CAR_Public/070112.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 9

                            Headlines

AMGEN INC: Faces Calif. Pharma Reps Lawsuit for Overtime Wages
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Investors' Fraud Suit Continues in Australia
ARVINMERITOR INC: Court Mulls Appeal in Pension-Related Suits
ASPEN VALLEY: Colo. Lawyer Plans Suit Over Billing Practices
AVANEX CORP: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement

BEARINGPOINT INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Va.
CANADIAN OIL COMPANIES: Face Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
CAR ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Canadian Dealers' Group to Pay $700T
CARMAX INC: Still Faces Dealers' Act Violations Suit in S.C.
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: $423M Deal with Uninsured Patients Approved

CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst AT&T Suit Settlement
CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst Level 3 Settlement
CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst Williams Settlement
CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst XO Suit Settlement
CONCEPT SPORTS: Aussie Firm Settles Securities Suit, IMF Says

EVERDRY WATERPROOFING: To Pay $585,000 in Teen Harassment Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
HOME WARRANTY: Faces Consumer Suit in Ill. Over Coverage Claims
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: $24M Loan Fees Suit Settlement Approved
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit

HUNTSMAN INT'L: Faces Urethane Antitrust Litigation in Canada
INTERVOICE-BRITE: Allowed to Appeal Certification of Stock Suit
LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Sherwin-Williams, PPG Settle for $39M
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Deal
MARYLAND: City Defendants Dropped from "Jones" Strip Search Suit

MOTHERS WORK: Settles Calif. Suit Over Customer Data Request
MULTIPLEX GROUP: Directions Hearing in Wembley Suit Set Feb.
MV TRANSPORTATION: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Minn.
OSI RESTAURANT: Investors File Suit in Fla. Over Planned Sale
PHILIP SERVICES: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $79.75M

PUERTO RICO: Subscribers Denied Appeal on Lawsuit's Dismissal
RITZ-CARLTON: Mass. Banquet Workers Sue Over Unremitted Tips
SMILECARE: Dental Hygienist in Calif. Files Overtime Pay Lawsuit
SPX CORP: April Hearing Set for N.C. Investor Suits Settlement
TRANS BAY: Settles Slavery, Human Trafficking Lawsuit for $1M

UNITED HEALTHCARE: N.Y. Court Allows RICO, Antitrust Complaints
WAL-MART STORES: NCLC Opposes Class Certification in "Sepulveda"
WASHINGTON: Trial Starts in WTO Protesters' Suit Against Seattle


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canada to Study Citizens' Zonolite Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Pursues Insurers to Pay Families
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Israel Govt. Approves $1.2M Aid for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Reports $391.1M Reserve Balance
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Records $58.4M Current Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DNR Issues $1.5T Fine to Mechanical Systems
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OoC Cites D.C. Library for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Secondary Exposure Suit Filed v. 104 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Realtor to Check 10% of Homes for Risk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotland Allows Victims, Kin to Claim Early

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alert Up for Hazard at Victoria Camp Ruins
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Woman Sues 9 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Still Faces Product Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nova Partners Pleads No Contest in Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Firm Seeks Out Former Shipyard Workers

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCDHEC Wants Proper Disposal of Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor to Pay $8T for Improper Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Quick Review in Grace Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAI Claimants to Appeal No-Risk Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. RPM Int'l. Units Rise to 11,021

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Await '07 Trial for Insurers Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Kaiser Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fly Tipping Victimizes Ireland Town Locals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Factory Building Held Up Over Detection
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Building to be Demolished for Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Splits Delmarva Ruling in Hudson Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HANSEN NATURAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AMGEN INC: Faces Calif. Pharma Reps Lawsuit for Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. faces a purported class action filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by one of its
former employees seeking back pay.

The suit, filed by Jill Helgren, alleges violation of federal
and state wage and hour laws.

It is filed on behalf of "Covered Employees" who have been, are,
or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in
any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the
following titles:

     -- sales representative,
     -- senior sales representative,
     -- executive sales representative, and
     -- senior executive sales representative

and employees who performed substantially the same work as
employees with those titles above and who were employed during
the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for
relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including
time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been
tolled or suspended.

The suit charges that the company -- like others in the industry
-- unlawfully characterizes pharmaceutical representatives as
"exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state
labor laws in order to deprive them of overtime pay.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, upon information and
belief, defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of
corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout
the U.S., in the following respects:

     (a) failing to pay employees for hours worked in excess of
         40 hours per week; and

     (b) failing to maintain accurate records of employees'
         time.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Covered Employees,
prays for relief as follows:

      -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
         are unlawful under FLSA;

      -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the
         Covered Employees;

      -- an award of damages, according to proof, including
         liquidated damages, to be paid by defendant;

      -- penalties available under applicable law;

      -- costs of action incurred, including expert fees;

      -- attorneys' fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
         Section 216 and other applicable statutes;

      -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by
         law; and

      -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as  
         the court deems necessary, just and proper.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1855

The suit is "Jill Helgren v. Amgen Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-07182-AHM-RZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge A. Howard Matz, with
referral to Judge Ralph Zarefsky.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric B. Kingsley and George R. Kingsley both of
         Kingsley and Kingsley, 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite
         1200, Encino, CA 91436, Phone: 818-990-8300; and

     (2) Charles Joseph of Joseph and Herzfeld, 757 Third
         Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-688-
         5640


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Investors' Fraud Suit Continues in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Blackburn Cashman has during the past three months
continued to prepare its evidence for trial against Australian
slot machine maker Aristocrat Leisure Ltd.  The company has made
a number of admissions in relation to the Applicant's claim in
both its defense and the particulars provided.  

The Applicant served an extensive Notice to Admit on Aristocrat
with respect to admissions made by Aristocrat in the proceedings
against former company director and chief executive Des Randall
and with respect to facts surrounding the upfront recognition of
revenue and profit on a number of South American transactions.

In 2003, Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation
company IMF Australia filed a class action writ against
Aristocrat Leisure alleging that the company's market forecasts
were false and misleading and that it failed to disclose all
material information in a timely manner.

The lawsuit alleges that the company misled shareholders by not
keeping them fully informed before announcing earnings
downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion (AU$2 billion) from the
company's value in 2003.  The lawsuit claims damages of $86.37
million (AU$115 million) for losses when shareholders sold their
stock.

The case was transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney.  Later,
the applicant applied to amend the class definition to delete
the requirement that a group member must retain Maurice
Blackburn Cashman to be a part of the class.

This application was successful and the class definition was
amended so that the case now applies to any person who acquired
shares in Aristocrat during the period Sept. 20, 2002 to May 26,
2003 and who suffered loss as a consequence of Aristocrat
alleged conduct.

The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred
by shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 19, 2002
(previously Sept. 20, 2002) and 26 May 2003.

The court has recently ordered the Applicant to send notices
regarding the litigation.

Aristocrat Leisure: 71 Longueville Road, Lane Cove, NSW,
Australia, 2066, Phone: (02) 9413 6300, Fax: (02) 9420 1352.


ARVINMERITOR INC: Court Mulls Appeal in Pension-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal by ArvinMeritor, Inc. against a decision by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
preventing it from implementing planned changes to retiree
health benefits.

Three separate class actions were filed in the court against
ArvinMeritor and other defendants as a result of modifications
made by the company to its retiree health benefits.  

The company approved amendments to certain retiree medical plans
in fiscal years 2002 and 2004.  The cumulative effect of these
amendments was a reduction in the accumulated postretirement
benefit obligation of $293 million, which is being amortized as
a reduction of retiree medical expense over the average
remaining service period of approximately 12 years.  

The lawsuits alleged that the changes breach the terms of
various collective bargaining agreements entered into with the
United Auto Workers and the United Steel Workers at former
facilities that have either been closed or sold.  A companion
claim restated these allegations, seeking to bring them under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  On Dec.
22, 2005, the district court issued an order granting a motion
by the UAW for a preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 17, 2006, the district court:

     -- denied a motion by ArvinMeritor and the other defendants
        for summary judgment;
  
     -- granted a motion by the UAW for summary judgment;

     -- ordered the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs for
        out-of-pocket expenses incurred since the date of the
        earlier benefit modifications; and

     -- granted the UAW's request to make the terms of the
        preliminary injunction permanent.

The terms of the preliminary injunction had enjoined the company
from implementing the changes to retiree health benefits that
had been scheduled to become effective on Jan. 1, 2006, and had
ordered the company to reinstate and resume paying the full cost
of health benefits for the UAW retirees at the levels existing
prior to the changes implemented in 2002 and 2004.

The company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to
these actions and has appealed the district court's order with
respect to the UAW lawsuits to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.

The first identified complaint is "Int'l U Utd. Auto, et al. v.  
Arvinmeritor Inc., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-73872-NGE," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart M. Israel of Martens, Ice, (Royal Oak), 306 S.  
         Washington Suite 600, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Phone: 248-
         398-5900, E-mail: israel@martensice.com; and  

     (2) Daniel W. Sherrick, UAW International Union, Legal  
         Department, 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI  
         48214, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5216.   

Representing the company are:  

     (1) Michael A. Alaimo and Leonard D. Givens of Miller,  
         Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W. Jefferson Avenue Suite  
         2500, Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone: 313-963-6420, E-
         mail: alaimo@millercanfield.com or  
         givens@millercanfield.com; and  

     (2) Charles S. Mishkind of Miller, Canfield, (Grand  
         Rapids), 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200, Grand  
         Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: 616-454-8656, E-mail:  
         Mishkind@MillerCanfield.com.   


ASPEN VALLEY: Colo. Lawyer Plans Suit Over Billing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
A Snowmass Village attorney is considering filing a class action
against Aspen Valley Hospital in Colorado over the hospital's
billing practices, according to reports by The Aspen Times.

Earlier, Kay Honigman-Singer raised the possibility of a class
action against the hospital on behalf of customers who believe
they have received inaccurate bills or improper dunning notices
from collection agencies, after talking to several people with
complaints about the hospital's billing practices.

A hospital spokesman pointed out that the problems stem from old
bills that a previous administration did not deal with.  Aspen
Valley Chief Finance Officer Terry Collins said that the
hospital's new billing contractor is now handling them, and it
is up to patients to respond to all notices within the specified
time.

AVH's billing and collection practices have been the subject of
numerous recent complaints by patients, as well as articles in
local newspapers.

Some patients say they have received notice from a collections
agency without ever having received a bill for services from the
hospital.

Others said that after they contested questionable bills and
received assurances that they had been canceled, they later
received additional bills for the same amounts or sometimes
more.

The base of all of these complaints, Ms. Honigman-Singer pointed
out, is that the hospital is relying on strong-arm tactics to
collect old bills, whether the bills are accurate or not.


AVANEX CORP: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. 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 the consolidated securities class action
against Avanex Corp.

On Aug. 6, 2001, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and various underwriters in its initial public
offering were named as defendants in a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned, "Beveridge v. Avanex Corp. et al., Civil Action No.
01-CV-7256."

This action and other subsequently filed substantially similar
class actions have been consolidated into "In re Avanex Corp.  
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
01 Civ. 6890."

The consolidated amended complaint in the action generally
alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the company's IPO.

Plaintiffs have brought claims for violation of several
provisions of the federal securities laws against those
underwriters, and also against the company and certain of its
directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Feb. 3, 2000, and Dec. 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment
banks and 250 other companies.

All of these "IPO allocation" securities class actions currently
pending in the Southern District of New York have been assigned
to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial
proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the claims against Avanex's directors and
officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  The issuer defendants filed a coordinated motion to
dismiss all common pleading issues, which the court granted in
part and denied in part in an order dated Feb. 19, 2003.

The court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b) or Section
11 claims against the company.  In June 2004, a stipulation of
settlement for the claims against the issuer defendants,
including Avanex, was submitted to the court.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness
hearing in connection with the motion for final approval of the
settlement.  The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for
final approval at the fairness hearing.

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

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


BEARINGPOINT INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bearingpoint Inc. is seeking to dismiss a securities fraud suit
pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

The suits filed after April 2005 claim that the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by,
among other things, making materially misleading statements
between Aug. 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005 with respect to the
company's financial results in the company's Securities and
Exchange Commission filings and press releases.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court certified a class, appointed class
counsel and appointed a class representative.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2006 and the defendants,
including the company, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss
that complaint, which was fully briefed and heard on May 5,
2006.  

The suit is "In Re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00454-TSE-TCB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge T. S.
Ellis, III with referral to Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Steven Jeffrey Toll of Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005-3965, Phone: (202) 408-4600.  

Representing the defendant is Charles William McIntyre, Jr. of
McGuireWoods, LLP, 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20036-5317, Phone: (202) 857-1742.


CANADIAN OIL COMPANIES: Face Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Quebec woman is seeking permission in Quebec Superior Court to
launch a class action against the province's four major oil
companies over an alleged conspiracy to raise the price of
gasoline in Quebec, the Canadian Press reports.

Named in the suit are:

     -- Petro-Canada (TSX: PCA),
     -- Shell-Canada (TSX: SHC),
     -- Ultramar, and
     -- Imperial Oil (TSX: IMO).

The lawsuit alleges that oil companies colluded to raise gas
prices, under the pretext of heading off the government's plan
to introduce a new surtax to finance the province's new
sustainable development program.

Catherine Savoie claims the oil companies raise the price of gas
in the province by 1.3 cents per liter in order to offset a
planned government tax aimed at financing Quebec's new
environmental plan.

In court documents, Ms. Savoie points out that the government
has yet to finalize details about the tax, including when it
will be implemented and how much oil companies will be charged.

She says the oil companies nevertheless went ahead and raised
their prices in unison around Jan. 1, 2007.

Ms. Savoie's motion contends that the oil companies are making
$5 million per week from the price hike.

None of her claims has been proven in court.

Oil industry representatives warned the provincial government
last year that it would raise gas prices in order to compensate
for the government's so-called "green tax."


CAR ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Canadian Dealers' Group to Pay $700T
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Automotive Dealers' Association (CADA) agreed to
pay $700,000 and stipulated to a five-year injunction
prohibiting car manufacturers from engaging in anticompetitive
practices alleged in "In Re: New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export
Antitrust Litigation."

Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed an antitrust
class action against major automakers, alleging that the
manufacturers unlawfully conspired to stop export of cheaper
Canadian new vehicles into the U.S. for use or resale.  It is
alleged that the illegal scheme artificially inflated the prices
paid by U.S. consumers for each new vehicle purchased since
2001.

The consolidated antitrust class action, "In Re: New Motor
Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation," named most major
carmakers as defendants, along with associations representing
U.S. and Canadian dealerships.  Those named include:

     -- General Motors Corp.,
     -- General Motors Canada,
     -- Ford Motor Co.,
     -- Ford Canada,
     -- Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
     -- American Honda Motor Co.,
     -- Honda Canada,
     -- DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
     -- DaimlerChrysler Canada,
     -- Nissan North America, and
     -- Mercedes-Benz USA

According to the complaint, manufacturers maintained higher
prices on virtually every car sold in the U.S. compared to
prices of the same vehicles in Canada, charging 10-30 percent
more for their vehicles in the U.S.  

For example, Ford's 2002 Windstar LX minivan had a Manufacturers
Suggested Retail Price of US$16,448 in Canada and US$22,340 in
the U.S. -- a difference of 26 percent.  In another example, the
MSRP for a 2002 Lexus SC43 was 13 percent lower in Canada than
the U.S., US$53,151 compared to US$61,055.

On Feb. 24, 2006, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. agreed to pay $35
million to settle plaintiffs' claims.  Toyota also agreed to
refrain from engaging in anticompetitive conduct with other
automakers and trade associations and to cooperate in the
lawsuit's discovery process.

The settlement with Toyota was followed by two important
courtroom victories for plaintiffs in the case.  On March 10,
2006, Judge Hornby certified a nationwide class for injunctive
relief.  On May 12, 2006, Judge D. Brock Hornby of the U.S.
District of Maine provisionally certified five state classes for
damages.  Plaintiffs are presently seeking a ruling on up to 18
more state classes.

Moreover, on Sept. 6, 2006, plaintiffs' counsel negotiated a
settlement with CADA.  Under the agreement, CADA agreed to pay
$700,000 and stipulated to a five-year injunction prohibiting
them from engaging in anticompetitive practices at issue in the
lawsuit.  Like Toyota, CADA agreed to cooperate in facets of the
discovery process in the litigation against the remaining
defendants.

The proposed settlements require court approval. Plaintiffs
continue to prosecute the remaining defendants.

The class period is Jan. 1, 2001 to Feb. 14, 2003.  The suit is
Case No. 03-md-1532 (ME) under Judge D. Brock Hornby.  Case
Contact: Todd A. Seaver, Phone: 415-433-3200.


CARMAX INC: Still Faces Dealers' Act Violations Suit in S.C.  
------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Aiken County, South
Carolina, which alleges that the company is violating the
state's Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers
Act or Dealer's Act.

On Aug. 29, 2006, Heather Herron, and others, filed the putative
class action against 51 South Carolina automobile dealers,
including CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.  The company operates
two of its 71 superstores in the state of South Carolina.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants are violating South
Carolina's Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers
Act by:

      -- presenting their respective processing fees in a manner
         that gives consumers the impression that charging the
         processing fees is required by law; and

      -- excluding their respective processing fees from the
         advertised prices of their vehicles.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages equal to two times
actual damages and punitive damages equal to three times actual
damages.  The complaint, however, does not specify a dollar
amount of damages.  

Plaintiffs alternatively seek equitable relief in the form of a
permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from deceptively
charging future consumers such processing fees and the
disgorgement of all such processing fees collected since Aug.
29, 2002.  They also seek to recover attorneys' fees.

CarMax, Inc. on the Net: http://www.carmax.com.


CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: $423M Deal with Uninsured Patients Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Richard A. Kramer of the San Francisco Superior
Court granted final approval to a class action settlement
resolving claims regarding pricing and collection practices for
over 780,000 uninsured patients at all of Catholic Healthcare
West's affiliate hospitals.

As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to
make a claim for refunds or bill reductions of 35% from their
prior hospital bills.  For the next four years, Catholic
Healthcare West hospitals have also agreed to maintain
discounted pricing policies for uninsured patients that will
make Catholic Healthcare's pricing for uninsured patients
comparable to the pricing for patients with private insurance.

In addition, Catholic Healthcare has agreed to maintain more
compassionate collections policies that will protect uninsureds
who fall behind in their payments.  The settlement benefits have
been valued at approximately $423 million.

The initial agreement reached in May 2006 was changed to make
available a 35 percent discount or refund on bills of uninsured
patients who received treatment at a Catholic Healthcare West
hospital from July 1, 2001 through Sept. 25, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

Uninsured patients who wish to apply for greater discounts based
on economic need can apply for additional financial assistance.  

The agreement essentially applies a charity-care policy adopted
by Catholic Healthcare in May 2004 to benefit about 700,000
uninsured patients who received care at Catholic Healthcare
hospitals after July 1, 2001.

The initial settlement amount was estimated at about $228
million, according to court documents.  

Catholic Healthcare, which admitted no wrongdoing, also agreed
to maintain the charity-care policy unchanged for four more
years.  

"This settlement provides much-needed relief to hundreds of
thousands of uninsured patients by substantially reducing their
past medical bills and ensuring that in the future CHW maintains
reasonable prices for all uninsured patients," said Plaintiffs'
attorney Kelly M. Dermody, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, in San Francisco, California.

Co-counsel Sidney A. Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm added,
"We are pleased that the Court granted final approval to this
settlement, which not only secures fair pricing for uninsured
patients, but also protects them from unfair and overly
aggressive collections practices."

                        The Settlement   

As part of the agreement, class members will be entitled to make
a claim for refunds or deductions from their prior hospital
bills pursuant to discounted pricing and collections policies
benefiting uninsured patients during the class period.  In
addition, Catholic Healthcare has agreed to maintain its
uninsured pricing and collections policies going forward for at
least four years, among other things.

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Adrienne Dancer and Amber T.
Howell on behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of
uninsured patients at Catholic Healthcare hospitals in
California, Nevada and Arizona, alleging that Defendant Catholic
Healthcare charged uninsured patients excessive and unfair
prices for medical treatment and services given at Catholic
Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and
unfair collections practices.  Defendant denies wrongdoing and
liability in the case.

                         Proposed Class   

The proposed class includes all persons who:    

     -- received hospital services from a Catholic Healthcare    
        West hospital between July 1, 2001 and the date of    
        preliminary settlement approval;    

     -- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and    

     -- earned less than $250,000 in gross annual household    
        income in the calendar year in which they received    
        hospital services.   

Catholic Healthcare West Class Action Settlement on the net:

             http://www.chwsettlement.com/

The suit is "Dancer v. Catholic Healthcare West."  Counsel for
named plaintiffs and class members are Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Sid Backstrom of the
Scruggs Law Firm.  More information about the settlement can be
found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm.


CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst AT&T Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates
in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, Case No.
02-6801."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased AT&T
Corp. common stock between Nov. 29, 1999 and Oct. 25, 2000,
inclusive, and/or AT&T Wireless Tracking and/or common stock
between May 2, 2000 and June 14, 2002.

On Aug. 17, 2006, the court approved the class action settlement
of Citigroup and its affiliates.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=204.


CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst Level 3 Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates
in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case
No. 02-6919."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities,
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 4,
1999 through June 18, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. common stock by any
method, including but not limited to in the second market, in
exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a
registration statement or through the exercise of options
including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (formerly Salomon Smith
        Barney Inc., and
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman.

Beginning in August 2002, at least seven putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the defendants alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of purchasers of shares of Level 3 common
stock between Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.

The court consolidated these actions in Jan. 24, 2003 as "In re
Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 6919
(GEL)."

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and approved lead plaintiffs'
selection of Weiss & Lurie and Beatie and Osborn LLP as lead
counsel.  

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint alleging that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by publishing false
and misleading analyst reports concerning Level 3.

Lead plaintiffs brought these claims on behalf of a class of
Level 3 shareholders:

      -- against Mr. Grubman and Salomon Smith Barney for
         violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for material
         misstatements and omissions with respect to Level 3
         research reports, including that such research reports
         falsely stated Mr. Grubman's true opinions and failed
         to disclose the conflicts of interest created by
         Salomon Smith Barney's internal policies, which
         artificially inflated the price of Level 3 securities;
         and

      -- against Salomon Smith Barney and Citigroup for
         violations of Section 20(a) as "control persons" of Mr.
         Grubman related to his materially misleading research
         reports on Level 3.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5,
2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court approved the class action
settlement of Citigroup and its affiliates.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=210.


CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst Williams Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates
in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst Williams Litigation, Case
No. 02-8156."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
Williams Communications Group stock and bonds between Oct. 27,
1999 and Nov. 1, 2001.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (formerly Salomon Smith
        Barney Inc., and
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman.

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a complaint in this
action against the defendants, asserting securities fraud claims
against defendants under Sections 10(b) (and Rules 10b 5(a) (c)
thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint asserted claims on behalf of all persons who:

      -- purchased shares of Williams Stock during the period
         from Oct. 27, 1999, through Nov. 1, 2001, both dates
         inclusive; and

      -- purchased Williams Bonds, during the same period.

The complaint alleged that defendants engaged in securities
fraud by causing fraudulent Salomon Smith Barney research
reports concerning Williams and authored by Mr. Grubman to be
issued.  

It further alleged that the reports were fraudulent because at
least since June 2000, defendants believed that Williams stock
truly warranted a "sell" rating even though SSB rated it a
"buy."

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court approved the class action
settlement of Citigroup and its affiliates.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst Williams Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=209.


CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst XO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates
in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst XO Litigation, Case No.
02-8114."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities, legal
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 18,
2000 through Nov. 1, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of XO Communications, Inc. common stock by any method,
including but not limited to in the second market, in exchange
for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a registration
statement or through the exercise of options including options
acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (formerly Salomon Smith
        Barney Inc., and
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman

The lawsuit was initiated on Oct. 11, 2002, with the filing of a
class action complaint by plaintiff Joel Vine against defendants
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act on behalf of himself and
a class of purchasers of shares of XO Communications, Inc.
common stock from Oct. 11, 1997 through Nov. 1, 2001.  

The suit was "Vine v. Salomon Smith Barney, No. 02 Civ. 8114
(BSJ)."  The court later consolidated this action with eight
related actions.

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and lead plaintiffs' selection
of:

     * Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP (then known as
       Abbey Gardy, LLP), and

     * Green Welling LLP (then known as Green & Jigarjian, LLP)
       as lead counsel

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint individually and on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of XO securities during the period
from Jan. 18, 2000, through Nov. 2, 2001.

Lead plaintiffs brought the following claims on behalf of the
class:

      -- against Mr. Grubman and Salomon Smith Barney for
         violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for material
         misstatements and omissions with respect to XO research
         reports, including that such research reports falsely
         stated Mr. Grubman's true opinions and failed to
         disclose the conflicts of interest created by Salomon
         Smith Barney's internal policies, which artificially
         inflated the price of XO securities; and

      -- against Salomon Smith Barney and Citigroup for
         violations of Section 20(a) as "control persons" of Mr.
         Grubman related to his materially misleading research
         reports on XO.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5,
2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court approved the class action
settlement of Citigroup and its affiliates.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst XO Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=208.


CONCEPT SPORTS: Aussie Firm Settles Securities Suit, IMF Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation funder IMF (Australia) Ltd. reports that the
litigation funded by shareholders of Concept Sports Ltd. has
been settled, according to information posted in the Web site of
deListed, a division of BRG Pacific Pty Limited.

Executives of Concept Sports based in Port Melbourne, Australia,
previously agreed to indemnify the company against a securities
class action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

According to the earlier report by the Class Action Reporter,
the confidential settlement between the company and investors is
believed to be about $3 million.  

Shareholders of the company field a class action against the
Concept Sports in December 2004, accusing the company of
misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to profit targets.  
The company promised that year to deliver $20.6 million in
revenue and a $1.5 million pre-tax profit for the six months to
June 30.  Instead, it posted a $2.2 million loss.

The suit was commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired an
interest in shares in Concept Sports between May 25, 2004 and
Aug. 18, 2004.

The Statement of Claim alleges various breaches of the
Corporations Act such as misleading and deceptive conduct in the
prospectus, material omissions from the prospectus and a breach
of the continuous disclosure regime of the Australian Stock
Exchange.

On July 7, 2006 the proceeding was set down for a four-week
trial commencing on Nov. 20, 2006.

The plaintiff leading more than 120 shareholders in the suit is
Cadence Capital.  The suit was brought by the law firm Maurice
Blackburn Cashman.

Concept Sports has also brought cross-claims against
international law firm Baker & McKenzie, Munro Legal and CGU
Insurance.

On the Net:
Baker & McKenzie http://www.bakernet.com
CGU Insurance: https://www.cgu.com.au/cgu/cgu/home.do
Maurice Blackburn: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/


EVERDRY WATERPROOFING: To Pay $585,000 in Teen Harassment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in federal district court returned a $585,000 verdict in
a major sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission against a national residential
basement waterproofing company on behalf of a class of 13 young
women, mostly teenage girls.

EEOC's lawsuit, filed in 2001 under Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, charged:

     * Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc.; and
     * Everdry Management Services, Inc., also known as Everdry
       Waterproofing and Everdry of Rochester

with sexually harassing the class of female former workers from
1998 onward at the company's Rochester location.

Everdry Marketing and Management Inc., based in Cleveland, Ohio,
and its Rochester, N.Y., affiliate are two Everdry companies
that are part of one integrated business enterprise.  

The harassment allegedly took the form of egregious acts of
verbal and physical sexual conduct on the part of the companies'
managers and salesmen.  EEOC said that Everdry failed to take
necessary steps to stop the harassment, despite complaints to
local and national management.   EEOC also asserted that the
work conditions were so intolerable that some of the women were
forced to quit (constructively discharged).

After a nearly two-week trial that started Oct. 10, the jury
rendered a verdict in favor of the EEOC, providing $325,000 to
the 13 young women to compensate them for lost wages and the
emotional pain and suffering they endured.  The jury also
assessed punitive damages against Everdry in the amount of
$260,000.  

Case Contact: Judy Keenan, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Phone:
212.336.3705; Elizabeth Grossman, Regional Attorney, Phone:
212.336.3696; Robert Rose, Senior Trial Attorney, Phone:
212.336.3708; Raechel Adams, Senior Trial Attorney, Phone:
212.336.3707.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline PLC faces a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
one of its former employees seeking back pay as far back as four
years.

The suit, filed by David Silverman, alleges violation of federal
and state wage and hour laws.

It is filed on behalf of "Covered Employees" who have been, are,
or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in
any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the
following titles:

     -- sales representative,
     -- senior sales representative,
     -- executive sales representative, and
     -- senior executive sales representative

and employees who performed substantial the same work as
employees with those titles above and who were employed during
the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for
relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including
time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been
tolled or suspended.

The suit charges that the company -- like others in the industry
-- unlawfully characterizes pharmaceutical representatives as
"exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state
labor laws in order to deprive them of overtime pay.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, upon information and
belief, defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of
corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout
California and the U.S., in the following respects:

     (a) failing to pay employees overtime compensation for
         hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week;

     (b) failing to maintain accurate records of employees'
         time;
     (c) failing to pay California class members overtime
         compensation for hours worked in excess of eight hours
         per day.

There are questions of law and fact common to the California
class which predominate over any questions affecting only
individual class members including:

     -- whether defendants employed or jointly employed the
        California plaintiff and the California class within the
        meaning of the California law;

     -- what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants
        failed in their duty to maintain time records;

     -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures,
        protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of
        wages for all hours worked;

     -- whether defendants failed and/or refused to pay the
        California plaintiff and the California class premium
        pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek or
        eight hours per workday within the meaning of California
        law;

     -- what are and were the policies, practices, programs of
        work and labor for which defendants did not pay the
        California class members at all;

     -- at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods
        of calculation, was and is defendants required to pay
        the California class members for their work;

     -- what are the common conditions of employment and in the
        workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies
        and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect
        whether the California class was paid at overtime rates
        for overtime work;

    -- whether defendants compensated class members that
       terminated their employment all wages owed them
       immediately upon the termination of their employment as
       required by California law; and

    -- whether defendants provided plaintiffs with rest periods
       and meal breaks as required by California law.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Covered Employees,
pray for relief as follows:

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
        are unlawful under FLSA;

     -- certification of this action as a collective action
        brought pursuant to the FLSA Section 216(b);

     -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the FLSA
        collective plaintiffs;

     -- certification of this action as a class action brought
        pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

     -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the
        California class;

     -- an injunction against defendants, their officers,
        agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any
        and all persons acting in concert with it, as provided
        by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,
        policies, and patterns set forth;

     -- an award of damages, and/or restitution according to
        proof, including liquidated damages, to be paid by
        defendant;

     -- penalties available under applicable law;

     -- costs of action incurred, including expert fees;

     -- attorneys' fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216 and other applicable statutes;

     -- pre-judgment and post judgment interest, as provided by
        law; and

     -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the
        court deems necessary, just and proper.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1859

The suit is "Silverman v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-07272-DSF-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Dale S. Fischer, with
referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles Joseph of Joseph and Herzfeld, 757 Third
         Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-688-
         5640;

     (2) Eric B. Kingsley, George R. Kingsley and Elana R.
         Levine, all of Kingsley and Kingsley, 16133 Ventura
         Boulevard, Suite 1200, Encino, CA 91436, Phone: 818-
         990-8300, E-mail: lanilevine@yahoo.com; and

     (3) Matthew S. McNicholas of McNicholas & McNicholas, 10866
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90024-
         4338, Phone: 310-474-1582, E-mail:
         msm@mcnicholaslaw.com.


HOME WARRANTY: Faces Consumer Suit in Ill. Over Coverage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Home Warranty of America, Inc. was named as a defendant in a
purported class action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois alleging that the company systematically denies
claims for coverage, The Law Cash.com reports.

Filed by Patricia West, the lawsuit alleges that Home Warranty
of America solicits sales of its warranty service knowing that
it will systematically deny coverage, often claiming that the
defect was from a "pre-existing condition."  

The suit, "Patricia West, et al. v. Home Warranty of America,
Inc., Case No. 06CH28361" also alleges consumer fraud, breach of
contract, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?185c

For more details, contact Jeffrey Grant Brown, Converse & Brown,
LLC, 105 West Adams St., Suite 3000, Chicago, Illinois 60603,
Phone: (312) 789-9700.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: $24M Loan Fees Suit Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Butte-Silver Bow County Court Judicial District in and for the
State of Montana gave final approval on Sept. 29, 2006 to class
action settlement for both the Real-Estate-Secured class and
Non-Real-Estate-Secured class in a suit over loan origination
fees against:

     * Beneficial Montana, Inc.,
     * Household Finance Corp. II, and
     * Household International

On Dec. 8, 2006, benefit checks for the Non-Real-Estate-Secure
loans were mailed to all class members.  The benefit amount is
$38.00 per Non-Real-Estate-Secure loan.  

                         Case Summary

Angelina Costello and other named class representatives filed
this case on Dec. 3, 2003.  On Feb. 15, 2005, the Court
certified the Real-Estate-Secured Class, as to which Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that Defendants violated Montana's
Consumer Loan Act (CLA) by charging loan origination fees.

As of July 19, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint to include claims on behalf of persons who
obtained consumer loans from Defendants that were not secured by
real estate, the Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class, with respect to
alleged violations of the CLA.

On July 19, 2006, Montana Second Judicial District Court, Butte-
Silver Bow County issued an order preliminarily approving the
class action settlement for the Real-Estate-Secured Class and
the Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class.

The proposed Settlement Stipulation results from vigorous, arm's
length negotiations between the parties' experienced counsel in
coordination with the assistance of an experienced neutral
mediator.

Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations and any
wrongdoing whatsoever.

The suit was filed by Angelina Costello and Dolores Gracia et
al. against:

     -- Beneficial Montana, Inc., d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage
        Co., a Delaware corporation;

     -- Household Finance Corp. II;

     -- Household International, Inc., a Delaware corporation;

     -- Bryon Smith;
     
     -- Jennifer Slates; and

     -- John Does I through X

The suit, Cause No. DV-03-280, was filed in Montana Second
Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County.

                      Class Qualifications

The Real-Estate-Secured Class is defined as: All persons who had
real-estate-secured loans originated by Beneficial Montana,
Inc., d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Co., or Household Finance Corp.
II within the State of Montana during the time frame of Jan.  1,
1997 through Dec. 31, 2002, except:

     * any person who previously has released any and all claims
       against defendants in connection with a real-estate-
       secured loan originated by defendants within the State of
       Montana;

     * any person who has opted out of this class action; and

     * employees of defendants.

The Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class is defined as: All persons to
whom any loans not secured by interests in real estate were made
by Beneficial Montana, Inc., d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Co., or
Household Finance Corp. II, or any of their affiliates, under a
Montana Consumer Loan License, 32-5-101, et seq., Mont. Code
Ann., from Jan. 1, 1997 through June 30, 2006.

                      Settlement Benefits

Real-Estate-Secured Class: Under the proposed settlement,
Defendants have paid $23 million into a settlement fund.  If the
settlement is approved, the settlement fund, and all interest
earned on it, will be used to pay the cost of sending this
Notice and administering the settlement, as well as any
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and incentive payments to the
Plaintiffs that the Court approves.  The rest of the $23 million
will be distributed to members of the Real-Estate-Secured Class.

The money will be distributed according to a formula that
reasonably distributes the money among Class Members and
minimizes administrative costs.  The formula will be based on
the total amount of interest, loan origination fees, loan
documentation and annual fees paid on all eligible loans, and
payments will be made to Class Members pro rata.  Some Class
Members will receive more in settlement funds than will others
because the distribution is based upon the proportional amount
of interest, origination, loan documentation and annual fees
paid by a particular Class Member.

Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class: Under the proposed settlement,
Defendants will pay more than $1.5 million into a settlement
fund.  If the settlement is approved, the settlement fund, and
all interest earned on it, will be used to pay the cost of
sending this Notice and administering the settlement, as well as
any attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and incentive payments to
the Plaintiffs that the Court approves.  The rest of the
settlement fund will be distributed to members of the Non-Real-
Estate-Secured Class.  The money will be allocated among Class
Members on a per-loan basis.

Some Class Members will receive more in settlement funds than
will others because they had more loans with Defendants during
the relevant time period.  Also, there will be payments made in
the settlement to a separate class whose claims involve loans
secured by real estate (the Real-Estate-Secured Class).  The
payments made to those people may be more substantial.

Key Dates

July 19, 2006  The Court granted preliminary approval of the
                  settlement.

Aug. 15, 2006  Notice mailed to all known class members.

Sept. 15, 2006    Deadline for filing a request to be excluded
                  (opt out) from the class for non-real-estate-
                  secured class only.

Sept. 19, 2006    Deadline for filing a written objection to the
                  settlement and to appear at the hearing.

Sept. 29, 2006    Final Approval Hearing


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated antitrust class action
filed against Huntsman International, LLC and several other
defendants for alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene
diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether
polyols industries.

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multidistrict litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed Aug. 23, 2004.  The case is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are
Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.  Bayer recently announced that
it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs,
which is subject to approval by the court.  Class certification
discovery is underway in these consolidated cases, according to
the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616,
Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum
with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Nunzio Alioto of Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott,
         LLP, 2280 Union Street, San Francisco, CA 94123, Phone:
         415-563-7200, Fax: 415-346-0679, E-mail:
         malioto@tatp.com; and

     (2) Arthur N. Bailey of Arthur N. Bailey & Associates, 111
         West Second Street, Suite 4500, Jamestown, NY 14701,
         Phone: 716-664-2967, Fax: 716-664-2983, E-mail:
         artlaw@alltel.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Floyd R. Finch, Jr. of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin,
         LLP - Kansas City, 4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O.
         Box 219777, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-983-8128,
         Fax: 816-983-8080, E-mail: ffinch@blackwellsanders.com;
         and

    (ii) James S. Jardine of Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, 36 South
         State Street, Suite 1400, Salt Lake City, UT 84111,
         Phone: 801-323-3337, Fax: 801-532-7543, E-mail:
         jjardine@rqn.com.


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Faces Urethane Antitrust Litigation in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International, LLC along with other firms are named
defendants in a putative antitrust class action in Canada,
alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols
industries.

The suits were filed in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario,
Canada on May 5, 2006 and in Superior Court, Quebec, Canada on
May 17, 2006.


INTERVOICE-BRITE: Allowed to Appeal Certification of Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted
InterVoice-Brite, Inc.'s petition to appeal the certification by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas of a
purported securities fraud class action filed against the
company.

Initially, several related class actions were filed on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Intervoice from Oct. 12, 1999
through June 6, 2000.

Plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one
proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 against the company as well as certain
named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the class period concerning the
financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger
with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business
projections of Intervoice.  Plaintiffs have asserted that these
alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock
prices.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked
the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the
pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation.

The plaintiffs' appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in
part and reversed in part.  The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited
number of issues for further proceedings in the court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during
the period between Oct. 12, 1999 and June 6, 2000.  

On Nov. 14, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit granted the company's petition to appeal the district
court's decision to grant Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

Based on the Fifth Circuit's decision to accept the company's
appeal, it filed a motion to stay further discovery pending the
Fifth Circuit's decision on the merits of the appeal.  
Plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the motion to stay further
discovery, and the company filed a reply brief in support of its
motion.

The suit is "Barrie, et al. v. Intervoice Brite Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:01-cv-01071," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Lauren M. Winston, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins-San Francisco, 100 Pine St, Suite 2600 San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545.  

Representing the defendants is Timothy R. McCormick, Thompson &
Knight, 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3300, Dallas, TX 75201-4693,
Phone: 214/969-1103, Fax: 214/880-3253, E-mail:
timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com.

              
LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Sherwin-Williams, PPG Settle for $39M
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a $39 million
settlement of a federal class action related to alleged
antitrust violations in the U.S. automotive refinish industry
from 1993 through 2000, the Pittsburghlive.com reports.

Under the settlement, PPG Industries will pay $23 million and
Sherwin-Williams will pay $16 million.  The agreement ends a
five-year dispute with six auto centers in Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, New York and Illinois.

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the
automotive refinish industry were initially filed in various
state and federal jurisdictions (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6,
2006).

Named in the suit are:

     -- Akzo Nobel Car Refinishes B.V.;
     -- Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.;
     -- Akzo Nobel N.V.;
     -- Akzo Nobel, Inc.;
     -- BASF Aktiengesellschaft;
     -- BASF Coatings AG;
     -- BASF Corp.;
     -- BASF, AG;
     -- Dupont Performance Coatings, Inc.;
     -- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.;
     -- Ketone Automotive, Inc.;
     -- Lopack Automotive Body Service, Inc.;
     -- PPG Industries, Inc.;
     -- Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes Corp.; and
     -- Sherwin-Williams Co.

The centers sued in 2001 on behalf of consumers who bought auto
refinish paint between Jan. 1, 1993, and Dec. 31, 2000.

The suits charged the company and the other defendants with
conspiring to fix prices and allocate markets in the automotive
refinish industry.

The approximately 55 federal cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish
case have settled.

DuPont Co. settled the case for $36 million in 2004 along with
BASF AG, for $12 million.


The suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:10-md-01426-RBS," filed and consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas A. Abrahams of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., One
         South Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107-
         3389, Phone: 215-238-1700, Fax: 215-238-1968, E-mail:
         dabrahams@kohnswift.com;

     (2) Guri Ademi and Shpetim Ademi, both of Ademi & O'Reilly,
         3181 South 27th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53215, Phone:
         414-671-1000;

     (3) Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC,
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
         545-7200, E-mail: asher@wka-law.com;

     (4) William Ban of Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger,
         P.C., One North Lexington Avenue, The Gateway - 11th
         Floor, White Plains, NY 10601; and

     (5) Jeffrey A. Barrack and Leonard Barrack both of Barrack,
         Rodos, & Bacine, 2001 Market Street, 3300 Two Commerce
         Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7087, Phone: 215-963-
         0600, Fax: 215-963-0838, E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com
         or lbarrack@barrack.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Thomas L. Allen of Reed Smith LLP, 435 Sixth Ave.,
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-288-3066, Fax: 412-
         288-3063;

     (2) Lawrence R. Desideri and W. Gordon Dobie both of
         Winston & Strawn, 35 W. Wacker Dr., 41st Floor,
         Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-558-5700;

     (3) Lawrence C. Ashby of Ashby & Geddes, 222 Delaware Ave.,
         P.O. Box 1150, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: 302-654-
         1888;

     (4) William V. O'Reilly of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, 51
         Louisiana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001; and

     (5) John G. Papainou of Montgomery McCracken Walker Rhoads
         LLP, 123 S. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19109, Phone:
         215-772-7389, E-mail: jpapianou@mmwr.com.


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 the consolidated securities class action filed
against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.

On or about July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action
captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al." (01-
CV-6770) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
company's initial public offering.

The complaint in this action asserted, among other things, that
omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in
allocating shares in the company's initial public offering to
the underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the
claims against the company and its officers and directors (the
case remained pending against the underwriter defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but
also the company and certain of its officers and directors.

The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration
and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating
to, among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct
in allocating shares in the company's initial public offering
and the disclosures contained in the company's registration
statement.

The company understands that various plaintiffs have filed
approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies in connection with the underwriting of their public
offerings.

On July 15, 2002, the company, together with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal
grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.

In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court issued
its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims
under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could
proceed against the company and a majority of the other issuer
defendants.

In June 2003, the company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the company and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  It does provide that
the class members in the class actions brought against the
participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of
$1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.  The company's expects that its
insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and
that it will not otherwise be required to contribute to the
proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement depends upon obtaining
approval by the Court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to
all class members.

Thereafter, the Court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006,
at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard.  
After the fairness hearing, the Court took under advisement
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

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

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


MARYLAND: City Defendants Dropped from "Jones" Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed
as defendants Baltimore City Mayor Martin O'Malley, the City
Council, and the Baltimore City Police Department from a class
action that accuses them of being responsible for alleged
illegal detentions and strip searches at the city's Central
Booking jail, Examiner.com reports.

Judge Catherine Blake allowed the allegations to proceed against
the state of Maryland alone.

Eric Jones, of Harpers Ferry, W.Va., is the lead plaintiff in
the class action, which was filed on May 12, 2005, and claims
that people arrested and processed at Central Booking are
subjected to illegal strip searches and unlawfully lengthy
detentions.  Mr. Jones himself claims to have been detained for
36 hours and illegally searched.

Aside from Mr. Jones, other plaintiffs in the suit are:

      -- Dana T. West,
      -- Anthony Haig,
      -- David Colyns,
      -- Gary Saunders,
      -- Kevin Adams,
      -- Michael Washington, and
      -- Tonia Bowie

Though Mr. Jones' attorney, Sean Day, agreed with Judge Blake's
decision to let the suit proceed against the warden and state
defendants, he did point out that his client still had a good
case against the city of Baltimore.

Mr. Day explains that he and his client have a viable cause of
action against the city defendants, since they are entrusting
people to the custody of Central Booking.

The suit is "Jones et al. v. Murphy et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-
01287-CCB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland under Judge Catherine C. Blake.

Representing the plaintiffs is Sean Robert Day, 8505 Baltimore
Ave., Ste. B, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 13012202270, Fax:
13012202441, E-mail: sean@dayincourt.net.

Representing the defendants is Karl Aram Pothier, State of
Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Public Safety and
Correctional Services, 6776 Reisterstown Rd., Ste. 313,
Baltimore, MD 21215, Phone: 14105853073, Fax: 14107645366, E-
mail: kpothier@dpscs.state.md.us.


MOTHERS WORK: Settles Calif. Suit Over Customer Data Request
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Gutman of the Los Angeles County Superior Court
tentatively approved on Sept. 20, 2006, a proposed settlement in
the suit "Martinez v. Mothers Work, Inc., Case No. BC 341359."

The lawsuit alleges that Mothers Work violated California law
by, requesting and recording the address of its credit card
customers on a credit card transaction form or otherwise; and
invasion of privacy.  Mothers Work denies that it has done
anything wrong, and denies that any class member is entitled to
any relief.

The settlement was reached through lengthy arms-length
negotiations between the parties and with the assistance of a
neutral mediator, the Honorable Justice Edward Wallin (ret.).

The class is composed of all persons who:

     -- from Oct. 12, 2004 through Sept. 1, 2006, purchased
        merchandise from a store, in the state of California,
        operated by Mothers Work, Inc., doing business as
        Motherhood Maternity, Motherhood Maternity Outlets, Plus
        Size Motherhood Maternity, Mimi Maternity, Destination
        Maternity, Two Hearts Maternity and A Pea in the Pod;

     -- used a credit card to make the purchase(s); and

     -- whose address is currently maintained in Mothers Work
        Inc.'s computer database.

Mothers Work has agreed to automatically provide Class Members
with a $15 Credit Certificate to be used at a Mother's Work
store in California (Credit Certificates) and a 15% Discount
Voucher to be used at 1-800-Flowers.com (Discount Voucher).  

The Parties agreed that, subject to the Court's final approval,
the named Plaintiff, Soledad Martinez shall be entitled to an
incentive award of up to $3,000 in recognition of the risk to
Plaintiff as the Class representative in commencing the lawsuit
in the Action, both financial and otherwise; the amount of time
and effort spent by Plaintiff as the Class representative; and
for serving the public interest.

The Parties also agreed that, subject to the Court's final
approval, Class Counsel shall be entitled to an award of
attorneys' fees and costs of up to $230,000.  The payment of
attorneys' fees will not affect the benefits provided to the
Settlement Class.  A fairness hearing was set Dec. 7, 2006.

Plaintiff's law firms who represent Plaintiff and the Class
Members, are: (1) Westrup Klick LLP; and (2) The Law Offices of
Allan A. Sigel, P.C.

Plaintiff Class Counsel    Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
                           Westrup Klick LLP
                           444 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 1614
                           Long Beach, CA 90802

Defendant Counsel          John T. Brooks, Esq.
                           Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripts LLP
                           600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
                           San Diego, CA 92101


MULTIPLEX GROUP: Directions Hearing in Wembley Suit Set Feb.
------------------------------------------------------------
The first directions hearing will take place on Feb. 1, 2007 in
a class action brought by Maurice Blackburn Cashman against
Multiplex Group.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has
accepted an Enforceable Undertaking from Multiplex relating to
the company's failure to disclose a material change in profit on
the Wembley National Stadium project in London.  

The Undertaking has secured a AU$32 million compensation fund
for those investors affected by a failure of the Multiplex Group
to meet its continuous disclosure obligations.  The AU$32
million compensation fund will be available to investors who
contracted to purchase and held Multiplex shares between Feb. 3,
2005, the date ASIC believes the market should have been
informed, and Feb. 24, 2005, the date the announcement was made.

A Multiplex stapled security contracted to be purchased and held
during this period is an Eligible Security under the
compensation arrangements.  

The class action is issued in the Federal Court of Australia on
behalf of securityholders who acquired Multiplex securities
during the period Aug. 2, 2004 and May 30, 2005 and who had
entered into a Funding Agreement as at the date of issue.  

Maurice Blackburn estimates the total claim at between AU$100
million and AU$150 million.

Maurice Blackburn on the Net: http://www.mbc.aus.net/.


MV TRANSPORTATION: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nine current and former Twin Cities employees of MV
Transportation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, alleging that for over a year they
suffered severe and constant harassment, abuse, and other
discriminatory treatment on account of their status as
immigrants and Muslims.

The plaintiffs are from the East African countries of Ethiopia,
Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia; seven of the nine plaintiffs are
Muslims.

The lawsuit alleges that the employees were subjected to
denigration, physical assault, threats, and termination because
of their national origin and religion.  The employees also claim
to have been denied promotions, training and other benefits of
employment, and were denied religious accommodations.

Some of the alleged offensive behavior against the workers
included:

     -- calling immigrant employees "stupid" and "freak shows;"
     -- telling immigrant employees they "should remember this
        is America where they are immigrants and have no
        rights;"
     -- that they "are paid more than they deserve;"
     -- not allowing the employees to speak their native
        languages even when on break; and
     -- telling the immigrants "we built this country and now
        immigrants are enjoying it."

In addition, a manager read Bible passages at the Muslim
employees, forced them to listen to loud Christian music,
confiscated prayer rugs, and addressed male Muslim employees
generically as "Mohammed," according to a statement by the law
firm Miller-O'Brien.

A manager also told the employees he would "fire the Somalis,
one by one" and said he "was going to get rid of all the
foreigners."

"It's astounding that a business that touts itself as a minority
contractor treats its minority employees with such contempt,"
said M. William O'Brien of Miller-O'Brien, an attorney
representing the plaintiffs.

Other complaints include immigrant employees being physically
pushed and shoved, sworn at and called degrading names, and
wrongfully denied safety bonuses.

According to their complaint, these immigrants repeatedly took
their complaints about the hostile environment to company
management but MV did nothing to protect them.  Instead, the
company engaged in retaliatory action that included termination.

"The animosity demonstrated by MV toward its immigrant employees
is anathema to what this country stands for," said Kelly A.
Jeanetta, another Miller-O'Brien attorney representing the
plaintiffs.

MV Transportation is based in Fairfield, Calif. and is in the
business of securing nationwide public contracts to provide
passenger transportation.  MV claims it is the largest African-
American private transportation contracting firm, and it touts
itself as a company that embraces diversity.

In Minnesota, MV Transportation provides transit services for
the BE-Line in St. Paul under contract with the Metropolitan
Council, and school bus transportation in Winona.  The
plaintiffs in the lawsuit are bus drivers.

The suit is "Nabry et al. v. MV Transportation, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 0:07-cv-00124-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick J.
Schiltz, with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing plaintiffs are Kelly A. Jeanetta, Margaret A.
Luger-Nikolai and Maurice W. O'Brien all of Miller O'Brien, 120
S 6th St Ste 2400, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-333-5831, Fax:
612-342-2613, E-mail: kjeanetta@miller-obrien.com or
mluger@miller-obrien.com or bobrien@miller-obrien.com.


OSI RESTAURANT: Investors File Suit in Fla. Over Planned Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. is named defendant in a purported
stockholder's class action in the Circuit Court of the 13th
Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.

On Nov. 7, 2006 a stockholder complaint was filed as a purported
class action on behalf of all of the company's public
stockholders, against the company, each of its directors, J.
Timothy Gannon, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton
Partners.  

The suit was filed in relation to a Nov. 5, 2006 definitive
agreement wherein the company will be acquired by an investor
group comprised of affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, LLC and
Catterton Partners and company founders Chris T. Sullivan,
Robert D. Basham and J. Timothy Gannon, for $40.00 per share in
cash.

The complaint, Case No. 06-CA-010348 Div. B., is filed by
Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System
against:

     -- OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc.,
     -- Chris T. Sullivan,
     -- Robert D.  Basham,
     -- A. William Allen, III,
     -- John A. Brabson, Jr.,
     -- W.R. "Max" Carey, Jr.,
     -- Debbie Fields,
     -- General (Ret) Tommy Franks,
     -- Thomas A. James,
     -- Lee Roy Selmon,
     -- Toby S. Wilt,
     -- J. Timothy Gannon,
     -- Bain Capital Partners, LLC, and
     -- Catterton Partners

The plaintiff claims it is an owner of the company's common
stock.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that company
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction by failing to maximize stockholder value
and by approving a transaction that purportedly benefits the
company's management expected to invest in the proposed
transaction at the expense of the company's public stockholders.  

Among other things, the complaint seeks to enjoin the company,
its directors and the other defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the merger.  

Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton Partners are alleged to
have aided and abetted the individual defendants in breaching
their fiduciary duties.  


PHILIP SERVICES: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $79.75M
----------------------------------------------------------
A March 19, 2007 hearing is set for the $79.75 million
settlement of the consolidated securities fraud suit filed
against Philip Services Corp.

In 1998, Philip Services Corp. restated its previously issued
financial statements for fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997.  The
revised statements disclosed that 1995 earnings were overstated
by approximately $22.5 million, or 690%, and 1996 earnings by
$48.3 million.  Thus, instead of posting a $28.4 million profit
in 1996, as Philip had initially reported, the company recorded
losses totaling approximately $20 million.

Thereafter, Philip filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

In the wake of the disclosures in early 1998, more than 20 class
actions were commenced in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York, the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and the District of New Jersey.  By Order dated
June 2, 1998, these actions were transferred to the Southern
District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation and consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging
violations of the U.S. Exchange Act and U.S. Securities Act.  
Plaintiffs asserted their claims on behalf of the following
class and sub-classes: a class consisting of all persons who
purchased Philip common stock and call options during the period
from Feb. 28, 1996 through May 7, 1998 inclusive, and on behalf
of Sub-Classes consisting of:

     -- all purchasers of Philip common stock issued in the
        November 1997 Offering pursuant to the November 1997
        Registration Statement;

     -- all persons whose shares of Allwaste common stock were
        exchanged for Philip common stock, pursuant to the
        Allwaste Registration Statement; and

     -- all persons whose shares of Serv-Tech common stock were
        exchanged for Philip common stock, pursuant to the Serv-
        Tech Registration Statement.

Specifically, plaintiffs charged Philip and certain of its
officers and directors with making materially false and
misleading statements concerning its publicly reported revenues,
earnings, assets and liabilities.  Claims are also asserted
against Deloitte & Touche in connection with its audits of
Philip in 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the U.S. underwriters in
connection with the November 1997 Offering.

On Sept. 11, 1998, following transfer of the various class
actions to the Southern District of New York, the consolidation
of the actions, and the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint. In October and November of 1998, each of the
defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on various grounds,
including forum non conveniens, arguing in favor of litigation
in Canada. Plaintiffs opposed defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

In May of 1999, the District Court dismissed the Complaint,
finding that plaintiffs' choice of the U.S. as the forum for
their claims was entitled to little deference, that Canada was
an adequate alternative forum for all of plaintiffs' claims
against all defendants, and that the balance of the relevant
private and public interest factors favored Canada.

On Nov. 12, 1999, plaintiffs filed their brief with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing this action
in favor of litigation in Canada.  A hearing was held before the
Second Circuit on March 13, 2000.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the
District Court's decision, finding that the lower court abused
its discretion in dismissing the case in favor of litigation in
Canada.  The defendants requested that the full appeals court
rehear the case.  The panel that issued the Nov. 8, 2002 opinion
agreed to rehear the appeal and, on April 1, 2002, issued a
second opinion again reversing and remanding the District
Court's decision.

The court issued an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss
on May 24, 2004.  Among these defendants were Deloitte & Touche
and defendants Haynes and Knauss.  Thereafter, beginning on June
25, 2004, Defendants filed their answers to the Amended
Complaint.  Initial expert reports were exchanged on Feb. 15,
2006.  Rebuttal expert reports were exchanged May 26, 2006 and
expert discovery was completed Oct. 20, 2006.

As co-lead counsel in the Philip Services securities case,
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo reached a $79.75
million settlement.  The auditors, Deloitte & Touche, the
officers and directors and the underwriter defendants have
settled for $50.5 million, $18.25 million and $11 million
respectively.  

On Nov. 28, 2006, Judge Hellerstein granted preliminary approval
of all settlements and scheduled the final approval hearing for
March 19, 2007 at 10 a.m.

The suit is "In re Philip Services Corp. Securities Litigation,"
Civ. Action No. 98cv835-MBM (U.S. Dist. Court S.D.N.Y.), 99-7825
(U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Cir.).


PUERTO RICO: Subscribers Denied Appeal on Lawsuit's Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs appeal of the dismissal by
the court of First Instance of Puerto Rico of a class against
Puerto Rico Telephone Co., Inc., a fixed-line subsidiary of
Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2006.

On Nov. 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight business
service subscribers filed a class action with the court of First
Instance of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971.

Plaintiffs claimed that the company's charges for touchtone
service are not based on cost, and therefore violate the Act.
Thus, they requested that the court to:

      -- issue an order certifying the case as a class action;
      
      -- designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class;

      -- find that the charges are illegal; and

      -- order the company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996.

On Nov. 1, 2004 Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion for summary
judgment requesting the dismissal of plaintiff's claim due to
plaintiff's failure to follow the procedure to object to
charges, established by Law 33.

Law 33 establishes that a telecommunication services user has 20
days from the receipt of the telecommunications service company
invoice to object to charges in the invoice.  

In the motion, Puerto Rico Telephone has argued that since
plaintiffs admittedly failed to comply with said procedure their
claims are time-barred.  The motion is still under the
consideration by the court.

On May 10, 2005 the court issued an order certifying the case as
a class action.  Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of
that decision and a hearing was held on June 20, 2005 to discuss
the merits of Puerto Rico Telephone's position.

On June 22, 2005 the court issued an order confirming its
previous decision.  As a consequence, a certiorari writ was
filed on June 22, 2005.

On Sept. 19, 2005 the P.R. Appeals Court denied the same.  
Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of that decision on
Oct. 4, 2005.

The reconsideration request was denied on Oct. 11, 2005.
Therefore Puerto Rico Telephone filed a certiorari writ with the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court on Nov. 10, 2005.  The certiorari writ
was denied on Jan. 18, 2006.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion to
dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on
the enactment of Law No. 138 of Nov. 4, 2005.  This new law
grants the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board (TRB)
exclusive primary jurisdiction to entertain class actions
related to telecommunication services.

The hearing scheduled for Jan. 24, 2006 was rescheduled for May
16, 2006 in response to plaintiff's request for time to oppose
Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss.  

The court granted the plaintiffs until March 24, 2006 to submit
their motions opposing Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to
dismiss.  In addition the court granted Puerto Rico Telephone
until April 24, 2006 to submit its reply.  

On March 24, 2006 plaintiffs filed a request for 60 additional
days to submit their opposing motion.  On March 29, 2006 Puerto
Rico Telephone opposed this request and asked the court to rule
on the jurisdictional matter brought by the company.

On April 3, 2006, the court denied plaintiff's request for
extension of time, but did not rule on Puerto Rico Telephone's
motion to dismiss.  On April 12, 2006, plaintiff's filed for
reconsideration, which was not considered by the court.

Consequently, on April 28, 2006, plaintiff's filed an opposition
to Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss arguing that Law
138 is unconstitutional.  Puerto Rico Telephone filed an urgent
motion, arguing that the opposition was untimely filed, and as a
result the court has lost jurisdiction of said motion under the
Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the alternative, and due to the fact that this is an
interlocutory proceeding, Puerto Rico Telephone requested
additional time to file a reply and a new date for the
argumentative hearing.  On May 9, 2006, plaintiffs filed
opposition to Puerto Rico Telephone's request.

On May 9, 2006, the judge issued a final judgment dismissing the
proceeding.  The judge acknowledged that with the enactment of
Law 138, the TRB has primary jurisdiction to hear the case.  On
June 8, 2006 the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Puerto
Rico Court of Appeals.

On July 10, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed its corresponding
opposition to the appeal.  Plaintiffs filed a request for oral
hearing.  

On Oct. 12, 2006, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
request for oral hearing and acknowledged the brief filed by
Puerto Rico Telephone.  The case has been submitted and pending
for a final determination.

Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.telefonicapr.com/.


RITZ-CARLTON: Mass. Banquet Workers Sue Over Unremitted Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Ritz-Carlton banquet servers lodged a class action in
Suffolk Superior Court accusing the hotel company of breaking
state wage law by failing to pay them the full 21 percent
service fee charged to all parties, the Boston Globe reports.

Banquet workers contend that customers often think the charge is
a tip for servers, when in fact nearly a third of it is kept by
the hotel.

Banquet servers at the Ritz receive only 14.5 percent of the
mandatory fee, which for years has been added to the food and
beverage bills for weddings, parties, and other functions held
at the Arlington Street hotel.  The remaining 6.5 percent is
used by the hotel to offset other expenses.

As a result, banquet staff is routinely tipped less than many
patrons are aware -- and less than some patrons intend them to
be, the servers say.

The servers argue that the full fee should be distributed to
them.

According to plaintiff attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston,
eight plaintiffs are named in the complaint, including one who
has worked for the Ritz since 1979 and five who have worked
there since 1981.

The servers receive a base pay of about $8 an hour, and the 21
percent fee has been in effect for as long as they have been
Ritz employees.

This action is the most recent in a series of so-called tip
cases by service workers who allege that their employers are
depriving them of compensation by withholding tips, which are
sometimes distributed to other staff members, including
managers, according to the report.

Massachusetts tip law requires that all proceeds from tips,
gratuities, and service charges that are added to bills must be
distributed to wait staff.  The law prohibits restaurant owners
from distributing the money to other employees, including
managers, even if they also serve food and beverages.

Representing the plaintiffs is Shannon Liss-Riordan and Hillary
Schwab both of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan,
P.C., 18 Tremont Street, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
(617) 367-7200.


SMILECARE: Dental Hygienist in Calif. Files Overtime Pay Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami of Van Nuys, California and
Los Angeles firm Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP filed a class
action in the Superior Court of California against the
California offices of SmileCare.

The suit alleges that the dental care provider failed to pay
overtime wages and forced employees to work during lunch and
breaks without compensation.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of lead plaintiff, Tami Ware,
43, who worked as a full time dental hygienist at SmileCare, 520
N. El Dorado St. in Stockton California.

Ms. Ware was hired to work from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. and was
allegedly paid for only 8 hours even though she regularly worked
over 8 hours per day.  She routinely had patients scheduled for
complicated dental procedures at 5 p.m.  She said her patient
caseload was so heavy that she was forced to work through lunch
and breaks.

"I was totally overworked.  I sometimes had three root planings
at the same time.  No hygienist can do that job and do it
right," Ms. Ware says.  "You cannot tell patients that you are
cleaning their teeth and then leave calculus behind because you
have run out of time."  Calculus is related to diabetes and
heart attacks.

"I wanted to do the right thing for patients. By overworking the
staff, the quality of the care was compromised. I refused to do
that," she added.

SmileCare told Ms. Ware that the company did not pay for
overtime.  No breaks were built into the work schedule.

"These are the people who take care of our health,'' says
plaintiff attorney Shawn Khorrami.  "We should take care of them
and compensate them properly."

The California Labor Code requires overtime work paid at the
rate of one and one-half times the employees' regular rate of
pay for hours worked in excess of eight hours.  IWC Wage Orders
and California Code of Regulations require California businesses
to provide ten-minute rest periods every four hours of the work
shift.  The IWC Wage Orders require a thirty-minute lunch break
every five hours.

For more information, contact Shawn Khorrami of the Shawn
Khorrami Law Offices, Phone: 310-308-9423; and Brian Kabateck of
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, Phone: 213-217-5000.


SPX CORP: April Hearing Set for N.C. Investor Suits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Charlotte, North Carolina will hold
on April 10, 2007 a fairness hearing to settle shareholder
lawsuits filed against SPX Corp.

In November 2006, SPX reached an agreement to settle class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina alleging violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

Under the settlement, the company would pay $10 million to
settle what began as seven class-action lawsuits.  The
settlement covers shareholders who bought stock from Nov. 5,
2003, to Feb. 26, 2004.  SPX also agreed to pay $3.6 million for
a lawsuit on behalf of employees in a retirement and stock
ownership plan, according to documents filed last month in U.S.
District Court in Charlotte.

Attorneys plan to ask for fees of up to 28 percent, or $2.8
million, plus expenses in the larger SPX case, according to
court documents.

The company said its net settlement payment after reimbursement
by insurer will be $5.1 million.  

SPX admits no wrongdoing in the proposed settlements.

The suit is "Belafey, et al. v. SPX Corp., et al., Case No.
3:04cv99," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747,  
         Phone: 631/367-7100; and

     (2) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th  
         St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/983-9330.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) David C. Wright, III, and Julian H. Wright of Robinson,  
         Bradshaw & Hinson, PA, Mail: 101 No Tryon St., Suite  
         1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 USA, Phone: 704-377-2536; and  

    (ii) Ross B. Bricker, Anton R. Valukas and Ronald L. Malmer  
         of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611-
         3608, Phone: 312/923-4524.  


TRANS BAY: Settles Slavery, Human Trafficking Lawsuit for $1M
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a major
litigation settlement with Trans Bay Steel, Inc. for an
estimated $1 million in total monetary relief and compensation
for 48 welders of Thai descent.

EEOC charged that the class of Thai nationals, contracted under
H2B visas by Trans Bay and a third party agency, were held
against their will, had their passports confiscated, had their
movements restricted, and were forced to work without pay.  
Additionally, some workers were allegedly confined to cramped
apartments without any electricity, water, or gas.

At least 17 of the workers were allegedly told that if they
tried to leave the location where they were being forcibly held,
the police and immigration officials would be called to arrest
them.  EEOC also contends that all the workers were made to pay
exorbitant "fees" to the recruiting company which kept them in
involuntary servitude.  Ultimately, some of the workers escaped.

Trans Bay received a large sub-contract to provide services to
retrofit the Bay Bridge and became the sponsoring employer for
the workers.  Trans Bay contracted with Kota Manpower Co., and
Hi Cap Enterprises, Inc., to bring the skilled welders from
Thailand to meet the needs of the project.  While Kota and Hi-
Cap brought over approximately 48 welders from Thailand, only
nine of them went to work for Trans Bay.  The remaining welders
were brought to Los Angeles and Long Beach worked at Thai
Restaurants owned by Kota Manpower and Hi-Cap.

EEOC conducted a comprehensive investigation of the charges and,
after extensive negotiations, entered into a three-year consent
decree with Trans Bay to resolve the case for an estimated $1
million in total monetary relief and compensation.  Under the
decree, Trans Bay will:

    * provide monetary relief for each of the claimants;

    * guarantee work on the Bay Bridge Project;

    * provide housing for the claimants who agree to work for
      Trans Bay, including a housing stipend;

    * pay for tuition and books at a local college for training
      as a welder;

    * provide sponsorship, if required, to continue to work in
      the U.S. and certify claimant welders;

    * guarantee minimum pay and a base pay once the claimants
      complete the training period;

    * pay the claimants relocation costs, including
      reimbursement for travel;

    * reimburse the claimants for moving expenses to relocate to
      Napa, Calif.

EEOC filed the lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California after first attempting to resolve the
matter out of court.  Other injunctive measures contained in the
consent decree include:

    * monitoring by the EEOC to ensure compliance;

    * training of Trans Bay's employees on anti-discrimination
      laws;

    * revising Trans Bay policies and procedures;

    * developing a viable complaint procedure.

The suit is "U.S. EEOC v. Trans Bay Steel, Inc., Case Number CV
06-07766 CAS (JTLx))."


UNITED HEALTHCARE: N.Y. Court Allows RICO, Antitrust Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence M. McKenna of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York recently ruled that claims may
proceed against defendant United Healthcare Corp. and a number
of its subsidiaries for violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal and state antitrust
laws.

The case has been brought to recover benefits for a proposed
nationwide class of patients and doctors who have been under-
reimbursed by United Healthcare for medical services received
from providers who are not within its network (referred to as
"out-of-network" or "non-participating" providers).

The named plaintiffs include not only individual members of the
proposed classes, but also:

     -- the American Medical Association,
     -- the Medical Society of the State of New York and
     -- the Missouri State Medical Association.

In addition, several New York State unions have intervened in
the action to represent their members in the Empire Plan, which
insures approximately one million New York State employees,
including the New York State United Teachers, the Civil Service
Employees Association, the Organization of New York State
Management/Confidential Employees, and the New York State Police
Investigators Association.

The central claim in the case is that United Healthcare uses
certain databases promulgated by its subsidiary, Ingenix, Inc.,
to limit reimbursements for out-of-network services to a
percentage of the "usual, customary and reasonable" fees (UCR).

Plaintiffs contend that these databases are inherently flawed
and manipulated by United Healthcare to report fees well below
actual UCR rates, which United Healthcare then relies upon to
underpay patients and their out-of-network providers.

In 2002, four state workers joined a class action filed in
federal court against United Healthcare, in spring 2000, by the
American Medical Association, claiming that United Healthcare
failed to adequately reimburse members and their families for
millions of dollars in insured medical expenses (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 25, 2002).

The unions accused United Healthcare of cheating more than a
million people covered under the Empire Plan, an insurance plan
for state workers, who use out-of-network providers.  

According to its state contract, the company is supposed to
reimburse patients 80 percent of "reasonable and customary
charges" paid out-of-pocket.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, United Healthcare has used its own
formula since 1998, to calculate what it determines as
reasonable, resulting in payments far below 80 percent.  

The participating unions are:

     -- the New York State United Teachers union,
     -- the Civil Service Employees Association,
     -- New York State Police Investigators Association, and
     -- Organization of Managerial and Confidential Employees

According to D. Brian Hufford of the Pomerantz firm, "This
decision is extremely important, as it will allow us to
challenge practices that have previously escaped close
oversight.  We believe that United Healthcare has made hundreds
of millions of dollars in improper profits that should have been
paid to its beneficiaries for out-of-network services."

The suit is "The A.M.A., et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al.,
Case No. 1:00-cv-02800-LMM-GWG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lawrence
M. McKenna, with referral to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Penny Packard Reid, Jeffrey S. Klein, Nicholas James
         Pappas and James W. Quinn, all of Weil, Gotshal &
         Manges LLP(NYC), 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153,
         Phone: (212) 310-8000 or (212)-735-4566, Fax: (212)-
         735-4643 or 212 310-8007 or (212) 833-3148; E-mail:
         penny.reid@weil.com or jeffrey.klein@weil.com or
         nicholas.pappas@weil.com or james.quinn@weil.com;

     (2) Thomas F. Fitzgerald and William F. Hanrahan both of
         Groom Law Group, Chartered, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue,
         N.W. Washington, DC 20006-5893, Phone: (202) 857-0620;
         and

     (3) Jeffrey L. Kessler of Dewey Ballantine LLP, 1301 Avenue
         of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 259-
         8000, Fax: (212) 259-6333, E-mail: lpmco@dbllp.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alan Ross Pearlson of Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross,
         P.C. (NYC), 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 27th Floor, New York,
         NY 10112, Phone: (212)-643-5495, Fax: 212 643-6500, E-
         mail: rpearlson@sillscummis.com; and

     (2) D. Brian Hufford and Teresa Webb both of Pomerantz
         Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, 100 Park Avenue,
         26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-661-1100 or
         (888) 476-6529 or (888) 4-POMLAW, Fax: 212-661-1373, E-
         mail: dbhufford@pomlaw.com or tlwebb@pomlaw.com.


WAL-MART STORES: NCLC Opposes Class Certification in "Sepulveda"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) has filed an
amicus brief supporting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in a class action
that is on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, The Fibre2fashion.com reports.

In its amicus brief, NCLC stated that individual claims for
overtime pay are not appropriate for class action certification
under federal civil procedure rules.

NCLC, a public policy law firm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
filed the brief with regards to the case, "Daniel Sepulveda, et
al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-
E."  

The case was denied class-action status by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, a decision that
was subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

At issue is whether 2,750 Wal-Mart assistant managers in
California can invoke class action status in their claim that
the company intentionally exempted them from overtime pay and
other benefits non-exempt employees receive under California
law.

Robin Conrad, NCLC senior vice president, pointed out that
efforts to convert overtime claims into sprawling class actions
seeking hundreds of millions of dollars are inappropriate,
because of the highly individualized nature of these claims.

He argued in the amicus brief that the district court properly
recognized the need to examine the work performed by each member
of the class and appropriately ruled against granting class
action status.

Thus, NCLC is urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold the lower
court's ruling denying class action certification on the grounds
that each claim is too individualized, and that the class would
not be properly served because over half of the potential class
members no longer work for the company.

Specifically, Mr. Conrad contends that class certification could
only be granted where there is a uniform claim of wrongdoing and
that is not the case with "Sepulveda," because of the alleged
overtime violations.  He adds that it is also inappropriate,
since 1,500 of those employees who filed the claim no longer
work for the company.

The case is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert J. Drexler, Jr, of Quisenberry Law Firm, 2049
         Century Park East, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-
         2909, Phone: 310-785-7966, E-mail:
         rdrexler@quislaw.com; and

     (2) Steven G. Pearl, Pearl Law Offices, 16133 Ventura
         Boulevard, Suite 625, Encino, CA 91436-2412, Phone:
         818-995-8300, E-mail: sgpearl@sgpearl.com.

Representing the defendants is Lawrence C. DiNardo of Jones Day,
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 35, Chicago, IL 60601-1692, Phone:
312-782-3939.


WASHINGTON: Trial Starts in WTO Protesters' Suit Against Seattle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opening arguments were made recently in a federal class action
against the city of Seattle, Washington over the arrests of
about 200 protesters during a 1999 World Trade Organization
meeting in the city.

The case centers on an emergency ordinance that took effect on
Dec. 1, 1999 imposing downtown off-limits to ensure public
safety amidst protests while the conference is ongoing.

Previously, Judge Barbara Rothstein, who presided over the case
back then, threw out protesters claims, saying the city had
imposed a proper "time, place or manner" restriction to ensure
public safety.  The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
upheld the ordinance, it pointed out, however, that the city
might have gone too far in targeting only anti-WTO protesters
within the restricted zone, raising questions about
discrimination (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2005).

In his opening statement, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Withey
told jurors that his clients were arrested merely for speaking
out against WTO.  

The matter to be decided now is whether police singled out
people because of their views and illegally arrested them as
part of a city policy to go after protesters.

                        Case Background

On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the
original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  The class action was brought on behalf
of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between
6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999.  Eight people arrested that day
are serving as lead plaintiffs in the case.

Plaintiffs contend that the city violated their First Amendment
right to free speech by arresting them because they were
espousing anti-WTO sentiments.  They also say the city violated
their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search
and seizure.

Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged
in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting
protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them
using an incorrect arrest record.

The complaint, thus seeks damages from the city, Mayor Schell,
and former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than
600 protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and
2, 1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy.

The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No.
2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael E. Withey of Law Office
Of Mike Withey, Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Ste. 4200,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-405-1800, E-mail:
mike@witheylaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Theron A. Buck of Stafford Frey
Cooper, 601 Union St., 3100 Two Union Sq., Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: 206-623-9900, Fax: 624-6885, E-mail:
tbuck@staffordfrey.com.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canada to Study Citizens' Zonolite Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian federal government, which faces several Zonolite-
related asbestos lawsuits nationwide, will be holding a survey
on how 2,600 Canadians use their attics to help determine their
potential exposure to asbestos insulation, Lethbridge Herald
reports.

The research will be used as part of several ongoing suits
against the government involving Zonolite insulation, including
class actions filed in British Columbia, Alberta and
Saskatchewan against Ottawa and former makers and marketers of
Zonolite.

The vermiculite-based product was used in housing on military
bases and on First Nations reserves, and in other home
construction in Canada between 1950 and the early 1980s.

The government is looking for a polling company to survey the
2,600 Canadians, including 200 people who had lived on the Tsuu
T'ina First Nations reserve in Calgary, Alberta.

The Department of Justice said the research is needed because
little is known about how Canadians are exposed to the
insulation in their homes.

Zonolite was made from Libby, Mont.-mined vermiculite, where it
was tainted with naturally occurring asbestos.

The government's survey aims to paint a clearer picture of
"household composition, household characteristics, and
activities in the home."

In December 2006, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice announced
CDN2.2 million in transitional housing funding for the Tsuu
T'ina First Nation. In October 2006, about 500 residents were
evacuated amid concerns about their homes, which were insulated
with a product containing chrysotile asbestos.

The Defense Department has spent CDN2 million to test military
homes and buildings for Zonolite.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Pursues Insurers to Pay Families
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.K. High Court lawsuit is being launched against insurance
companies, in which the case could force insurance firms to pay
compensation to families of thousands of asbestos diseases
victims, Yorkshire Post Today reports.

Corries, a Navigation Way, York-based law firm, has tackled the
case of 69-year-old widow, Sylvia Gilligan whose husband,
Anthony, died in 2003 at the age of 71 from mesothelioma.

Mr. Gilligan, a joiner, was allegedly exposed to asbestos while
working for the now-defunct Holland Hannen & Cubitt (Midlands)
Ltd. on the building of Hanley Telephone Exchange between 1972
and 1974.

The High Court challenge will be filed against insurance
companies Excess and Zurich, which provided cover for Holland
Hannen & Cubitt in the 1970s, when Mr. Gilligan worked for them,
and 10 years ago, when his tumor was alleged to have developed.

Excess, which provided employers liability insurance to Holland
Hannen & Cubitt in the 1970s when Mr. Gillgan worked for them
said that their policy referred to illness or injury "sustained"
during the lifetime of the policy and that they are not
responsible for the tumor that developed years later.

Zurich, which provided cover in the 1990s, claimed that its
policy covers injury or illness caused by a negligent act during
the lifetime of the policy and not 10 or 20 years earlier when
Mr. Gilligan was exposed to the asbestos.

Mrs. Gilligan's case will go before a judge at the Civil Justice
Court at Birmingham High Court. If the defense is thrown out, it
will open the way for Mrs. Gilligan to seek compensation.

Dominic Collingwood, a solicitor with Corries, is overseeing the
case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Israel Govt. Approves $1.2M Aid for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's Ministry of Environmental Protection has approved
nearly US$1.2 million (ILS5 million) in financial aid for the
treatment of friable asbestos waste in the Western Galilee and
for the removal of asbestos cement roofs from public buildings
throughout Israel, according to a Ministry report.

This financial support came in the wake of a call for proposals
to local authorities issued in 2006.

The Ministry has approved the proposals of the Western Galilee
Association of Towns for the Environment and the Municipality of
Nahariya to locate and remove friable asbestos industrial waste
from public areas throughout the Western Galilee.

Surveys have shown that asbestos waste, which accumulated in the
Eitanit asbestos cement plant, was discarded throughout the
Galilee, especially the Western Galilee. The asbestos was also
sold to contractors and private individuals for use in roads,
yards and infrastructure for cowsheds and chicken coups.

Eitanit, located on Nahariya's coast in the north of Israel, was
founded in 1952 and closed down in 1997.

Moreover, the Ministry has approved the requests of 27 local
authorities to remove asbestos cement roofs from 114 public
buildings throughout Israel, spanning an area of 40,857 square
meters.

Tamar Bar On, head of the Asbestos Division, has stated that the
Ministry intends to increase the budget dedicated to asbestos
treatment to ILS8 million in 2007.

Ms. Bar On added that she expects more local authorities to
submit proposals for removing asbestos cement roofs from public
buildings in order to reduce the potential for exposure,
especially among children.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Reports $391.1M Reserve Balance
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s asbestos reserve balance, at Nov. 30,
2006, stood at US$391.1 million, according to a company press
release dated Jan. 4, 2007.

During the fiscal 2007 2nd-quarter, the company drew down
US$13.8 million of its 10-year pre-tax asbestos reserve
established in the fiscal 2006-4th quarter to cover indemnity
and defense costs. Comparable costs were US$13.4 million during
the fiscal 2006-2nd quarter.

Also during the fiscal 2007-2nd quarter, the company's Bondex
subsidiary secured a US$15 million pre-tax cash settlement from
one of its asbestos liability insurance carriers, which has now
been dismissed from the ongoing insurance coverage case.

Litigation against the remaining defendant insurance companies
will continue to be pursued, as each has significantly greater
liability exposure based on their applicable insurance policies.

Frank C. Sullivan, President and CEO, said, "We are encouraged
by this settlement, which was with the defendant carrier whose
policies presented the smallest level of exposure to our claims.
Beyond the cash value of this settlement, we believe it has
strategic importance to the overall case and will enhance our
position with respect to the remaining carriers as we press our
case forward."

The company's record net sales of US$809.4 million were up 9.5
percent from the US$739.4 million reported in the fiscal 2006-
2nd quarter.

Record net income for the quarter grew 185.8 percent, to US$52.9
million from US$18.5 million a year ago, while record diluted
earnings per share advanced 180 percent, to US$0.42 from US$0.15
in the year-ago 2nd quarter.

Prior year net income included a pre-tax asbestos reserve charge
of US$15 million, while this year's second quarter included a
US$15 million pre-tax gain from the settlement of asbestos-
related claims against an insurance carrier.

Consolidated earnings before interest and taxes was US$91.4
million, a 143.9 percent improvement over the US$37.5 million
reported a year ago.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home
repair products. The company is divided into two units:
industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks
and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints,
patch and repair products, and hobby paints).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Records $58.4M Current Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc., for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006,
recorded US$58,458,000 current asbestos-related liabilities,
compared with US$55 million for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2005,
according to a company press release dated Jan. 4, 2007.

For the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2006, the company recorded
US$58,575,000 current asbestos-related liabilities, compared
with US$58,925,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006)

For the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's long-term
asbestos-related liabilities was US$332,626,000, compared with
US$46,244,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2005.

For the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2006, the company recorded
US$346,268,000 long-term asbestos-related liabilities, compared
with US$362,360,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006)

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's changes in
asbestos-related liabilities, net of tax, was US$19,326,000,
compared with US$18,744,000 for the six months ended Nov. 30,
2005.

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's reported
asbestos income or charge was US$15 million, compared with US$30
million for the six months ended Nov. 30, 2005. For the three
months ended Nov. 30, 2006 and Nov. 30, 2005, the company's
reported asbestos income or charge was US$15 million.

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's net
adjusted asbestos income or charge interest expense was
US$24,518,000, compared with US$18,429,000 for the six months
ended Nov. 30, 2005.

For the three months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's net
adjusted asbestos income or charge interest expense was
US$11,315,000, compared with US$9,854,000 for the three months
ended Nov. 30, 2005.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home
repair products. The company is divided into two units:
industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks
and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints,
patch and repair products, and hobby paints).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DNR Issues $1.5T Fine to Mechanical Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has issued to Omaha,
Nebr.-based Mechanical Systems Inc. a US$1,500 penalty for an
air quality violation during renovations at Thomas Jefferson
High School on July 12, 2006, The Daily Nonpareil Online
reports.

The DNR's enforcement action showed that Robert Barnes of
Mechanical Systems agreed to pay the penalty for the incident,
involving the removal of a section of pipe with asbestos.

In the consent order's statement, the district had hired W. Boyd
Jones Construction Co. Inc. as general contractor for several
renovation projects going on at the school. W. Boyd Jones hired
Mechanical Systems to renovate the school's HVAC system.
Mechanical Systems, in turn, hired Glissman Salvage to remove
the building's old pipes.

On July 13, 2006, a representative with the Institute for
Environmental Assessment contacted the DNR, in which the
representative said, "25 to 30 linear feet of pipe with pipe
wrap still intact was cut and carried through the media center
and hallway."

Kelli Book, a DNR attorney who handled the case, said
regulations involving asbestos require proper notification to
the DNR. She added state law requires any removal of asbestos
needs to be done while wet.

According to the document, Glissman Salvage employees, who are
not licensed asbestos contractors, were under the impression
that all the asbestos had been removed from the pipes they cut
and moved.

Ms. Book said Mechanical Systems, Glissman Salvage, W. Boyd
Jones and the Council Bluffs School District were cited, and
more penalties could come down in the future.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OoC Cites D.C. Library for Exposing Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to citations filed by the Office of Compliance (OoC),
the Library of Congress (LoC) failed to initially monitor
employees' exposure to airborne asbestos and did not keep work
surfaces free from asbestos materials, The Hill reports.

In two citations filed on Dec. 13, 2006, the OoC said that floor
tiles in the LoC's Jefferson Building, which were damaged by
heavy book carts, had "very high concentrations of chrysotile
asbestos."

The citation stated that the LoC violated asbestos-sampling
requirements because it failed to initially monitor the air and
did so only after actions had been taken. Moreover, the citation
said that the LoC has neglected to monitor potential asbestos
exposure in the last six years.

One of the citations stated that the LoC should outline a
process to initially monitor areas where asbestos is found,
establish a system to record exposures and notify the OoC when
it fulfills these requirements.

OoC Lead Inspector Stephen Mallinger said, "We want to make sure
that [the Library] monitors the conditions that [employees] work
in and we want to make sure that the Library trains its
employees to be able to recognize hazardous conditions."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Secondary Exposure Suit Filed v. 104 Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Liss of New York, on Jan. 3, 2007, sued 104 defendants
in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, in which she
alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers from her father's
clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Liss claimed her father was employed as a carpenter,
maintenance worker and stationary engineer at various locations
across the country. She further claimed that her father would
carry the dust on his clothing with him where it would become
airborne.

From 1942 through 1990, Ms. Liss was employed as a cashier and
newspaper office worker at various locations throughout
Illinois. She also claimed she was exposed to asbestos during
non-occupational work projects including home and automotive
repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

On Aug. 31, 2006, Ms. Liss was diagnosed with mesothelioma and
subsequently became aware that her illness was wrongfully
caused, the suit claims.

The complaint alleged that defendants failed to require and
advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce
or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Liss claimed she was
exposed to fibers containing asbestos, and developed a disease
caused by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her.

Ms. Liss also claimed that she has sought, but has been unable
to obtain full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Ms. Liss claimed that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve evidence by destroying documents and
information she has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.

Ms. Liss seeks compensatory in excess of US$700,00, plus
punitive damages.

Nicholas Angelides, Perry Browder, and John Barnerd of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represent Ms. Liss.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Realtor to Check 10% of Homes for Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloucester City Homes in the U.K. will be conducting an asbestos
survey on the dwellings it manages on behalf of Gloucester City
Council, The Citizen reports.

Set in January 2007, the study will look at a sample 10 percent
of the company's properties. The study would be carried out to
determine the extent of any asbestos in tenants' homes before
Gloucester City Homes starts a major improvement program.

The improvement program, which is planned to bring all tenants'
homes to the Decent Homes Standard by the Government's deadline
of 2010, is expected to start later in 2007.

Ashley Green, chief executive of Gloucester City Homes,
reassured residents that the checks were routine, and should not
cause alarm.

Coun Andrew Gravells, Gloucester City Council's cabinet member
for housing and healthy living, welcomed the study.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotland Allows Victims, Kin to Claim Early
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scottish Parliament approved an amendment to the
Mesothelioma Damages Bill, which will allow mesothelioma victims
and their families to claim full compensation beginning Dec. 20,
2006, rather than have to wait until the Bill becomes law, West
Lothian Courier reports.

A number of workers of West Lothian in the United Kingdom are
allegedly exposed to asbestos fibers at several locations in the
county. These include the Golden Wonder plant in Broxburn and
the British Leyland factory in Bathgate.

Deputy Justice Minister Johann Lamont said that the new ruling
would be of benefit to local people.

The Mesothelioma Damages Bill will change the law to allow the
immediate family of a sufferer to claim damages for non-
financial loss, even if the deceased settled their own claim
while alive.

This will allow sufferers to proceed with their own claim in the
knowledge that their families will not be disadvantaged.

Anti-asbestos campaigner Alex Horne from Armadale welcomed the
move ans has urged all those eligible to take advantage of the
new regulations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alert Up for Hazard at Victoria Camp Ruins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cement sheeting was found at the ruins of the Traralgon
College camp at Licola, in Victoria, Australia's Latrobe Valley,
ABC Gippsland reports.

Traralgon College was destroyed by fire in December 2006.

The asbestos is expected to delay reconstruction efforts, as
licensed removal companies will have to dispose of the toxic
building material.

Ron Elliot, Traralgon College's principal, said the asbestos is
dangerous if the sheets have become flaky.

Mr. Elliot said, "The asbestos audit that we had done indicated
that there was some of that in [there], so we've got to get the
appropriately qualified people to go in and assess that
situation and then to look at the removal of that asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Woman Sues 9 Companies in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Gauthier of Connecticut sued nine defendant companies in
Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, in which she alleged
exposure to asbestos while working as a bookkeeper,
investigator, secretary and postal clerk at various locations,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Gauthier claimed that during the course of her employment,
from 1952 to 1995, and during home and automotive repairs she
was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers from products she was working with.

Filed on Jan. 4, 2007, the lawsuit stated that Ms. Gauthier was
diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 10, 2005.

Ms. Gauthier claimed the defendants knew or should have known
that the asbestos in their products had a toxic, poisonous and
highly deleterious effect upon the health of people.

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

Ms. Gauthier also 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, as a result of the alleged
negligence, Ms. Gauthier claimed she was exposed to fibers with
asbestos and developed a disease caused by asbestos, which has
disabled and disfigured her.

Ms. Gauthier seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for
negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent
spoliation of evidence.

Robert Phillips, Nicholas Angelides, John Barnerd, and Perry
Browder of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represent Ms.
Gauthier.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Still Faces Product Injury Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Power Systems Group of Rockwell Automation Inc. still faces
personal injury suits from exposure to asbestos used in certain
components of its products.

Thousands of claimants are in suits that name the company as a
defendant, together with hundreds of other companies.

However, most of the complaints do not identify any of its
products or specify which of these claimants were exposed to
asbestos from its products.  

For those claimants who show that they worked with the company's
products, the company said it has meritorious defenses, in part
due to the lack of asbestos in its products, the integrity of
its products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on
the part of many claimants.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nova Partners Pleads No Contest in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nova Partners Inc., on Jan. 8, 2007, pleaded no contest to two
misdemeanor counts of mishandling asbestos during renovations of
the north wing of the Monterey County Courthouse in Salinas,
Calif., MontereyHerald.com reports.

Nova Partners entered the pleas on the day that jury selection
was to begin in its trial on three felony charges and three
misdemeanors alleging that Nova Partners endangered the lives of
the public and employees working in the building.

Under the agreement, Nova Partners, which faces a civil lawsuit
by a Monterey County judge and two courthouse workers, admitted
no fault or liability in the case and the state Attorney
General's Office agreed it will not pursue a civil action
against Nova Partners.

Nova Partners will pay US$193,394 to cover the costs of
investigation. It must also develop new training programs for
its employees, enlist new protocols for conducting work on
buildings with hazardous materials, and follow all laws
regarding handling of those materials, including asbestos.

If Nova Partners meets the terms of the agreement over a 30-
month period, it will be allowed to withdraw its pleas and the
charges will be dismissed. If it fails to comply, it faces a
maximum fine of US$200,000 when it is sentenced on July 13,
2009.

Skanska USA Building Inc., the project's construction manager,
was fined US$750,000 in November 2006 after pleading no contest
to four misdemeanor charges. Skanska will be given the chance to
withdraw the pleas and have the charges dismissed if it meets
the terms of a one-year probation.

Nova Partners still manages the courthouse project.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Firm Seeks Out Former Shipyard Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former shipyard workers in Cumbria, in the United Kingdom, are
being warned that there is a risk they could have contracted
potentially fatal asbestos disease, News & Star reports.

MWR Solicitors, which handles asbestos-related claims, held free
advice sessions in the county. They noticed an alarming trend of
asbestos illnesses.

MWR said a high proportion of those attending had worked at
Vickers Shipyard in Barrow, in which the shipyard is now owned
by BAE SYSTEMS plc.

The firm said that despite this large workforce, there has been
little attention drawn to the large amounts of asbestos used in
both its ships and buildings.

It is now known that a small amount can cause diseases like
pleural plaques, pleural thickening and in some cases,
mesothelioma.

However, the effects of asbestos are not usually seen until at
least 10 years after exposure, and in some cases it can be up to
50 years.

Sharon Rigby, who has been running the clinics, wants former
shipbuilders to come forward. She said, "It can take between 10
and 50 years for a person to show an asbestos-related condition
after exposure and it is important that those who have worked at
Vickers come forward as they may have been affected by
asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCDHEC Wants Proper Disposal of Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control
investigates the disappearance of asbestos from the old log
cabin in Swansea, S.C., TheState.com reports.

The DHEC said it needed to know where the asbestos went because
a licensed contractor must dispose of the material under strict
federal guidelines.

In November 2005, Swansea officials found out the log cabin,
built in the 1930s as a Works Progress Administration project,
had asbestos and they would have to pay a contractor to remove
and dispose of it. According to town officials, it would have
cost about US$3,000.

Town officials notified DHEC on Jan. 9, 2006. With the asbestos
gone, they would demolish the cabin. The DHEC issued permits to
demolish the cabin on Jan. 12, 2007.

DHEC's investigation could lead to thousands of dollars in fines
for Swansea, at a time when the town of about 500 is about
US$500,000 in debt.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor to Pay $8T for Improper Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Godbout, the contractor of Topia Inn in Pleasant Street,
Adams, Mass., will pay a US$8,000 penalty for improper asbestos
removal in 2005, BerkshireEagle.com reports.

Aside from the US$8,000 penalty, Mr. Godbout would pay an
additional US$16,135 suspended for two years. Topia Arts LLC,
Topia Inn's developers, will pay US$4,000, with an additional
US$6,000 suspended for two years.

The fine is a response to a complaint received in February 2005
that workers had stripped shingles from the former Pleasant
Street Lodge, which is being redeveloped as the Topia Inn, and
let them scatter on the sidewalk and the street.

Inspectors from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection confirmed the problem shortly thereafter.

According to DEP spokeswoman Eva Tor, the owners cooperated in
cleaning up the problem. Since some of the material was frozen
in ice and snow, the DEP decided it would be more of a problem
to dig it up, and the cleanup was not completed until April
2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Quick Review in Grace Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Zonolite Attic Insulation Property Damage Claimants assert
that Judge Judith Fitzgerald's Memorandum of Opinion and Order
should be reviewed immediately because it may seriously affect
the evaluation of the ZAI Claims at a critical juncture of W.R.
Grace & Co. and the other Debtors' bankruptcy cases and impede
their reorganization if appeal is delayed.

William D. Sullivan, Esq., in Wilmington, Del., points out that
the Memorandum of Opinion and Order depart from 20 years of
asbestos property damage precedent in ruling that an asbestos
property contamination claim requires elements of proof of
personal injury, like epidemiological evidence of asbestos
disease from Zonolite Attic Insulation in homes, a doubling dose
of exposure, or asbestos air levels exceeding the occupational
time-weighted averages of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.

No evidences have been required by numerous state and federal
courts sitting in diversity that have tried many asbestos
property damage cases in the last two decades, Mr. Sullivan
says.  

Rather those courts recognize that the issue in an asbestos
property damage case is whether the property has been
contaminated by asbestos, as typically shown by scientific
testing that the asbestos material can release fibers and that
the release fibers have contaminated some portion of the
building.

The ZAI Claimants are a significant aspect of the Debtors'
bankruptcy, Mr. Sullivan avers. To the extent the Memorandum of
Opinion and Order may be read to undermine the viability of some
aspects of the ZAI Claimants, Mr. Sullivan contends that it may
impede any progress toward achieving consensual resolution among
the Debtors' key constituencies.

As noted in the open court, the ZAI Claimants, other PD
Claimants and the PI Claimants have reached an agreement on an
allocation of the available funds in the Debtors'
reorganization. Mr. Sullivan says these asbestos constituencies
are presently seeking to have the Debtors' exclusivity period
terminated.

Mr. Sullivan adds that the Memorandum of Opinion and Order
contain findings that rely on a selective reading of the record
and misinterpret the record or ignore contrary evidence, all in
violation of the established summary judgment standard.

Thus, the ZAI Claimants ask the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware to grant them leave to appeal the
Memorandum of Opinion and Order.

The Debtors ask the Court to extend the time for them to respond
to ZAI Claimants' Motion for Leave to Appeal.

Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones &
Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., asserts that without the
extension, the Debtors would be prejudiced because they would be
required to respond to the Interlocutory Appeal Motion within a
brief period of time.

Ms. Jones maintains that the brief extension will not unduly
delay the disposition of the Interlocutory Appeal Motion.

The ZAI Claimants have advised the Debtors that they do not
oppose to an extension, according to Ms. Jones.

The ZAI Claimants have asked that the status conference with
respect to the remainder of the motions for summary judgment be
delayed until late February 2007.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 122; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAI Claimants to Appeal No-Risk Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The ZAI Claimants notify the Bankruptcy Court that they will
appeal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Judge Judith Fitzgerald's order finding that Zonolite Attic
Insulation produced by W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors
poses no unreasonable risk if left undisturbed.

The ZAI Claimants want the District Court to determine if the
Bankruptcy Court erred:

-- In granting summary judgment when there were conflicting
issues of material facts and inferences to be drawn from those
material facts, and whether the Bankruptcy Court made factual
findings as to disputed issues by improperly favoring evidence
supporting the Debtors' position;

-- By failing to apply the substantive state laws governing the
product liability claims of the ZAI Claimants;

-- By failing to apply the substantive state laws governing the
consumer protection claims of the ZAI Claimants;

-- By superimposing an unprecedented, federal "unreasonably
dangerous" test on all of the ZAI Claimants' legal claims;

-- By imposing "risk of disease" as a prerequisite to cognizable
harm compensable under applicable consumer protection statutes;

-- By imposing "risk of disease" as a prerequisite to cognizable
tort-based property damage claims;

-- By holding that no facts permit the conclusion that ZAI is
"unreasonably dangerous;"

-- By failing to evaluate "unreasonably dangerous" under
applicable risk/utility or consumer expectation analyses;

-- By imposing a strict liability "unreasonably dangerous" test
on all tort-based claims for property damage;

-- In equating ZAI property damage claims to so-called "stigma"
claims; and

-- In relying on so-called "comparative risk" evidence.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 122; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. RPM Int'l. Units Rise to 11,021
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries, as of Nov. 30, 2006, had
a total of 11,021 active asbestos-related cases, compared with a
total of 9,501 cases as of Nov. 30, 2005, according to the
company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended
Nov. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Aug. 31, 2006, company subsidiaries had a total of 10,934
active asbestos-related cases, compared with a total of 9,093
cases as of Aug. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13,
2006)

For the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, the subsidiaries secured
dismissals and settlements of 324 claims and made total payments
of US$13.8 million, which included defense costs of US$6.6
million paid during the current quarter.

For the comparable period ended Nov. 30, 2005, dismissals and
settlements covered 234 claims and total payments were US$13.4
million, which included defense costs of US$5.2 million paid
during the quarter.

Certain Company subsidiaries, mainly Bondex International Inc.,
face asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various
state courts with most of current claims pending in five states:
Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas and Florida.

Claim filings in Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Illinois
at the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, comprise about 75 percent of
the total aggregate claims filed against Bondex.

At the end of fiscal 2006, the company increased its reserve for
asbestos claims by about US$335 million, while paying out
US$12.9 million for dismissals or settlements resulting in its
reserve moving from US$99.2 million at Feb. 28, 2006 to US$421.3
million at May 31, 2006.

As of Nov. 30, 2006, total reserves were about US$391.1 million.

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, current and long-term
asbestos liability movement was US$391,084,000, compared with
US$421,285,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006 and
US$101,172,000 for the year ended May 31, 2005.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home
repair products. The company is divided into two units:
industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks
and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints,
patch and repair products, and hobby paints).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Await '07 Trial for Insurers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries await a trial in 2007
calendar year for asbestos-related coverage litigation filed
against various third-party insurers, according to the company's
quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Nov. 30,
2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In July 2003, certain company subsidiaries filed a complaint for
declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith against
the third-party insurers, challenging their assertion that their
policies covering asbestos-related claims have been exhausted.

The litigation involves insurance coverage for claims arising
out of alleged exposure to asbestos products made by the
previous owner of the Bondex tradename before March 1, 1966.

On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc., as it was known
then, bought the assets and assumed the liabilities of the
previous owner of the Bondex tradename.

That previous owner subsequently dissolved and was never a
subsidiary of Republic Powdered Metals, Bondex, RPM Inc. or the
company.

Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however,
Bondex has historically and must continue to respond to suits
alleging exposure to these asbestos products.

The company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in
the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging
exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate
limits. This conduct, known by the insurance industry based on
discovery conducted to date, was in breach of the insurers'
policy language.

Two of the defendant insurers have filed counterclaims seeking
to recoup certain monies should the plaintiffs prevail on their
claims. The parties have substantially completed all fact
discovery and are nearing completion of the expert discovery
phase of the case.

The parties will next file dispositive motions, including
motions for summary judgment, and related briefs.

During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, Bondex reached a US$15
million cash settlement with one of the defendant insurers. The
settling defendant has been dismissed from the case.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home
repair products. The company is divided into two units:
industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks
and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints,
patch and repair products, and hobby paints).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Kaiser Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
California's 2nd District Court of Appeals overturned a Superior
Court of Los Angeles County ruling, which stated that Kaiser
Cement & Gypsum Corp.'s decision to manufacture and distribute
products with asbestos constituted a single annual occurrence
under policies purchased from Truck Insurance Exchange, Business
Insurance reports.

The Appeals Court has ruled that each claimant's injurious
exposure to asbestos products constitutes a separate
"occurrence" under a primary commercial general liability
policy.

Court records showed that thousands of plaintiffs have sued
Kaiser alleging product liability-related injuries from three
decades of making asbestos-containing materials.

After making more than US$50 million in indemnity payments,
Truck sought a declaratory judgment that its policy limits were
exhausted. It also sought summary adjudication, arguing that
Kaiser's decision to manufacture and distribute asbestos
products arose from of a single annual occurrence.

The Trial Court agreed, which led Kaiser's excess insurers to
appeal.

The excess insurers argued that the Trial Court wrongly
concluded that Truck's policy limits were exhausted because the
relevant occurrence was "injurious exposure to asbestos," and
that each injury resulted from a separate occurrence.

However, the Appeals Court sided with the excess insurers on the
determination of a single occurrence and vacated the summary
judgment.

The Appeals court said it could not determine whether Truck's
policies had been exhausted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fly Tipping Victimizes Ireland Town Locals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos sheets were dumped close to the Flying Horse Estate in
Downpatrick, Northern Ireland, Newry Democrat reports.

Sinn Fein Councilor Liam Johnston has come forward to criticize
the fly tippers who discarded the rubbish close to the housing
estate.

Councilor Johnston received the complaints about the asbestos
sheets that he found left lying on the Old Course Road, close to
the RGU football pitches.

Councilor Johnston said, "Those responsible may think they are
clever dodging the financial cost involved in the disposal of
asbestos. But they have dumped this material close to a
residential area, where young children are known to play."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Factory Building Held Up Over Detection
---------------------------------------------------------------
A bid to build a GBP2.5 million factory in Barrow-in-Furness in
Northwest England has stalled after asbestos was found in the
ground, North-West Evening Mail reports.

To be built for undersea technology firm Diamould Ltd., the
factory could create as many as 200 more skilled jobs in the
next few years.

However, the plan has been stopped by the asbestos find at the
proposed 2.5-acre site on the old shipyard West Shop, in Bridge
Road near Jubilee Bridge.

Project developers Priority Sites, based in Leeds, claim the
delay in signing a deal for the land with Barrow Borough
Council, caused by the asbestos find, means they will receive
less grant aid because of rule changes between 2006 and 2007.

Priority Sites wants to build the 36,000 sq. ft. factory for
Diamould to lease and expand in.

Diamould is now owned by U.S. oilfield services multinational
Schlumberger. It has created more than 100 skilled jobs since it
was set up four years ago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Building to be Demolished for Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The building that housed the first submarine sandwich shop in
Newhall, Calif., in Santa Clarita Valley, would be demolished
due to the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint, The Signal
reports.

Assistant city engineer Chris Price said the previous home of
the Moore's Submarine Sandwiches at 24158 San Fernando Road in
downtown Newhall is set to be demolished in March 2007.

Mr. Price said it is cheaper to demolish and build a new
building than to convert the existing one for another use.

The City bought Moore's, which was built in 1959, less than six
months before the City's redevelopment agency put it in its name
in April 2006. The City's purchase of Moore's was part of its
plan to invigorate downtown Newhall.

Mariann Moore, the former owner of Moore's Submarine Sandwiches,
closed the restaurant in August 2005 for undisclosed reasons
after nearly 33 years in business.

Mrs. Moore's father-in-law, A.J. Moore, started the business in
1972 and. In the 1990s, Mr. Moore's son Eugene took over the
business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Splits Delmarva Ruling in Hudson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted in
part and denied in part Delmarva Power & Light Co.'s motion for
summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Harry
Hudson.

Judge Joseph R. Slights III handed down the decision of Civil
Action No. 03C-06-130 on Dec. 22, 2006.

Mr. Hudson made and installed machine parts as an employee of
WSMW Industries Inc. from 1976 to 2001. His job required him
"frequently [to] cut and install asbestos-containing sheet
gasket and rope packing material" as well as work near other
contractors working with asbestos containing insulation. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma after he left WSMW.
      
Mr. Hudson worked for WSMW at many different sites owned by many
different entities. At issue in this motion are two Delmarva
sites: Edgemoor, Del. and Delaware City, Del. He worked at the
Edgemoor site "at least 50, 75 times" and the Delaware City site
"a good hundred times."
      
The Court found that Delmarva did not exercise the requisite
degree of control over Mr. Hudson's work at its Edgemoor
facility to subject Delmarva to landowner liability. Delmarva is
entitled to summary judgment on that basis.

However, summary judgment is not appropriate with respect to
Demlarva's potential liability for Mr. Hudson's asbestos
exposure at the Delaware City plant because the record has not
been developed to facilitate an analysis of the control issue as
it related to Mr. Hudson's work there.

Thomas C. Crumplar, of Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., in Wilmington,
Del. represented Harry Hudson.

Robert S. Goldman and Lisa C. McLaughlin of Phillips, Goldman &
Spence, P.A. represented Delmarva Power & Light Co.

        
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HANSEN NATURAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brower Piven announces that a class action was commenced in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded common stock of
Hansen Natural Corp. between Nov. 12, 2001 and Nov. 9, 2006.
Brower Piven is one of the firms that have filed this lawsuit
within the past 60 days.

The complaint alleges that Hansen and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities law.  It alleges
that:

      -- defendants engaged in the backdating of stock option
         grants for certain key executives of the company;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, defendants engaged
         in improper accounting practices.  

The complaint alleges that, as a result of a series of
disclosures from Oct. 31, 2006 to Nov. 9, 2006 regarding the
company's stock option backdating practices, the company's stock
price fell approximately 22%, costing its shareholders
approximately $500 million in market capitalization.

Interested parties have until Jan. 29, 2007 to ask the court to
for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.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 2007.  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  * * *