CAR_Public/061201.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, December 1, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 239

                            Headlines

AWB LTD: U.S. Farmers Plan to Re-file $1B Racketeering Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Groundwater Irrigators File Suit Against NSW Gov't.
BIOGEN IDEC: Plaintiffs in Mass. Securities Suit Amend Complaint
BIRDS EYE: Recalls Winter Squash Due to Ammonia Contamination
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Option Grants

CALIFORNIA: Ventura Strip-Search Case Refused High Court Review
CHOICEPOINT INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Calif. FCRA Lawsuit
CONNECTICUT RESOURCES: Trial Resumes in Lawsuit Over Enron Deal
CONNETICS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y.
CV THERAPEUTICS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $13.5M

GENESEE & WYOMING: Rail Yard Case Settlement Conference Sought
HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Wants to Replace Stock Suit Lead Attorney
HONEYBAKED FOODS: Recalls Ham, Turkey for Listeria Contamination
ILLINOIS: Ex-Teacher Sues Chicago Public Schools Over Info Leak
INFOUSA INC: Court Dismisses Shareholder Fiduciary Breach Suit

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $12.4M Price-Fixing Suit Deal Gets Approval
LOS ALAMOS: New Mex. Court Delays Bias Suit Settlement Hearing
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 5
MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Premium Calculation
POTTERY BARN: Recalls Gourd Candles Posing Fire, Burn Hazards

SMITH BARNEY: Financial Advisors Amend Sex Bias Suit in Calif.
SRAM MANUFACTURERS: Mich. Resident Files Price-Fixing Litigation
TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: No Order Yet on "Lewis" Dismissal Appeal
TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over GE Merger Plan
UAL CORP: High Court Review of ESOP Complaint Dismissal Sought

VEGAS GRAND: Nev. Court Gives Final Approval to Condo Suit Deal
VIGNETTE CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
XM SATELLITE: Mulls Filing Motion to Dismiss D.C. Stock Lawsuit

* Corporate Library Issues Report on Firms Facing Possible SCAs


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Utility Cos. Face 71 Suits at 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Energy Has 522 Claims v. BGE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $7.5M Liability in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell, Units Still Face Injury Suits  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Still Faces Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Faces 1,934 Pending Claims  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Water Faces Workplace Injury Claim  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tarragon Incurs $846T for Cleanup Matters
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Corp. Still Faces La. Workers' Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Reserves $4.179B for Claims in 3Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Still Faces ACandS Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Records $2.254B Liability in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Financial Contends With BCT Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Zapata Predecessor Units Still Face Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Records $572.6M Loss Reserves in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $279.9M Losses, Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Corp Faces Site Exposure Claims  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Reserves $7M at 3Q06 for Claims  

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Entrx Drop From 485 to 458 in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces 75T Active Claims in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Records 124,300 Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.039B for Losses

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Has 305 Pending Suits at 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Decrease to 370  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Parker Drilling Unit in Discovery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Drops Charges Filed v. SDG&E  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Awards $850T in Damages to Widow  

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Less Suits Filed in Madison Court, ICJ Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces Hicks Lawsuit in Pa. Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BODISEN TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filing
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Va.
TVIA INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********


AWB LTD: U.S. Farmers Plan to Re-file $1B Racketeering Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, D.C.-based attorney L. Palmer Foret plans to re-file
a potential $1 billion-plus class action pending against
Australian wheat exporter AWB, Ltd. in the U.S. on behalf of
American farmers.

Mr. Foret, who is spearheading the case against AWB, said that a
new case would be filed in the coming weeks, according to AAP
News.  The plan follows the recent release of the Cole
Commission report into the AWB's corrupt payments of about
$227,668,441.44 (AUD$290 million) in kickbacks to Saddam
Hussein's regime to secure wheat contracts in Iraq.

In the final report, the commission found that AWB, 11 of its
former executives, and one former BHP Billiton executive may
have broken Australian laws, including criminal and banking
codes.

The lawsuit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia against AWB and its U.S. unit, AWB
(USA) Ltd. as a purported class action on behalf of North
American farmers (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2006).   

It accused the wheat exporter of engaging in a worldwide
campaign of racketeering, money laundering, fraud and bribery to
corner grain markets.

Plaintiffs, who are claiming $1 billion in damages, allege that
the defendants' actions in Iraq and several other countries
breached U.S. laws and hurt thousands of American and Canadian
farmers.

Farmers, including lead plaintiff Veryl Switzer, are basing
their claims on the U.S. Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organizations Act, which was designed to target the mafia and
other criminal groups.  They are also basing their claims on
alleged breaches by defendants of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act.

However, the plaintiffs recently withdrew the case.  Sources
told The Australian that the decision to withdraw was done after
the case was considered unlikely to succeed before the
conservative court in D.C. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24,
2006).

According to Mr. Foret, the suit was withdrawn so the legal team
could examine the Cole report.  He said that he hopes to re-file
the case by the end of the year.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Roderick E. Edmond of Edmond & Jones, LLP, Candler
         Building, 127 Peachtree Street NE, Suite #410, Atlanta,
         GA 30303, Phone: (404) 525-1080, Fax: (404) 525-1073,
         E-mail: http://www.edmondfirm.com/index.html;and  

     (2) L. Palmer Foret, The Law Firm of Palmer Foret, PC, Two
         Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 660, Chevy Chase, MD 20815,
         Phone: (301) 656-1888, E-mail: lpforet@aol.com.


AUSTRALIA: Groundwater Irrigators File Suit Against NSW Gov't.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales government faces a purported statewide class
action filed by Murray Valley groundwater irrigators over its
structural adjustment packages, Queanbeyan Age reports.

The irrigators are seeking "fair market value" compensation for
water taken from them.  They are hoping to get leave of appeal
to take their case to the Federal High Court.

They are arguing that the recently announced structural
adjustment goes no-where near reflecting the current value of
their water entitlements.

According to Greg Sandford, Chair of the Murray Valley
Groundwater Irrigators Association, they are trying to contact
groundwater users in other regions to get more irrigators
involved in the case.  He added that the class action could
represent as many as 1000 irrigators.

For more details, contact Mr. Sandford, Phone: (03) 5882 5977.


BIOGEN IDEC: Plaintiffs in Mass. Securities Suit Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Biogen
Idec, Inc. filed an amended consolidated complaint adding
several of its executives as defendants.

On March 2, 2005, the company, along with William H. Rastetter,
former executive chairman, and James C. Mullen, chief executive
officer, were named as defendants in a purported class action,
captioned, "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's publicly-traded securities between
Feb. 18, 2004 and Feb. 25, 2005.  The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding potentially serious side effects of TYSABRI in order
to gain accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the product's distribution and sale.

The plaintiff alleges that these materially false and misleading
statements harmed the purported class by artificially inflating
the company's stock price during the purported class period and
that company insiders benefited personally from the inflated
price by selling the company's stock.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

Substantially similar actions:

     -- "Grill v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al." and
     -- "Lobel v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.,"

were filed on March 10, 2005 and April 21, 2005, respectively,
in the same court by other purported class representatives.
Those actions have been consolidated with the Brown case.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint which, among other amendments to the allegations, adds
as defendants:

     -- Peter N. Kellogg, chief financial officer,
     -- William R. Rohn, former chief operating officer,
     -- Burt A. Adelman, executive vice president of Portfolio
        Strategy, and
     -- Thomas J. Bucknum, former general counsel

The suit is "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-10400-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs are Shannon L. Hopkins and Mario
Alba Jr. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 646-
733-5768, Fax: 212-273-4445, E-mail: shopkins@milbergweiss.com;
and David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street,
37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-
9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.

Representing the company is James R. Carroll of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, One Beacon Street, 31st Floor, Boston, MA
02108, Phone: 617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
jcarroll@skadden.com.


BIRDS EYE: Recalls Winter Squash Due to Ammonia Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Birds Eye Foods is voluntarily recalling frozen Cooked Winter
Squash packed in a 12-oz. carton, under certain store brands,
and the Birds Eye brand, which have an eight digit code
beginning with one of these characters: "5CF," "5JE" or "6JE,"
because some of these products were tainted with ammonia.

After receiving consumer complaints -- fewer than a dozen --
about the squash, Birds Eye Foods initiated its established
investigative process, including the involvement of a third
party laboratory.

On Nov. 17, that independent lab confirmed a problem with one
store brand product.  Therefore, as a precautionary measure,
Birds Eye Foods is voluntarily recalling all the squash product
codes mentioned while it works closely with the appropriate
agencies to resolve the issue.  No other Birds Eye Foods
products are involved.

"We will not take risks with our consumers," said Neil Harrison,
Birds Eye Foods chairman, president and CEO.  "Our primary
concern is their health and welfare, and while we investigate
the extent of the problem, it is in their best interest that we
immediately recall the products."

The presence of ammonia may cause headache, nausea, vomiting,
and irritation of the throat.  Consumers are advised not to
consume the product but to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund.

The Birds Eye brand frozen Cooked Winter Squash codes in
question as well as store brand labels are distributed
nationally.  In total, these brand and store brand products
represent approximately three million packages sold.

The Cooked Winter Squash was produced by a third party, Chase
Farms, located in Walkerville, Michigan, which has ceased
production and distribution for Birds Eye Foods while it
continues to investigate the problem.  

"Like Birds Eye Foods," said Michael Chase, president of Chase
Farms, "we see consumer safety as the most important part of our
business.  We will be working diligently to determine the cause
of the issue and to assure it does not happen again."

The brands and UPC codes included in the Cooked Squash recall
are:

     -- Birds Eye, UPC 014500005168;
     -- Stop & Shop, UPC 688267009723;
     -- Shaw, UPC 045674504829;
     -- Price Chopper, UPC 041735303462;
     -- Lafe, UPC 023545071755;
     -- Shurfine, UPC 015400830621;
     -- Hannaford, UPC 041268111459;
     -- Flavorite, UPC 041130542541;
     -- Market Basket, UPC 049705630402;
     -- Wegmans, UPC 077890800874;
     -- Giant, UPC 688267009723;
     -- Tops, UPC 688267009723;
     -- Safeway, UPC 021130090372;
     -- IGA, UPC 041270497640;
     -- Roundy's UPC 011150548304;
     -- Remarkable, UPC 755566308618; and
     -- Dominicks, UPC 038281906285.

Consumers with questions may call: 800-807-8817.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Option Grants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Directors and former directors of Cablevision Systems were named
defendants in a suit filed by Delaware law firm Grant &
Eisenhofer on behalf of Cablevision shareholders over the
company's disclosures this year that it had back-dated stock
options granted to company executives, the Consultant reports.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are:

     -- Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana,
     -- the Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund, and
     -- two individual shareholders

Plaintiffs' lawyer Stuart M. Grant said the teachers' group owns
about 25,000 Cablevision shares and the Teamsters' Fund 7,470.

The lawsuit alleges that Cablevision's former compensation-
consulting firm -- Lyons Benenson & Co. of New York -- sat in on
meetings where:

     -- grants of back-dated options were approved;
     -- received back-dated stock options itself; and
     -- received them from a stock-option plan designed for
        employees of Cablevision.

The charges came in a complaint that consolidates previous
lawsuits filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County.

                        New York Action

In August 2003, a purported class action naming as defendants
the company, directors and officers of Cablevision and certain
current and former officers and employees of the company's
Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics subsidiaries
was filed in New York Supreme Court by the Teachers Retirement
System of Louisiana (TRSL).

The actions relate to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock exchange and allege, among other things, that the
exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the
improper recognition of certain expenses at the national
services division of Rainbow Media Holdings.  

The complaint alleges breaches by the individual defendants of
fiduciary duties.  It also alleges breaches of contract and
unjust enrichment by Cablevision.  Thus, the complaint seeks
monetary damages and such other relief as the court deems just
and proper.  

On Oct. 31, 2003, Cablevision and other defendants moved to stay
the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending in
Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to state
a claim.

On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on the basis of
the previously filed action in Delaware.  TRSL subsequently
filed a motion to vacate the stay in the New York action, and
simultaneously filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware
action and to stay that action.  Cablevision opposed both
motions.  

On April 19, 2005, the court in the Delaware action denied the
motion to stay the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to
intervene in it.  On June 22, 2005, the court in the New York
action denied TRSL's motion to vacate the stay in that action.

Bethpage, New York-based Cablevision Systems, Corp. (NYSE: CVC)
-- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable operator in the  
U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment
businesses and telecommunications companies.  Cablevision owns
all of the outstanding common stock of CSC Holdings.   

Cablevision has no operations independent of its CSC Holdings
subsidiary.  Through wholly owned subsidiary, Rainbow Media
Holdings LLC, the company owns interests in and manages national
and regional programming networks, the Madison Square Garden
sports and entertainment business, and cable television
advertising sales companies.  Through wholly owned subsidiary
Cablevision Lightpath, Inc., the company provides telephone
services and Internet access to the business market.  The
company classifies its business interests into three segments:
Telecommunications Services, Rainbow and Madison Square Garden.


CALIFORNIA: Ventura Strip-Search Case Refused High Court Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that finds the strip
search policy of Ventura County as unconstitutional, The
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.  

Previously, attorneys representing Ventura County in the civil
case challenged the Ninth Circuit's ruling by filing a petition
that asks the Supreme Court to strike down the decision.  They
contended that the strip-search policy is modeled on state laws
and three Ninth Circuit decisions (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
21, 2006).

After a scheduled Nov. 21 case conference, supreme court
justices, without comment, left standing the Ninth Circuit's
ruling, which held that the county cannot conduct the intrusive
search when a suspect is charged with a misdemeanor offense of
being under the influence of drugs, unless there is
individualized suspicion that the accused is hiding contraband
or the person is going to enter the general jail population.

With the high court declining to review the appeals court
decision, Alan Wisotsky, the attorney representing the county,
explains that the case will now return to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California for trial on
damages, "or possibly mediation."  

                         Case Background

The suit was brought on behalf of Noelle Way, former bartender,
who was arrested by a Ventura police officer in September 2000
on suspicions of being under the influence of a controlled
substance, a misdemeanor (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006).  

The officer took her to Ventura County Jail, where she went
through the booking process, which, following jail security
policy, included a strip search.  

Ms. Way tested negative for drugs, bailed out of jail and was
never charged.  In 2001, she sued the county over the strip
search policy in a class action, "Noelle Way v. Ventura County,
et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E."

The county defended the policy on the basis of public safety
needs and Penal Code Sec. 4030(a), which permits strip searches
and bodily cavity inspections of misdemeanor suspects held on
weapons, drug, or violence charges.

However, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California ruled that a "blanket strip search" policy violated
Ms. Way's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and
seizure.  

It also found that neither Sheriff Bob Brooks nor the female
deputy who conducted the search, were entitled to qualified
immunity.

In rejecting the immunity claim, Judge Marshall reasoned that
the defendants should have known, based on prior Ninth Circuit
decisions, that the policy would not pass constitutional muster.

The Ninth Circuit in San Francisco upheld that decision in a 16-
page ruling in April.  The panel, composed of Judges Pamela Ann
Rymer, Kim Wardlaw and Edward J. Reed, Jr., generally agreed
that the policy was unconstitutional as applied.

The panel though stated that the individual defendants acted in
good faith and were entitled to qualified immunity, since the
court had never specifically ruled as to whether the fact that
someone was charged with being under the influence of drugs was
enough to justify an intrusive search.

The suit is "Noelle Way v. Ventura County, et al., Case No.
2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall
with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs is Earnest C.S. Bell, Earnest C.S.
Bell Law Offices, 3897 Market St., Ventura, CA 93003, Phone:
805-650-5458, Fax: 805-650-3778.

Representing the defendants are Jeffrey Held and Alan E.
Wisotsky of Alan E. Wisotsky Law Offices, 300 Esplanade Dr.,
Ste. 1500, Oxnard, CA 93036, Phone: 805-278-0920, Fax: 805-278-
0289.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Calif. FCRA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted a motion by Choicepoint Inc. for a partial summary
judgment in the suit "Harrington, et al. v ChoicePoint."

The suit is a purported class action that resulted from the
consolidation of four previously filed class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs' first amended consolidated class action
complaint against ChoicePoint Inc. and three subsidiaries
alleges violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and
certain California statutes.

The six named plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf
of a national class of persons about whom ChoicePoint provided a
consumer report as defined in the FCRA to rogue customers, as
well as five California classes of affected persons.  

Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory and exemplary damages and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  Limited discovery
was conducted and the company filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on Aug. 10, 2006.

The court granted that motion on Oct. 12, 2006.  With respect to
five of the named plaintiffs, the court dismissed the FCRA
claims with prejudice and dismissed the other claims without
prejudice.  The FCRA and state law claims of one plaintiff
remain pending.  

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

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

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

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


CONNECTICUT RESOURCES: Trial Resumes in Lawsuit Over Enron Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial of a class action against the Connecticut Resources
Recovery Authority (CRRA), which was filed by a consortium of 70
cities and towns, has resumed, The Republican American reports.

The suit was filed in Waterbury Superior Court against the
regional trash authority over its attempt to pass to consumers
the cost of a $220 million failed deal with now-defunct Enron
Corp.  It was originally filed by the cities of New Hartford and
Barkhamsted.  Trial in the suit started Nov. 13.

CRRA entered into an agreement to loan Enron $220 million in
exchange for some $28.5 million a year payment from Enron
between 2001 to 2012 for operating a Hartford trash-to-energy
plant, the power produced from which will be sold by Enron.  But
Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001.  The authority only
recovered $111 million after the collapse.

The consortium of Connecticut cities and towns is pushing ahead
with the case, which seeks to recover at least $53 million that
they claim was lost by the authority in the disastrous deal with
Enron six years ago.  The cities had agreements to dispose trash
at the CRRA's Mid-Connecticut Project.  

In a ruling on March 22, which allowed the case to proceed,
Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh said, "The court finds that several of
the statements made by CRRA have been misleading, and that the
existence of these statements has made it difficult, if not
impossible" for the towns to join for the purposes of the suit.  
The judge cited letters written in 2004 and 2005 by CRRA
President Thomas Kirk to the 70 municipalities in central
Connecticut (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2006).  

The judge said that CRRA misled the public by:

      -- saying the towns would have to shoulder costs of the
         lawsuit through increased disposal fees;

      -- it has substantial legal fees in defending itself in
         the lawsuit, without disclosing that insurance carriers
         had paid for most of those costs; and

      -- not telling them that costs incurred in making the
         failed $220 million loan to Enron potentially could be
         recouped through various indemnification agreements
         made with law firms advising the authority on the
         transaction.

Overhauled by the state legislature in 2002, after Enron
collapsed, CRRA argues that state law protects it from paying
financial damages to its municipal members.

Nearly all towns in Greater Waterbury and Northwestern
Connecticut are parties to the suit, which was initiated two
years ago by the town of New Hartford, according to plaintiffs'
attorney David S. Golub.

Despite the protracted legal dispute, CRRA continues to work
with the 70 towns in the Mid-Connecticut Project and 48 others
throughout the state on a daily basis, collecting and processing
solid waste and recyclables.

For more details, contact David S. Golub of Silver Golub &
Teitell, LLP, 184 Atlantic Street, P.O. Box 389, Stamford,
Connecticut 06904, (Fairfield Co.), Phone: 203-325-4491; Fax:
203-325-3769.


CONNETICS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an
investigation into potential securities law violations by the
Connetics Corp. and/or current and former officers, directors
and employees.  

The company has received and responded to multiple subpoenas and
requests for information, most recently a document subpoena
dated Oct. 6, 2006, to which the company has responded.  The SEC
investigation is ongoing.

In relation to this, the company is facing these purported class
action litigations:

    (1) "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local #562 Pension Fund vs.
        Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz,
        and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky (N.D. Cal. Case No. 06-5691
        PJH)."

On Sept. 18, 2006, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased
common stock of the company between June 28, 2004 and May 3,
2006, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants, and is pending in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

    (2) "Almar T. Widiger Living Trust vs. Connetics Corp.,
        Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, and Alexander J.
        Yaroshinsky (N.D. Cal. Case No. 06-06250 VRW)."

On Oct. 4, 2006, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock
of the company between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants, and is pending in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

    (3) "Fishbury, Ltd. vs. Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans,
        C. Gregory Vontz, and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky (S.D.
        N.Y. Case No. 06-CV-11496)."

On Oct. 31, 2006, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock
of the company between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants, and is pending in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

    (4) "Bruce Gallant vs. Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans,
        C. Gregory Vontz, and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky (S.D.
        N.Y. Case No. 06-CV-12875)."

On Nov. 2, 2006, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock
of the company between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint names the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors as
defendants, and is pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York.


CV THERAPEUTICS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $13.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
CV Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
reached a preliminary agreement to settle for $13.5 million a
consolidated securities class action pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities, seeking
unspecified damages.  As is typical in this type of litigation,
several other purported securities class actions containing
substantially similar allegations have since been filed against
the defendants, and the company expects that additional lawsuits
containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the
future.

In Nov. 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in
December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities
class actions filed to date into a single action, "In re CV
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation."  In January 2004, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

The company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004.  In August
2004, these motions were granted in part and denied in part. The
ourt granted the motions to dismiss by two individual
defendants, dismissing both individuals from the action with
prejudice, but denied the motions to dismiss by the company and
the two other individual defendants. After the motion to dismiss
was decided, this action entered the discovery phase.

In October 2006, the company's reached a preliminary agreement
to settle this action.  Under the terms of the preliminary
agreement, the company's insurers will pay an aggregate of $13.5
million to settle all claims and to pay the court-approved fees
of plaintiff's counsel.  

The defendants will receive a complete release of all claims and
expressly deny any wrongdoing.  The preliminary agreement is
subject to standard conditions, including final court approval.

There can be no assurance that final court approval will be
obtained.  Separately, the company's will participate in dispute
resolution proceedings with an insurer over whether or not the
company's will reimburse that insurer for a portion of the
insurer's contribution to the settlement.  The amount of the
company's reimbursement will not exceed $2.25 million, and may
be a lesser amount or zero.  The timing of these dispute
resolution proceedings has not been determined.

The suit is "In Re: CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-03709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston.
Plaintiff firms named in the complaint were:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, LLP,
         Phone: 415.288.4545 and 619.231.1058, Fax:
         415.288.4534 and 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Phone:
         415.288.4545 and 800.449.4900, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: support@milberg.com.  


GENESEE & WYOMING: Rail Yard Case Settlement Conference Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a class action over noise pollution pending
against Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. in the Quebec Superior Court has
requested a settlement conference prior to commencing
proceedings on the merits of his claim.

On February 2002, an individual living adjacent to the Outremont
rail yard filed a motion for authorization of class
certification in the Quebec Superior Court in Canada in
connection with a claim against:

     -- two of the company's subsidiaries:
         
        * Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee & Wyoming Canada  
          Inc., and  

        * Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc.; and
    
     -- Canadian Pacific Railways, which owns the rail yard.   

The individual alleged that the noise emanating from the
Outremont rail yard causes significant nuisance problems to the
residents who live near the rail yard.  The rail yard has a part
of it leased to and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway.  

The plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all
owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined
section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which is
adjacent to the rail yard.  

Plaintiff requested the issuance of an injunction in order to
limit the hours when the rail yard may operate.  The plaintiff
has not alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the
damages of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover
for his "trouble and inconvenience" as well as for "potential
devaluation of the value of his property."  

On May 27, 2004, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the
plaintiff's request to institute the class action, and the
plaintiff filed an appeal with Quebec Court of Appeal.  

On Nov. 11, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the
Quebec Superior Court's finding a class could not be certified,
but noted the proposed class could only include owners and
tenants within the defined geographic area since 1999.  

This case was remanded back to the same judge who previously
dismissed the plaintiff's request to institute a class action.  
On Jan. 9, 2006, Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., Quebec-Gatineau  
Railway and CP filed applications for leave to the Supreme Court
of Canada with respect to the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision
to allow the class action to proceed.

On May 18, 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its
decision, rejected the application for leave and remanded the
matter back to the Quebec Superior Court, where the class action
will be heard in accordance with the ruling of the Quebec Court
of Appeal.  

The plaintiff published notices of the class action in local
newspapers on June 7, 2006.  On June 26, 2006, the plaintiff
filed a Bill of Costs before the Quebec Court of Appeal and was
awarded immaterial costs.

The plaintiff has not yet commenced proceedings on the merits of
the underlying claim and has requested a settlement conference
be held prior to any proceedings being instituted.  The
settlement conference is expected to take place by early 2007.


HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Wants to Replace Stock Suit Lead Attorney
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF), the lead
plaintiff in the securities fraud lawsuit against Halliburton
Co., has asked a Texas federal court to replace William S.
Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, as
the lead attorney in the case.

In what has been described by legal observers as an unusual
move, AMSF filed a motion on Nov. 22, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas that seeks to have Mr.
Lerach and his firm replaced with David Boies of Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, according to a report by Forbes.

AMSF cited in its motion that its relationship with Mr. Lerach's
San Diego firm has "deteriorated to the point that substitution
of new counsel is required."

According to Mr. Neil Rothstein, an attorney who is advising the
AMSF, it was concerned that Mr. Lerach's own mounting legal
difficulties might pose a conflict with the estimated 800,000
shareholders in this case.

Previously, two partners of Mr. Lerach's former firm have been
indicted for paying clients to participate in securities
lawsuits, and Mr. Lerach himself has been investigated by a
grand jury.  A trial on the indictment has been slated for Jan.
8, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 29, 2006).

                        Case Background

In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002.  

Defendants in the suit are Halliburton Co., David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved
in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.   

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection.  

In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class
actions were filed against the company.  Several of those
lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, the
company's independent accountants for the period covered by the
lawsuits, and several of the company's present or former
officers and directors.  

The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint was named, "Richard Moore,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," which was filed and served
upon the company in April 2003.  

In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a
written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon
which the Moore class action would be settled.    

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated
complaint, which was granted by the court.   

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint includes
claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure (Dresser claims).   

The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions
leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and
were among the claims the parties intended to have resolved by
the terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated Moore
class action and the derivative action.  The memorandum of
understanding called for Halliburton Co. to pay $6 million,
which would be funded by insurance proceeds.  

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement, the court entered an order in September 2004 holding
that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate,
denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the
Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among others, to
mediate.   

After the court's denial of the motion to approve the
settlement, the company withdrew from the settlement, as it
believes that it is entitled to do by its terms.  The mediation
was held in January 2005, but was declared by the mediator to be
at an impasse with no settlement having been reached.  

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new
lead plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated
amended complaint, and that the company file motion to dismiss.    
The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at
which time the court took the motion under advisement.   

On Mar. 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the plaintiffs to re-plead those claims
to correct deficiencies in their earlier complaint.   

With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied
the motion, the company requested that the court certify its
order for interlocutory appeal.    

On Apr. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed a motion to dismiss
those portions of the complaint that have been repled.  

A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss in July 2006, and
the company awaits the court's ruling.

                     Mr. Lerach's Involvement

Mr. Lerach got involved in the case in 2005 after three other
law firms withdrew amid fierce criticism of the $6 million
settlement they negotiated without consulting AMSF, which was
supposedly in control of the litigation.  

The law firms would have received more than half the proceeds in
fees, while an investor with 100 shares would have received as
little as 62 cents.

Apparently, as late as June 2006, Mr. Lerach still had the
support of the AMSF.  At that time, Judge Barbara Lynn asked the
firm to explain why Mr. Lerach sought to add pension funds
affiliated with the laborers and plumbers and pipefitters
unions, as well as the City of Dearborn Heights, Michigan -- all
frequent Lerach Coughlin clients -- as "non-Lead plaintiffs."

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway - Radnor,   
         280 King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-  
         667-7706, Fax: 610/667-7056;  

     (2) Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello     
         Ave, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301,   
         Fax: 214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and  

     (3) Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270   
         Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:   
         212/545-4600.  

Representing the company is Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek,   
1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:   
713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.

For more details, contact David Boies of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504,
(Westchester Co.), Phone: 914-749-8200, Fax: 914-749-8300, Web
site: http://www.bsfllp.com.


HONEYBAKED FOODS: Recalls Ham, Turkey for Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
HoneyBaked Foods Inc., of Holland, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 46,941 lbs. of
cooked ham and turkey products that may be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes.

The following products are subject to recall:

     -- 6- to 11-pound packages of "Sliced & Glazed Fully Cooked
        Half Ham." Each package bears the establishment number
        "EST. 15875" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each
        label also bears a package code between "6261" and
        "6310."

     -- 12- to 16- pound packages of "Sliced & Glazed Fully
        Cooked Whole Ham." Each package bears the establishment
        number "EST. 15875" inside the USDA mark of inspection.
        Each label also bears a package code between "6261" and
        "6310."

     -- 3-pound approximate weight packages of "Sliced and
        Glazed Cooked Boneless Turkey Breast." Each package
        bears the establishment number "P-15875" inside the USDA
        mark of inspection. Each label also bears the product
        code "30505 02099", as well as a package code between
        "6248" and "6258."

     -- 3-pound approximate weight packages of "Sliced and
        Glazed Fully Cooked Smoked Boneless Turkey Breast." Each
        package bears the establishment number "P-15875" inside
        the USDA mark of inspection. Each label also bears the
        product code "30504 02099", as well as a package code
        between "6248" and "6258."

The ham and turkey labels also stated "Dist. by Honeybaked Foods
Inc., Holland, OH 49528."

The ham and turkey products were produced between Sept. 5 and
Nov. 13, and were sold at the company's retail stores and kiosks
in the Toledo, Ohio, region, as well as through internet and
telephone catalogue sales nationwide. HoneyBaked Foods Inc. has
contacted catalogue sale customers who purchased products
subject to recall.

The problem was discovered through the company's microbiological
testing.  FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of this product.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.  
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  However,
listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages
and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as
infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or
undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
Customer Service Hotline at (800) 461-3998.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact company Vice President
of Public Affairs, Crises and Issues Management Steve Behm at
(800) 461-4105.


ILLINOIS: Ex-Teacher Sues Chicago Public Schools Over Info Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Public Schools faces a purported class action in Cook
County Circuit Court over the accidental release of Social
Security numbers and other personal data belonging to nearly
1,740 former public school employees

Filed on Nov. 27, 2006 by Mark Cohen, a former teacher, the suit
is alleging that the release has left him and other former
employees vulnerable to identity theft. Local attorney Robert A.
Holstein is representing Mr. Cohen in the case.

The suit is seeking certification as a class action, alleging
that the error violated two state statutes and the privacy
rights of the almost former teachers.

Defendants in the case, included:

      -- the school district,
      -- Chicago Board of Education, and
      -- printing contractor All Printing & Graphics Inc. of
         Broadview.

Last week, All Printing, the printing contractor for the Chicago
schools apologized for mailing the data as part of a packet of
health-insurance information sent to retirees and other former
employees.

According to Chicago school officials, the company mailed a
spreadsheet used to make mailing labels, thinking it was a list
of health-care providers.

However, the suit alleges that Mr. Cohen and others already have
been "irreparably injured" by having their private data sent
"with reckless abandon to unauthorized persons."  

Mr. Cohen seeks a court order that would force the defendants to
pay an unspecified amount into a fund, which could then be used
to compensate any former employees who are harmed because of the
error.  He also wants the school district to immediately stop
distributing documents containing Social Security numbers.

For more details, contact Robert A. Holstein, 100 W. Randolph
St., Ste. 7-900, Chicago, IL 60601-3218, Phone: (312) 906-8000.


INFOUSA INC: Court Dismisses Shareholder Fiduciary Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit filed by
Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P., which beneficially owns
6.1% of the infoUSA Inc.'s stock, against certain directors of
the company including Vinod Gupta.

The lawsuit was filed on February 2006 as a derivative action on
behalf of the company and as a class action on behalf of
Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P. and other shareholders.  It
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks an order
that would require the company to reinstate the special
committee of directors.

The special committee was formed to consider a proposal from Mr.
Gupta to acquire the shares of the company not owned by him and
was dissolved in August 2005 following Mr. Gupta's withdrawal of
his proposal.

The suit seeks an order awarding the company and the class
unspecified damages.

In May 2006, Cardinal amended its complaint to add several new
allegations and named two additional directors of the company as
defendants.  The company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the court granted that motion and dismissed
the lawsuit without prejudice.  The court's order permits
Cardinal to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the
order.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $12.4M Price-Fixing Suit Deal Gets Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
approved a $12.4 million settlement of a price-fixing class suit
filed against International Paper Co.

In 2002, a group of private landowners filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against
International Paper alleging that the company and certain of its
fiber suppliers, known as "Quality Suppliers," engaged in an
unlawful conspiracy to artificially depress the prices at which
International Paper procures fibers for its mills.  On March 31,  
2004, the case was certified as a class action.  

The suit seeks injunctive relief as well as treble damages and
other costs associated with the litigation.  

The company denies all claims asserted in the lawsuit and
maintains its supplier program didn't violate any antitrust
laws.  It agreed to the settlement to avoid further expense,
inconvenience and burden of litigation.

An order from the Federal District Court in Columbia, South
Carolina approving the settlement was issued on Sept. 27, 2006.

The class is defined as:

     -- all persons, firms, corporations and other entities who
        sold pulpwood, or the rights to harvest pulpwood, to or
        through International Paper's Quality Suppliers;

     -- where such pulpwood was pre-priced by International
        Paper and a Quality Supplier and a price was agreed to
        between the timber seller and Quality Supplier between
        Sept. 1, 2000 and June 27, 2002;

     -- the tract was "baseloaded" under the Quality Supplier
        Program;

     -- in the states where International Paper implemented the
        alleged price-fixing conspiracy, including South
        Carolina, North Carolina, and portions of Georgia and
        Virginia.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available for free at:  

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f25    

The suit is "Crane, et al. v. Intl Paper Co, et al., Case No.  
3:02-cv-03352-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina under Judge Cameron M. Currie.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jacquelyn Lee Bartley of Jacquelyn L Bartley Law  
         Office, PO Box 11896, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-
         376-1260, Fax: 803-376-1557, E-mail:  
         jlbartley@bellsouth.net; and

     (2) Russell Thomas Burke and John F Emerson both of Nexsen  
         Pruet Jacobs and Pollard, PO Drawer 2426, Columbia, SC  
         29202, Phone: 803-771-8900, Fax: 803-253-8277, E-mail:  
         rburke@nexsenpruet.com or jemerson@nexsenpruet.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Kevin Kendrick Bell of Robinson McFadden and Moore, PO  
         Box 944, Columbia, SC 29202, Phone: 803-779-8900, Fax:  
         803-252-0724, E-mail: kbell@robinsonlaw.com;  

     (2) Craig Thomas Cronheim of Hogan and Hartson, Columbia  
         Square, 555 13th Street NW, Suite 12W-303, Washington,  
         DC 20004-1109, Phone: 202-637-6853;

     (3) Paul Madison Eckles of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and  
         Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone:  
         212-735-3000, E-mail: pmeckles@skadden.com; and

     (4) Andrew Kenneth Epting, Jr. of Pratt-Thomas Pearce  
         Epting and Walker, PO Box 22247, Charleston, SC 29413-
         2247, Phone: 843-727-2207, Fax: 843-727-2236, E-mail:  
         ake@wiselaw.com.  


LOS ALAMOS: New Mex. Court Delays Bias Suit Settlement Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico postponed
an Oct. 31 hearing on the settlement of the discrimination case
filed against Los Alamos National Laboratory because of court-
scheduling conflicts, the Associated Press reports.  A
rescheduled final approval hearing date is yet to be determined.  

Attorney John Bienvenu, who is representing current and former
Los Alamos National Laboratory employees in the discrimination
case said a hitch in the court approval of the suit settlement
means more people will have time to file claims.

Key issues in the dispute include the way attorney's fees would
be handled under the agreement.  State District Judge William
Johnson now wants more information from workers who object to
the proposed settlement.

Laurie Quon and her attorneys contend that the terms of the
agreement, which release the lab from future discrimination
claims, are too broad, and that requested attorneys fees of $5.8
million are excessive, the report said.

The amount in attorney's fees has not been set, but Mr. Bienvenu
has said the fees will not exceed $5.8 million.  

On Dec. 10, 2003, Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber filed a
complaint alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and
breach of contract in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico, on their own behalf and as representatives of a
class of similarly situated employees at the Laboratory.  

The suit is "Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber et al v.
Regents of the University of California d/b/a Los Alamos
National Laboratory, No. CIV-03-1404 WJ/RLP."

On Jan. 6, 2004, a second lawsuit was filed in Rio Arriba County
District Court by Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria A.
Bennett, Yvonne Ebelacker, Hispanic Roundtable of New Mexico,
and University Professional & Technical Employees CWA 9119 (AFL-
CIO) alleging violation of the EPA, breach of contract and other
claims.

The Garcia Action is "Yolanda Garcia e. al. v. Regents of the
University of California d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory et
al., No. CIV-04-112 WJ/RLP."

The Garcia Action was removed and consolidated with the Barber
Action to become the Consolidated Actions.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated actions claim that the
Regents, which operates and manages the Laboratory, and G. Peter
Nanos, discriminated against female and Hispanic employees in
terms of pay, promotion, educational opportunities, and other
terms and conditions of employment.

Specifically, the consolidated actions allege these causes of
action against the Regents:

     -- violations of the EPA, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d);

     -- violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983;

     -- violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
        as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title
        VII");

     -- violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, as
        amended, NMSA 1978, Section 28-1-1 et seq. (the
        "NMHRA"); and

     -- breach of contract.

The consolidated actions seek unspecified damages for lost
earnings and benefits, emotional distress damages, liquidated
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, in
addition to certain injunctive and declaratory relief.

On June 1, 2006, upon the stipulation of the parties, the court
granted certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The class consists of all females and Hispanics employed by the
Regents of the University of California at the Laboratory who
are or were regular, limited-term or short-term employees at any
time between Dec. 10, 2000, and the preliminary approval date of
the settlement agreement.

The court also granted certification of the EPA claims as a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

A proposed settlement reached between the class Representatives
on behalf of themselves and the class and the Regents, entered
on June 1, 2006 provides that the Regents will pay $12 million,
not including attorneys' fees and costs to be determined, in
settlement of the consolidated actions.

The District Court has granted preliminary approval to the
parties' Settlement Agreement, authorizing notice of the
settlement to be sent to persons who may be members of the
class.  The Regents continues to deny liability.

A final approval hearing was set Oct. 31, but was postponed. The
parties plan to consult the court regarding an extension of the
claims submission deadline.

Los Alamos National Laboratory Settlement on the net:

         http://www.lanlclassactionsettlement.com./index.htm


A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?15e9

The court-appointed Class Counsels are:

     (1) Patrick D. Allen of Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick, 4908
         Alameda Blvd., NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113, Phone: (505)
         266-3995;

     (2) Michael J. Flannery of Carey & Danis, 8235 Forsyth
         Blvd., Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, Phone:
         (314) 725-7700; and

     (3) John C. Bienvenu of Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes,
         Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, P.O. Box 8180, Santa
         Fe, NM 87504-8180, Phone: (505) 988-8004.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates reminds that all motions for appointment
as lead plaintiff in the class action filed in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock and other securities of Marvell
Technology Group, Ltd. from Oct. 3, 2001 through Oct. 3, 2006
must be filed with the court by Dec. 5, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Marvell and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
backdating of the grant of stock options to management.

The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only
potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here
resulted in the overstatement of Marvell's earnings during the
Class Period, and the under-booking of compensation expenses.
Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed
the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for
as an expense, which Marvell failed to do.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants announced that the company would
be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the
backdating of stock options.  From the time that assertions were
first made in the press that Marvell's options practices might
be questionable to the date of this announcement, Marvell stock
sank from over $28 per share to roughly $16 per share, and has
not recovered.

The company has now said that its financial statements from June
of 2000 to the present cannot be relied upon, and that it will
be restating financial results.

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


MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Premium Calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Insurance Co. reached an agreement to settle a suit
claiming that the company's calculation of persistency discounts
to determine premiums is an unfair business practice.

Sam Donabedian filed the suit, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, on April 20, 2001 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.  

The suit asserts, among other things, a claim that the company's
calculation of persistency discounts to determine premiums is an
unfair business practice, a violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and a breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

The company originally prevailed on a demurrer to the complaint
and the case was dismissed, however, the California Court of
Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, deciding that the
California Insurance Commissioner does not have the exclusive
right to review the calculation of insurance rates/premiums.

After filing two additional pleadings, on June 28, 2005, the
plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint asserting claims for
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
(the CLRA claim previously had been dismissed with prejudice).

Plaintiff again sought injunctive relief, unspecified
restitution and monetary damages as well as punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.  Without leave of court, the
plaintiff has attempted to state claims for breach of contract
and fraud.

The company filed a demurrer and motion to strike certain
portions of the plaintiff's fourth amended complaint.  Following
a hearing on Sept. 19, 2005, the court took the matter under
submission.

While the motions were under submission, counsel for the
plaintiff asked that Mercury engage in settlement discussions.  
The court agreed to stay the matter and counsel for the
plaintiff and the company met on several occasions to seek
resolution, but none was reached.

The court ordered the parties to a settlement conference before
another judge.  On Aug. 1, 2006, following three settlement
conferences, the company and the plaintiff reached a preliminary
settlement which is subject to completion of the class approval
process and may be subject to objections, which would be
reviewed by the court.  

A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement and temporary and conditional class certification was
held on Oct. 30, 2006.  

The California Department of Insurance raised additional issues
for the court's consideration and the hearing was continued
until Dec. 19, 2006.  

If the proposed settlement is approved, the company will issue a
$65 Rebate Certificate to each prospective class member who does
not opt out of the class.  

The class member could apply the certificate toward the purchase
of a new policy, and not a renewal, from the company or transfer
it to a third party who is not a broker or agent.  The $65
rebate would be offset against the future related gross premium
if and when the certificate is redeemed.


POTTERY BARN: Recalls Gourd Candles Posing Fire, Burn Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pottery Barn, of San Francisco, California, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
68,000 units of gourd candles.

The company said the gourd candles can have excessive flame
height and could fail to self-extinguish when burning down to
the bottom of the candle, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves five styles of individual gourd-shaped
candles and a set of eight mini-gourd candles.  The style number
for the candles can be found on the price ticket, receipt or
shipping invoice.

Gourd-Shaped Candles                    Style Number       Price

Medium Dark Green Gourd                 6249403            $12

Long Tan Gourd that is butternut        6278204            $16
squash-shaped with two wicks

Tall Beige Gourd                        6841803            $16

Tall Dark Green Gourd                   8119265            $19

Medium, Light Green Gourd               8119331            $12

A set of eight Mini Gourd candles       8117798            $24
that contains two white, two green
and four beige candles

These recalled gourd candles were manufactured in Vietnam and
are being sold at Pottery Barn stores nationwide, the Pottery
Barn catalog and PotteryBarn.com from September 2006 through
October 2006 for between $12 and $24.

Picture of the recalled gourd candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07038.jpg

Pottery Barn on the Net: http://www.potterybarn.com


SMITH BARNEY: Financial Advisors Amend Sex Bias Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five female financial advisors filed an amended class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
charging sex discrimination at Smith Barney, the retail
brokerage arm of Citigroup Inc.

The filing amends a class action complaint filed in March of
last year by adding additional plaintiffs from Southern
California and Florida, and amplifies the allegations in the
original class action complaint.

"Today, two more women, from two more Smith Barney branches,
have come forward to join the class action gender discrimination
lawsuit against the company.  Their stories confirm the
allegations of the complaint that female financial advisors are
not treated fairly and are denied compensation at Smith Barney
branches from coast to coast," said Kelly Dermody of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco, California, one
of the firms representing the plaintiffs.

Adam Klein, of Outten & Golden, LLP in New York City, another of
the plaintiffs' attorneys, explained, "These courageous women
have come forward to hold Smith Barney accountable for treating
female brokers like second-class citizens.  We are long past the
day when 100% effort means 70% pay for women in the workplace."

The original plaintiffs -- Renee Fassbender-Amochaev, Deborah
Orlando and Kathryn N. Varner, and two new plaintiffs, Ivy So
and Lisa Strange Weatherby -- claim they were discriminated
against with respect to their compensation at Smith Barney.

Specifically, the women allege that Smith Barney:

     -- systemically discriminates against women in allocating
        business opportunities;

     -- discriminates in the account distribution process,
        routinely assigning smaller and less valuable accounts
        to female brokers, including those who outperform their
        male counterparts, than to male brokers;

     -- fails to provide women with the same level of sales
        support, administrative support, and other support as it
        provides to men; and

     -- maintains a corporate culture hostile to female
        professionals.

Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC in Washington, DC, who also
represents the plaintiffs, said, "Smith Barney's corporate
practices foster a good old boy culture, where men receive a
disproportionate share of business opportunities. By bringing
this case, these women will ultimately be a catalyst for
systemic change."

Since the original complaint was filed, the plaintiffs have had
several important victories in the case.

                           Discovery

Most recently, the plaintiffs were successful in forcing Smith
Barney to turn over many documents that may help prove their
case, including documents that Smith Barney sought to withhold
from a prior gender discrimination case against Smith Barney,
Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., which settled in 1998.

Specifically, on Oct. 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
ordered Smith Barney to produce transcripts and expert reports
from the Martens case, as well as some of the claims filed in
that case by female brokers -- a huge victory for the plaintiffs
and the class.

Plaintiffs' counsel believes these documents will demonstrate a
history and culture of inequality toward women at Smith Barney
that persists today; assist the plaintiffs in understanding
Smith Barney's current policies and procedures; and educate the
plaintiffs about the types of policies and practices that led to
past gender-related complaints, and the procedures Smith Barney
implemented, or failed to implement, to address such complaints.

                             Venue

The plaintiffs successfully resisted efforts by Smith Barney to
transfer the case to a judge in New York City that retained
jurisdiction over a prior case filed against Smith Barney. The
plaintiffs' victory on this motion ensures the case will stay in
San Francisco, California, in the court where it was originally
filed.

Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Smith Barney on the net:

        http://www.genderlawsuitagainstsmithbarney.com.

The suit is "Amochaev et al v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-01298-PJH," filed in the U.S. District court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton, with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Alexander of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
         Bernstein, LLP, 3319 West End Avenue, Suite 600,
         Nashville, TN 37203-1074, Phone: 615-313-9000, E-mail:
         ealexander@lchb.com;

     (2) Kelly M. Dermody, James M. Finberg and Bill Lann Lee
         all of Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275
         Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-
         3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail:
         kdermody@lchb.com or JFinberg@lchb.com or
         blee@lchb.com;

     (3) Lisa M. Bornstein, Sandi Farrell, Cyrus Mehri and Anna
         M. Pohl all of Mehri & Skalet PLLC, 1250 Connecticut
         Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-
         822-5100, Fax: 202-822-4997, E-mail:
         lbornstein@findjustice.com or cmehri@findjustice.com;

     (4) Piper Hoffman, Adam T. Klein and Justin M. Swartz all
         of Outten & Golden LLP, 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New
         York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-245-1000, Fax: 212-977-4005,
         E-mail: ph@outtengolden.com or jms@outtengolden.com;
         and

     (5) Heather Huynh Wong, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-956-1000 x2150, E-mail:
         hwong@lchb.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Jay Cohen, Beth Susan Frank, Brad S. Karp, Audra Jan
         Soloway and Daniel John Toal all of Paul Weiss Rifkind
         Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of Americas, New
         York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212-373-3000 or 212-373-
         3163 or 212-373-3550 or 212-373-3869; Fax: 212-373-2399
         or 212-492-0550 or 212-492-0289 or 212-373-2773, E-
         mail: jaycohen@paulweiss.com or bfrank@paulweiss.com or
         asoloway@paulweiss.com or dtoal@paulweiss.com; and

     (2) Malcolm A. Heinicke of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, 560
         Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-
         2907, Phone: 415-512-4000, Fax: 415-512-4077, E-mail:
         heinickema@mto.com.


SRAM MANUFACTURERS: Mich. Resident Files Price-Fixing Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) manufacturers were
named as defendants in a purported antitrust class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
engadget.com reports.

Michigan resident Kenneth Bagwell filed the suit on Nov. 21,
2006, claiming the defendants conspired to "fix, maintain or
stabilize prices and to allocate markets for the sale of SRAM."

The suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and businesses entities that purchased SRAM
indirectly from defendants, their predecessors, or their
controlled subsidiaries and affiliates, during the period from
Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.  

Named as defendants in the suit are:

      -- Alliance Semiconductor Corp.,
      -- Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
      -- Etron Technology, Inc.,
      -- Etron Technology America, Inc.,
      -- GSI Technology, Inc.,
      -- Hitachi, Ltd.,
      -- Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.,
      -- Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.,
      -- Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.,
      -- Micron Technology, Inc.,
      -- Crucial Technology, Inc.
      -- Mitsubishi Electric Corp.,
      -- Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.,
      -- NEC Electronics Corp.,
      -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.,
      -- Renesas Technology Corp.,
      -- Renesas Technology America, Inc.,
      -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
      -- Samsung Electronics America,
      -- Sony Corp.,
      -- Sony Electronics, Inc.,
      -- Toshiba Corp.,
      -- Toshiba America Electronic Components,
      -- Winbond Electronics Corp.,
      -- Winbond Electronics Corp. America,
      -- Fujitsu, Ltd.,
      -- Fujitsu American, Inc.,
      -- International Business Machines Corp.,
      -- IBM Microelectronics, Ltd.,
      -- Seiko Epson Corp.,
      -- Epson America, Inc.,
      -- Epson Electronics America, Inc.,
      -- Sharp Corp.,
      -- Sharp Electronics Corp.,
      -- STMicroelectronics N.V., and
      -- STMicroelectronics, Inc.,

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?161a

The suit is "Bagwell v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00825-RAE," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan under Senior Judge Richard
Alan Enslen.

Representing the plaintiff is Marc L. Newman of The Miller Law
Firm, PC, 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300, Rochester, MI 48307,
Phone: (248) 841-2200, E-mail: mln@millerlawpc.com.


TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: No Order Yet on "Lewis" Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a motion challenging the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against Trustreet
Properties, Inc. in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  

On Jan. 18, 2005, Robert Lewis and Sutter Acquisition Fund, LLC,
two limited partners in the Income Funds, filed a class action
on behalf of the limited partners of the Income Funds against:

     -- Trustreet Properties, Inc.,  
    
     -- CNL Restaurant Properties, Inc. (CNLRP),  

     -- the Income Funds,  

     -- the general partners of the Income Funds,  

     -- CNL Restaurant Investments, Inc., and  

     -- CNL Restaurant Capital Corp.  

in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Cause No. 05-
00083).  

The complaint alleged that the general partners of the Income
Funds breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed mergers between the Income Funds and subsidiaries of
the operating partnership of the company and that the company
and CNLRP aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.   

It further alleged that the Income Funds' general partners
violated provisions of the Income Funds' partnership agreements
and demanded an accounting as to the affairs of the Income  
Funds.   

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and exemplary
damages and equitable relief, including an injunction of the  
Mergers.  

On Apr. 26, 2005, a supplemental plea to jurisdiction hearing
was held with a ruling expected May 13, 2005.  On May 2, 2005,
the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add allegations that the
general partners of the Income Funds, with CNLRP and U.S.
Restaurant Properties, Inc., prepared and distributed a false
and misleading final proxy statement filing to the limited
partners of the Income Funds and the shareholders of CNLRP and
USRP.   

On May 26, 2005, the court entered a final order dismissing
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On June 22,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the order of
dismissal.   

On Sept. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an appellant's brief.  At
the same time, the company and the other defendants filed their  
Brief of Appellees.'   

On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Appellants' Reply  
Brief.

On Sept. 21, 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a letter brief to
the Court of Appeals setting forth additional arguments; the
defendants filed a responsive letter brief on Sept. 25, 2006.  
The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on Sept. 27, 2006.

As of Nov. 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals has not yet issued its
decision.  


TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over GE Merger Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trustreet Properties Inc. is facing a purported class action in
relation to a merger plan it entered into with an affiliate of
General Electric Capital Corp. on Oct. 30.

On Oct. 31, 2006, a purported shareholder class action related
to the GE Merger Agreement was filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland naming the company, each of its
directors and GE Capital Solutions as defendants.  

The lawsuit, "Dr. Hila Louise-Chashin-Simon Foundation, Inc. v.
Trustreet Properties, Inc., et al (Case No. 24-C06-008654),"
alleges, among other things, that $17.05 per share in cash to be
paid to the holders of company common stock in connection with
the GE Merger is inadequate, that:

     -- the individual director defendants breached their
        fiduciary duties to the stockholders of the company in
        negotiating and approving the GE Merger;

     -- that GE Capital Solutions aided and abetted the director
        defendants in such alleged breach and that all
        defendants conspired in such breach.  

The complaint seeks these relief:

     -- declaring that the lawsuit is properly maintainable as a
        class action and certification of the plaintiff as a
        class representative;

     -- declaring that the director defendants have breached
        their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and other
        members of the class, that GE Capital Solutions aided
        and abetted such breaches and that all defendants
        conspired in such breaches;

     -- enjoining the GE Merger and, if such transaction is
        consummated, rescinding the transaction;

     -- appropriate damages; and

     -- awarding attorneys' and experts' fees to the plaintiff.  


UAL CORP: High Court Review of ESOP Complaint Dismissal Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the suit, "Summers v. UAL Corp. ESOP, et. al." asked
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals dismissing the underlying claims in the case.  

Certain participants in the UAL Corp. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP) sued the ESOP, the ESOP Committee and State Street
Bank and Trust company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in February 2003.  The plaintiffs
are seeking monetary damages in a purported class action that
alleges that the ESOP Committee breached its fiduciary duty by
not selling UAL stock held by the ESOP commencing as of July 19,
2001.

The ESOP Committee appointed State Street in September 2002 to
act as investment manager and fiduciary to manage the assets of
the ESOP itself.  In August 2005, a proposed settlement was
reached between the plaintiffs and the ESOP Committee
defendants.  The agreed upon settlement amount is to be paid out
of the $5.2 million in insurance proceeds remaining after
deducting legal fees.  

State Street objected to the agreement during the required
fairness hearing before the District Court.  The court
nevertheless approved the settlement in October 2005, but also
granted State Street's motion for summary judgment, dismissing
the underlying claims.  

Both sides appealed, from the District Court's decision, and as
a result, no settlement funds have been disbursed pending a
ruling on appeal.  In June 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing
the claims against State Street and in effect rendering State
Street's challenge to the settlement agreement moot.

Both parties have requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals and have until Dec. 5, 2006 to
file supporting briefs.  

Although there is no set time for a ruling on whether the
Supreme Court will review the matter, based on past experience
the company would expect that the Supreme Court will reach a
decision sometime in early 2007 on whether or not it will hear
this matter.

The suit is "Summers, et al. v. UAL Corp. ESOP, et al., (Case
No. 1:03-cv-01537)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Elizabeth A. Fegan of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 60 West Randolph, #200, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: (312) 762-9235, Fax: 312-762-9286, E-mail:
beth@hbsslaw.com; and Kenneth A. Wexler of Wexler Firm, LLP, 1
North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-
346-2222, E-mail: kawexler@wexlerfirm.com.  

Representing the defendants are, Randall J. Sunshine of Liner
Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif, LLP, 1100 Glendon Avenue,
14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: (310) 500-3500, E-
mail: rsunshine@linerlaw.com; and Heather R.M. Becker of Laner
Muchin Dombrow Becker Levin & Tominberg, Ltd., 515 N. State St.,
Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 494-5391, E-mail:
hbecker@lanermuchin.com.


VEGAS GRAND: Nev. Court Gives Final Approval to Condo Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave final
approval to the proposed settlement in class action against
Vegas Grand Condominiums Ltd. Partnership and developer Florida-
based developer Del American, The Las Vegas Review-Journal
reports.

Judge Brian E. Sandoval issued the final approval order on a
Nov. 17, 2006 fairness hearing.

Del American along with other defendants were sued in 2005 for
canceling reservation contracts and raising prices at the $650
million mid-rise condo community under construction at Flamingo
Road and Swenson Street.

According to attorney Richard Donahoo of California, 638 Vegas
Grand reservation holders will receive periodic payments as the
project is built and sold.

The final amount paid to the plaintiffs will depend on sales in
five buildings at Vegas Grand.  Based on recent market prices,
the fund to be distributed among class members is projected to
total more than $15 million, the attorney said.  Reservation
deposits of $25,000 are also being returned.

A few months back, Judge Sandoval gave preliminary approval to
the proposed settlement.  That preliminary approval allows that
all claims asserted by the purchasers will be settled without
admission of any wrongdoing on the part of Del American or Vegas
Grand (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006).

Under the settlement, the payout for each class member will be
determined partly by the strength of their legal claims and the
amount of their earnest money deposit, attorneys for the
plaintiffs said.

The settlement stipulates:

      -- payment of 2.5% of the gross sales proceeds of each
         condominium unit sold and closed at the project into a
         common settlement fund.

         If any or all of the project is sold, defendants
         shall pay $4,000 per unsold unit in buildings currently
         described Bella I or Bella II unit and $2,000) per unit
         in buildings currently described as Ana Capri, Villa
         D'Este and Villagio;

      -- payment from the common fund of attorneys fees to class
         counsel equal to 1/3 of the gross funds recovered via
         the settlement;

      -- payment of costs in the amount of $117,310.22;

      -- payment of service payment awards in the following
         amounts based on the time and effort each contributed:

         -- Thomas Blinkinsop        $30,000
         -- Trisha Blinkinsop        $25,000
         -- Jack Thompson            $25,000
         -- Maryann Thompson         $ 5,000
         -- Phillip Jorge            $ 5,000
         -- Barry Sands              $ 5,000
         -- Michael Courtney         $ 5,000
         -- Robert Leslie            $ 5,000
         -- Cynthia Leslie           $ 5,000
         -- Robert Dow               $ 5,000
         -- Constance Umidon         $ 5,000

      -- distribution of the settlement according to the plan of
         allocation dated June 29, 2006 and agreed to by the  
         parties and made part of the settlement.

The court approves the use of CPT Group, Inc., as the settlement
administrator in the action, with administration costs to be
paid by defendants in the amount of $25,000.

Pursuant to the settlement, any costs of settlement
administration over and above the $25,000 paid by defendants
will be deducted from the Common Fund amounts prior to
distribution.

                        Case Background

On May 2005, Las Vegas attorney George O. West III filed a class
action against the developer of the Vegas Grand condominium
project (Class Action Reporter, May 24, 2005).

The suit, filed on behalf of Nevada residents Thomas Blinkinsop,
Trisha Blinkinsop, John Thompson and Maryan Thompson and
California resident Phillip C. George, contends that reservation
agreements are in full force and effect and that the defendants'
purported cancellation of their agreements is of no legal force
or effect, and they are entitled purchase of the condominium
unit at the project referenced in their agreement at the price
specified in their agreement.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Anacapri-D'Este, LLC;
     -- Bella Venezia, LLC;
     -- Capri-Este, LLC;
     -- Del American, Inc.;
     -- Nevada Title Co.;
     -- Vegas Grand Condominium Ltd Partnership;
     -- Vegas Grand Condominiums General Partner, Inc.;
     -- Vegas Grand General, LLC;
     -- Vegas Grand Limited Holding Co., LLC;
     -- Vegas Grand, Ltd.;
     -- VG General Partner, Inc.;
     -- Villa-D'Este, LLC; and
     -- Villaggio-Anacapri Condominium, LLC.

The suit was filed in Clark County District Court.  It alleged
breach of contract, fraud and deceptive trade practices, among
other allegations.

According to the suit, buyers signed reservation agreements and
made deposits of $10,000 to $25,000 possibly as early as Nov.
2003.  They were notified, however, the suit stated, that in
April 2005, the project was being "reconstituted."

The new option for reservation holders was to accept a discount
on new unit prices or have their deposits refunded, plus a 5
percent bonus.

The lawsuit claims that the new prices were nearly double the
original price and that "the defendants had no intention of
selling the condominium units to plaintiffs and the class
members for the original price."

The suit is "Thomas Blinkinsop, et al. v. Vegas Grand
Condominium, LP, et al. Case No. 2:05-cv-00714-BES-RJJ," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under
Judge Brian E. Sandoval, with referral to Judge Robert J.
Johnston.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Craig R. Anderson and Albert G. Marquis both of Marquis
         & Aurbach, 10001 Park Run Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89145,
         Phone: 702-382-0711, Fax: 702-382-5816, E-mail:
         canderson@marquisaurbach.com or
         amarquis@marquisaurbach.com;

     (2) Thomas G. Foley of Foley & Bezek, 15 West Carrillo
         Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, Phone: (805) 962-9495,
         E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com;

     (3) John M Schaefer of The Law Office of J. Michael
         Schaefer, 3930 Swenson St., Suite 103, Las Vegas, NV
         89119, Phone: 702-792-6710, Fax: 702-792-6721; and

     (4) Alan H. Shifrin of Alan H. Shifrin & Associates LLC,
         3315 Algonquin Rd, Ste 202, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008,
         Phone: 847-222-0500.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) F. Christopher Austin and Laraine M I Burrell both of
         Greenberg Traurig LLP, 3773 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite
         500 North, Las Vegas, NV 89109, Phone: 702-792-3773,
         Fax: 702-792-9002, E-mail: austinc@gtlaw.com or
         burrelll@gtlaw.com;

    (ii) David C. Castleberry and Thomas F. Kummer both of
         Kummer Kaempfer Bonner & Renshaw, 3800 Howard Hughes
         Pkwy., 7th Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89109, Phone: 702-792-
         7000, Fax: 702-796-7181, E-mail: dcastleberry@kkbrf.com
         or tkummer@kkbrf.com; and

     (3) Nikola Skrinjaric of The Law Office of Nik Skrinjaric,
         2500 N Buffalo Dr., Suite 150, Las Vegas, NV 89128,
         Phone: 702-251-5000, Fax: 702-000-0000.


VIGNETTE CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed
against Vignette Corp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 8, 2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006

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

The suit is "Vignette Corp. IPO, et al v. Vignette Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:01-cv-09514-SAS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.

Representing plaintiffs is Melvyn I. Weiss of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,
NY 10119, Phone: 212 594 5300, Fax: 212 868 1229, E-mail:
mweiss@milberg.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Stewart David Aaron of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 250 Park
         Avenue, NY, NY 10177, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax: 212-
         715-1399, E-mail: stewart_aaron@aporter.com;

     (2) Steven G. Bradbury of Kirkland & Ellis, 655 Fifteenth
         Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 879-
         5000;

     (3) Dean M. Jeske of Foley & Lardner, 321 North Clark
         Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312)
         832-4500;

     (4) Joseph Michael McLaughlin of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
         LLP (NY), 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017,
         Phone: 212-455-2000, Fax: 212-455-2502, E-mail:
         jmclaughlin@stblaw.com; and

     (5) Ronit Setton of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
         (NYC), One World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281,
         Phone: 212-504-6000 x6130, Fax: 212-504-6591, E-mail:
         ronit.setton@cwt.com.


XM SATELLITE: Mulls Filing Motion to Dismiss D.C. Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. plans to file a motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action pending
against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

On May 8, 2006 an investor sued XM Satellite seeking damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who acquired XM securities from July 28, 2005 through and
including Feb. 15, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that XM and Hugh Panero, its president and
chief executive officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and
78t of the U.S. Commerce and Trade Code, and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 Code of Federal Regulations
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, Washington-based XM and Mr. Panero
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements during the class period that
artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Specifically, the complaint says defendants led the market to
believe that XM would grow its subscriber base to 6 million by
year-end 2005, while lowering two of its "key metrics:"
Subscriber Acquisition Costs and Cost Per Gross Addition.

In reality, however, the company was allegedly well aware that
costs, especially SAC and CPGA, would skyrocket in the fourth
quarter of 2005 due to a $25 million promotional campaign to
combat the debut of the popular "Howard Stern Show" on Sirius
Satellite Radio, XM's chief competitor.

On Feb. 16, 2006, the company announced a net loss of $268.3
million for the fourth quarter of 2005, compared with $188.2
million a year earlier.  For the full 2005 year, XM's net loss
was $666.7 million, compared to $642.4 million in 2004.  In
addition, the company announced that both SAC and CPGA were much
higher than the market had been led to believe.

The market reacted swiftly to those revelations, sending the
price of XM's common stock down 5.03%, from a close of $25.25
per share on Feb. 15, 2006, to $23.98 per share the next day.
The company's stock price fell a further 10.05% to $21.57 per
share at the close of trading Feb. 17, 2006, the complaint says.

According to the complaint, Mr. Panero and other insiders
engaged in highly suspicious stock sales during the class
period, with Mr. Panero selling approximately 413,334 shares, or
98.71% of his personally held XM stock, for approximately
$8,841,161.

Collectively, company insiders sold approximately 2,769,516 of
personally held XM stock during the fourth quarter of 2005,
reaping proceeds of approximately $73,325,009.

On June 7, 2006, Judge Ellen Huvelle signed a Consolidation
Order, consolidating all related cases into one class action as
"In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. 06-0802."

On July 3, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court.  On Aug.
1, 2006, Judge Huvelle issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the company said it received a letter from the
staff of the SEC requesting that the company voluntarily provide
documents to the Staff regarding the company's subscriber
targets, costs associated with attempting to reach those
targets, and related matters during the third and fourth
quarters of 2005.

On Sept. 26, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
class action complaint.  

The company anticipate filing a motion to dismiss this matter,
according to its Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kimberly Anne Chadwick of Doherty, Sheridan & Persian,
         8408 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031, Phone:
         (703) 698-7700, Fax: (703) 641-9645, E-mail:
         kchadwick@dsp-law.com;  

     (2) Donald J. Enright and Karen Jennifer Marcus both of
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax: (202)
         337-8090, E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com or kjm@ftllaw.com;  

     (3) Burton John Fishman of Fortney & Scott, 1750 K Street,
         NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 689-
         1200, Fax: (202) 776-7801, E-mail:
         fishman@fortneyscott.com;  

     (4) Nancy M. Juda of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730,
         Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-2024, E-mail:
         nancyj@lerachlaw.com;  

     (5) Gary Edward Mason of The Mason Law Firm, 1225 19th
         Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         (202) 429-2290, Fax: (202) 429-2294, E-mail:
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;  

     (6) Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B
         Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         233-4565, Fax: (619) 233-0508, E-mail:
         ashingler@scott-scott.com; and

     (7) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll both of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue,
         NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com or stoll@cmht.com.  

Representing the defendants are Charles Edward Davidow and
Michael A Mugmon both of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
(202) 663-6241 or (202) 663-6101, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail:
charles.davidow@wilmerhale.com or michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com;
and Christopher J. Herrling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, 2445 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, (202)
663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail: cherrling@wilmer.com.  


* Corporate Library Issues Report on Firms Facing Possible SCAs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Corporate Library released a report, identifying the 75 most
likely -- and 50 least likely -- public companies to face
securities class actions (SCAs) within the next 18 months.

Using, a series of newly-developed screens that draw upon
governance and performance data, the new analysis identifies six
key factors which, in combination with performance fundamentals
such as share price volatility and leverage, provide a reliable
tool for assessing the probability of SCAs.

The key factors are:

      -- Excessive CEO compensation,
      -- Director age, tenure, over-commitment, and lack of
         independence,
      -- Institutional owners,
      -- Industry-specific risk,
      -- company size, and
      -- Share trading volume,

This latest study, a follow up to The Corporate Library's
previous class action studies published in April 2005 and July
2006, examines more closely the probability of occurrence of
SCAs.

The full report can be purchased from The Corporate Library's
online store: http://www.thecorporatelibrary.com.

    
                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Utility Cos. Face 71 Suits at 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 71 pending
asbestos-related multi-defendant lawsuits against it and its
utility companies: Union Electric Co., Central Illinois Public
Service Co., Ameren Energy Generating Co., Central Illinois
Light Co., and Illinois Power Co.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had 72 pending asbestos-related
multi-defendant suits filed against it and its utility
companies: Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO, and IP. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 316 suits against the
Ameren Companies. Of these, 145 were dismissed and 100 suits
were settled.

Most of the suits against the Ameren Companies have been filed
in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill., with 185 named
defendants in some cases, and six in others. However, in the
cases that were pending as of Sept. 30, 2006, the average number
of parties was 67.

The claims filed against the Ameren Companies alleged injury
from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs' activities at the
Company's present or former electric generating plants.

Genco now owns former CIPS plants, and AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Co. now owns most former CILCO plants. Most of IP's
plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc. subsidiary before
Ameren's acquisition of IP.

Each suit seeks unspecified damages in excess of US$50,000,
which, if proved, typically would be shared among the named
defendants.

From July 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2006, six more asbestos
suits were filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, mostly
in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Two suits were
dismissed and five were settled. As of Sept. 30, 2006, five
asbestos-related suits were pending against Electric Energy Inc.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Mo., Ameren Corp. distributes
electricity to 2.3 million customers and natural gas to more
than 900,000 in Missouri and Illinois through its utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Energy Has 522 Claims v. BGE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. recorded about 522 non-employee
individuals who have pending asbestos-related claims against its
subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., 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 recorded about 517 non-employee individuals who have
pending asbestos-related claims against BGE. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006)

Since 1993, BGE has been co-defending in several actions
concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of
"premises liability," alleging that BGE knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard. Cross-claims and third-party
claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE
in these actions.

To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a minority has
been resolved for immaterial amounts.

The remaining claims are pending in state courts in Maryland and
Pennsylvania.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Md., Constellation Energy Group
Inc., through Baltimore Gas, delivers electricity and natural
gas in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $7.5M Liability in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corp. recorded US$7,500,000 asbestos-related
liability in its consolidated financial statements, according to
the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period
ended Oct. 1, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Of this amount, the Company expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$300,000 over the next 12 months.

The Company reported a US$6.3 million asbestos-related liability
in its consolidated financial statements. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006)

The Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. The
Company reviews the incidence of past and recent claims, the
historical case dismissal rate, and the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs.

The Company also reviews its recent and historical resolution of
the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status
and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the
number of years activity might continue.

Through March 31, 2032 and March 31, 2083, the Company has
estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability to range
between US$4,600,000 and US$22,800,000.

The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate
liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, is through March
31, 2032 and ranges from US$7,000,000 to US$8,000,000 as of Oct.
1, 2006.  

Headquartered in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corp., through
its two business units, manufactures equipment for handling,
lifting, and positioning materials. Company products are sold to
construction, general manufacturing, and transportation markets,
which include hoists, chains, cranes, forged products, and
industrial components.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell, Units Still Face Injury Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to co-
defend in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos used in certain Company products.

However, most of the complaints do not identify any Company
products or specify which of these claimants were exposed to
asbestos linked to the Company's products. Past experience has
shown that most of the claimants will never identify any Company
product.

Moreover, when Company products seem to be identified, they are
from divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for
most of the costs. Historically, the Company has been dismissed
from most of these claims with no payment to claimants.

On Feb. 12, 2004, the Company initiated litigation in the
Milwaukee County Circuit Court to enforce the insurance policies
against National Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance. The two
carriers provided liability insurance coverage to the Company's
former Allen-Bradley subsidiary.

The insurance carriers have paid some past defense and indemnity
costs and have agreed to pay most of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., Rockwell Automation Inc.
operates through two segments: the control systems, which makes
industrial automation products, and the power systems, which
offers power transmission products, bushings, clutches, motor
brakes, conveyor pulleys, couplings, bearings, and mechanical
drives.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Still Faces Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to lawsuits filed by a
significant number of claimants, alleging health problems from
exposure to asbestos, 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.

Several claims have been asserted by railroad workers alleging
exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars made by The
Pullman Co., a Company subsidiary. Nearly all of the claims are
related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's
automotive emission control products.

A small percentage of these claimants alleged that they were
automobile mechanics and a number appeared to involve workers in
other industries or otherwise do not include enough information
to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the
Company.

The Company said it is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to
asbestos by its former muffler products and that they would not
be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their
work with these products.

Many of these cases involved numerous defendants, with the
number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a
various industries. To date, the Company said that it has
regularly achieved favorable resolution.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois, Tenneco Inc. makes
Walker exhaust systems and Monroe ride-control equipment for
vehicle manufacturers and the replacement market. The Company's
product line also includes vibration-control systems, catalytic
converters, and various exhaust system accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Faces 1,934 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2006, has been
named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos with
about 4,541 plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 1,934 claims were
pending and 2,607 have been dismissed or settled.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company has been named a defendant in
suits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 2,972
plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 387 claims were pending and
2,585 have been dismissed or settled. (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 1, 2006)

The Company defends itself against suits in which plaintiffs
alleged exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have
performed at various sites. The Company has never made,
distributed, or supplied asbestos products.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000.

With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with enough
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had accrued US$900,000 for
liability and related expenses.

Headquartered in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge &
Iron Co. N.V. is a global specialty engineering and construction
firm. The Company serves the hydrocarbon, energy, power
generation, and water storage and treatment industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Water Faces Workplace Injury Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group, on Oct. 26, 2006, has been
served with a complaint for personal injury due to exposure to
asbestos.

The unnamed plaintiff claimed to have worked for two of the
Company's subcontractors on pipeline projects and Palos Verdes
Water Co., a water utility acquired by the Company in 1970.

The plaintiff alleged that he worked on various capital projects
over a number of years, and the Company and other defendants are
responsible for his asbestos related injuries.

The plaintiff seeks damages of US$27,500,000.

Headquartered in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service
Group's main regulated utility, California Water Service Co.,
provides water in 26 systems for 456,000 customers throughout
the state.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tarragon Incurs $846T for Cleanup Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tarragon Corp., through Sept. 30, 2006, incurred US$846,000 for
legal and other professional fees and costs of relocation of
residents of Pine Crest Village at Victoria Park in connection
with asbestos-related cleanup matters.

In April 2003, in connection with renovations at Pine Crest, the
Company's contractor disturbed asbestos-containing materials.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida investigated these actions for
possible violations of federal criminal laws.

On April 25, 2006, the U.S. Attorney charged the Company's
subsidiary Tarragon Management Inc. with one felony count for
not complying with Clean Air Act Work Practice Standards for
Asbestos in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

Under an agreement with the U.S. Attorney, on June 19, 2006, TMI
pleaded guilty to that charge, and agreed to pay fines and
community service payments totaling US$1 million, accrued in
2005, for the offense.

TMI also agreed to institute an environmental compliance program
and was placed on five years probation with the right to seek an
early termination after three years of documented compliance
with the program.

The U.S. Attorney filed separate charges against the contractor,
and one current and one former Company employee with oversight
responsibility for the Pine Crest condominium conversion. Each
also pleaded guilty to the charges against them.

In March 2004, remediation was completed at a cost of about
US$795,000.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Corp. Still Faces La. Workers' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corp. continues to defend itself against claims filed by
individuals who alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos while
working at sites in central Louisiana.

Most of the claimants were workers who participated in the
construction of various generation facilities, and some of the
claimants had worked at Company-owned locations.

With two exceptions, all filed, asbestos-related lawsuits have
been settled. The claimants have appealed the two remaining
suits that were dismissed by the trial court.

Headquartered in Pineville, Louisiana, Cleco Corp.'s utility
unit, Cleco Power, generates, transmits, and distributes
electricity to 267,000 residential and business customers in
more than 100 communities in Louisiana.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Reserves $4.179B for Claims in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., at and for the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2006, reserved US$4.179 billion for
asbestos-related claims, compared with US$3.669 billion for the
same period in 2005.

The increase was mainly due to a US$830 million charge to
strengthen reserves in the 2005-4th quarter and a US$155 million
charge in the 2006-3rd quarter, partially offset by loss
payments made during the 12-month period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

For the 2006-3rd quarter, the Company's net asbestos-related
reserves were US$4.280 billion, compared with US$4.364 billion
for the 2006-1st quarter. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first nine months
of 2006 were US$341 million, compared with US$264 million in the
same period of 2005.

About 54 percent in the first nine months of 2006 and 36 percent
in the first nine months of 2005 of total net paid losses
related to policyholders with whom the Company previously
entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's
liability.  

The Company increased asbestos reserves by US$155 million in the
2006-3rd quarter. A portion of the Company's loss reserves are
for asbestos and environmental claims and related litigation
which aggregated US$4.65 billion at Sept. 30, 2006.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Still Faces ACandS Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a subsidiary of The St. Paul
Travelers Companies Inc., remains involved in asbestos lawsuits
relating to ACandS Inc., formerly a distributor and installer of
asbestos-containing products.

In September 2002, ACandS filed for bankruptcy, which is pending
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In
its plan of reorganization, ACandS sought to establish a trust
to pay asbestos bodily injury claims against it and sought to
assign to the trust its rights under the insurance policies
issued by TPC.  

On Jan. 26, 2004, the bankruptcy court rejected confirmation of
ACandS' proposed plan of reorganization. ACandS has filed a
notice of appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision and has
objected to the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the U.S. District Court. TPC has moved to
dismiss the appeal and objections and has also filed an
opposition to ACandS' objections.

In January 2001, arbitration was commenced to determine whether
and to what extent ACandS' financial obligations for bodily
injury asbestos claims are subject to insurance policy aggregate
limits. On July 31, 2003, the arbitration panel ruled in favor
of TPC that asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are
subject to the aggregate limits of the policies issued to
ACandS, which have been exhausted.  

In October 2003, ACandS commenced a suit seeking to vacate the
arbitration award as beyond the panel's scope of authority. On
Sept. 16, 2004, the district court denied ACandS' motion to
vacate the arbitration award.   

On Jan. 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the district court's decision and declared the
arbitration award void on procedural grounds.  

On May 22, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied TPC's petition
for a writ of certiorari. The matter has been remanded to
district court and TPC has asked the district court to remand
the arbitration to the panel that initially ruled in favor of
TPC for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit's
decision. ACandS has opposed that request.

In the other proceeding, a case pending before the same court
and commenced in September 2000, ACandS sought a declaration of
the extent to which the asbestos bodily injury claims against
ACandS are subject to occurrence limits under insurance policies
issued by TPC.

TPC filed a motion to dismiss this action, which the district
court dismissed. As a result of the Jan. 19, 2006 ruling by the
Third Circuit and the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, this
case has been reinstated.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
were filed against TPC and other insurers in state court in West
Virginia. These cases were consolidated into a single proceeding
in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.

Plaintiffs alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair
trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling
asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to reopen settled
asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including
punitive damages, directly on insurers.  

In November 2001, plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court moved to name TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC
and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of
asbestos products. In March 2002, the court granted the motion
to amend. Plaintiffs sought damages, including punitive damages.  

In August 2002, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on TPC's
motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting further
prosecution of the suits pursuant to the reorganization plan and
related orders.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
M&F Worldwide Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, incurred or expected
to incur about US$1 million of unindemnified asbestos-related
costs, as to which it either has received or expected to receive
about US$700,000 in insurance reimbursements.

In 1995, the Company, two subsidiaries, and a subsidiary of
Mafco Consolidated Group Inc. entered into a transfer agreement.

Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex Corp., with its
successor in interest Pneumo Abex LLC, then a Company unit,
retained the assets and liabilities relating to the Company's
former Abex NWL Aerospace Division. Pneumo Abex transferred
substantially all of its other assets and liabilities to a MCG
subsidiary.

The Transfer Agreement required the MCG subsidiary to undertake
certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to
certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other
liabilities retained by Pneumo Abex.

Before 1988, a former Company subsidiary made certain asbestos-
containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, along
with 10 to as many as 100 or more other firms, as a defendant in
personal injury lawsuits claiming asbestos exposure-related
damages.

Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc., formerly
known as Whitman Corp., has ultimate responsibility for all the
remaining asbestos claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through
August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted.

In connection with the sale by Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries,
Inc. assumed responsibility for substantially all asbestos-
related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998
and not indemnified by Whitman. In October 1998, Federal-Mogul
Corporation bought the Cooper subsidiary.

In October 2001, the Cooper subsidiary filed a petition under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing
its indemnity obligations to the Company. Cooper guarantees
performance of its subsidiary's indemnity obligation.

Since the bankruptcy filing of its subsidiary, Cooper has been
fulfilling its subsidiary's indemnity obligations to the extent
that they are no longer being performed by the subsidiary.

In July 2006, the Company entered into a non-binding term sheet
with the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper and others that outlined a
settlement of claims against the Cooper subsidiary relating to
its indemnity as part of the bankruptcy reorganization of the
subsidiary.

In September 2006, the Company executed an agreement with the
Cooper subsidiary, Cooper and others implementing a settlement.

Headquartered in New York City, M&F Worldwide Corp., operates as
a flavorings maker. It makes licorice extract used for candy and
as a tobacco additive. The Company has expanded into the
security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke
American Checks from Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Records $2.254B Liability in 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Inc. estimated its net asbestos-
related liability, for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006, at US$2.254 billion.

The Company recorded US$2.327 billion net asbestos-related
claims liability for the three months ended June 30, 2006,
compared with US$2.224 billion net for the three months ended
March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$78 million paid loss and loss adjustment expense. For the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$5
million incurred loss and LAE.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$309 million paid loss and LAE. For the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$272 million incurred
loss and LAE.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc. offers personal and commercial property-
casualty insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and
workers' compensation. Established in 1810, the Company sells
its products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more
than 100,000 registered broker-dealers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Financial Contends With BCT Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is engaged in pending
litigation in Connecticut Superior Court against certain of its
upper-layer reinsurers under its Blanket Casualty Treaty.

The BCT is a multi-layered reinsurance program providing excess-
of-loss coverage in various amounts from the 1930s through the
1980s.

The upper layers were first placed in 1950, with London Market
reinsurers, including Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas.
The action sought damages for the reinsurer defendants' failure
to pay certain billings for asbestos and pollution claims.

In December 2003, the Company entered into a global settlement
with MacArthur Co., an asbestos insulation distributor and
installer then in bankruptcy, for US$1.15 billion. The Company
then billed the reinsurer defendants under the BCT for US$117
million of the settlement amount.

After the reinsurers refused to pay the MacArthur billing, the
Company amended its complaint to add claims related to that
billing.

Most of the reinsurer defendants counterclaimed, seeking a
declaration that they did not owe reinsurance for the MacArthur
settlement.

In April 2005, the Superior Court phased the proceedings,
providing for a trial of the MacArthur billing first, in April
2006, with other billings to follow in subsequent trial
settings. In September 2005, the London Market reinsurer
defendants moved for summary judgment on the MacArthur-related
claims.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the defendants'
motion. The Company noticed an appeal, which has since been
transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court, to the Connecticut
Appellate Court.

On June 15, 2006, the Company announced an agreement with
Equitas Ltd. and all Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas
that resolved all of the Company's ceded and assumed domestic
reinsurance exposures with Equitas, including the Company's
reinsurance recoveries from Equitas under the BCT.

Those recoveries consist mainly of asbestos and pollution
losses, including the billing for the MacArthur settlement. The
pending litigation and appeal continue with other upper-layer
reinsurers under the BCT.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc. offers personal and commercial property-
casualty insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and
workers' compensation. Established in 1810, the Company sells
its products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more
than 100,000 registered broker-dealers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Zapata Predecessor Units Still Face Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Zapata Corp.'s predecessor subsidiaries continue to face
14 asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of
Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi.

Filed since 2004, these 14 suits included about 583 individual
plaintiffs, who alleged they had suffered illnesses from
exposure to asbestos and seeking damages.

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

These cases include numerous defendants, who are all alleged to
be the Jones Act employers of these plaintiffs and to have made,
distributed or used products with asbestos.

Since these suits involved multiple plaintiffs suing multiple
defendants, the plaintiffs were ordered to prepare data sheets
specifying the firms they were employed by and the asbestos-
containing products to which they were allegedly exposed.
Through this process, about 31 plaintiffs have identified the
Company and its predecessor subsidiaries as their employer.

Once the data sheet process is complete, the Company expects
that it and its predecessor subsidiaries will be dismissed from
any case where they have not been identified as an employer.
Moreover, minimal medical information regarding the alleged
asbestos-related disease suffered by the plaintiffs has been
provided.

As to the remaining 31 plaintiffs, the Company is unable to
estimate its potential exposure.

Headquartered in Rochester, N.Y., Zapata Corp. sold its energy
businesses in the 1990s and became a producer of marine protein
through it majority holdings in Omega Protein. The Company was
co-founded by former U.S. President George H. W. Bush as an oil
and gas company in 1953.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Records $572.6M Loss Reserves in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group Ltd., at Sept. 30, 2006, had US$572.6 million
gross asbestos loss reserves, of which US$312.5 million was for
assumed business and US$260.1 million was for direct excess
business.

At June 30, 2006, the Company had US$542.5 million gross
asbestos loss reserves, of which US$303.9 million was for
assumed business and US$238.6 million was for direct business.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)

The Company's asbestos and environmental liabilities stem from
Mt. McKinley's direct insurance business and subsidiary Everest
Reinsurance's Co.'s assumed reinsurance business.

In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley, LM Property
and Casualty Insurance Co. provided reinsurance to Mt. McKinley.
This reinsurance covered 80 percent, or US$160 million, of the
first US$200 million of any adverse development of Mt.
McKinley's reserves as of Sept. 19, 2000 and The Prudential
Insurance Co. of America guaranteed LM's obligations to Mt.
McKinley.  

In 2004 and 2005 and in 2006, the Company concluded settlements
with 14 of its high profile policyholders. The Company has
identified 9 policyholders based on their past claim activity
and potential future liabilities as "High Profile Policyholders"
and its settlement efforts are directed at those policyholders.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$144.2 million representing case reserves
reported by ceding companies, US$143.5 million representing
additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed
reinsurance claims, US$210.3 million representing case reserves
established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims,
including Mt. McKinley, and US$145.1 million representing
incurred but not reported reserves.

The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures increased by US$47
million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006 and US$49.6
million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures increased by US$63.4
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006 and US$67.6
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

For the period ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's net three-
year survival ratio on its asbestos exposures was 3.9 years.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group Ltd. is the
holding company for Everest Reinsurance Co., an underwriter of
property & casualty reinsurance and insurance. The Company
offers specialized underwriting in several areas, including
property & casualty, marine, aviation, surety, medical
malpractice, directors and officers' liability, and professional
errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $279.9M Losses, Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses, for the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2006, were US$279,969,000, compared with
US$234,490,000 for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2005.

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the
Company's net unpaid losses and LAE were US$168,003,000,
compared with US$89,195,000 for the three and nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2005.

The Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses totaled US$283,506,000 for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2006, compared with US$232,756,000 for the
same periods in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006)

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's
asbestos-related net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
were US$137,386,000, compared with US$86,157,000 for the same
periods in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006, gross unpaid asbestos and environmental
losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$318.7 million,
representing 6.2 percent of total gross unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses, compared with US$315.1 million, or 6.2
percent of total gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses, as of Dec. 31, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, net losses and loss
adjustment expenses incurred for asbestos claims decreased
US$8.5 million. Included in this reduction is a net reserve
increase of US$5 million, a US$17.3 million benefit resulting
from the amortization of the deferred gain related to the 1995
Stop Loss Agreement and a loss of US$3.8 million related to the
commutation of this agreement.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, net losses and loss
adjustment expenses incurred for asbestos claims increased
US$3.8 million, related to the commutation of the 1995 Stop Loss
Agreement.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's survival ratio for asbestos
and environmental related liabilities was 13 years. The
Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos related
liabilities was 12 years.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current estimates of its
asbestos losses and LAE reserves, net of reinsurance, were
US$168 million.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Corp Faces Site Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. is faced with claims relating to damages for
personal injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use
of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities done by Duke Energy Carolinas LLC on its electric
generation plants in the 1960s and 1970s.

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

Duke Energy Indiana Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio Inc. have been
named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations. There are about
130 pending suits, most of which are Duke Energy Indiana cases.

In these suits, plaintiffs claimed exposure to products with
asbestos while working as outside contractors. The plaintiffs
further claimed that as the property owner of the generating
stations, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio should be
held liable for their injuries and illnesses based on an alleged
duty to warn and protect them from any asbestos exposure.

Of these suits, one case filed against Duke Energy Indiana has
been tried to verdict, in which the jury ruled against Duke
Energy Indiana on a negligence claim and a verdict for Duke
Energy Indiana on punitive damages. Duke Energy Indiana appealed
this decision up to the Indiana Supreme Court, which upheld the
jury's verdict in October 2005.

Duke Energy Indiana paid the judgment of about US$630,000 in the
2005-4th quarter. Moreover, Duke Energy Indiana has settled over
150 other claims for immaterial amounts.

The Company estimates that the range of reasonably possible
exposure in existing and future suits over the next 50 years
could range from an immaterial amount to about US$60 million,
exclusive of costs to defend these cases.

Duke Energy Ohio has been named in fewer than 10 cases and as a
result has virtually no settlement history for asbestos cases.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corp.'s regulated
U.S. utilities have a generating capacity of 20,000 MW and
distributes power to 2.2 million customers in the Carolinas. The
Company also distributes natural gas to 1.2 million Canadians
and operates a 17,500-mile pipeline system.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp.'s subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp., and
several other liability insurers, since Feb. 23, 2005, have been
facing an asbestos-related declaratory relief lawsuit filed by
ACE Property & Casualty Co., Central National Insurance Co. of
Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos suits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

Filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, the ACE Lawsuit sought declarations regarding
coverage issues, but is focused on issues involving whether
historical and currently pending asbestos suits filed against
Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of
liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability.

The ACE Lawsuit also sought to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Co. on the insurance obligations of other Metalclad insurers,
and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the Allstate
policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from
Metalclad.

The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in
connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate
under a Settlement Agreement.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint against Metalclad in October
2005, asked the court to determine the Company's obligation to
assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE Lawsuit
under the Company's indemnification obligations in the
Settlement Agreement.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides
insulation and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary
Metalclad Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs
insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other
industrial equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation
and sells specialty insulation products. In 1947, the Company
was established as Metalclad Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Reserves $7M at 3Q06 for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp.'s current reserve for asbestos liability claims, at
Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005, was US$7 million, compared
with US$8 million, as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's non-current reserve for
asbestos liability claims was US$32 million, compared with US$27
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current reserve for
asbestos liability claims was US$34 million. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006)

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides
insulation and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary
Metalclad Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs
insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other
industrial equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation
and sells specialty insulation products. In 1947, the Company
was established as Metalclad Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Entrx Drop From 485 to 458 in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp., primarily its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation
Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 458 pending asbestos-related
cases, down from 485 pending cases at June 30, 2006.

Before 1975, the Company was engaged in the installation and
sale of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has
resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related
to asbestos exposure.

The children and close relatives of persons who have died,
allegedly as a result of the direct or indirect exposure to
asbestos are now bringing many of these claims.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
150 defense judgments and dismissals, 78 settled cases, and 228
resolved cases.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$3,945,750 as total indemnity payments and US$50,587 as the
average indemnity paid on settled cases.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the average payment on
claims was US$17,306. The Company noted 179 new claims made in
the first nine months of 2006, compared with 154 for the same
period in 2005.

While defense costs are included in the Company's insurance
coverage, the Company expended US$28,000, in the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2006, and US$170,000 in the nine monhts ended
Sept. 30, 2006, relative to the asbestos claims, which is not
covered by any insurance.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides
insulation and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary
Metalclad Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs
insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other
industrial equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation
and sells specialty insulation products. In 1947, the Company
was established as Metalclad Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces 75T Active Claims in 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, had about 75,000 active pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, compared with 77,000
claims at Dec. 31, 2005.

The claims at Sept. 30, 2006 included 9,000 claims that were
settled but awaiting final documentation and payment, compared
with the Dec. 31, 2005 claims that included 10,000 claims.

At June 30, 2006, the Company's pending asbestos-related product
liability claims were at about 76,000, including 9,000 that were
settled but awaiting final documentation and payment. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had accrued US$94 million for
indemnity and defense costs for pending asbestos-related product
liability claims, compared with US$98 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company estimated its potential asbestos-related liability
through 2021 to be within a range of US$70 million to US$120
million.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had recorded US$78 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending
and projected claims, the same balance as was recorded at Dec.
31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded a receivable of US$8
million in connection with an October 2005 settlement agreement
with one of its insurers. The Company received payments of US$2
million in the 2006-1st quarter and US$6 in the 2006-2nd
quarter.

Moreover, the Company had a net amount recoverable from its
insurers and others of US$14 million at Sept. 30, 2006, compared
with US$15 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Until 2001, most of the Company's asbestos-related claims were
administered, defended and settled by the Center for Claims
Resolution.

Through Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had paid US$47 million to
claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance
carriers with respect to these claims. At Sept. 30, 2006, the
Company had a net receivable of US$13 million that it expects to
recover from available insurance and surety bonds relating to
these claims.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the Company's pending asbestos-
related product liability lawsuits, as well as any new asbestos-
related lawsuits, have been stayed during its reorganization
process.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp. makes car parts, in
which its core products include axles, brakes, and driveshafts,
as well as engine, filtration, fluid-system, sealing, and
structural products. The Company filed for bankruptcy in 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corp. continues to defend in pending asbestos-related
lawsuits, which include multiple claimants and multiple
defendants, 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 suits sought to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
made and distributed by the Company in the past.

The asbestos-containing parts that the Company used were
encapsulated and used as components of process equipment. The
Company said it does not believe that any emission of respirable
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.

The Company said it believed that a high percentage of the
applicable claims are covered by available insurance or
indemnities from other companies.

Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corp. makes pumps,
valves, and mechanical seals. The Company's flow solutions
division offers mechanical seals, sealing systems, and repair
services to OEMs. Its flow control division makes valves,
actuators, and related equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Records 124,300 Claims in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., for the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2006, recorded 124,300 pending asbestos-related claims,
compared with 125,500 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded about 124,400 pending
asbestos-related claims against it at June 30, 2006, compared
with 125,700 claims at March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 18, 2006)

The Company has suits alleging asbestos-related personal
injuries purported to result from exposure to certain asbestos
products made by the Company or present in certain of its
facilities. These suits have been brought against multiple
defendants in State and Federal courts.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
2,900 new claims filed and 4,100 claims settled or dismissed.
For the period, the Company paid US$14 million for claims.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 6,200 new
claims filed and 8,000 claims settled or dismissed. For the
period, the Company paid US$22 million for claims.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 38,800 claims by
defending and obtaining dismissals or by entering into a
settlement. To date, the sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments, including legal costs,
totaled about $244 million through Sept. 30, 2006 and US$233
million through Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had recorded liabilities for both
asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs,
totaling US$101 million, compared with US$104 million at Dec.
31, 2005.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims was US$33 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and US$31 million at
Dec. 31, 2005. The Company's liability with respect to asserted
claims and related defense costs was US$68 million at Sept. 30,
2006 and US$73 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded
US$53 million receivable related to asbestos claims.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had at least US$176 million in
aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims, in addition
to limits of available primary insurance policies.

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.039B for Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc., for the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2006, had US$4.039 billion gross, US$1.696 billion
net, reserve for asbestos-related losses and loss expenses,
compared with US$2.440 billion gross, US$1.002 billion net, for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-
related reserve for losses and loss expenses was US$4.163
billion gross, US$1.748 billion net, compared with US$2.504
billion gross, US$1.036 billion net, for the same period in
2005. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had
US$4.882 billion gross, US$2.063 billion net, reserve for
asbestos and environmental losses and loss expenses, compared
with US$3.324 billion gross, US$1.399 billion net, for the same
period in 2005.

Asbestos loss payments increased significantly in the first nine
months of 2006 compared with the same period in the prior years,
primarily as a result of payments pertaining to settlements that
had been negotiated in earlier periods. There was negligible
development of A&E reserves in the first nine months of 2006.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$2.863 billion gross,
US$1.312 billion net, asbestos reserve for incurred but not
reported claims, compared with US$1.550 billion gross, US$684
million net, at Sept. 30, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$3.430 billion gross,
US$1.554 billion net, A&E reserve for IBNR claims, compared with
US$2.108 billion gross, US$937 billion net, at Sept. 30, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
7,027 asbestos claims, of which 538 were opened, 126 were
settled, and 678 were dismissed or otherwise resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded
7,341 asbestos claims, of which 646 were opened, 49 were
settled, and 831 were dismissed or otherwise resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
16,517 A&E claims, of which 1,570 were opened, 246 were settled,
and 1,973 were dismissed or otherwise resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded
17,028 A&E claims, of which 5,229 were opened, 227 were settled,
and 3,765 were dismissed or otherwise resolved.

The Company's survival ratios for A&E claims were based upon a
three-year average payment. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's
asbestos survival ratio was 11.9 years gross and 13.6 years net,
compared with 9 years gross and 11 years net at Sept. 30, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's A&E survival ratio was 10.4
years gross and 10.7 years net, compared with 8.1 years gross
and 8.9 years net at Sept. 30, 2005.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Has 305 Pending Suits at 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, has been named
a co-defendant in about 305 personal injury liability cases
alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other
substances.

These 305 liability cases involved about 585 plaintiffs. The
cases are pending in courts in various states. In all of these
cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense. These cases are in various pre-trial stages.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company has been named a co-defendant
in about 300 personal injury liability cases, involving about
580 plaintiffs, alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and
other substances. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Decrease to 370
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, was a co-defendant
in about 370 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 9,900
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

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

At June 30, 2006 and March 31, 2006, the Company co-defended in
about 380 asbestos-related injury cases asserting claims on
behalf of about 10,000 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
8, 2006)

In every asbestos case the Company faces, the complaints are
filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of
the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claimed damages in
excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount
sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the
case was filed, or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
Jurisdictional minimums range from US$25,000 to US$75,000.

There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, which
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Parker Drilling Unit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Parker Drilling Co., since Jan. 13, 2006, has
been facing an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in the District
Court for the Parish of Jefferson in Louisiana.

Filed against more than 200 defendants, the suit was filed by 88
plaintiffs alleging exposure to asbestos, chemicals, noise, and
metals while working as Jones Act seamen.

This case is in the early stages of discovery to determine
whether or not the Company employed any of the plaintiffs or
otherwise have any connection with its operations during the
relevant period. A certain plaintiff's social security earnings
statement indicated that he worked for the Company's subsidiary
in 1971-72.  
  
In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that alleged
that they were employed by some of the named defendants from
about 1965 to 1986.

The complaints named as defendants other unaffiliated companies,
including companies that allegedly made drilling related
products with asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.
  
The complaints alleged that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos products in offshore drilling
operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
asserted claims based on negligence and strict liability and
claims under the Jones Act.

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

The Company has joined with other co-defendants in filing
motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an
employment relationship with which defendant, including whether
or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship with
Company subsidiaries.

Out of 528 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 11
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Parker Drilling Co. owns 64
rigs, including 34 land rigs, 19 US-based barge drilling and
workover rigs, and four international deep drilling barges. The
Company drills worldwide and has worked in more than 50
countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Drops Charges Filed v. SDG&E
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw has dismissed federal
charges against San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and three workers
accused of conspiracy and violation of safety standards while
removing asbestos at a Lemon Grove site six years ago, City Wire
reports.

Judge Sabraw dismissed the five-count indictment, ruling that
prosecutors failed to perform proper tests to determine the
amount of asbestos at the site, The San Diego Union-Tribune
reported.

The indictment named SDG&E, along with employees Jacquelyn
McHugh and David Williamson. Kyle Rhuebottom, the project
superintendent for contractor IT Corp., also was charged.

If convicted, each worker would have faced a maximum sentence of
five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine for each charge.
SDG&E faced up to US$2.5 million in fines.

The 16-acre site at the border of Lemon Grove and San Diego's
Encanto neighborhood housed SDG&E's Encanto Gas Holder Facility.

In 2000, SDG&E began clearing the land, including 9.3 miles of
asbestos pipe, to sell it to a developer.

Federal prosecutors alleged that to save time and money, SDG&E
and its workers told government inspectors that the pipes did
not pose a hazard.

In his ruling, Judge Sabraw said that prosecutors should not
have used a testing method that deemed the pipes hazardous as
long as one of the six layers of material wrapped around them
was found to contain asbestos.

The Union-Tribune reported that because prosecutors failed to
use the proper test, Judge Sabraw said the indictment must be
dismissed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Awards $850T in Damages to Widow
---------------------------------------------------------------
A McLean County jury in Illinois has awarded US$850,000 to
Judith Blessing whose husband, Robert, died from mesothelioma,
Associated Press reports.

Mrs. Blessing's award is the third McLean County lawsuit in 14
months won by plaintiffs accusing a company of conspiring to
hide asbestos dangers.

Mrs. Blessing's attorney Lisa Corwin said Mr. Blessing first
experienced symptoms in June 2005 and died in December 2005.

From 1953 to 1960, Mr. Blessing worked as a builder and
inspector at Union Asbestos and Rubber Co.'s Bloomington, Ill.
plant.

The jury ordered Honeywell International Inc. to pay US$150,000
in damages and US$700,000 in wrongful death damages.

Jury awards in three lawsuits against Honeywell have totaled
more than US$11 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Less Suits Filed in Madison Court, ICJ Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The business group, Illinois Civil Justice, said that lesser
asbestos-related lawsuits have been filed in Madison County,
Ill., Associated Press reports.

Illinois Civil Justice League said that there have been 287
asbestos suits filed in the county so far in 2006, down from 375
filed in 2005, and 477 filed in 2004. In 2003, 953 cases were
filed.

League president Ed Murnane said Madison County judges have been
making it harder for plaintiffs to file asbestos cases in the
County.

Plaintiff attorney Bob Ramsey said the decline might be because
of decreased asbestos mining.

In the late 1980s, when local attorneys began contacting labor
unions about asbestos exposure, Madison County began seeing a
significant number of suits.

The practice gave the county a reputation for being a lawsuit
magnet.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces Hicks Lawsuit in Pa. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2002, Louis Hicks filed a lawsuit in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against 46 defendants,
including Dana Corporation, alleging physical injury from
exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Hicks died in 2003 at the age of 76. Since then, the
Philadelphia Lawsuit has proceeded on behalf of Mr. Hicks's
estate via his daughter, Denyse Hicks.

The Philadelphia Lawsuit proceeded to a jury trial against only
two defendants, John Crane, Inc., and Dana. In June 2004, the
jury returned a verdict of US$5,000,000 in favor of the Hicks
Estate. Based on Dana's proportionate share of the Verdict,
along with an award of "delay damages," the Trial Court entered
judgment of US$464,606 against Dana.

In May 2005, Crane and Dana appealed the Trial Court order to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Appeal addresses certain
issues raised solely by Crane, certain issues raised solely by
Dana and certain issues raised by both parties.

In September 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's
ruling on the constitutionality of the Fair Share Act and
remanded the Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court for
resolution of the remaining issues on appeal.

The Appeal is stayed with respect to Dana because of its
bankruptcy filing, but is not stayed with respect to Crane.

Dana anticipates that the Supreme Court will shortly issue a
remand mandate to the Superior Court and transfer the appellate
record to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the
Appeal. Dana also anticipates that the Superior Court will
promptly issue a briefing schedule for the Appeal and proceed
with the Appeal, with respect to Crane only, if the automatic
stay remains in place as to Dana.

If so, Dana notes that Crane would be responsible for all
briefing and oral argument in the Appeal that necessarily relate
address only the Crane Issues and Common Issues. Such an outcome
is likely to prejudice materially Dana's interests. Dana
believes that it could become bound by the Superior Court's
decisions on the Common Issues without having had a voice in the
Appeal, if it remains stayed from participating in the
proceeding. Dana also believes that the Dana Issues, when
considered in conjunction with the Common Issues, may enhance
its prospects of obtaining reversal of the Trial Court order.

Accordingly, Dana desires to participate in the Appeal. Dana
asserts that the Appeal will only require its briefing and
argument as opposed to discovery and trial and therefore, should
not burden the estate with excessive costs.

Thus, the Debtors, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders stipulate
to seek modification of the automatic stay to permit Dana to
participate in the Appeal.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 27; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BODISEN TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, announces that a
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all common stock
purchasers of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. from Aug. 26, 2005 through
Nov. 10, 2006.

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

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

      -- that Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei (Wey or Wei), a
         person with a history of regulatory problems, had a
         significant undisclosed relationship with the company;
  
      -- that defendants failed to disclose the true owners of
         the company;

      -- that Bodisen failed to adequately disclose its
         relationship with, and payments to, Wey and New York
         Global Group, Inc., a company that was an analyst of
         Bodisen and of which Wey was President;

      -- that the company engaged in related-party transactions
         which had the effect of manipulating its financial
         results;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and
    
      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial statements were materially misleading at all
         relevant times and the company's statements about its
         financial well-being and future business prospects were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

Beginning on Sept. 20, 2006, the New York Post and
CBSMarketwatch.com published a series of articles, which
revealed that Wey had a history of questionable securities
transactions. The articles also exposed Wey's previously
undisclosed role as investor advisor for Bodisen while he served
as President of New York Global Group, Inc., an analyst of
Bodisen.

On Sept. 29, 2006, Bodisen announced that the company had
terminated its relationship with New York Global Group, Inc.

On Nov. 12, 2006, Bodisen stunned investors when the company
announced that it had received a letter of noncompliance from
AMEX.

The company reported that AMEX believed that Bodisen made
insufficient or inadequate disclosures in its public filings
regarding the company's relationship with, and payments to, a
"consultancy firm and its affiliates."

AMEX was also concerned that Bodisen had "internal control
issues related to its accounting and financial reporting
obligations in the context of its relationship with the
company."

On this news, shares of the company's stock plunged $2.23, or
20.8 percent, to close, on Nov. 13, 2006, at $8.51 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the New York Post published an article
regarding Bodisen, which further questioned the ownership of the
company and its relationship with Wey and New York Global Group,
Inc.

On this news, shares of the company's stock sank an additional
$2.61, or 30.7 percent, to close, on Nov. 14, 2006, at $5.90 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

Interested parties may no later than Jan. 16, 2007, move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.  

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


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Tier Technologies, Inc. (PINK SHEETS: TIER.PK)
between Nov. 29, 2001 and Oct. 25, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint, filed against Tier and certain officers and
directors, alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Tier issued a series of
false and misleading financial statements by overstating company
earnings and underreporting company losses.

On Dec. 14, 2005, Tier announced that its financial statements
for the fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2004
and quarterly periods through June 30, 2005 should no longer be
relied upon as a restatement of these financial results would be
necessary.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the company finally restated its financial
statements indicating that the company had over reported its net
income and underreported losses for approximately five years.

Interested parties may move the court, not later than Jan. 9,
2007, to serve as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman of the Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. Esq., Phone: 888-668-4130.


TVIA INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud 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
TVIA, Inc. shares during the period from Feb. 7, 2006 through
Nov. 16, 2006.

The complaint charges TVIA and certain of its officers with
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  During
the class period, defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements concerning the company's revenues and
financial performance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006
and for quarters ended Dec. 31, 2005 and June 30, 2006.

In particular, the company improperly recognized revenues that
were either uncollectible or not bona fide, in violation of the
Exchange Act and GAAP.

Additionally, the company issued materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's revenue projections for the
second quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006 for fiscal 2007 in violation
of the federal securities laws.  

In particular, on Aug. 7, 2006, a month into Q2 2007, the
Defendants issued materially false and misleading revenue
guidance that Q2 2007 revenues would be "higher" than the
$5,071,000 in revenues the company reported for the first
quarter ended June 20, 2006 ("Q1 2007").

In reality, the complaint alleges that the company expected to
achieve less than 10% of the revenues it had reported for Q1
2007 (between $300,000 and $400,000) in Q2 2007.  

As a direct result of the false and misleading revenue guidance
issued by defendants, the company's stock lost more than half of
its value during the class period.

Interested parties may no later than Dec. 5, 2006, move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.  

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. Scott Evans of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: 888-240-0775
or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com and sevans2@cmht.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  * * *