss in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc., for the 2006-3rd quarter, reported a net
loss of US$4.3 million, or US$0.20 a share, which was reduced by
asbestos-related expenses of US$0.47 a share, according to a
Company press release dated Oct. 31, 2006 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the 2005-3rd quarter, the Company reported a net income of
US$10 million, or US$0.47 a share, which was reduced by
asbestos-related expenses of US$0.19 a share.

Before asbestos-related expenses and other significant items,
income in the 2006-3rd quarter was US$0.64 a share, a 10 percent
increase over 2005.

For the first nine months of 2006, the Company reported net
income of US$14.7 million, or US$0.68 a share. These results
compared with net income of US$41.1 million, or US$1.93 a share,
in the first nine months of 2005. Net income in the first nine
months of 2006 was reduced by asbestos-related expenses of
US$1.57 a share, compared with US$0.39 a share in 2005.

In the first nine months of 2006, net cash outflows for asbestos
claims and expenses after insurance recoveries increased to
US$35.7 million, compared with US$30 million in the first nine
months of 2005.

Ernie Schaub, president and CEO, said, "Higher asbestos-related
expenses led to a significant decline in earnings in the third
quarter. Asbestos-related expenses reflect fees and expenses
incurred during the quarter and an increase in the estimate of
Garlock's future asbestos liability. Previously, we would have
allocated much of these expenses to insurance, but because our
insurance is fully allocated, they now result in charges to
earnings."

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C. EnPro Industries Inc. makes
engines, engineered products, and sealing systems. The Company
also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, and natural gas
engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Inc. Spends $28.7M in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s asbestos-related expenses, for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, were US$28.7 million, compared
with US$6.5 million for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2005,
according to a Company press release, dated Oct. 31, 2006, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's
asbestos-related expenses were US$54.3 million, compared with
US$13.3 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

New asbestos claims filed against Company subsidiaries in the
first nine months of 2006 declined by 45 percent from the first
nine months of 2005.

At the end of the 2006-3rd quarter, the Company had US$490.3
million of solvent insurance available for the payment of
asbestos claims and expenses against its subsidiaries.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current asbestos liability
was US$61.7 million, compared with US$81.6 million as of Dec.
31, 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos liability
was US$225.7 million, compared with US$189.7 million as of Dec.
31, 2005.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable, as of Sept.
30, 2006, was US$99.7 million, compared with US$104.7 million as
of Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable, as of
Sept. 30, 2006, was US$390.6 million, compared with US$388.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's payments
for asbestos-related claims, net of insurance claims, was
US$35.7 million, compared with US$30 million for the same period
in 2005.

The Company's asbestos receivables, net of liabilities, for the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, was US$18.6 million, compared
with US$16.7 million for the same period in 2005. These
receivables are under adjustments to reconcile net income to net
cash provided by operating activities.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries Inc. makes
engines, engineered products, and sealing systems. The Company
also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, and natural gas
engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries' Claims Stay at 116T in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, is
facing 116,000 asbestos-related claims, 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.


For over 30 years, the Company defended in lawsuits involving
personal injury claims from asbestos exposure. Those suits
against the Company have been stayed since April 16, 2000.

Most of PPG's potential exposure related to allegations by
plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products made and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp. The Company and Corning
Inc. are each 50 percent shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

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

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

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

On Oct. 30, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting
the motion to lift the stay as to the about 125 claims in
settlement negotiations. Other premises claims that have not
been resolved remain subject to the stay.

For 2006, accretion expense associated with the asbestos
liability will be about US$6 million for the 2006-4th quarter.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., PPG Industries Inc. makes
coatings and sealants. The Company also makes glass and
chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110 manufacturing facilities in
more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates more than 350
paint retail centers in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Gets $166M Receivables in 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co., for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006,
collected US$166 million asbestos- and silica-related
receivables, compared with US$1.030 billion for the same period
in 2005.

The Company, under the terms of settlement agreements, expects
to receive an additional US$262 million through 2010, of which
US$1 million the Company expects to receive from Oct. 1, 2006
through Dec. 31, 2006. The Company also expects to receive US$68
million in 2007, US$46 million in 2008, US$131 million in 2009,
and US$16 million in 2010.

Several Company subsidiaries, particularly DII Industries and
Kellogg Brown & Root, defend in asbestos- and silica-related
lawsuits.

Effective Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and
future claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of DII
Industries, Kellogg Brown & Root, and the Company's other
affected subsidiaries, which were filed on Dec. 16, 2003, when
the Company's plan of reorganization became final and non-
appealable.

In 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with most the
insurance firms for asbestos- and silica-related claims and all
other claims under the applicable insurance policies and
terminated all the applicable insurance policies.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Halliburton Co.'s Kellogg Brown
& Root division provides construction, logistics, maintenance,
engineering, project management, security, and dockyard
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco Increases Reserves by $25M in 3Q2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeco Corp., in the first nine months of 2006, recorded a US$25
million increase in asbestos reserves, 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 first nine months of 2006, the Company reduced its
estimates for prior years' loss and loss adjustment expense
reserves by US$99.2 million.

A primary component of the decrease was the US$25 million
increase in asbestos reserves related to large loss activity.

Headquartered in Seattle, Wash., Safeco Corp. and the Safeco
Insurance Companies, which include Safeco Insurance Co. of
America and First National Insurance Co. of America, offer
property-casualty insurance including auto, homeowners, fire,
multi-peril, and workers' compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records 113,707 Claims in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp., for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006,
recorded 113,707 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed
against it, compared with 179,203 claims for the same period in
2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded 121,128 pending asbestos-
related claims against it, compared with 198,470 claims at June
30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

In the past three decades, the Company faced asbestos-related
lawsuits filed mainly in state courts. These suits alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products
and seek actual and punitive damages.

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

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

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
12,388 claims filed and 45,006 claims settled, dismissed, or
otherwise resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted
39,432 claimants against the Company and Amchem. For the same
period, the Company noted 74,275 individual claimants.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded
27,715 claims filed and 51,928 claims settled, dismissed, or
otherwise resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company noted
61,524 claimants with claims against the Company and Amchem. For
the same period, the Company noted 117,679 individual claimants.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Union Carbide Corp., a
subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
commonly used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Settles N.Y. Suit v. Carriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp., through the 2006-3rd quarter, reached
settlements with several insurance carriers in an asbestos-
related comprehensive insurance coverage case pending in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

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

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

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

The insurance carriers are contesting this litigation.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Union Carbide Corp., a
subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
commonly used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $136M in Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation, at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$136
million current asbestos-related liabilities, compared with
US$121 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company had US$87 million in current
asbestos-related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11,
2006)

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.273 billion, compared with US$1.384
billion at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was US$1.4 billion. About 35 percent
of the recorded liability related to pending claims and about 65
percent related to future claims.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables, at
Sept. 30, 2006, was US$79 million, compared with US$117 million
at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
insurance receivables were US$76 million. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance
receivables, at Sept. 30, 2006, was US$750 million, compared
with US$818 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was US$478 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and
US$535 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, US$477 million, US$398 million at Dec. 31,
2005, of the insurance recoveries receivable was related to
insurers that were not signatories to the 1985 Wellington
Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements in place
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Union Carbide Corp., a
subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
commonly used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $45M Defense Costs in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp., for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006,
recorded US$45 million defense costs, compared with US$55
million for the same period in 2005, for asbestos-related claims
filed against the Company and a former subsidiary, Amchem
Products Inc.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$28 million in defense costs, compared with US$32 million for
the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$95 million resolution costs, compared with US$122 million for
the same period in 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, aggregate costs for defense were US$464
million and aggregate costs for resolution were US$1.160
billion.

Moreover, the Company had receivables for defense and resolution
cost submitted to insurance carriers for reimbursement.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$9 million receivables for
defense costs, compared with US$73 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$342 million receivables
for resolution costs, compared with US$327 million at Dec. 31,
2005.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Union Carbide Corp., a
subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
commonly used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.273B Liabilities in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co.'s current asbestos-related liabilities, in
the 2006-3rd quarter, was US$1.273 billion, compared with
US$1.384 billion in the 2005-4th quarter.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company's non-current asbestos-
related liabilities were US$1.346 billion. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance
receivables, in the 2006-3rd quarter, was US$750 million,
compared with US$818 million in the 2005-4th quarter.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company's non-current asbestos-
related insurance receivables stood at US$763 million. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Cases Remain at 1,161 in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 1,161 pending asbestos-
related cases out of 3,285 cases filed against the subsidiary.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,974
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 150 cases.

As of June 30, 2006, Central Hudson had 1,161 remaining pending
asbestos-related claims out of 3,283 cases filed against it. Of
the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,972 have
been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 150 cases. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CONSOL Unit Faces 24,801 Claims in 6 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary, industrial supplies distributor
Fairmont Supply Co., faces about 24,801 asbestos-related claims
in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland,
Mississippi, and New Jersey.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, Fairmont was faced with about 25,531
asbestos-related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
West Virginia, Maryland, and Mississippi. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 18, 2006)

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

Moreover, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time. In recent years, some of
the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have
sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

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

Operating as a coal-mining firm, CONSOL Energy Inc. has 4.5
billion tons of proved and probable reserves, mainly in northern
and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin. Allegheny Energy
Inc. accounts for about 10 percent of the Company's sales. The
Company is based in Pittsburgh, Pa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PharmaNet Sets Aside $3.6M for Remediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
PharmaNet Development Group Inc., in the 2006-3rd quarter,
reserved US$3.6 million for asbestos remediation and demolition
of the Company's Miami, Fla. facility, according to a Company
press release dated Nov. 2, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The US$3.6 million is the Company's remaining balance of
expected cash costs relating to discontinued operations. The
US$3.6 million balance was also for severance, contracted
services, and healthcare costs.

The Company continues to proceed toward demolition of the
Florida building and is assessing options with respect to the
sale of the land.

Operating as a contract research firm, PharmaNet Development
Group Inc. provides both early stage (Phase I) and late stage
(Phase II-IV) clinical trials and bioanalytic lab services for
biotech and pharmaceutical firms. Formerly SFBC International
Inc., the Company is headquartered in Princeton, N.J.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases with 7T Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc.'s subsidiaries, Leslie, Spence, and
Hoke, face, as defendants or third-party defendants, pending
asbestos-related cases filed on behalf of about 7,000 claimants.

Of about 7,000 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but
about 700 have brought their claims in Mississippi.

The Company said that Leslie, Spence, and Hoke faced asbestos-
related claims, filed on behalf of about 22,000 plaintiffs,
against 50 to 400 defendants. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11,
2006)

In some instances, the Company has also been named individually
and as successor in interest to one or more of these units.
These cases have about 25 to 400 defendants and seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants in the
aggregate.

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

As a result of the changes, many of these "mass filings" have
been dismissed and the number of Mississippi claimants against
the subsidiaries is now about 6,000 whereas it previously had
been as high as 21,000.

The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of
about 25 different states with California, Texas and New York
having the most significant percentage of the claims.

Moreover, to date, Company insurers have been paying most of the
costs associated with the defense and settlement of these
actions, particular with respect to Spence and Hoke for which
insurance has paid all defense and settlement costs.

With regard to Leslie, the Company's current cost sharing
understanding with Leslie's insurers resulted in Leslie being
responsible for 29 percent of its defense and settlement costs.

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


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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel's Cases Increase from 230 to 250
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, was a defendant
in about 250 active asbestos-related cases with about 3,800
plaintiffs, up from 230 cases with about 4,050 plaintiffs as of
June 30, 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2005, U.S. Steel defended in about 500 active cases
with about 8,400 plaintiffs.

Many of these cases involved from 50 to more than 100
defendants. More than 3,500, or about 92 percent, of these
claims are pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs.

These claims against U.S. Steel fall into three major groups:

-- Claims made under certain federal and general maritime laws
by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel;

-- Claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed to asbestos
at U.S. Steel facilities (referred to as "premises claims"); and

-- Claims made by industrial workers allegedly exposed to
products formerly manufactured by U.S. Steel.

U.S. Steel is currently a defendant in cases in which a total of
about 115 plaintiffs alleged that they are suffering from
mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U.S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U.S. Steel or its products or premises.

Moreover, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all, that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos, or that alleged exposure was in any way related to
U.S. Steel or its products or premises.

While U.S. Steel has excess casualty insurance, these policies
have multi-million dollar self-insured retentions. To date, U.S.
Steel has not received any payments under these policies
relating to asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., United States Steel Corp.
produces sheet and semi-finished steel, tubular and plate steel,
and tin products. The Company's customers are in the automotive,
construction, petrochemical, and steel service center
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Units Face Antoine Lawsuit in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A McDermott International Inc. subsidiary, J. Ray McDermott
Inc., and an affiliate, Delta Hudson Engineering Corp., are
faced with an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in the 24th
Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish, La.

Eighty-eight plaintiffs filed the suit against 215 defendants.

In the proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott
Inc., et al., the plaintiffs alleged injuries for exposure to
asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the
plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen.

About 70 plaintiffs alleged employment by JRMI or DHEC.

The Court has entered a discovery schedule and plaintiffs'
responses are to be produced by Nov. 21, 2006.

At this time, no trial date has been scheduled.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., McDermott International Inc.'s
J. Ray McDermott subsidiary builds deepwater and sub-sea oil and
gas production facilities. The Company also provides nuclear
reactor components for the U.S. Navy, provides nuclear waste
services to the U.S. Department of Energy, and manages and
operates U.S. Govt. facilities through unit BWX Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Records B&W Liability at $468.4M
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International Inc., for the three months ended Sept.
30, 2006, recorded about US$468.4 million net expense of the
asbestos liability and other liability claims of its subsidiary
The Babcock & Wilcox Co.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
about US$477.4 million in net expense of B&W's asbestos
liability and other liability claims.

On Feb. 22, 2006, B&W paid US$350 million to a trust for the
benefit of asbestos personal injury claimants under the B&W Ch.
11 plan of reorganization.

If asbestos legislation is not enacted into law by Nov. 30,
2006, the Company is required to make a cash payment totaling
US$355 million within 180 days of Nov. 30, 2006.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., McDermott International Inc.'s
J. Ray McDermott subsidiary builds deepwater and sub-sea oil and
gas production facilities. The Company also provides nuclear
reactor components for the U.S. Navy, provides nuclear waste
services to the U.S. Department of Energy, and manages and
operates U.S. Govt. facilities through unit BWX Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Continues to Face Miss. Suits  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pride International Corp.'s subsidiaries, since August 2004,
have been co-defending in several complaints filed in
Mississippi Circuit Courts, in which the plaintiffs alleged that
several defendants employed them between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints alleged that certain drilling contractors used
asbestos products in offshore drilling operations, land-based
drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs,
vessels and other equipment.

The plaintiffs asserted claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act.

The complaints named as defendants other unaffiliated companies,
including companies that allegedly made asbestos-containing
drilling products. Plaintiffs sought awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.

Eight plaintiffs in these suits have been identified as
allegedly having worked for the Company or one of its affiliates
or predecessors. Discovery is ongoing to determine whether the
Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors employed these
individuals.

Discovery is also ongoing to determine whether the extent to
which these individuals were employed during the alleged period
of exposure or whether these individuals were involved with the
Company's offshore drilling operations during the relevant
period.

Operating as a drilling contractor, Pride International Inc.
offers drilling, maintenance, work-over, and engineering
services for oil and gas companies. The Company also designs
specialized drilling equipment and provides project management.
The Company is headquartered in Houston, Tex.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KWELM Pays $2.3M More to Goodrich in 3Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
London United Investments plc's insolvent fund managers paid
US$2.3 million in additional settlement distributions to
Goodrich Corp. during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006,
following completion of the insolvent scheme of arrangement
process in the United Kingdom.

During the six months ended June 30, 2006, KWELM's insolvent
fund managers paid US$1.8 million in additional settlement
distributions to the Company. At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had
added US$11.3 million to the settlement. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 18, 2006)

Plaintiffs alleging injury or death from exposure to products
with asbestos, which may have been present in Company
facilities, named the Company and a number of its subsidiaries
as defendants in lawsuits.

A number of these cases are maritime claims, which have been and
are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by the
court. These actions related to previously owned businesses.

The primary layer of insurance coverage for most of these claims
is provided by the Kemper Insurance Companies. Kemper has
indicated that it has ceased underwriting new business and now
focuses on administering policy commitments from prior years.

Moreover, a portion of the Company's primary and excess layers
of general liability insurance coverage for most of these claims
was provided by insurance subsidiaries of KWELM.

In September 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with KWELM under which the Company agreed to give up
its rights with respect to the KWELM insurance policies in
exchange for US$18.3 million. The US$18.3 million settlement
amount was paid to the Company during 2004.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Products segment, which at the time of the spin-off
included EnPro Industries Inc. and Coltec Industries Inc.

At that time, two Coltec units defended in personal injury
claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing products sold by
those subsidiaries. A limited number of asbestos-related claims
have been asserted against the Company as "successor" to Coltec
or one of its subsidiaries.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $422.3M Losses in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., for the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$422,367,000 in gross unpaid
losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses, compared with
US$462,336,000 for the same period in 2005.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corporation recorded US$441,752,000
gross unpaid losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, compared with
US$480,529,000 for the same period in 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006)

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company
recorded US$341,927,000 net unpaid losses and ALAE, compared
with US$359,691,000 for the same period in 2005.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company
recorded US$356,787,000 net unpaid losses and ALAE, compared
with US$375,731,000 for the same period in 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006)

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
arising from the sale of general liability, commercial multi-
peril and umbrella insurance policies, most of which were
written for accident years 1985 and prior.

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Gains $36.1M from Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s 2006-3rd quarter earnings were boosted by
a US$36.1 million gain from asbestos insurance settlements and a
successful appeal relating to its' subsidiaries asbestos
insurance coverage, Reuters reports.

Before items, the Company earned US$0.77 a share.

On Nov. 8, 2006, the Company recorded a 2006-3rd quarter profit,
compared with a year-earlier loss, on strength at its Global
Engineering and Construction Group subsidiary.

Earnings for the 2006-3rd quarter totaled US$75.8 million, or
US$1.07 per share, compared with a loss of US$16.7 million, or
US$0.35 a share, in the 2005-3rd quarter.

Operating revenues in the 2006-3rd quarter jumped 71 percent to
US$910.6 million from US$532 million a year before.

The Company said its backlog rose 53 percent to US$3 billion at
the end of the 2006-3rd quarter, compared with US$1.95 billion
in 2005.

Operating revenues at the Company's Global Engineering
subsidiary jumped to US$620 million from US$367 million in 2005,
while operating revenues at its Global Power Group climbed to
US$291 million from US$166 million.

Headquartered in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd. operates
through two business groups. The Engineering & Construction
group designs and builds facilities for the oil and gas,
chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets. The
Company's Power Products & Services unit makes steam-generating
units and related equipment for power and industrial plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Developers Pay $350T for Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
California developers, West Valley LLC and DeSilva Gates
Construction, have agreed to pay US$350,000 to settle alleged
breaches of a plan for dealing with naturally occurring
asbestos, United Press International reports.

West Valley owners, Angelo K. Tsakopoulos and Larry Gualco, and
DeSilva Gates, are involved in developing subdivisions in El
Dorado Hills near Sacramento.

The Sacramento Bee reported that the State of California accused
them of at least 47 violations of air and water pollution
regulations.

Disturbing asbestos by blasting, drilling and excavation can
release microscopic fibers into the air that can cause cancer
and other diseases if inhaled.

Marcella McTaggart, head of the El Dorado County Air Quality
Management District, said that blasting on some occasions at the
development site created huge clouds of dust.


COMPANY PROFILE

DeSilva Gates Construction
11555 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Telephone: (925) 829-9220
Fax: (925) 803-4263

2495 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95833
Telephone: (916) 643-1850
Fax: (916) 643-1855
Email: info@desilvagates.com
http://www.desilvagates.com/

Description:
Established in the 1930s, the Company specializes in Heavy,
Highway and Civil Engineering Construction Services for both
Public and Private Clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Awards $5.5M to Hoogerwerf Widow
---------------------------------------------------------------
A McLean County jury in Illinois has awarded about US$5.5
million damages to Vickie Hoogerwerf, representing her husband
John Hoogerwerf, in a wrongful death lawsuit accusing numerous
firms of asbestos exposure and hiding risks of the material,
pantagraph.com reports.

Filed in 2004, the suit alleged that Mr. Hoogerwerf was exposed
to asbestos without warning of its dangers. He fought lung
cancer for more than a year before his death on July 17, 2002.

The suit accused numerous companies of a conspiracy to hide the
harms of asbestos. However, the verdict was against Honeywell
International Inc.

Mr. Hoogerwerf installed insulation on pipes and boilers using
materials sold by Bendix, which eventually became part of
Honeywell.

"There is no evidence that Bendix Aviation Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) ever conspired with anyone concerning issues
pertaining to asbestos, associated health problems, or risks
arising from asbestos exposure," said a Honeywell statement.

Andrew Kelly, one of Mrs. Hoogerwerf's lawyers, said Mr.
Hoogerwerf started working as an insulator in 1966 during his
senior year of high school, installing insulation on pipes and
boilers in power plants and industrial buildings.

The firms accused of involvement in a conspiracy were Bendix,
Union Asbestos & Rubber Co., Johns-Manville Corp., Raybestos-
Manhattan Inc., Abex Corp., Owens-Illinois Inc., Owens Corning
Fiberglass Corp. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Mr. Kelly said Mr. Hoogerwerf spent most of his life in Annawan,
Ill., a small town north of Kewanee, and worked as a union
insulator throughout central Illinois.

Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Hoogerwerf spent much of the early part
of his career with Mechanical Insulation in Kewanee, and much of
his later career working with various contractors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14 Suits v. 169 Companies Filed in W.Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia recorded the filings
of 14 asbestos-related lawsuits against a total of 169 defendant
companies, The West Virginia Record reports.

David Chervenick of Goldberg, Persky and White of Pittsburgh,
Pa. filed 13 suits, on Oct. 23, 2006, on behalf of West Virginia
clients who alleged asbestos exposure, which the clients blamed
for their lung disease.

Mr. Chervenick's clients, seeking compensatory and punitive
damages, named 124 defendants.

The plaintiffs and their hometowns are:
-- Nancy Clark, for Rodney Butcher, of Charleston, W.Va.
-- Donald and Rose Christian of South Charleston, W.Va.;
-- Glenn Clark of Webster Springs, W.Va.;
-- Stephanie Colanko, for Craig Costello, of Weirton, W.Va.;
-- Charles and Donna Elson of Wellsburg, W.Va.;
-- Howard and Bonita Hatcher of Wheeling, W.Va.;
-- Janet Hickey of Valley Head, W.Va.;
-- Helen and Harry Lemly of Parkersburg, W.Va.;
-- Howard and Patricia Pickering of Wheeling, W.Va.;
-- Nina Weis, for Cecil Weis, of Princeton, W.Va.;
-- Betty Wolfe, for Larry Wolfe, of Thornton, W.Va.;
-- and Franklin Woods, Weirton, W.Va.

Job sites mentioned where asbestos exposure allegedly took place
were Crucible Steel Mill, Fort Martin Power Station, Weirton
Steel, Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel and Owens Illinois.

The complaint includes 18 charges against the defendants.

The 14th suit, filed on behalf of Dennis and Judith Thomas,
lists 45 defendants in their case.

Cindy Kiblinger of James Humphrey and Associates represents Mr.
& Mrs. Thomas.

A visiting judge will be assigned Kanawha Circuit Court case
numbers 06-C-2216-2228 and 06-C-2244.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries to Start Paying $450M in '07
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc. may start paying US$450 million in the 2007-
1st half as part of an asbestos-related settlement, Bloomberg
News reports.

The Company and at least 36 insurers agreed to a US$2.7 billion
settlement more than four years ago.

Company CEO Charles Bunch said the agreement would take effect
after Pittsburgh Corning Corp., a 50-50 venture with Corning
Inc., emerges from bankruptcy.

Mr. Bunch said a Pittsburgh, Pa. judge overseeing the bankruptcy
case expects to approve a reorganization plan by year-end.

The Company deals with about 116,000 personal-injury claims
filed by people who came in contact with asbestos-laden pipe
insulation once sold by PCC.

Mr. Bunch said the Company would start funding the settlement
with cash once the agreement is final.  

"We are close to getting a ruling on that bankruptcy," Mr. Bunch
said. "That will start an accelerated clock to get this thing
settled in 2007, and hopefully in the first half."

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., PPG Industries Inc. makes
coatings and sealants. The Company also makes glass and
chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110 manufacturing facilities in
more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates more than 350
paint retail centers in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alberta Town Locals to be Evicted over Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of residents of Tsuu T'ina reserve in Alberta, Canada
would be permanently evicted from their homes over asbestos
concerns, CBC News reports.

About 600 residents of Black Bear Crossing, a small community of
former military houses at the reserve, were removed in October
2006 because of suspected asbestos contamination.

After Health Canada tested the air quality, the Tsuu T'ina band
council said the risk of staying was too high, but would not
release the specific levels of contamination.

The council, provincial authorities and the federal Department
of Indian and Northern Affairs, which has committed to pay
rental-housing costs for a year, will be establishing emergency
protocols to find rental units for the displaced residents.

Despite objections by Tsuu T'ina leaders, hundreds of residents
occupied the units after the housing blocks were abandoned by
the military in 1998.

About 800 residents have lived in the homes over the past decade
because of a continued housing shortage on the reserve.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Getty Realty, Subsidiary Face Suit in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Getty Realty Corp. and a subsidiary, in August 2006, were faced
with an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court,
Madison County, Ill.

The suit seeks a recovery of damages arising out of the death of
a person allegedly exposed to asbestos at the subsidiary's
premises.

The Company said that it does not believe there is any basis for
a claim against it. The Company is in the process of determining
whether there is any basis for the claim against its subsidiary.


COMPANY PROFILE

Getty Realty Corp.
125 Jericho Tpke., Ste. 103
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: 516-478-5400
Fax: 516-478-5476
Toll Free: 866-399-4335
http://www.gettyrealty.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$71.4
1-Year Sales Growth:              7.6 percent
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$45.5
1-Year Net Income Growth:         15.5 percent
2005 Employees:                   16

Description:
The Company owns or leases more than 1,000 service station and
convenience store properties, 10 petroleum distribution
terminals, and three bulk plants in about a dozen northeastern
and Mid-Atlantic States. The real estate investment trust leases
about 90 percent of these properties to Getty Petroleum
Marketing, which is responsible for the operating expenses.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CONNETICS CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Connetics Corp. shares during the period from June 28, 2004
through July 9, 2006.

The complaint charges Connetics and certain of its officers with
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  During
the class period, Connetics was engaged in the development and
commercialization of Velac, a new drug for the treatment of
acne.

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,
including:

      -- that the company would be unable to obtain FDA approval
         for Velac due, in part, to high incidence of tumors in
         a carcinogenicity study;

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements concerning Velac's approvability and future
         financial expectations from its success were lacking in
         any reasonable basis when made;

      -- that the company improperly accounted for rebates;

      -- specifically, that the company, among other things,
         understated its rebate reserves;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls;

      -- that the company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company would
         be unable to achieve its forecasted operating results;
         and

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On April 27, 2005, Connetics shocked the market when it
disclosed that the FDA had requested more information about
Velac.  The company's stock dropped 19%, from $27.57 per share
to $22.30 per share.  The company's stock price fell further as
the truth continued to emerge.

On June 13, 2005, when Connetics received an FDA non-approvable
letter for Velac, the Company's stock price plummeted 27%,
falling from $20.77 per share to $15.13 per share.

On May 3, 2006, when Connetics revealed it had falsified its
financial results, the stock price dropped to $13.76 per share.

Finally, on July 10, 2006, when Connetics announced that its
second quarter and full year earnings would be "materially
below" its May 3 guidance, shares plunged 33.6% to close at
$7.76 per share.

Interested parties may move no later than Nov. 17, 2006, for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. of Scott Evans
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
sevans2@cmht.com.


IKANOS COMMS: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that a class
action on behalf of investors of Ikanos Communications, Inc. who
purchased the common stock of Ikanos pursuant and/or traceable
to the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for its
initial public offering on Sept. 22, 2005, (the IPO) or its
secondary public offering (the Secondary Offering) on March 8,
2006.  The class period is Sept. 22, 2005 through Oct. 4, 2006.

The complaint charges Ikanos and certain of its officers,
directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.

The complaint further alleges that the Registration Statements
and Prospectuses issued in connection with the IPO and Secondary
Offering were false.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Registration Statements and Prospectuses included
representations that the company's business had grown due to
successful deployments in Japan.

In fact, according to the complaint, the deployments in Japan
had grown because Ikanos had shipped excessive product to
Japanese customers in excess of those customers' needs and the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses failed to disclose that
the company's future results would be adversely affected by this
practice.

On Oct. 4, 2006, Ikanos issued a press release announcing
preliminary third quarter revenue results and stated that the
revenue expectations were $4-6 million lower than expected, and
the fourth quarter revenue results would be adversely affected.
The stock collapsed to as low as $7.23 per share, before closing
at $7.76 per share on volume of 9.5 million shares traded.

The deadline to seek lead plaintiff status in the case expires
Jan. 5, 2007.

For more information on the suit, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of
Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: (800) 347-1236, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


PEGASUS WIRELESS: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Pegasus Wireless Corp. between Dec.
22, 2005 and Sept. 5, 2006.

Pegasus 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.

Beginning with an Aug. 24, 2006 report published by The
MotleyFool.com, investors were shocked and alarmed to learn a
series of disturbing reports on Pegasus and its management,
including:

      -- Pegasus failed to disclose CEO Jasper Knabb's and CFO
         Stephen Durland's close business ties with convicted
         felons, securities fraudsters and the like;

      -- Pegasus failed to disclose a series of related party
         transactions and the manner in which Knabb purchased
         more than $26 million in Pegasus stock;

      -- Pegasus withheld pertinent information involving
         Knabb's history with penny stock companies with
         suspicious trading patterns.

The revelation of this news caused Pegasus shares to decline
almost 25% on volume of almost 2 million shares from the closing
price of $7.60 per share two days earlier.

At the close of the class period, over Labor Day weekend, a
report by Barron's revealed that:

      -- Knabb had previously been arrested for possible
         insurance fraud;

      -- Two former Knabb companies -- BIFS Technologies,        
         formerly Biofiltration Systems, and Wireless Frontier -
         - evidenced suspected stock and market manipulation;

      -- Pegasus failed to disclose the truth concerning the
         novelty and uniqueness of its products and the
         foreseeability to compete in the current marketplace.

Following the Barron's report, on Sept. 5, 2006, the first day
of trading after the Labor Day weekend, shares of Pegasus
plummeted to a trading low of $1.10 per share, falling over
36.5% on huge volume of almost 18 million shares.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick,
LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *