CAR_Public/061222.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 254

                            Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Enters $4M Settlement in ERISA Breach Lawsuit
AMERICAN FUNDS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Mutual Fund Kickbacks
ART TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Mass. Securities Suit's Nixing
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Late Fees Program

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Stockholder Litigation in Del.
CALIFORNIA: Judges to Hear Suit Over Inmate Population Friday
CALIFORNIA: Special Education Teens Demand Transition Program
CHECK POINT: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. for $13M
CHOICEPOINT INC: Fla. Court Considers Motion in DPPA Litigation

CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Dismisses DPPA, DTPA Breach Claims
DARDEN RESTAURANT: Olive Garden Sued for Norovirus Contamination
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Facing Overtime Pay Lawsuit, Report Says
GOL AIRLINES: Pre-Trial Proceedings Dates Set in Disaster Suit
IMAX CORP: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.

INSIGHT COMMS: Settlement Hearing in Del. Stock Suit Postponed
LIFETIME BRANDS: Recalls Lemonade Jars For Lead Exposure Hazard
MAINE: Knox County Strip Search Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
MCAFEE INC: Ex-Employees File Suit in Calif. Over Stock Options
MIVA INC: Mulls Setting Mediation Session for Click Fraud Suit

MIVA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Dismissal Motions in Click Fraud Suit
NEXCEN BRANDS: N.Y. Court Mulls Okay for IPO Suit Settlement
NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Breach Suit
NUMISMATIC GUARANTY: Sued in Florida Over "First Strike" Coins
PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Cities Joins Negligence Lawsuit

PREMCOR INC: Hartford Residents Opt Out of Refinery Vapors Suit
PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Securities Suits
RI NOVELTY: Recalls Kids' Necklaces Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
SINA CORP: N.Y. Court Dismissal Order in Stock Suit Appealed
VIACOM INC: Faces ERISA Violations Litigation in N.D. Tex.

VIACOM INC: N.Y. ERISA Violations Suit Transferred to Tex. Court
ZURICH FINANCIAL: $121.8M Antitrust Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Board Ruling in O'Dell Case Upheld in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Johnson Controls Lists $39M for York Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Zurn Ind. Drop to 46,200 in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Faces 4 Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial v. Chase Postponed, No New Date Set

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Sees $60M Insurance Recovery in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Corp. Has 40 Pending Cases at 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Tyco Int'l. Rise to 15,500
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lucent Technologies Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Genesis HealthCare Records $5.3M Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Faces 63T Claims in Respirator Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Product Poses No Risks, Court Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie's NSW Plant to Reopen, Expert Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Court Grants Grace's Motion to Compel

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Corning Inc. Drop to 10,900
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Reports $13M Expense for Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Reserves $7B for Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mahoney Sues 143 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Green Files FELA Suit v. CSX Transportation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ace Ltd.'s Loss Reserves Increase by $200M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hyogo Pipeworker's Family to Get Benefits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery of Hazard Closes Ore. DEQ Office
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Expects 6,000 New Claims in 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nova Scotia Firm Says Not to Touch Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Yorker Indicted in Illegal Removal Act
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NICE Committee to Review Ban on Alimta Drug
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Mulls Court Ruling Effect on Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow of Palmers Ltd. Worker Wins Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Ban N.Y. Time-Barred Claims

ASBESTOS ALERT: Court Junks Buffalo Dismissal in Lindquist Suit


                   New Securities Cases

ATRICURE INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
HANSEN NATURAL: Scott + Scott Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
TOP TANKERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Enters $4M Settlement in ERISA Breach Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
class action litigation currently pending against Allegheny
Energy and certain of its current and former directors.  

The proposed settlement remains subject to court approval,
following notice to class members.

In February and March 2003, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed against Allegheny Energy in U.S. District Courts in
New York and Maryland alleging that the company violated ERISA
by breaching fiduciary duties with respect to the Allegheny
Energy Stock Ownership and Savings Plan.  The cases were
subsequently consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

Under the proposed settlement in the consolidated ERISA class
action, the action will be dismissed with prejudice in exchange
for a cash payment of $4 million, of which approximately $3.9
million will be made by Allegheny Energy's insurance carrier.

The suit is "Keesecker v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-00843-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Andre M. Davis.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas J. Hart of Slevin and Hart  
PC, 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW Ste. 450, Washington, DC 20036,  
Phone: 12027978700, Fax: 12022348231, E-mail:  
tjh@slevinhart.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Christa D. Haas, Groom Law Group Chtd., 1701  
         Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:  
         12028570620, Fax: 12024594503, E-mail: cdh@groom.com;

    (ii) Gabrielle S. Moses of Venable Baetjer and Howard LLP,  
         Two Hopkins Plz., Ste. 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201,  
         Phone: 14102447400, Fax: 14102447742, E-mail:  
         gsmoses@venable.com; and
  
   (iii) Bradley P. Smith and William J. Snipes of Sullivan and  
         Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004-2498,  
         Phone: 12125581660, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail:  
         smithbr@sullcrom.com or snipesw@sullcrom.com.


AMERICAN FUNDS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Mutual Fund Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gutride Safier, LLP, filed a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of American Funds Mutual Funds between Jan. 1,
2000 and March 23, 2005.

The complaint alleges that Capital Group Companies, Inc.,
Capital Research and Management Co., and American Funds
Distributors, Inc. violated federal securities laws by paying
kickbacks to broker/dealers who sold American Funds Mutual
Funds.

The complaint asserts that Defendants made false and misleading
statements in mutual fund prospectuses and other documents by
concealing the existence of the kickback arrangement.

According to the suit, defendants illegally used investor assets
to pay the kickbacks.  The complaint asserts violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and other laws.

The suit is "Chin v. Capital Group Companies, Inc, Case No.
2:06-cv-07815," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Florence-Marie Cooper with
referral to Judge Carla Woehrle.

Representing the defendants are Adam J. Gutride, Seth A. Safier,
and Michael R. Reese of Gutride Safier, LLP, 835 Douglass Street
San Francisco, CA 94114, US, Phone: 415-271-6469, Web site:
http://www.gutridesafier.com.


ART TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Mass. Securities Suit's Nixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Art Technology Group,
Inc., and certain of its former officers.

The company and certain of the company's former officers were
named as defendants in seven purported class action that have
been consolidated into one action under the caption, "In re Art
Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
01-CV-11731-NG."  

The case alleged that the company, and certain of the company's
former officers, have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule SEC 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, which generally may subject issuers of
securities and persons controlling those issuers to civil
liabilities for fraudulent actions in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities.  The case was originally filed
in 2001, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in March
2002.  

In April 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
On Sept. 4, 2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing all but
one of the plaintiffs' allegations.  The remaining allegation
was based on the veracity of a public statement made by one of
the company's former officers.

In August 2004, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
and motion for summary judgment as to the remaining allegation,
which the court granted in September 2005.  Plaintiffs moved for
leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint.  

On Oct. 2, 2006, the court ruled in the company's favor and
entered a final order of dismissal of plaintiffs' case.  On Oct.
27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, according to
the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Art Technology Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:01-cv-11731-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.     

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) David C. Katz, Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
         1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
         212-682-3010, E-mail: dkatz@wllawny.com

     (3) Douglas M. Risen, Sherrie R. Savett, Berger & Montague,
         P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-875-3000,
  
     (4) Patrick K. Slyne, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, Fax:
         212-490-2022  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Dyan Finguerra-DeCharme, Mary Jo Johnson, William H.
         Pane, Jeffrey B. Rudman and Matthew A. Stowe of Wilmer
         Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-
         8888; and

    (ii) Nancy Margaret Gorton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-742-9100, E-mail: maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com,
         william.paine@wilmerhale.com,
         jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com and
         matthew.stowe@wilmerhale.com.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated class action
in the in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, alleging violations of federal securities laws, according
to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Congregation Ezra Sholom filed a putative
collective class action complaint under the Securities Act and
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).  

On Jan. 4, 2006, Victor Allgeier filed a putative collective
class action complaint under the Exchange Act in the same court.  

On April 28, 2006, the "Sholom" and "Allgeier" lawsuits were
consolidated, and later amended.  The consolidated lawsuit
purports to be filed on behalf of those persons who purchased
Blockbuster stock between Sept. 8, 2004 and Aug. 9, 2005.

In the consolidated lawsuit, plaintiffs assert claims against:

      -- the company,
      -- National Amusements Inc.,
      -- Viacom, Inc.,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Richard J. Bressler,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- Philippe P. Dauman,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone, and
      -- Larry J. Zine.

Plaintiffs claim the above-referenced defendants committed
securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act by failing to
disclose at the time of the Blockbuster split-off from Viacom
that Blockbuster lacked the financial and other resources
required to implement initiatives announced at that time.

They also claim violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
by the defendants regarding Blockbuster's financial results.  

Thus, plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, court costs,
attorney's fees and expert witness fees.  

The suit is "Congregation Ezra Sholom v. Blockbuster, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02213," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Clinton D. Howie of Howie Law Firm, 201 Laurence Dr.,
         PMB 314, Heath, TX 75032, Phone: 972/722-9290, E-mail:
         chowie@howielawfirm.com; and

     (2) Randall K. Pulliam of Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Ave.,
         Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: 214/521-3605, E-
         mail: rpulliam@baronbudd.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Brian Howard Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling - New York,
         599 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212/848-
         4000, Fax: 646/848-4703, E-mail: bpolovoy@shearman.com;
         and

    (ii) Robert C. Walters of Vinson & Elkins - Dallas, 2001
         Ross Avenue, Suite 3700, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone:
         214/220-7704, Fax: 214/999-7704, E-mail:
         rwalters@velaw.com.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Late Fees Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. remains a defendant in several putative class
actions arising out of its "end of late fees" program, according
to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suits were filed in various courts by:

      -- Anna Kane,
      -- Thomas Tallarino,
      -- Gary Lustberg,
      -- Michael L. Galeno,
      -- Ronit Yeroushalmi,
      -- Beth Creighton,
      -- Gustavo Sanchez,
      -- Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, and
      -- Kenneth W. Edwards.

                       Kane Litigation

The "Kane" suit was filed in 2005 in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Ocean County.  It is alleging fraud, breach of contract,
negligent misrepresentation, an unfair trade practice and a
violation of the New Jersey consumer fraud laws regarding
deceptive advertising.  

The suit sought compensatory and injunctive relief.  On Sept.
27, 2005, the New Jersey Superior Court stayed the trial court
action and ordered plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration.
Rather than proceed to arbitration, in January 2006, plaintiff
dismissed her individual claim without prejudice.

                     Tallarino Litigation

The "Tallarino" suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2005 in Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County.  It is alleging that
the company's "no late fees" program constitutes conversion and
violates California consumer protection statutes prohibiting
untrue and misleading advertising.  

The suit seeks equitable and injunctive relief.  The company
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

                  Lustberg & Galeno Litigation

The "Lustberg" suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action against the company in the Supreme
Court of Nassau County, New York.  The company removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York.
                       
The "Galeno" suit was filed on Feb. 25, 2005.  It was brought as
a putative class action in the Supreme Court of New York County,
New York.  The company removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of New York.

Both "Lustberg" and "Galeno" suits allege breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program
violates New York's consumer protection statutes prohibiting
deceptive and misleading business practices.  The suits seek
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

                     Yeroushalmi Litigation

The "Yeroushalmi" suit was filed on March 4, 2005.  It was
brought as a putative class action in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.  It is alleging that the
company's "no late fees" program constitutes fraud and violates
California consumer protection statutes prohibiting untrue and
misleading advertising.

The suit also alleged unjust enrichment and sought compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and other equitable
remedies.  The company removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

In November 2005, Mr. Yeroushalmi dismissed his individual claim
with prejudice in exchange for a nominal monetary amount with no
admission of liability by the company.

                      Creighton Litigation

The "Creighton" suit was filed on March 4, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action in the Circuit Court of Multnomah
County, Oregon.  It claims that the company's "no late fees"
program violates Oregon's consumer protection statutes
prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices.  The
suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief.  The company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon.

                       Sanchez Litigation

The "Sanchez" suit was filed on March 22, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County.  It alleges a violation of California's
business and professions code as an unfair business practice and
misleading advertising claim, and a violation of the California
rental-purchase act.  The suit seeks compensatory, statutory and
injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

                       Marker Litigation

The "Marker" suit was filed on April 11, 2005.  It was brought
in the District Court of Ingham County, Michigan asserting a
violation of Michigan consumer protection act and the
advertising and pricing act.  The suit sought actual or,
alternatively, statutory damages.  

Blockbuster moved to compel arbitration, the court compelled
arbitration, and on July 25, 2005 the case was dismissed with
prejudice.

                      Edwards Litigation

The "Edwards" suit was filed on April 13, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action in the District Court of Pittsburg
County, Oklahoma, alleging fraud and a violation of Oklahoma's
consumer protection statute.  The suit sought actual damages and
civil penalties.  

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Oklahoma.  On Nov. 17, 2005, the court ordered
plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration.  

Blockbuster, Inc. on the Net: http://www.blockbuster.com/.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Faces Stockholder Litigation in Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported stockholder
class action filed in the Newcastle County Chancery Court,
Delaware.

On Feb. 10, 2004, Howard Vogel filed the lawsuit against John
Muething, Linda Griego, John Antioco, Jackie Clegg, the company,
Viacom, Inc. and the company' directors who were also directors
and/or officers of Viacom as defendants.

The plaintiff alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated to
be announced by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to
minority stockholders and that the defendants engaged in unfair
dealing and coercive conduct.  

The stockholder class action complaint asks the court to certify
a class and to enjoin the then-anticipated transaction.  

Plaintiff has confirmed that Blockbuster and the other
defendants are not required to respond to the pending complaint,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

Blockbuster, Inc. on the Net: http://www.blockbuster.com/.


CALIFORNIA: Judges to Hear Suit Over Inmate Population Friday
-------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of three federal judges is to rule Friday on a class
action that seek to cap the inmate population in California's
prison population, it emerged in a report of the Capitol Weekly.

Motions were filed in November U.S. District Courts for both the
Eastern (Sacramento) and Northern (San Francisco) Districts of  
California that seek to cap the inmate population in state  
prisons (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2006).
  
According to two 2004 reports, there are about 173,000 prisoners  
in state facilities, over 30,000 more than the prisons are  
designed to handle.

The motion in Sacramento was filed as part of an already settled  
class action to improve mental health care for prisoners.  While  
the San Francisco court motion is part of a class action  
over all health care services in the prison system.

In October, Gov. Schwarzenegger issued an emergency order to  
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to enter
contracts with out-of-state prison operators to begin
transferring up to 5,000 prisoners.   

For more details, contact Michael Bien of Rosen, Bien & Galvan,  
LLP, 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor, San Francisco, CA  
94104, Phone: (415) 433-6830, Fax: (415) 433-7104, E-mail:  
rbg@rbg-law.com, Web site: http://www.rbalaw.com/.


CALIFORNIA: Special Education Teens Demand Transition Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of disabled teens in California filed a class action
against the Montebello Unified School District and California
Department of Education alleging they have been deprived
transition services by the state, The Metropolitan News-
Enterprise reports.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, seeks a statewide injunction ordering the
Department of Education and MUSD to comply with the relevant
statutory requirements.  

California's Education Code and the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act require school districts to provide
special education students "Individualized Educational Program"
by the time they reach 16.  The program includes trainings
designed to help them in their transition into adult life.  

Aside from allegations of non-compliance, the suit also raised
causes of discrimination.

Plaintiffs also include the California Association for Parent-
Child Advocacy, a group of parents and advocates of students
with disabilities.

The suit is "B.L. v. California Department of Education, CV 06-
07630" filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Florence-Marie Cooper with referral to
Victor B. Kenton.

Representing plaintiff California Association for Parent Child
Advocacy are:

     (1) Maronel Barajas at Disability Rights Legal Center, 919
         Albany Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, U.S., Phone: 213-
         736-1031; and

     (2) Janeen Steel at Learning Rights Law Center, 634 South
         Spring Street, Suite 917, Los Angeles, CA 90014, Phone:  
         213-489-4035.


CHECK POINT: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. for $13M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. reached an agreement-in-
principle to settle the class action pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The litigation was brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Check Point common stock between July 10, 2001 and
April 4, 2002.  The class action plaintiffs have also dismissed,
without prejudice, the officers and directors who were named as
defendants in the lawsuit.

The settlement of $13 million will be paid by Check Point's
insurance carrier and will have no financial impact on the
company.  The settlement is subject to court approval.

Check Point denies committing any violation of law or wrongdoing
and entered into the settlement solely to avoid the burden and
distraction of protracted discovery and litigation.

The suit is "In Re: Check Point Software Securities Litigation,
Case 1:03-cv-06594-RMB-DFE," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M.
Berman with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton.


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

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

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

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

The company has joined with the other defendants in a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiffs' "obtaining"
claim.  The court has not ruled on the pending motion, according
to the company's Nov. 8 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30.

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


CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Dismisses DPPA, DTPA Breach Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division dismissed certain claims of federal Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) violation, and Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violation by ChoicePoint
Inc.

On June 15, 2005, a purported class action similar to
"Harrington, et al. v ChoicePoint, CV05-1294 " filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California was filed
against ChoicePoint Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  The suit is "Wilson v.
ChoicePoint Inc., Case No. 1-05-CV-1604."

Plaintiffs in the Harrington case allege violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and certain California
statutes.

In the Wilson suit, the plaintiffs allege violations of the
FCRA, the DPPA, and DTPA.  The three named plaintiffs purport to
represent a national class of persons whose consumer credit
reports as defined in the FCRA or personal or highly restricted
personal information as defined in the DPPA was disclosed to
third parties as a result of acts or omissions by ChoicePoint.

Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and fees and costs.  On Feb. 28, 2006, the
Court granted ChoicePoint's motion to transfer the Wilson case
to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

On July 10, 2006, the court consolidated the Wilson case with
the Harrington case.  The cases remain separate but are being
handled as one case under the same judge.  

The company filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Aug.
10, 2006.  The court granted that motion on Oct. 12, 2006.  The
court dismissed with prejudice all claims of one plaintiff, the
DPPA and DTPA claims of another plaintiff, and the DTPA claim of
the third plaintiff.  The FCRA claims of two plaintiffs remain
pending.  One of the plaintiffs also has a DPPA claim that
remains pending.

The suit is "Wilson et al. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., Case No. 1:05-
cv-01604-JOF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division under Judge J. Owen
Forrester.

Representing plaintiff William Wilson is Natalie Finkelman at
Bennett Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, 35 East State Street,
Media, PA 19063, Phone: 610-891-9880, E-mail:
nfinkelman@classactioncounsel.com.

Representing defendant ChoicePoint is Jill Anne Pryor at
Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.,
3900 One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-
881-4100, E-mail: pryor@bmelaw.com.


DARDEN RESTAURANT: Olive Garden Sued for Norovirus Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olive Garden Restaurant, a Darden Restaurants, Inc. flagship
chain, has been named a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the
Marion County Circuit/Superior Court in Indiana which claimed
more than 370 people who ate at an Olive Garden restaurant
became sick with norovirus, contracted from three contaminated
employees, The Courthouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs Diana K. Redman and Courtney A. Redman bring this
action on their own behalf, and as a class action on behalf of
all persons who dined at Olive Garden from Dec. 9, 2006 through
Dec. 15, 2006, who then suffered bouts of nausea and/or diarrhea
and/or fever and/or vomiting after dining there.

The Redmans, identified as residents of Hamilton County, claimed
they became ill with symptoms that included nausea, vomiting and
diarrhea after eating at the Olive Garden, 6130 E. 82nd St., on
Dec. 13.

Court documents say the Marion County Health Department found
norovirus in three of the restaurant's workers. The disease can
be passed by fecal-oral transmission and by contaminated work
surfaces.

The complaint contends the virus was transmitted to the Redmans
and other diners through food contaminated by direct contact
with the infected workers or through contact with surfaces they
had touched.

The two women are among more than 370 patrons who exhibited
similar symptoms after eating at the restaurant during a period
from Dec. 9 to Dec. 15.  The complaint also alleges negligence
and breach of warranty on the part of the restaurant's
operators.

There are predominant questions of law and fact which are common
to members of the, but are not limited to, the following:

     -- the mechanism of the food contamination and/or
        contamination of working or eating surfaces;

     -- whether the defendant and its agents were negligent in
        food preparation and/or restaurant cleanliness leading
        to food contamination and/or contamination of working
        surfaces;

     -- whether the defendant was negligent in its quality
        control procedures so as to follow contaminated food to
        be served to patrons and/or to allow contamination of
        working or eating surfaces;

     -- whether the defendant and its agents maintained a proper
        hand-washing policy by food handlers;

     -- whether the defendant properly monitored employees with
        symptoms of Norovirus infection;

     -- whether the food sold and/or served to patrons who
        became ill was defective and unreasonably dangerous;

     -- whether the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs and
        the class in strict liability; and

     -- whether the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs and
        the class for a breach of implied warranties.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, pray for judgment against defendant in an amount
reasonable to compensate them and the plaintiff class for their
damages and for all relief and proper in the premises.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1772

The suit is "Redman, et al. v GMRI, Inc., d/b/a Olive Garden,
Case No. 49C010612PL0051132," filed in the Marion County
Circuit/Superior Court.

Representing plaintiffs are Patrick A. Edward and Kelly R. Eskew
both of Bingham McHale LLP, 2700 Market Tower, 10 West Market
Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-4900, Phone: (317) 635-8900.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Facing Overtime Pay Lawsuit, Report Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts is reportedly facing a purported class action
for alleged overtime abuses, according to an entry in
Kotaku.com.  The suit started on July 29 and has not yet been
certified.

The entry cited a letter from the company informing workers
regarding the suit.  The company denied in the memo allegations
of improper classifications of employees and failure to pay
those employees overtime compensation.

Meanwhile, in September, the San Mateo Superior Court in
California granted final approval to a $15 million settlement of
the employment-related class action, "Hasty v. Electronic Arts,
Inc."

The suit was filed on Feb. 14, 2005 in the San Mateo Superior
Court in California.  It alleges that the company improperly
classified "engineers" in California as exempt employees.  It
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.  

On May 16, 2006, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement pursuant to which the company agreed to make a lump
sum payment of approximately $15 million, to be paid to a third-
party administrator

On Sept. 22, 2006, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

Electronic Arts, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ea.com/.


GOL AIRLINES: Pre-Trial Proceedings Dates Set in Disaster Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan conducted an
initial conference in the Gol Airlines disaster litigation.  
Appearing on behalf of families of more than 21 victims were
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, attorneys Robert L.
Lieff, Steven E. Fineman, Lexi J. Hazam and Nicholas Diamand.  
Counsel for defendants ExcelAire Service, Inc. and Honeywell
International Inc. were also present.

At the hearing, Judge Cogan set a prompt schedule for resolution
of the important issue of forum non conveniens, as requested by
plaintiffs.  The court required defendants to file their forum
non conveniens motion by Jan. 22, 2007, and permitted plaintiffs
to proceed immediately with discovery on the issue.  Defendants
had requested that no discovery occur until the forum non
conveniens motion was resolved.

"We are grateful the Court permitted the families of the Gol
Airlines tragedy to proceed with their lawsuit without delay,"
stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Lexi J. Hazam.  "We have
assembled a top notch, global team of attorneys and aviation
experts to prosecute the case, and will vigorously contest any
efforts by ExcelAire and Honeywell to dismiss the action."

Brazilian attorney Leonardo Amarante, whose law firm is working
in partnership with Lieff Cabraser, commented, "Proceeding with
the lawsuit in an American court ensures that the families will
have their voices heard in the United States as to why ExcelAire
and Honeywell bear responsibility for the tragedy and must be
held accountable."

While Plaintiffs' choice of where to file suit is generally
accepted by U.S. courts, a forum non conveniens motion filed by
the defendants gives the Court the discretion to dismiss the
claims of non-United States plaintiffs if the defendants are
able to demonstrate that litigation of plaintiffs' claims in the
U.S. would result in excessive oppression to the defendants and
outweigh plaintiffs' convenience.  If the motion is decided in
plaintiffs' favor, the case will proceed in U.S. District Court.

"Discovery" involves the exchange of information between
parties.  As part of plaintiffs' discovery, plaintiffs seek to
obtain documents and other information from the defendants to
strengthen the case against the defendants on subjects on which
the Court has allowed discovery.

One hundred and forty eight passengers and six crew members died
on September 29, 2006, when Gol Airlines Flight 1907 plunged
nose-first into the Amazon rainforest after colliding with an
Embraer Legacy aircraft operated by ExcelAire.

The complaint charges that the pilots of the ExcelAire jet were
flying at an incorrect altitude at the time of the collision,
failed to operate the jet's transponder and radio equipment
properly, and failed to maintain communication with Brazilian
air traffic control in violation of international civil aviation
standards.  If the pilots of the ExcelAire aircraft had followed
these standards, the collision would not have occurred, a
statement from Lieff Cabraser states.

At the time of the collision, the ExcelAire aircraft's
transponder manufactured by Honeywell was not functioning.  A
transponder transmits a plane's altitude and operates its
automatic anti-collision system.  Honeywell shares
responsibility for the tragedy, the complaint alleges, because
it defectively designed the transponder on the ExcelAire jet,
and failed to warn of dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of
the transponder.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages against
ExcelAire and Honeywell for their negligence.

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


IMAX CORP: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corp. and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between Aug. 11, 2006 and Sept. 18, 2006, alleging violations of
U.S. federal securities laws.

These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  They were brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.

The suits allege primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements during the class period regarding their
revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing
to disclose material information concerning the company's
revenue recognition practices.  

Currently there are motions for consolidation, assignment of
lead plaintiff, and appointment of lead plaintiff counsel
pending before the court.

These lawsuits are in very early stages and seek unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and expenses, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Motti Kaplan, et al. v. IMAX
Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-06128," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald.

The plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:

     (1) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, Fax:
         212-684-519, E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com;

     (2) Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland
         21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
         hoffman@browerpiven.com;

     (3) Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, 361 West Lancaster Avenue,
         Haverford, PA, 19041, Phone: 888.805.7848, Fax:
         610.649.3633, E-mail: mail@chimicles.com;

     (4) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005 Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com;

     (5) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 E. 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

     (6) Girard Gibbs, LLP, 601 California Street, Suite 1400,
         San Francisco, CA, 94108, Phone: 415.981.4800, Fax:
         415.981.4846, E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com;

     (7) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150,
         New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
         lewis.kahn@kglg.com;

     (8) Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero
         Beach La, FL, 32963, Phone: 561.231.4202,

     (9) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

    (10) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com.

    (11) Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East 42nd Street, 46th
         Floor, New York, NY, 10165, Phone: 212.685.0969, Fax:
         212.685.2306, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com;

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

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


INSIGHT COMMS: Settlement Hearing in Del. Stock Suit Postponed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the proposed settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Insight Communications
Co., Inc. have agreed to seek an adjournment of the settlement
hearing.

Between March 7 and March 15, 2005, five purported class actions
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming the company
and each of its directors as defendants.  Three of the lawsuits
also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant.  

The cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption, "In
Re Insight Communications Co., Inc. Shareholders Litigation
(Civil Action No. 1154-N)."  On April 11, 2005, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed against each director and The
Carlyle Group.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendant
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders in connection with a proposal from Sidney R.
Knafel, Michael Willner, together with certain related and other
parties, and The Carlyle Group to acquire all of the company's
outstanding, publicly-held Class A common stock.  

The complaint also alleged that the proposed transaction
violated the company's Charter and that The Carlyle Group aided
and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches.  The complaint
sought:

      -- the certification of a class of the company's
         stockholders;

      -- a declaration that the proposed transaction violates
         the company's Charter;

      -- an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
         proceeding with the proposed transaction;

      -- rescission or other damages in the event the proposed
         transaction is consummated;

      -- an award of costs and disbursements including
         attorneys' fees; and

      -- other relief.

On July 28, 2005, the parties to the action entered into a
memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a
proposed settlement of the litigation which, among other things,
provides that the buyers shall proceed with the merger, subject
to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement including
the "majority of the minority" stockholder voting condition, and
under which the defendants admit to no wrongdoing or fault.  

The memorandum of understanding contemplated certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all record and beneficial owners
of the company's Class A common stock, other than the buyers,
during the period beginning on and including March 6, 2005,
through and including the date of the consummation of the
merger, a dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and a release
in favor of all defendants of any and all claims related to the
merger.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including consummation of the merger, which closed on Dec. 16,
2005, the plaintiffs' approval of a definitive settlement
agreement and final court approval of the settlement.

On May 11, 2006, the parties to the action filed a stipulation
of settlement with the court.  On May 19, 2006, the court
entered a scheduling order setting a hearing on the proposed
settlement for July 13, 2006.

On or before June 6, 2006, the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement
Hearing was mailed to company stockholders.

On June 28, 2006, Kim D. Kelly, a former employee and officer,
filed an objection to the proposed settlement.  On July 13,
2006, the court convened the settlement hearing, and with the
agreement of all of the parties to the action, the court
adjourned the settlement hearing until Sept. 25, 2006 to permit
Ms. Kelly to review the existing discovery materials and conduct
additional analysis.

On Sept. 1, 2006, Ms. Kelly filed a supplemental objection to
the settlement.  On Sept. 25, 2006, the court convened the
settlement hearing, and with the agreement of all of the parties
to the action, adjourned the settlement hearing until Nov. 9,
2006.  

On October 12, 2006, the defendants and plaintiffs filed briefs
with accompanying affidavits in support of the settlement.  On
Nov. 2, 2006, Ms. Kelly filed reply papers in support of her
objection.

On Nov. 9, 2006, the parties to the action agreed to seek an
adjournment of the settlement hearing until a date and time to
be determined based on the availability of the parties and the
court, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Insight Communications Co., Inc. on the Net:
http://www.insight-com.com/.


LIFETIME BRANDS: Recalls Lemonade Jars For Lead Exposure Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Brands Inc., of Westbury, New York, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
6,600 units of Gemco lemonade jars.

The company said the metal spigot contains lead and is in direct
contact with the contents of the lemonade jar.  Lemonade and
other beverages can cause the lead to leach from the spigot.
Long-term exposure to lead in children may be associated with
behavioral problems, learning disabilities, hearing problems and
growth retardation. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is the Gemco Lemonade Jar is a six-sided
glass jar with a round glass lid and a metal spigot at the
bottom of the jar.  The jar has a yellow and green label on the
front that reads "Lemonade Jar" with a picture of two lemons.  
There is a sticker on the bottom that reads "imported by Gemco,
Div. Lifetime Hoan Corp. Westbury, N.Y. 11590 Made in China."

These Gemco Lemonade Jars were manufactured in China and are
being sold at retailers nationwide from April 2004 through
November 2006 for about $16.

Picture of recalle Gemco Lemonade Jar:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07053.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these lemonade jars
immediately and return the spigot pieces to Lifetime Brands,
Inc. for a full refund. Consumers should wash hands after
handling the spigot.

For additional information, contact Lifetime Brands Inc., at
(888) 561-2269 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or by E-mail: lemonadejar@lifetimebrands.com.


MAINE: Knox County Strip Search Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine preliminarily
approved a third amended settlement proposal in a suit
originally filed by Laurie Tardiff, a Thomaston woman who
accused Knox County and Sheriff Dan Davey of illegal strip-
searching, the Rockland Village Soup reports.

In the original suit, Ms. Tardiff, represented by attorneys Dale
F. Thistle, Robert J. Stolt and Sumner Lipman, alleges that her
civil and constitutional rights were violated when she was
strip-searched by a female officer at the Rockland jail after
being arrested on a felony charge of tampering with a witness.  
That charge and a charge of violating conditions of release, a
misdemeanor, later were dismissed.

Judge Gene Carter certified the lawsuit in 2003 as a class
action.  People charged with nonviolent misdemeanors who were
strip-searched at the Rockland jail between Nov. 19, 1996, and
Dec. 31, 2004 are made eligible to join the suit.

The class was decertified in September, allowing Ms. Tardiff to
proceed to trial as an individual to determine liability, but
the court also requested that the parties attempt to reach an
out of court settlement.

In early Oct. 2, the parties reached a $3 million settlement
under which Ms. Tardiff was supposed to receive a $50,000 bonus
payment.  The settlement was to be presented for approval to the
court on the same month.  

But before it could happen, Ms. Tardiff sent a letter to Judges
Carter and George Singal, the mediator in the settlement stating
that she was backing off, asking for $500,000 instead.  Ms.
Tardiff then hired attorney William D. Robitzek at Lewiston law
firm Berman & Simmons and opted out of the class.  

Parties agreed to substitute Ms. Tardiff with a new class
representative, Dale Dare, and filed an amended settlement on
Oct. 24.  

Judge Carter, however, refused to approve the amended settlement
because it did not provide two opportunities for all potential
class members to opt out, and because the language of the
injunction left out a stipulation regarding parties' rights to
appeal.  The amended settlement now states that by signing the
agreement, all parties waive rights to appeal.

Judge Carter has found that the third final settlement agreement
has met federal law requirements, and the injunction language
satisfactory.  He set a fairness hearing for April 23, 2007 at
10 a.m.

The third final settlement agreement includes a court-issued
injunctive order, which is designed to prevent unconstitutional
strip searches in the future; recertification of the suit as a
class action; and establishment of a common fund of $3 million,
to be shared among participating class members, according to the
report.

It remains undecided whether Ms. Tardiff remains a class member.  

The suit is "Dare v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-
00251-GC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine under Judge Gene Carter with referral to Judge David M.
Cohen.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Sumner H. Lipman at Lipman, Katz & Mckee, P.O. Box
         1051, Augusta, ME 04332-1051, Phone: 207-622-3711, E-
         mail: slipman@lipmankatzmckee.com; and

     (2) Dale F. Thistle at the Law Office of Dale F. Thistle
         103 Main Street, P.O. Box 160, Newport, ME 04953,
         Phone: (207) 368-7755, E-mail: dthistle@verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Peter t. Marchesi of Wheeler & Arey, P.A., 27 Temple
         Street, P.O. BOX 376, Waterville, ME 04901, Phone: 873-
         7771, E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com; and

     (2) John J. Wall, III of Monaghan Leahy, LLP, P.O. BOX 7046
         DTS, Portland, ME 04112-7046, Phone: 774-3906, E-mail:
         jwall@monaghanleahy.com.


MCAFEE INC: Ex-Employees File Suit in Calif. Over Stock Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seven former McAfee, Inc. employees filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
they were cheated out of about $2 million total, because the
company did not permit them to exercise stock options that then
expired during the software company's self-imposed "blackout"
period, Law.com reports.

Named as defendants in the suit are:

     -- McAfee, Inc.,
     -- Chief Executive George Samenuk, and
     -- interim CEO Dale Fuller.

Companies with backdating problems often delay filing financial
statements until they can make necessary accounting adjustments.
At the same time, some of those companies have also imposed a
"blackout" barring the issuance of any new shares until the
financials are restated.

Employees whose option grants expire during the "blackout" are
unable to exercise their vested shares.  To remedy the dilemma,
the company could extend the expiration dates, so that the clock
only starts ticking again once the "blackout" is over.  However,
according to the complaint, the extension didn't happen at the
company.

The employees' suit alleges McAfee was contractually obligated
to let them exercise their options grants within 90 days of the
end of their employment, but did not.  

The net result, plaintiffs say, is that the company is unfairly
penalizing them for the alleged accounting misdeeds of
management.

Plaintiffs also accuse the company of reneging on promises to
give former workers a 90-day extension on their window for
exercising options.

The suit alleges that in August, then-Chief Executive George
Samenuk sent an e-mail message to all employees making this
promise, and when he retired in October, interim CEO Dale Fuller
decided to revoke it.

Citing unnamed sources, the complaint accuses Mr. Fuller of
telling senior management that he didn't understand why McAfee
would "take money out of our pockets and our children's pockets
and give it to employees who have left the company."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission doesn't require
companies to impose a "blackout" in this situation, as it does
in some pension-fund disputes, says employment attorney Alisa
Baker of San Francisco's Levine & Baker.

However, companies may choose to do so to prevent insider
trading allegations, explains Morrison & Foerster corporate
practice partner Robert Townsend.

If an employee or executive is allowed to make a stock trade
during this time -- when the company is uncertain about what may
end up being material or immaterial information -- the company
opens itself up to potential liability, Mr. Townsend said.

Common questions of law and fact exist to all members of the
class, and predominate over any questions affecting solely
individual members of the class.  

Among questions of law and fact common to the class are:

     -- whether defendants breached stock option agreements;

     -- whether defendants' decision to start the 90 day
        exercise window during the blackout, even though
        plaintiffs were precluded from exercising their options,
        violated their duty of good faith and fair dealing;

     -- whether defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
        disclose material facts;

     -- whether defendant MCAfee was unjustly enriched; and

     -- whether the class members were damaged and the measure
        of damages.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class, pray for
judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil  
        Procedure on behalf of the class, and declaring
        plaintiffs to be proper class representatives and
        plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and all members of the class
        compensatory damages and exemplary damages in an amount
        to be proven at trial;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and members of the class pre-
        judgment interest, as well as reasonable fees and costs;

     -- awarding such other relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

The class consists of all persons who were employed at McAfee
and who received stock options but were unable to exercise them
due to the blackout imposed by McAfee as of July 28, 2006.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1783

The suit is "McIntosh et al v. McAfee, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
07694-HRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing plaintiffs are Joseph W. Cotchett, Mark C. Molumphy
and Kelly L. Sommerfeld all of Cotchett, Pitre & Simon, 840
Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010, Phone: 650-697-
6000, Fax: 650-697-0577, E-mail: plee@cpsmlaw.com or
mmolumphy@cpsmlaw.com or ksommerfeld@cpsmlaw.com.

Representing defendants is Robert Feldman of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California
94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-mail:
wsgr@wsgr.com.


MIVA INC: Mulls Setting Mediation Session for Click Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., is still in the process
of scheduling a mediation session for the purported class
action, "Lane's Gifts LLC, et al. v. Yahoo! Inc., et al."

On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed in Miller
County Circuit Court, Arkansas, against that company and others
in its sector by:

     -- Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC,
     -- U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.,
     -- Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and
     -- Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations, on behalf
        of themselves and all others similarly situated.

The complaint names 11 search engines, web publishers, or
performance marketing companies as defendants, including the
company.  It alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
civil conspiracy.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are predicated on the allegation
that the plaintiffs have been charged for clicks on their
advertisements that were not made by bona fide customers.  

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals that allegedly "were overcharged for [pay per click]
advertising," and seeks monetary damages, restitution,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other remedies.

Two plaintiffs -- Savings 4 Merchants and U.S. Citizens for Fair
Credit Card Terms, Inc. -- voluntarily dismissed themselves from
the case, without prejudice, on April 4, 2005.  The company
believes it has no contractual or other relationship with either
of the remaining plaintiffs.

On Sept. 7, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Arkansas Rule 12(b) (6) of the Civil
Procedure for failure to state claims on which relief may be
granted.  

On Sept. 14, 2005, the company timely filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Arkansas Rule 12(b) (2) of the Civil Procedure for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court has not yet ruled on
these motions.

Google, Inc. and certain other co-defendants in the case have
reached settlement with the plaintiffs.  The court has granted
conditional approval to the class settlement between these
parties.  

The court held a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006 and has taken
the review of the settlement terms under advisement.  The court
subsequently issued a final order approving the settlement with
Google.

The court has stayed the case as to the remaining defendants,
including company, and has ordered the parties to mediation.  
The company is currently in the process of scheduling the
mediation, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618,
         Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870)
         773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com;  

     (2) Stephen F. Malouf, Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf,
         P.C., 3506 Cedar Springs Road, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone:
         (214) 969-7373; and

     (3) James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 Washington NW, Post
         Office Box 938, Camden, AR 71701, Phone: 870-836-7328,
         Fax: 870-837-2405, E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) L. Wren Autrey and Ned A. Stewart, Autrey Autrey &
         Stewart, 501 East Sixth St., P.O. Box 960, Texarkana,
         AR 75504, Phone: 870-773-5684, Fax: 870-773-2900, E-
         mail: lwautrey@cs.com; and

    (ii) Richard Hays. Rick Holcomb and David J. Stewart, Alston
         & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree St.,
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000.


MIVA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Dismissal Motions in Click Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions to dismiss the purported class action
filed MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., over allegations
of click fraud.

On March 10, 2006, Payday Advance Plus, Inc. filed a putative
class action against the company and Advertising.com, Inc.  The
complaint alleges that Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network
distribution partner, engaged in click fraud to increase
revenues to themselves with MIVA's alleged knowledge and
participation.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who have allegedly been overcharged by the
defendants and seeks monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and other
remedies.  

On May 12, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, arguing that plaintiff failed to raise
any colorable claims against MIVA.  Advertising.com filed a
similar motion.  

The court has taken the motions under advisement and has not yet
issued a ruling, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form
10-Q filing for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01923-JGK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John G.
Koeltl.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robin Bronzaft Howald and Robert
M. Zabb of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (917) 510-0009
and (310)-201-9150, Fax: (646) 366-0895 and (310)-201-9160, E-
mail: hobbit99@aol.com and info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the company is Karl Geercken of Alston & Bird, LLP,
(NYC), 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-210-9400,
Fax: 212-210-9444, E-mail: kgeercken@alston.com.


NEXCEN BRANDS: N.Y. Court Mulls Okay for 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 against
NexCen Brands, Inc. (formerly Aether Holdings, Inc.).

NexCen is among the hundreds of defendants named in nine class
actions seeking damages due to alleged violations of securities
law.  The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The court has consolidated the actions by all of the named
defendants that actually issued the securities in question.  
There are approximately 310 consolidated cases before Judge
Scheindlin, including the Aether Systems action, under the
caption In Re Initial Public Offerings Litigation, Master File
21 MC 92 (SAS).

As to NexCen, these actions were filed on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired the company's stock after its initial
public offering (IPO) in Oct. 20, 1999.  

Among other things, the complaints claim that prospectuses,
dated Oct. 20, 1999 and Sept. 27, 2000 and issued by NexCen in
connection with the public offerings of common stock, allegedly
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of securities laws because the
prospectuses allegedly failed to disclose that the offerings'
underwriters had solicited and received additional and excessive
fees, commissions and benefits beyond those listed in the
arrangements with certain of their customers which were designed
to maintain, distort and/or inflate the market price of the
Company's common stock in the aftermarket.  

The actions seek unspecified monetary damages and rescission.  
NexCen believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously
contesting these actions.

Initial motions to dismiss the case were filed and the court
held oral argument on the motions to dismiss on Nov. 1, 2002.  
On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion and order on
defendants' motions to dismiss, which granted the motions in
part and denied the motions in part.  

As to NexCen, the motion to dismiss the claims against it was
denied in its entirety.  Discovery has now commenced.  The
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the officer
and director defendants of NexCen.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiff's Executive Committee in this
case announced a proposed settlement with the issuers.  The
proposed settlement is a settlement among the plaintiffs, the
issuer-defendants, including NexCen, and the officer and
director defendants of the issuers.   Plaintiffs will continue
litigating their claims against the underwriter-defendants.  

Under terms of the proposed settlement, NexCen has accrued
$465,000 for its estimated exposure.  After the settlement,
NexCen would not incur any material financial or other
liability.  

On June 14, 2004, the plaintiffs and issuer defendants presented
the executed settlement agreement to Judge Scheindlin during a
court conference.  

Subsequently, plaintiffs and issuers made a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.  On July 14,
2004, the underwriter defendants filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.  Reply briefs in support of the settlement
were submitted to the court.  

In December 2004, the court ordered additional briefing on the
motion.  All of the additional briefs were submitted to the
court.

On Feb. 15, 2005, Judge Scheindlin issued an opinion and order
granting preliminary approval to the settlement agreement.  The
process of communicating formal notice of the proposed
settlement to the plaintiff classes has been completed.    

The court held a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement on
April 24, 2006, and has not yet ruled on the motion for final
approval, according to the Aether Holdings' Nov. 9, 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/.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
granted in part and denied in part renewed motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended consolidated class action complaint
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations
against Nortel Networks Corp. (NNC).

A purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on Dec. 21, 2001, on behalf
of participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Long-Term
Investment Plan at any time during the period of March 7, 2000
through the filing date and who made or maintained Plan
investments in NNC common shares, under the ERISA for Plan-wide
relief.

The suit alleges, among other things, material
misrepresentations and omissions to induce Plan participants to
continue to invest in and maintain investments in NNC common
shares in the Plan.

A second purported class action, on behalf of the Plan and Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
NNC common shares during the period from Oct. 27, 2000 to Feb.
15, 2001 and making similar allegations, was filed in the same
court on March 12, 2002.

A third purported class action, on behalf of persons who are or
were Plan participants or beneficiaries at any time since March
1, 1999 to the filing date and making similar allegations, was
filed in the same court on March 21, 2002.

The first and second purported class actions were consolidated
by a new purported class action complaint, filed on May 15, 2002
in the same court and making similar allegations, on behalf of
Plan participants and beneficiaries who directed the Plan to
purchase or hold shares of certain funds, which held primarily
NNC common shares, during the period from March 7, 2000 through
Dec. 21, 2001.

A fourth purported class action, on behalf of the Plan and Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan held NNC
common shares during the period from March 7, 2000 through March
31, 2001 and making similar allegations, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on March
12, 2003.

On March 18, 2003, plaintiffs in the fourth purported class
action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer all the actions to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407.

On June 24, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order transferring the Southern District of
New York action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee (Consolidated ERISA Action).

On Sept. 12, 2003, the plaintiffs in all the actions filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  On October 28, 2003, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion
to stay discovery pending disposition of the motion to dismiss.

On March 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a class consisting of participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the Plan who held shares of the Nortel Stock
Fund during the period from March 7, 2000 through March 31,
2001.  

On April 27, 2004, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
stay discovery pending resolution of defendants' motion to
dismiss.

          Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint

On June 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint that added additional
current and former officers and employees as defendants and
expanded the purported class period to extend from March 7, 2000
through to June 15, 2004.  

On June 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint that added additional
current and former directors, officers and employees as
defendants and alleged breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the
Plan and as a purported class action on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan who held shares of the Nortel
Networks Stock Fund during the period from March 7, 2000 through
June 17, 2005.

On July 8, 2005, the defendants filed a renewed motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class-action
complaint.  

On July 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion,
and defendants filed a reply memorandum on Aug. 12, 2005.  On
March 30, 2006, the defendants filed an additional motion to
dismiss raising the jurisdictional challenge that all former
plan participants, including one of the named plaintiffs, lack
standing to assert a claim under ERISA.

On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike this
motion to dismiss.  On May 5, 2006, the defendants filed a reply
brief in support of this motion to dismiss.  

On Oct. 11, 2006, the court issued a memorandum order granting
in part and denying in part the renewed motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended consolidated class-action complaint.

The suit is "In re Nortel Networks Corp. 'ERISA' Litigation,
3:03-md-01537," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon with referral to
Judge Juliet Griffin.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Laurie B. Ashton of Keller Rohrback, P.L.C., 3101 N.
         Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone:
         (602) 248-0088;

     (2) George Edward Barrett of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley,
         217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615)
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com;

     (3) Paul Kent Bramlett of Bramlett Law Offices, P.O. Box
         150734, Nashville, TN 37215-0734, Phone: (615) 248-
         2828, Fax: (615) 254-4116, E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com;

     (4) Clifton David Briley of Briley Law Group, PLLC, 511
         Union Street, Suite 1610, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone:
         (615) 986-2684, E-mail: david@brileylaw.com;

     (5) Todd S. Collins of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 875-3040,
         Fax: (215) 875-5715, E-mail: tcollins@bm.net;  

     (6) Kenneth A. Elan of The Law Office of Kenneth A. Elan,
         217 Broadway, Suite 606, New York, NY 10007, Phone:
         (212) 619-0261.

     (7) Robert Izard of Schatz & Nobel, 1 Corporate Center,
         Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103-3202, Phone: (860) 493-
         6292, E-mail: firm@snlaw.net; and

     (8) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull & Brody, Six East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, Fax:
         (212) 490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr. and Gerald David Neenan of Neal
         & Harwell, 150 Fourth Avenue, N. 2000 First Union
         Tower, Nashville, TN 37219-2498, Phone: (615) 244-1713,
         E-mail: aharwell@nealharwell.com and
         gneenan@nealharwell.com; and

    (ii) Stuart J. Baskin and Tai H. Park of Shearman &
         Sterling, 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022-
         6069, Phone: (212) 848-4000.


NUMISMATIC GUARANTY: Sued in Florida Over "First Strike" Coins
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Miami attorney filed a class action on behalf of coin
collectors claiming the labeling of "first strike" in coins by
Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC) and Professional Coin Grading
Service (PCGS) is deceiving, The Associated Press reports.

The cases have been assigned to Judge Jose Martinez of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, who has yet
to certify the suit as a class action.  NGC is based in
Sarasota, Florida.  PCGS is based in Newport Beach, California.

"First strikes" coins are billed as among the first of the
year's batch "struck" by the U.S. Mint from a certain die set,
and are thought to have far higher quality than those created
later when the die is allegedly worn.

Coin collectors are often willing to pay an additional price for
them, $30 more for a silver American Eagle and $2,200 more for a
gold American Buffalo, according to attorney Charles Lipcon, who
filed the lawsuits on behalf of collector Thomas Francisco and
others.

But Mr. Lipcon said the label is misleading because it's
impossible to know which coin is the "first strike."  The U.S.
Mint states at its Web site it does not keep track of the date
individual coins were created.  

PCGS reportedly said its definition of a "first strike" is a
coin that that is delivered by the Mint within 30 days of its
initial sales date.  

NGC says it designates a coin "first strike" if it arrives with
the proper documentation at the company within the first month
of release or is submitted in sealed U.S. Mint packaging at a
later date.

Mr. Lipcon said PCGS previously used a definition indicating
that a "first strike" was one of the first coins produced by a
certain die.  PCGS said its definition is based on timing and it
makes no "representation with regard to rarity or no
representation with regard to value."

The suit purports to include anyone in the U.S. who bought a
"first strike" coin in 2005 and 2006.  Since Jan. 1, 2005, about
150,000 coins have been reportedly sold to collectors and
investors in all 50 states.  Damage payout is estimated to come
at more than $10 million, according to the report.

The suit is "Francisco v. Numismatic Guaranty Corp. of America
d/b/a NGC, Case No. 0:06-cv-61677-JEM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
Jose E. Martinez.

Representing the plaintiff is Charles R. Lipcon at Lipcon
Margulies & Alsina, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, 2480 One
Biscayne Tower, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-373-3016, Fax: 373-
6204, E-mail: sealaw@aol.com.


PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Cities Joins Negligence Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The cities of Los Angeles and San Diego have joined other
municipalities and school districts in a class action filed
against paint companies in California for causing and concealing
health hazards of lead-containing paint, NBC4.TV reports.

The suit was filed by Santa Clara County Superior Court in
2000.  It alleges that several manufacturers and the Lead
Industries Association promoted the sale of lead-based paint for
decades while disregarding the health risks to children.  

In addition, the suit also alleges public nuisance, liability,
fraud and negligence, and demands the companies remove paint
from buildings and pay restitution.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are Alameda, Solano and Santa Cruz
counties, the city and county of San Francisco and the city of
Oakland, along with their unified school districts, housing
authorities and Oakland's redevelopment agency.  Recently,
Monterey and San Mateo counties joined the suit.

Defendants in the case include:

     -- Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO),
     -- NL Industries Inc.,
     -- American Cyanamid Co.,
     -- ConAgra Grocery Products Cos.,
     -- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont),
     -- Millenium Inorganic Chemicals Inc.,
     -- The Sherwin-Williams Company,
     -- O'Brien Corp.,
     -- The Glidden Co., and
     -- SCM Chemicals

In 2003, the Santa Clara County Superior Judge Jack Komar
dismissed the suit saying that the public nuisance claim could
not be filed on a class action basis.  In March 2006, the
California 6th District Court of Appeals reinstated the suit.

Santa Clara County's complaint will be revised to include the
new plaintiffs and to conform to the parameters set by the
appeals court, said Bruce Simon, an attorney who is assisting
with the case.

For more details, contact Bruce Simon of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon
& McCarthy, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm
Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010, Phone: (650) 697-
6000, Fax: (650) 697-0577, (650) 692-1112 and (650) 692-3606,
Web site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com/.


PREMCOR INC: Hartford Residents Opt Out of Refinery Vapors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forty-six current and former Hartford residents have opted out
in a class action against Premcor, Inc. and Equilon Pipeline Co.
over petroleum vapors in the village of Hartford, The St. Clair
Record reports.   

In November, the law firm of Goldenberg Heller Antognoli Rowland
Short & Gori in Edwardsville, Illinois withdrew Eric and Tina
Rose along with minor child Derek Rose as plaintiffs, but added
another minor, Wesley Lamere.  The child's parents were not
added to the plaintiff roster.

Circuit Judge Daniel Stack had conditionally certified Harry and
Ruth Goforth as lead plaintiffs in the suit.  He also certified
the three Roses, Tim and Kim Sullivan, Michael Hanbaum and John
Copeland as class representatives.

                        Case Background  

Seven Missouri attorneys filed a suit against Premcor Refining
Group Inc., Shell Oil and other oil companies in 2003, alleging
that the company's refinery created an underground pool of
gasoline whose vapors are causing damage to Hartford residents'
homes.  They proposed and obtained a positive ruling to make
Katherine Sparks as lead plaintiff in the suit.    
    
In 2004, Goldenberg Heller sued most of the same companies for
individual damages on behalf of 65 plaintiffs.     
    
The Goldenberg Heller clients did not became part of the  
"Sparks" class.  Apex Oil and Sinclair moved for
reconsideration, and Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack
granted it.  He did not decertify Ms. Sparks as class
representative in the Missouri suit.    

Afterwards, Goldenberg Heller negotiated with Premcor and Shell
Oil on an $8 million settlement that would apply throughout
Hartford.  The parties reached a settlement, and Judge Stack
approved it.   

Attorneys from Missouri asked the Illinois Supreme Court to
overturn, but the court refused.

The agreement stipulates that $3.5 million of it will be legal
fees handed down to Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli.  A
fairness hearing is set March 13, 2007.

On Sept. 5, the Missouri lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court
directly for a supervisory order against Judge Stack, and moved
for an emergency stay of proceedings in Madison County.  

After several motions, on Sept. 12, Justice Thomas Fitzgerald
denied the emergency motion to stay the Madison County
proceedings.  On Sept. 13, Justice Charles Freeman turned down
the Heller firm's motion to deny the supervisory order.   

On Sept. 19, Elizabeth Heller objected to the supervisory order
stating the Missouri attorneys "strained the bounds of ethical
propriety" in pursuing the settlement.  

On Sept. 20, Equilon attorney Gregory Mollett filed an
objection.   

Plaintiffs' counsel is Goldenberg, Heller & Antognoli, P.C.,   
2227 S. State Route 157, P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, Illinois   
62025, Phone: (618) 656-5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230, E-mail:   
info@ghalaw.com.


PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to consolidate several securities
fraud class actions filed against PXRE Group, Ltd.

Initially, several class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against:

     -- the company,
     -- Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief executive officer,
        and
     -- John Modin, the company's former chief financial
        officer.

Those suits were brought on behalf of a putative class
consisting of investors who purchased the publicly traded
securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006.

Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical
claims and alleges that during the purported class period
certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business,
prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase
PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material
adverse facts:

      -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes
         Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

      -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to
         an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and

      -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential
         loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from
         A.M. Best.

Further, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing asserted
facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss estimates
for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable basis.  The
class actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.  

A motion to consolidate all of the class actions into a single
proceeding is currently pending before the court, according to
the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Stephen Goldberger, et al. v.
PXRE Group Limited, et al., Case No. 06-CV-3410," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

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

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

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

     (4) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

     (5) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

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

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

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

     (9) Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd.,
         Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, Phone:
         310.725.6400, Fax: 310.725.6420.


RI NOVELTY: Recalls Kids' Necklaces Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island Novelty, of Cumberland, Rhode Island, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 48,000 units of children's Powerpuff Girls
necklaces.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled necklaces are multi-colored metal pendants that
hang from a black cord.  The pendants are in the shape of the
head of one of three "Powerpuff Girls" cartoon characters.  The
packaging consists of purple cardboard with the three Powerpuff
Girls cartoon characters and the words "CARTOON NETWORK" and
"THE POWERPUFF GIRLS" printed on both sides.

These Powerpuff Girls necklaces were manufactured in China and
are being sold at carnivals, amusement parks, family
entertainment centers, small discount stores nationwide and at
http://www.rinovelty.comfrom March 2003 through November 2006  
for about $1.

Pictures of the recalled Powerpuff Girls necklaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07054a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07054b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07054c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take this jewelry away from
children.  Consumers should return the recalled jewelry to the
store where purchased for a replacement or contact Rhode Island
Novelty for information on how to receive a replacement.

For additional information, contact Rhode Island Novelty at 1-
800-528-5599 between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. EST, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.rinovelty.com.


SINA CORP: N.Y. Court Dismissal Order in Stock Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the a securities class action against SINA Corp.
and certain of its directors and officers are appealing an order
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
that dismisses the consolidated complaint in the case without
leave to amend it.

In February 2005, multiple purported securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain officers
and directors of the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, following the company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the first
quarter of 2005 ending on March 31, 2005.

The complaints sought unspecified damages on alleged violations
of federal securities laws during the period from Oct. 26, 2004
to Feb. 7, 2005.  The complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws through the issuance of false or
misleading statements during the class period covered.  

On July 1, 2005, Judge Naomi Buchwald consolidated the cases
under the caption, "In re SINA Corp. Securities Litigation," and
appointed as lead plaintiff:

     -- City of Sterling Heights General Employee's Retirement  
        System;  

     -- City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement  
        System; and  

     -- Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement  
        System (collectively the MAPERS Funds Group).  

The MAPERS Funds Group filed an amended consolidated complaint
on Sept. 9, 2005.  The complaints sought unspecified damages on
alleged violations of federal securities laws during the period
from Oct. 26, 2004 to Feb. 7, 2005.

On Sept. 25, 2006, Judge Buchwald issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
in its entirety, without leave to amend.  

In the dismissal order, Judge Buchwald held that "the complaint
altogether fails to support the conclusion that [SINA] acted
with intent to deceive or defraud the public or that they were
reckless in this regard."

The MAPERS Funds Group filed a notice of appeal from the
dismissal order on Oct. 24, 2006, according to the company's
Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re SINA Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
1:05-cv-02154-NRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

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

     (2) Robert I. Harwood and Samuel Kenneth Rosen of Wechsler  
         Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York,  
         NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400, Fax: 212 753-3630, E-
         mail: rharwood@whesq.com and srosen@whesq.com.

Representing SINA Corp. and its directors and officers are
Robert P. Varian and Jonathan B. Gaskin of the law firm of
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


VIACOM INC: Faces ERISA Violations Litigation in N.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
Viacom, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action in the
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Sept. 8, 2006, John Halaris filed a putative collective class
action complaint under ERISA in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas purporting to act on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Blockbuster Investment Plan whose accounts included investments
in Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003.

Plaintiff asserts claims against:

      -- the company,
      -- the Viacom Investment Committee,
      -- the Viacom Retirement Committee,
      -- William A. Roskin,
      -- John R. Jacobs,
      -- Mary Bell,
      -- Bruce Lewis,
      -- Robert G. Freedline,
      -- Larry J. Zine,
      -- Keith M. Holtz,
      -- Barbara Mickowski,
      -- Dan Satterthwaite,
      -- Phillipe P. Dauman,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- Richard Bressler,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Peter A. Bassi,
      -- Robert A. Bowman,
      -- Gary J. Fernandes,
      -- Mel Karmazin,
      -- Blockbuster,
      -- the Blockbuster Retirement Committee, and
      -- the Blockbuster Investment Committee.

Plaintiff claims that the above-named defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.  They seek declaratory
relief, recovery of actual damages, court costs, attorney's
fees, a constructive trust, restoration of lost profits to the
Blockbuster Investment Plan and an injunction.

The suit is "Halaris v. Viacom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01646," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs 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.

Representing the defendants is Kenneth P. Held of Vinson &
Elkins, 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-6760,
Phone: 713/758-4353, Fax: 713/615-5219, E-mail: kheld@velaw.com.


VIACOM INC: N.Y. ERISA Violations Suit Transferred to Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative collective class action against Viacom, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) that was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On Nov. 16, 2005, Katherine Corthon filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all any participants in or beneficiaries of the
Blockbuster Investment Plan whose accounts included investments
in Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003.

Plaintiff has filed her claim against:

      -- the company,
      -- the Viacom Retirement Committee,
      -- Keith M. Holtz,
      -- Barbara Mickowski,
      -- Dan Satterthwaite,
      -- Phillip P. Dauman,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- Richard Bressler,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Peter A. Bassi,
      -- Robert A. Bowman,
      -- Gary J. Fernandes,
      -- Mel Karmazin and unnamed "John Doe," and
      -- members of the Viacom and Blockbuster Retirement
         Committees.

The suit claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of ERISA.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief, recovery of actual damages, court costs, attorney's
fees, a constructive trust, restoration of lost profits to the
Blockbuster Investment Plan and an injunction.

On Aug. 18, 2006, this suit was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Corthon v. Viacom, Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01581," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Lee Squitieri of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP, 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax: (212)-421-6553, E-mail:
lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael Allen Birrer, David Steven Coale and Peggy
         Glenn-Summitt of Carrington, Coleman, Sloman &
         Blumenthal, L.L.P., 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1500,
         Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 855-3113, (214) 855-3000
         and (214) 855-3072, Fax: (214) 855-1333, E-mail:
         mbirrer@ccsb.com and psummitt@ccsb.com; and

     (2) Brian Howard Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling, LLP, (New
         York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 848-4000, Fax: (212) 848-7179, E-mail:
         bpolovoy@shearman.com.


ZURICH FINANCIAL: $121.8M Antitrust Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
A notice is being published regarding the $121.8 million
settlement of the Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that
is pending before the U.S. District Court District of New
Jersey.

On Nov. 8, the court issued an order preliminarily certifying a
class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a
proposed settlement.

                        Case Background

Beginning in August 2004, numerous putative class actions were
filed against various insurance brokers and insurers.  In August
2005, Zurich Financial Services Group, Zurich American Insurance
Co., Steadfast Insurance Co., Fidelity and Deposit Company of
Maryland, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co., American
Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., Empire Indemnity
Insurance Co., and Assurance Company of America were added to
the class actions as defendants.

The class actions allege that the brokers and insurers engaged
in conduct that, among other things, violated federal and state
statutes and common law.  These putative class actions have been
consolidated into this multidistrict proceeding.

In a May 25, 2005 order, the court appointed the law firms of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and Miller Faucher and
Cafferty LLP as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs.  In a July
17, 2006 order, the court substituted the law firm of Whatley,
Drake & Kallas, LLC, for the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, as co-lead counsel.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants "engaged in a combination
and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the sale
of insurance by coordinating and rigging bids for insurance
policies, allocating insurance markets and customers and
raising, or maintaining or stabilizing premium prices above
competitive levels."

On Oct. 14, 2005, the Zurich defendants and plaintiffs entered
into a memorandum of understanding setting forth the principal
terms of a settlement of the action.

                        Certified Class

On Nov. 8, the court certified a settlement class consisting of
all individuals or entities, who, during the period of time from
Aug. 26, 1994 through Sept. 1, 2005, inclusive, engaged the
services of:

     (i) one of the Broker Defendants or any subsidiary or
         affiliate of a broker defendant in connection with a
         settlement class policy purchase from any Zurich
         Insurer, any insurer defendant or any insurance company
         that is not an affiliate or subsidiary of a Zurich
         Insurer; or

    (ii) any other broker in connection with a settlement class
         policy purchase from any Zurich insurer.

The court scheduled a fairness hearing for Jan. 26, 2007 at
11:00 a.m. EST in Courtroom No. 1, U.S. Post Office and
Courthouse, Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey.

Claim filing is until June 12, 2007.  Deadline for exclusion and
objection is Jan. 11, 2007.

A copy of the court's Nov. 8 Order is available for free at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?177a

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?177b

On the Net:
http://www.insurancebrokerageantitrustlitigation.com/zurich/

The suit is "In Re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 1663, Civil No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed in the U.S.
District Court District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.

Settlement Administrator: Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
                          P.O. Box 24721
                          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
                          Toll Free: 1-866-722-3544
                          International: 001-612-359-7999


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Board Ruling in O'Dell Case Upheld in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third
Department, affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board decision,
which had ruled that Donald O'Dell's retirement was not causally
related to his disability and is therefore not entitled to post-
retirement lost wages.

The Panel, comprised of Justices D. Bruce Crew III, Karen K.
Peters, Carl J. Mugglin, Robert S. Rose, and John A. Lahtinen,
handed down the case's decision on Nov. 30, 2006.

In 1995, Mr. O'Dell had surgery for the removal of a benign mass
from his right lung. He said he had breathing difficulties,
prompting him to retire from Consolidated Edison Inc. in
November 1996 after 43 years of service.

In October 1999, Mr. O'Dell was diagnosed with pulmonary
asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease, which, the
evaluating physician said, was causally related to his
employment.

Mr. O'Dell applied for workers' compensation benefits and, after
various hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found
that he was permanently partially disabled from work-related
asbestosis and that his retirement was caused by the disability.

The WCLJ further found, based on Mr. O'Dell's subsequent failure
to find work within the restrictions of his disability, that Mr.
O'Dell voluntarily withdrew from the labor market after his
retirement.

Although a Board panel affirmed the WCLJ's decision, the Board
modified, finding that Mr. O'Dell's retirement was not due to
his causally related disability.

On June 22, 2005, Mr. O'Dell appealed.

The Appellate Court concluded that the Board's finding that Mr.
O'Dell's retirement was voluntary is supported by evidence and
that it will not be disturbed. Mr. O'Dell's remaining arguments
have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Timothy J. Rogers of Polsky, Shouldice & Rosen, P.C. of
Rockville Centre, N.Y. represented Donald O'Dell.

David W. Faber of Cherry, Edson & Kelly of Hempstead, N.Y.
represented Consolidated Edison Inc. and another respondent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Johnson Controls Lists $39M for York Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$39
million for subsidiary York International Inc.'s liability for
estimated loss for known open asbestos-related claims.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company also recorded a US$8 million
receivable for York's estimated recoveries from the Company's
insurance carriers.

Before the Company's acquisition of York, York had been named as
a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury to one or more
individuals from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products made by York or by companies from which York bought
product lines.

In 2003, the Company was involved in an asbestos release during
the renovation of a building in Lakeland, Fla. After an
investigation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency turned
its findings over to the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District
of Florida.

In November 2005, the U.S. Attorney advised the Company that it
is considering proceedings against the Company, including
proceedings that would involve criminal charges under the Clean
Air Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act.

The Company said that the release was inadvertent and that this
should not be a criminal matter.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., Johnson Controls Inc. makes
car seats, interior systems, and batteries, as well as
environmental control systems for commercial buildings and HVAC
systems through subsidiary York International Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Zurn Ind. Drop to 46,200 in 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacuzzi Brands Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded about 46,200
asbestos-related claims pending against its wholly owned
subsidiary Zurn Industries Inc., compared with 69,900 claims as
of Oct. 1, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company recorded about 59,000 asbestos-
related claims pending against Zurn, compared with 69,900 claims
as of Sept. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)

In 2006, about 6,400 new asbestos claims were filed against
Zurn, compared with 10,400 in 2005.

The pending claims against Zurn as of Sept. 30, 2006 were
included in about 4,900 lawsuits, in which Zurn and about 80
other companies were named as defendants. The claims
cumulatively alleged damages of about US$11.2 billion against
all defendants.

In 2006 and as of the end of the period, about 16,300 claims
were paid and pending payment and about 24,600 claims were
dismissed and pending dismissal. In 2005 and as of the end of
the period, about 17,000 claims were paid and pending payment
and about 13,600 claims were dismissed and pending dismissal.

Since Zurn received its first asbestos claim in the 1980s, Zurn
has paid or dismissed or agreed to settle or dismiss about
146,000 asbestos claims including dismissals or agreements to
dismiss of about 48,900 of those claims through the end of 2006.

Zurn has paid or dismissed or agreed to settle or dismiss about
115,900 asbestos claims including dismissals or agreements to
dismiss of about 23,900 of those claims through the end of 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$136 million asbestos
liability, compared with US$153 million at Sept. 30, 2005. Of
the US$136 million, Zurn expects to pay about US$102 million
through 2016 on those claims.

Zurn estimated that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of Sept. 30, 2006 was about
US$286 million. Zurn estimated that its available insurance to
cover its potential asbestos liability as of Oct. 1, 2005 was
about US$293 million.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, Zurn recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$136 million, compared with US$153
million as of Oct. 1, 2005.

At the time of Zurn's acquisition in June 1998, Zurn had owned
various subsidiaries. Zurn co-defends in asbestos related
lawsuits pending in the United States. Plaintiffs' claims
alleged personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a
segment of Zurn that has been accounted for as a discontinued
operation. Zurn bought asbestos from its suppliers.

Headquartered in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jacuzzi Brands Inc.
makes and distributes bath and plumbing products. The Company
sells its products worldwide, although the U.S. accounts for
almost three-fourths of sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Faces 4 Suits in Miss. Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Co. continues to face four asbestos-related lawsuits
filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in
Mississippi, according to the Company's annual report, on Form
10-Q, for the year ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2004, certain Company predecessors, along with other
defendants were named in the four suits, which included 118
individual plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that they suffer
illnesses from exposure to asbestos and seeking damages.

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

About 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer. Four individuals against the
Company filed amended suits and the remainder of the original
114 claims was dismissed.

Of these four suits, three did not name the Company as an
employer or manufacturer of asbestos containing products so the
Company was dismissed. Subsequently an individual from one of
these suits brought his own action against the Company. As a
result, the Company is currently named an employer in two of the
Mississippi suits.

In addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named
in a small number of asbestos cases. The allegations in these
cases vary, but generally included claims that the Company
provided some unspecified product or service, which had or used
asbestos.

Some of the allegations involved claims that the Company is the
successor to the Byron Jackson Co. To date, the Company has
obtained dismissals of those cases without any payment in
settlements or judgments, although some remain pending at the
present time.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial v. Chase Postponed, No New Date Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related trial, set to commence on April 30, 2007,
against Chase Corp. has been postponed and no new trial date has
been set, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 10-
K, for the year ended Aug. 31, 2006 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is one of more than 100 defendants in a personal
injury lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleged personal injury
from exposure to asbestos found in certain Company products.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to Chase in
August 2005, to which Chase timely responded in September 2005.

The Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to Chase.

The Company had been a defendant in another personal injury suit
in Mississippi alleging injury from exposure to asbestos found
in certain Company products. However, the Company was dismissed
without prejudice from that suit in June 2005.

Headquartered in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corp. makes tapes and
protective coatings used by the electronic, public utility, and
oil industries. Products include insulating and conducting
materials, electrical repair tapes, protective pipe coatings,
thermoelectric insulation, and moisture protective coatings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Sees $60M Insurance Recovery in 4Q
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. expects to record, in the 2006-
4th quarter, an estimated benefit of about US$60 million, pre-
tax, from insurance recoveries related to asbestos litigation
expenses incurred by the Company in prior periods and additional
Hurricane Katrina insurance recoveries.

On Dec. 11, 2006, the Company issued a press release updating
its 2006-4th quarter earnings outlook for significant items.

The Company said that these items will be included in its 2006-
4th quarter reported earnings, providing a net benefit of about
US$370 million to net income, or US$0.39 per share, and that the
Company anticipates 2006 reported earnings per share to be about
US$3.25 per share.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co.'s five business units produce coatings, crop protection
chemicals and genetically modified seeds, electronic materials,
polymers and resins for packaging and other uses, and safety and
security materials and chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Corp. Has 40 Pending Cases at 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corp., as of Oct. 31, 2006, recorded a total of 40
pending asbestos-related cases, compared with 151 pending cases
as of Oct. 31, 2005.

In the fiscal quarter ended Oct. 31, 2006, four new cases were
filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from or
settled six cases.

Starting 2002, the Company and one of its divisions were named
as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed mostly in
Mississippi. These cases were filed on a mass basis by large
numbers of plaintiffs against a large number of industrial firms
including in particular those in the pump and fluid handling
industries.

More recently, the Company and this division have been named
pump and fluid-handling defendants in asbestos-related suits
filed in New York and Maryland by individual plaintiffs.

To a lesser extent, the Company and this division have also been
named with many other pump and fluid handling defendants in
these types of cases in other states as well. The Company and
the division have been dismissed from or settled a number of
these cases.

Through Oct. 31, 2006, the sum total of payments made to settle
these cases is US$305,000, all of which has been paid by the
Company's insurers, with an average cost per settled claim of
about US$28,000.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules
leading to trial.

Headquartered Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corp.'s operations are
conducted in two business segments: the manufacture and sale of
product recovery-pollution control equipment, and the making and
sale of fluid handling equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Tyco Int'l. Rise to 15,500
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of Sept. 29, 2006, recorded about
15,500 asbestos liability cases pending against it and its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's annual report, on Form
10-K, for the year ended Sept. 29, 2006.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company and its subsidiaries recorded
about 15,000 pending asbestos-related liability cases. (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)

The Company and some of its subsidiaries face personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. Most of these cases have been filed against
subsidiaries in Healthcare and Engineered Products and Services.

A limited number of the cases alleged premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property.

Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based on
allegations of past distribution of heat-resistant industrial
products with asbestos or the past distribution of industrial
valves that had asbestos-containing gaskets or packing.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never established and have been dismissed by
the courts.

When appropriate, the Company settles claims. However, the total
amount paid in any year to settle and defend all asbestos claims
has been immaterial.

Headquartered in Princeton, N.J., Tyco International Ltd. offers
security and fire-protection systems. The Company has been
reorganized into five main business segments: Fire and Security;
Electronics; Healthcare; Engineered Products and Services; and
Plastics & Adhesives.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lucent Technologies Faces Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
lawsuits, which involved exposure to asbestos in premises owned
or operated by the Company or by its business predecessors or in
products made or sold by the Company or its predecessors.

AT&T Corp. and Western Electric Manufacturing Co. were
identified as two of the Company's predecessors.

The Company has experienced an increase in the number of
asbestos claims asserted against it, and these claims are on the
rise in the United States against owners or operators of
premises or companies that made or sold products allegedly with
asbestos.

Historically, the Company has not paid any material amounts
related to asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Murray Hill, N.J., Lucent Technologies Inc.
designs and delivers the systems, software and services that
drive next-generation communications networks. The Company is
supported by Bell Labs research and development.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Genesis HealthCare Records $5.3M Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis HealthCare Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, recognized an
asbestos-related liability for the fair value of the related
asset retirement obligation totaling about US$5.3 million.

The Company is subject to federal, state and local statutes and
ordinances regulating the discharge of materials into the
environment. Certain of the Company's real estate assets contain
asbestos. The Company said the asbestos is contained in
accordance with environmental regulations.

If these properties were demolished or subject to renovation
activities that disturb the asbestos, certain environmental
regulations are in place that specify the manner in which the
asbestos must be handled and disposed.


COMPANY PROFILE

Genesis HealthCare Corp.
101 E. State St.
Kennett Square, Pa. 19348
Phone: 610-444-6350
Fax: 610-925-4000
http://www.genesishcc.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  September
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$1,711.4
1-Year Sales Growth:              11.9 percent
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$46.1
1-Year Net Income Growth:         58.5 percent
2005 Employees:                   35,000
1-Year Employee Growth:           0.0 percent

Description:
The Company provides health care services to the elderly. It
operates about 200 assisted living and skilled nursing
facilities, as well as 13 transitional care units in 12 states,
mostly in the eastern United States. The Company also offers
respiratory therapy, Alzheimer's care, dialysis, and home and
hospice care.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Faces 63T Claims in Respirator Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp.'s subsidiary, as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded about
63,000 claimants in pending respirator cases asserting asbestos
and silica exposure, according to the Company's annual report,
on Form 10-K, for the year ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's subsidiary recorded about
76,000 claimants in pending respirator cases asserting asbestos
and silica exposure. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)

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

These respirator liabilities involved claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis and silicosis, from the use of
respirators that allegedly have been negligently designed or
labeled.

The Company has recorded on a net present value basis an US$18
million reserve, US$28 million on an undiscounted basis, to
cover its estimated share of liability for pending and future
respirator claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. continues to be a defendant in cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claimed resulted from
exposure to asbestos-containing products, based on the Company's
historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The
Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of
the claims seek damages from the Company alone.

The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may
provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and
is pursuing coverage under some of these agreements.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Product Poses No Risks, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, on Dec.
14, 2006, issued an order from the "ZAI Science Trial," stating
that W.R. Grace & Co.'s former attic insulation product,
Zonolite Attic Insulation is contaminated with asbestos and can
release asbestos fibers when disturbed, but that there is no
unreasonable risk of harm.  

In a memorandum opinion accompanying the order, the Bankruptcy
Court scheduled a status conference for January 2007 to consider
whether any of the claimants' theories of liability still need
to be addressed and what claims may still remain.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie's NSW Plant to Reopen, Expert Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
An independent expert, hired by James Hardie Industries N.V. to
check the presence of asbestos materials at its Rosehill
manufacturing plant, concluded that the plant's main production
building could be reopened, according to a Company press release
dated Dec. 12, 2006.

The investigation examined airborne fiber concentrations and
possible contamination of settled dust and residues within the
site. The Company closed the site, located in New South Wales,
while these investigations were conducted.

Some contamination of settled dust by asbestos fibers was
identified in the raw materials store.

"We erred on the side of caution by closing the plant to seek
professional advice on the concerns raised by union
representatives," said Shane Dias, General Manager of James
Hardie Australia.

"The temporary closure has had minimal impact on our customers
and all employees have been paid whilst the investigation was
carried out," Mr. Dias said.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Court Grants Grace's Motion to Compel
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
granted W.R. Grace & Co.'s motion to compel, and ordering N & M
Inc. to produce a representative for deposition in an asbestos-
related civil action.

On Dec. 13, 2006, District Judge Walter J. Gex III handed down
the decision of Civil Action No. 1:06mc602WJG.

Grace contended that N & M screened claimants for alleged
asbestos-related disease and may have generated unreliable and
unsupported litigation claims as a result.

Grace sought discovery from N & M related to matters that the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware found
relevant to the estimation of Grace's asbestos personal injury
liability. Grace asserted that N & M refused to produce a
corporate representative for deposition claiming a Fifth
Amendment privilege.

Grace was instructed by the Bankruptcy Court to seek discovery
of screening and diagnostic practices from doctors who possessed
the relevant information regarding screening and diagnostic
practices. Grace attempted to schedule a deposition and was
unable to procure a representative from N & M.

According to N & M, it is a Mississippi corporation, which
engaged in screening or testing for industrial diseases,
including pulmonary injuries and diseases. Grace contended that
N & M is still a corporation under Mississippi law, and is
currently, as of Oct. 17, 2006, in good standing with the
Mississippi Secretary of State's office.

The Court concluded that Grace's motion to compel should be
granted, in which N & M will produce a representative for
deposition at a time and place designated by Grace within the
jurisdiction of the Court.

The Court also ordered that it retain limited jurisdiction over
this matter for purposes of ensuring the deposition goes forward
and that each party shall bear its respective costs associated
with this motion.

Mary Margaret Ratliff and Walter G. Watkins, Jr. of Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy in Jackson, Miss. represented W.R.
Grace & Co.

Luke Dove of Dove & Chill in Jackson, Miss. represented N & M
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Corning Inc. Drop to 10,900
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc. is named in about 10,900 cases, with about 42,700
claims, alleging injuries from asbestos, which have been covered
by insurance.

The Company faced about 11,300 cases, with about 43,600 claims,
alleging asbestos-related injuries, which have been covered by
insurance. (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006)

The Company and PPG Industries Inc. each own 50 percent of the
capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corp. Over a period of more
than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been
named in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

As of the filing, PCC had in excess of 140,000 open claims and
had insufficient remaining insurance and assets to deal with its
alleged current and future liabilities. More than 100,000
additional claims have been filed with PCC after its filing.

As a result of PCC's bankruptcy filing, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge of US$36 million in 2001 to fully impair its
investment in PCC and discontinued recognition of equity
earnings.

At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were
about 12,400 claims pending against the Company in state court
suits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure
to PCC's asbestos products and requesting monetary damages in
excess of US$1 million per claim.

The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the
separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts
supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's
asbestos products.

Headquartered in Corning, N.Y., Corning Inc. makes fiber-optic
cable, which it invented more than 30 years ago. Once known
mainly for its kitchenware and lab products, the Company now
provides optical fiber and cable products and communications
network equipment. Other business segments include environmental
technologies and life sciences.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Reports $13M Expense for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc., in the 2006-3rd quarter, recorded asbestos
settlement expense of US$13 million, including US$6 million
reflecting the increase in the value of the Company's common
stock from June 30, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company also recorded US$7 million to adjust the estimated
fair value of the other components of the proposed asbestos
settlement.

In the 2005-3rd quarter, the Company recorded asbestos
settlement expense of US$73 million, including US$68 million for
the increase in the value of Corning's common stock from June
30, 2005 to Sept. 30, 2005, and a US$5 million charge to adjust
the estimated fair value of the other components of the proposed
asbestos settlement.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
asbestos settlement expense of US$137 million, including US$119
million reflecting the increase in the value of the Company's
common stock since Dec. 31, 2005, and US$18 million to reflect
changes in the estimated fair value of other components of the
settlement offer.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded
asbestos settlement expense of US$204 million, including US$189
million reflecting the increase in the value of the Company's
common stock from Dec. 31, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005, and US$15
million to reflect changes in the estimated fair value of the
other components of the proposed asbestos settlement.

Headquartered in Corning, N.Y., Corning Inc. makes fiber-optic
cable, which it invented more than 30 years ago. Once known
mainly for its kitchenware and lab products, the Company now
provides optical fiber and cable products and communications
network equipment. Other business segments include environmental
technologies and life sciences.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Reserves $7B for Claims in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning, as of Sept. 30, 2006, reserved a total of US$7
billion for asbestos litigation claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company, as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$3.237 billion for
Fibreboard Corp. asbestos litigation claims.

In the 2005-1st quarter, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware provided an estimate of US$7 billion for
the Company's contingent personal injury asbestos liability.

The Company determined that an additional US$907 million
liability should be recorded for Fibreboard, bringing the total
reserve recorded for Fibreboard to US$3.216 billion. The total
provision recorded for asbestos litigation claims during the
2005-1st quarter was US$4.342 billion.

In the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company resolved a
matter related to Fibreboard asbestos personal injury claims and
insurance assets and recorded a US$13 million net credit for
asbestos litigation recoveries.

Moreover, the Company adjusted its insurance receivable to
reflect settlements with insurance carriers and adjusted its
insurance receivable to reflect fair value and increased its
reserve for asbestos-related property damage claims, which
resulted in no impact to the provision for asbestos litigation
claims for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mahoney Sues 143 Companies in Ill. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mahoney of Florida, on Dec. 15, 2006, sued 143 defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois,
claiming that those corporations were responsible for his
mesothelioma, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Mahoney claimed he was employed from the late 1940s to 2006
as a gas station attendant, boilermaker, maintenance worker,
crane operator, assembler, steelworker, and machinery installer
at various locations.

Mr. Mahoney claimed he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July
6, 2006, and asserted his exposure to asbestos was foreseeable
and could or should have been anticipated by the defendants.

Defendants include AutoZone Inc., Bondex Inc., DaimlerChrysler
Corp., The Dow Chemical Co., Ford Motor Co., General Electric
Co., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., John Crane Inc., The Pep
Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack, Sears, and Western Auto Supply Co.

Mr. Mahoney claimed that while working and during home and
automotive repairs he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or
otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers from certain products he was
working with and around.

Mr. Mahoney alleged that the defendants included asbestos in
their products even when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the
safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

Mr. Mahoney claimed that the defendants failed to require and
advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

The complaint stated that Mr. Mahoney also suffers "great
physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and
prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby
losing large sums of money."

Mr. Mahoney seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

Nathaniel Mudd and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
Ill. represent Mr. Mahoney.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Green Files FELA Suit v. CSX Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Green of Charleston, W.Va., on Dec. 1, 2006, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against CSX Transportation Inc. in
Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia, The West Virginia Record
reports.

In the suit filed on Dec. 1, 2006, Mr. Green alleged that his
throat cancer resulted from working with CSX from 1969 to 1993.

The complaint stated, "Upon beginning employment and while
engaged in the course of his employment with CSX, Plaintiff was
required and caused to work with and in the vicinity of toxic
and/or pathogenic liquids, solids, dusts, fumes, vapors, mists
or gases, including but not limited to asbestos and asbestos-
containing products and materials, sand, rock dust, coal dust,
welding fumes and diesel smoke and fumes which caused him to
suffer sever, permanent and life-threatening injury to his
person."

Mr. Green charges CSX with a violation of the Federal Employer's
Liability Act for not providing a "reasonably safe place to
work."

Mr. Green said CSX should have tested to see any harm that could
occur as the result of asbestos fibers mixing with diesel smoke
and fumes.

Mr. Green seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, great
pain, extreme nervousness and mental anguish and adds that CSX
violated the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act by failing to
provide a locomotive in a safe condition.

Mark Wade of Wade Law Office in Oakmont, Pa., represents Mr.
Green.

A visiting judge will be assigned Kanawha Circuit Court case
number 06-C-2574.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ace Ltd.'s Loss Reserves Increase by $200M
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd. said its gross loss reserve for potential asbestos
claim at its Brandywine Holdings Corp. unit has increased by
about US$200 million and said the reserve was adequately funded,
Reuters reports.

The Company did not disclose the total amount in the reserve.
The Company also said an external review of its asbestos
liabilities at Brandywine showed they were lower than two years
ago.

In 1999, the Company bought Brandywine as part of its
acquisition of Cigna Corp.'s property and casualty operations.
Brandywine holds run-offs -- policies that are no longer being
sold but have claims that require payment.

Chief Executive Evan Greenberg said judicial rulings were
limiting the number of class action lawsuits being brought on
behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos.

The Company reduced its exposure to asbestos claims in 2006 by
selling three subsidiaries to Randall & Quilter Investment
Holdings Ltd., a firm specializing in handling the obligations
of insurance companies in run-off.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd., through its
subsidiaries, sells property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance in the U.S. and about 50 other countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hyogo Pipeworker's Family to Get Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of an unnamed man from Hyogo Prefecture who died of
lung cancer, allegedly caused by asbestos exposure, will receive
survivor's benefits, even though he had not inhaled enough
asbestos to qualify for compensation, The Daily Yomiuri reports.

The Itami Labor Standard Inspection Office in Itami, Hyogo
Prefecture, decided after questioning the man's ex-colleagues
about his working conditions and concluding it was highly likely
the man was exposed to asbestos on the job.

The relatives are to receive the benefits despite the fact that
the deceased did not meet the requirements of a new law designed
to help bereaved families who failed to apply for workers
compensation within the five-year statute of limitations.

The man, who worked with water pipes, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 1995 and died of the disease in 1997 at the age of 56.

Since the statute of limitations had already expired on the
worker's compensation benefits, the man's widow applied to the
labor office in April 2006 to receive the survivor's benefits
based on the new law.

The labor office then contacted the hospital where the man had
received treatment and learned that it had preserved a portion
of his lung tissue there.

Through an inspection, about 1,500 asbestos fibers per gram of
tissue were detected, which did not meet the benefit's criteria
of more than 5,000 fibers per gram. However, the labor office
applied a special exception that makes eligible those who
engaged in asbestos-related work for more than 10 years.

The labor office confirmed from the man's former colleagues that
he worked with water pipes with asbestos for about 10 years.

The office notified the man's wife that the benefits would be
provided after concluding the man's work environment suggested a
link between his lung cancer and asbestos.

Under the new law, immediate family members of those victims can
receive annual benefits of up to JPY3.3 million, or a lump-sum
payment up to JPY12 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery of Hazard Closes Ore. DEQ Office
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality said that
asbestos found in flooring material removed during the current
renovation of its Bend, Ore. Office has forced the closure of
the facility at 2146 NE Fourth St. until further notice, Bend
Weekly reports.

During the flooring's removal, part of a renovation project
begun after a Dec. 1, 2006 fire in the building, asbestos fibers
may have been released to the air.

An Oregon licensed asbestos abatement contractor has been hired
to perform air monitoring and, if necessary, the next steps
required for safe removal of any asbestos-containing material.

The DEQ office would remain closed until further notice pending
evaluation by the asbestos abatement contractor.

Asbestos is a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung cancer,
mesothelioma, asbestosis and other respiratory diseases and is a
hazardous air contaminant for which there is no known safe level
of exposure.

Removing asbestos-containing flooring can render it friable, or
capable of releasing fibers into the air.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Expects 6,000 New Claims in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson PLC expects that, for 2006, the number of new asbestos
claimants would be around 6,000 compared with 10,350 in 2005,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, for December 2006
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company expects more than 11,000 claims to be resolved in
the period, over 90 percent by dismissal, resulting in a net
reduction in outstanding claimants of over 5,000 to about
126,000.

For the second half of 2006, the Company expects the gross cost
of settlement and legal fees to the first half of 2006, giving a
full year gross cost of about US$55 million, which is above 2005
(US43.2 million) but below 2004 (US$59.3 million).

The Company continues to provide for the next eight years at a
gross cost of US$60 million p.a., equivalent to about GBP15
million p.a. after insurance secured to date and tax. Further
insurance exists, but recognition remains subject to litigation
and negotiation.

The charge for the cost of asbestos of about GBP15 million will
be offset by the one-off impact of additional insurance secured
in the 2006-first half of GBP15 million.

Headquartered in London, United Kingdom, Hanson PLC produces
aggregates, ready-mixed concrete, bricks, and concrete pipe and
building products. Other operations include quarries, marine
dredging, and recycling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nova Scotia Firm Says Not to Touch Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinchin LeBlanc Environmental Ltd., a Nova Scotia, Canada-based
environmental firm, said asbestos found in Sydney, N.S. public
housing units should remain undisturbed, unless the buildings
undergo major renovations, CanadaEast Online reports.

Pinchin LeBlanc said the asbestos, which has been sealed off in
the attics of units in Whitney Pier and Ashby Terraces, should
be checked.

The Province of Nova Scotia hired Dartmouth, N.S.-based Pinchin
LeBlanc in 2006 after the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority
discovered the asbestos in insulation in the housing units.

Air-monitoring tests conducted on the units found one asbestos
fiber, while further tests found no traces.

Dr. Ann Roberts, the regional medical officer of health, said it
takes long-term exposure to high levels of asbestos to cause any
illness.

Ron LeBlanc, Company president, said, "The residents are as safe
today with a good asbestos management plan as they would be if
the insulation was removed."

Pinchin LeBlanc said it is a standard industry approach to leave
vermiculite insulation with asbestos untouched.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Yorker Indicted in Illegal Removal Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Chick, a 64-year old New York man, has been indicted by a
grand jury in the investigation in the alleged illegal asbestos
removal at the Cayuga County Board of Elections Building in
Auburn, N.Y., 9WSYR.com reports.

The U.S. Attorney's Office said Mr. Chick has been indicted on
charges of conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act and making
false statements related to the alleged illegal removal. The
U.S. Attorney's Office said he was involved in the alleged
illegal removal in February 2006.

Aside from the alleged removal, the U.S. Attorney's Office said
Mr. Chick lied about using inmates at the Cayuga County prison
to do some of the work. The U.S. Attorney's Office says he also
lied about not denying their requests to wear dust masks during
the work.

If found guilty, Mr. Chick faces a maximum of five years in
prison and a US$250,000 fine for each count.

The Cayuga County Board of Elections Building was closed in
August 2006 for asbestos testing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NICE Committee to Review Ban on Alimta Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
said its appraisal committee would review the decision to block
Alimta, a drug used for the treatment of mesothelioma, BBC News
reports.

NICE had said Alimta (pemetrexed disodium) should not be used in
England and Wales. Alimta manufacturers Eli Lilly and Co.
appealed the original ruling.

NICE official Dr. Gillian Leng said, "The appeal mechanism is
one of a series of checks and balances built into our appraisal
process."

Joanne Rule, chief executive of the charity Cancerbackup, said,
"We are very pleased that NICE will be looking at this important
treatment again, following the recent appeal."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Mulls Court Ruling Effect on Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc.'s plan to resolve 116,000 asbestos-related
lawsuits for under US$1 billion may be jeopardized by a U.S.
Appeals Court ruling in 2004, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports.

The Company's liabilities stem mostly from insulation made by
its Pittsburgh Corning Corp. venture.

The Company wants to put US$998 million in cash and stock into
the trust proposed by Pittsburgh Corning as the exclusive fund
to compensate victims. Pittsburgh Corning, a joint venture
between the Company and Corning Inc., filed for bankruptcy
protection in 2000.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald in Pittsburgh, Pa.
has delayed a decision for more than two years, partly because
the Appeals Court junked a similar move by Combustion
Engineering Inc. Judge Fitzgerald said she will rule by Dec. 31,
2006.

The Company may face higher costs to end the litigation if the
Court says the company cannot confine its liability to the
trust.

Gene Pisasale, a senior analyst at Mercantile Bankshares in
Baltimore, Md., said a ruling against the Company might hurt the
shares of other companies facing asbestos suits.

Other companies facing asbestos claims include chemicals maker
W.R. Grace & Co. of Columbia, Md., and Federal-Mogul Corp., a
bankrupt auto-parts maker in Southfield, Mich.

Judge Fitzgerald said at a Nov. 17, 2006 hearing that she is
writing her opinion. She said, "I think I have come to a
resolution that I am now comfortable with."

The Company's CEO, Charles Bunch, told investors in November
2006 that a ruling by Judge Fitzgerald would allow his company
to settle its asbestos suits in 2007.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow of Palmers Ltd. Worker Wins Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Welch, the widow of Barry Welch, who died from
mesothelioma has won compensation from the former employer of
her husband's stepfather, injurywatch.co.uk reports.

The level of damages will be decided at a court hearing in 2007.

Mr. Welch, from Leicester, U.K., was thought to have contracted
mesothelioma after childhood exposure to asbestos. It was linked
to dust and fibers brought home on overalls by his stepfather,
Roger Bugby, from his workplace in Kent.

Mr. Welch began legal action after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma in May 2004. He died 11 months later, at the age of
32, but Mrs. Welch continued the fight for compensation.

The action ended in November 2006 when insurance firm Zurich, on
behalf of Mr. Bugby's former employer Palmers Ltd., admitted
negligence.

From 1977 to 1979, Mr. Bugby worked as a scaffolder at
Kingsnorth Power Station. The young Mr. Welch would sit on Mr.
Bugby's lap when he returned home.

Law firm Irwin Mitchell, which represented Mr. and Mrs. Welch,
said, "This exposure as a child led to Barry contracting
mesothelioma in later life."

In the inquest, Dr. Clive Muatero, consultant oncologist at
Leicester Royal Infirmary, said it "would be reasonable" to
assume that Mr. Welch's mesothelioma was caused by the childhood
asbestos exposure.

In 2005, a coroner ruled that Mr. Welch's death was accidental.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Ban N.Y. Time-Barred Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors assert that because their
cases are filed in Delaware, the Court should apply Delaware's
choice of principles to determine the limitations period that
governs 10 claims asserting damages caused by alleged asbestos-
containing products installed in buildings located in New York.

According to Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl
Young Jones & Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., New York law
applies to the 10 Claims since:

(i) The subject properties are located in New York, and

(ii) Delaware has no direct interest in the Claims.

Under New York law, applicable limitations period is three years
and the prescriptive period began to run when the W.R. Grace &
Co. asbestos-containing products were allegedly installed in the
subject properties. The alleged asbestos-containing products
have been installed in 1973, thus the Claimants should have been
filed claims in 1979 or before that. However, the Claimants
waited 27 years to file the Claims.

Under New York statute of limitations, the 10 Claims are time-
barred, Ms. Jones asserts.  

Thus, the Debtors ask the Court to disallow and expunge the 10
Claims.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 121; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS ALERT: Court Junks Buffalo Dismissal in Lindquist Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rhode Island Superior Court, Providence County, denied
Buffalo Pumps Inc.'s dismissal motion in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by George and Najala Lindquist.

Justice Alice Bridget Gibney handed down the decision of C.A.
No. PC 06-2416 on Nov. 28, 2006.

On May 2, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Lindquist filed a lawsuit in Rhode
Island Superior Court to recover damages they alleged to have
suffered as a result of Mr. Lindquist's exposure to asbestos at
work. Mr. Lindquist died after the filing of the suit.

In the complaint, the Lindquists alleged that Mr. Lindquist was
exposed to asbestos while he worked at Norton Co. in the 1960s
and 1970s.

While at Norton, Mr. Lindquist changed the packing and the
gaskets located in and connected to the pumps made by Buffalo.

Mrs. Lindquist alleged that Buffalo had a duty to warn of the
reasonably foreseeable dangers related to the use and
maintenance of these pumps and that it failed to do so.

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Buffalo argued that Mrs.
Lindquist has not offered any evidence that Mr. Lindquist was
exposed to an asbestos-containing product made by Buffalo, and
that it cannot be held responsible for injury caused by products
made by another company.

The Court found that this case had triable issues of fact in
relation to Buffalo's duty to warn of the dangers posed by the
asbestos gaskets and packing used in its pumps.

Accordingly, the Court denied Buffalo's Motion to Dismiss.


COMPANY PROFILE
Buffalo Pumps, Inc.  
874 Oliver St.
North Tonawanda, N.Y. 14120-3298
Phone: 716-693-1850
Fax: 716-693-6303
http://www.buffalopumps.com

Fiscal Year-End:               December
Sales (mil.):                  US$127.9 (est.)
Employees:                     1,152

Description:
The Company makes centrifugal pumps used in refrigeration and
power generation and by the marine defense industries. The
Company is a subsidiary of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ATRICURE INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of AtriCure, Inc. pursuant
and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering on
Aug. 4, 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.  

The action concerns the initial public offering of AtriCure
common stock, which took place on or about Aug. 4, 2005.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendant AtriCure, Inc. and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.  

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 9,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


HANSEN NATURAL: Scott + Scott Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLP, filed a class action against Hansen Natural
Corp. and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  

The action is on behalf of Hansen securities purchasers during
the period Nov. 12, 2001 through Nov. 9, 2006, for violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
financial statements.  

As a result, the price of the company's securities was inflated
during the class period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the class period, the price
of Hansen stock was artificially inflated as a result of
defendants' dissemination of false and misleading statements
concerning the company's financial statements, which failed to
disclose that stock options granted to defendants were
fraudulently backdated, resulting in the improper recording of
executive compensation and expenses.

As revealed on Oct. 31, 2006, Hansen shocked the market when it
disclosed that the company had received a letter from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission requesting that the company
voluntarily produce certain documents and information relating
to the company's stock option grant practices from Jan. 1, 1996
to the present.

Then on Nov. 6, 2006, in response to the SEC's investigation of
the company's wayward option grant award practices, the company
announced that outside counsel and a special committee of
Hansen's Board of Directors would commence an investigation.
Following this, on Nov. 9, 2006, Hansen finally announced that
it would fail to timely file SEC Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.  

As of result of this announcement, the price of Hansen stock
tumbled 14.2%, losing $4.14 per share, to close at $24.88, on
heavy trading volume of over 19.3 million shares.

The plaintiff is represented by Scott+Scott, a firm with
significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions.
The firm dedicates itself to client communication and
satisfaction and currently is litigating major securities,
antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, charities,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.

More information on this and other class actions can be found on
the Class Action Newsline at www.primenewswire.com/ca

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 9,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLP, Phone: (800) 404-
7770 and (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


TOP TANKERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Securities Suit Filing  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, 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 purchasers of TOP Tankers, Inc. (TOPT) securities
between June 28, 2005 and Nov. 28, 2006.  A copy of the
complaint filed in this action can be viewed on the firm's
website at www.faruqilaw.com

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

On Nov. 29, 2006, TOP Tankers shocked investors when it
announced that Ernst & Young, LLP, the company's independent
auditors, had resigned over a disagreement related to its
accounting for certain sale and lease back transactions, and
that it would be forced to restate its financial results for the
entire half of 2006.  

The news caused shares of TOP Tankers to fall almost 15% in the
single trading day, to close just above $5.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that TOP Tankers materially misrepresented
and failed to disclose conditions that adversely affected the
Company throughout the class period in order to:

      -- artificially inflate the price of Company shares by
         deceiving shareholders concerning TOP Tankers'
         financial results and business prospects;

      -- register for sale with the SEC, millions of shares of
         TOP Tankers stock, and to provide shareholders with a
         massive $7.50 dividend per share -- almost $40 million
         of which was paid to defendants and their families; and

      -- permit Kingdom Holdings, an entity owned by the family
         of defendant Evangelos Pistiolis, to liquidate almost
         900,000 company shares during the class period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all
other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired TOP Tankers securities between June 28, 2005
through Nov. 28, 2006, excluding defendants and their
affiliates.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 9,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. of Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, Phone: (877) 247-4292 and (212) 983-9330, Web site:
http://www.faruqilaw.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  * * *