CAR_Public/070126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 19

                            Headlines


3M CO: Final Approval Sought for $39.75M Antitrust Suit Deal
ALVARION LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Faces CA$49B Suit Over Pollution in Canada
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Face Cornerstone Suit in N.Y.
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment

APPLERA CORP: Faces Suit Over 2000 Follow-on Public Offerings
BROADCOM CORP: Faces Consolidated Stock Options Suit in Calif.
BROOKSTONE INC: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over Air Purifiers
BROOKSTONE INC: Reaches Settlement in Ala. Air Purifiers Lawsuit
CANADA: Hoodwinked Couples Consider Suit Over Sham Marriages

COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Proceedings Stayed in Del. Stockholders Suit
CONSTAR INT'L: Discovery Proceeds in Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: N.Y. Suit Over "Short Selling" Practice Amended
DYNEX CAPITAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
E1 AI: Israeli Airline Faces $114.7M Suit Over Security Fees

ENRON CORP: Founder, Law Firm Released From Tex. Investor Suit
EUROWEB INT'L: Awaits Approval of Del. Stock Suit Settlement
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Several Suits Over Hotel Accommodation Taxes
GILMAN & CIOCIA: March 2007 Hearing Set for Del. Investors Suit
GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Delinquent Taxpayers Suit Granted Certification

IDT CORP: To Donate $2M Under Card Rates Suit Settlement in N.J.
ILLINOIS: Chicago Election Board Sued for Leaking Voter Data
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal
INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Still Faces Suit Over Defective Windows
INLAND MORTGAGE: Dismissal of Ala. RESPA Case Still Under Appeal

IRWIN FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Under Appeal
LIVE NATION: Panel Consolidates Ticket Pricing Suits in Calif.
PARADYNE NETWORKS: Working to Settle Paradyne IPO Suit in N.Y.
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Fla. Insurance Suit by Client Affirmed in Part
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Suit Gets Partial Class Certification

QWEST COMMS: AUSWR Plans Litigation Over Life-Insurance Benefits
SAFECO INSURANCE: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in FCRA Lawsuit
SISTERS OF ST FRANCIS: Faces Identity Theft Lawsuit in Indiana
TASTEFULLY SIMPLE: Recalls Pesto Mix Over Undeclared Sulfites
TRIPOS INC: Mo. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement

UBS FINANCIAL: Brokers' $45M Suit Settlement Nears Approval
WARNER CHILCOTT: Class Status Motions in "Ovcon 35" Suit Nixed
WARNER CHILCOTT: Class Status Sought for Third-Party-Payor Suit
WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
WARNER CHILCOTT: Parties Seek Mediator in D.C. Ovcon Lawsuits

WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Commercial Boilers Not Properly Sealed
WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Lawsuit
OPENTV CORP: Del. Suit Over ACTV Acquisition Remains Inactive


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Study to Track 40T Potential Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Education Board, Nova Dev't. Fined $6T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Program Assists Libby Locals on Issues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's $157M Net Income Reflects Obligation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's Claims Settlement Totals $557M at 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Tyco Int'l. Drop to 5,250
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Records 9,900 Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Subway Exposes Passengers to Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Supreme Court Mulls Rules for Juries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Railway Worker Wins Payout for Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Has $61M Insurance Recoveries in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Bars Brayton Purcell From Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Liability Still at $1.7B in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Links Loss to $16.7M A&E Development
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Posts $139M Gain for PCC Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $577M in 4Q for Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Carpenter Pleads Guilty to CAA Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Favors Stephens in Insurers Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Worker Sues 89 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Royal & Sun from GM Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Contractor Indicted for CAA Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.V. Group Continues Fight for Tort Reform
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Discover Asbestos in Fraternity House
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. School Heads Await Testing Results


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

SUNRISE SENIOR: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


3M CO: Final Approval Sought for $39.75M Antitrust Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' attorneys in the protracted antitrust class action,
"Bradburn Parent/Teacher Store, Inc. v. 3M (Minnesota, Mining,
and Manufacturing Co.)," are seeking final approval for the
$39.75 million settlement reached in the case, The Legal
Intelligencer reports.

The suit, filed by direct purchasers and retailers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, accuses
the office supply company of abusing its monopoly power in the
market for transparent tape by driving a competitor out of
business.

In recently filed court papers, plaintiffs' attorneys asked
Judge John R. Padova to grant final approval to the deal.  In
addition, they also seek an award of attorney fees worth around
$13.9 million as well as nearly $1 million in litigation costs.

The Bradburn plaintiffs' legal team is composed of R. Stephen
Berry, J. Daniel Leftwich and Gregory Baruch of Berry & Leftwich
in Washington, D.C., and Charles M. Jones and Billy N. Jones of
Jones Osteen & Jones in Hinesville, Ga.

                         Case Origins

The suit is one of many that stemmed directly from the 1997
case, "LePage's Inc. v. 3M," which resulted in a $68 million
verdict and a finding that 3M had set out to monopolize the
market for transparent tape.

LePage's, a competing supplier of tape, had accused 3M of using
illegal tactics to drive it out of business by offering
"bundled" rebates to large retailers for reaching sales goals in
several categories of 3M products.   In reality though the
rebates could be earned only by removing LePage's products from
their shelves, the suit alleged.

A jury agreed and in an October 1999 verdict awarded LePage's
$22,828,899 in damages.  Judge Padova trebled the award to
$68,486,697.

3M appealed that verdict and won when a three-judge panel of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned it,
saying that the case was fatally flawed, since there was no
evidence that 3M had ever slashed its prices to below-cost
levels.

However, the case was reargued before a 10-judge en banc panel,
which reinstated the original verdict, saying that LePage's had
a valid antitrust claim, since the evidence showed that 3M had
set out to "kill" the niche market LePage's had created for
discount "private label" tape.  The U.S. Supreme Court would
later decline to hear the case.  

Since then, retailers have been filing class actions that said
the LePage's verdict had proven that the company was selling its
tape at "supra-competitive" prices.

The suit is "Bradburn Parent/Teacher Store, Inc. v. 3M
(Minnesota, Mining, and Manufacturing Co.), Case No. 2:02-cv-
07676-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Berry & Leftwich, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 450,
         Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-296-3020; and

     (2) Jones Osteen Jones & Arnold, P.O. Box 800, 206 E. Court
         St., Hinesville, GA 31310-0800, Phone: 912-876-0111,
         Fax: 912-368-2979.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Paul Alexander of Heller, Ehrman, LLP, 1717 Rhode
         Island Ave., N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-912-2000, Fax: 650-324-0638, E-mail:
         PALEXANDER@HEWM.COM; and

    (ii) Fred H. Bartlit, Jr. of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
         Scott, LLP, 1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Fl., Denver, CO
         80202, Phone: 303-592-3100.


ALVARION LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Alvarion Ltd. is named defendant a purported securities fraud
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Robert Hopkins of Broad
Wireless Exchange Magazine reports.

The complaint was filed on Jan. 19 against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.  The plaintiff in the
case is Amnon Meir, who is represented by Glancy & Binkow LLP.

Generally, the suit alleges that in certain public statements
regarding its business with a customer that accounted for
significant revenues during 2004, the company failed to state
that sales to the customer would not continue to provide
substantial revenues to the company.  On that basis, the
complaint asserts violations of U.S. Federal Securities laws.

The suit is "Meir v. Alvarion LTD. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00374-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Notrhern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiff is Lionel Z. Glancy and Andy Sohrn of
Glancy & Binkow LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Faces CA$49B Suit Over Pollution in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
The American Electric Power Co., Inc. and 19 non-affiliated  
utilities remain as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Superior  
Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.  

The company has not been served with the lawsuit.  The time  
limit for serving the defendants expired, but the case has not  
been dismissed, 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 defendants are alleged to own or operate coal-fired electric  
generating stations in various states that, through negligence  
in design, management, maintenance and operation, emitted sulfur  
dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that harmed the  
residents of Ontario.  

The suit was filed June 2005.  It seeks class action designation  
and damages of approximately CA$49 billion, with continuing  
damages of $4 billion annually.  It also seeks CDN$1 billion in  
punitive damages.  

Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co., Inc. (NYSE:  
AEP) -- http://www.aep.com/-- is a public utility holding   
company that owns, directly or indirectly, all of the  
outstanding common stock of its public utility subsidiaries and  
varying percentages of other subsidiaries.   

The public utility subsidiaries of AEP are American Electric  
Power Co., Inc., AEP Generating Co., AEP Texas Central Co., AEP  
Texas North Co., Appalachian Power Co., Columbus Southern Power  
Co., Indiana Michigan Power Co., Kentucky Power Co., Ohio Power  
Co., Public Service Co. of Oklahoma and Southwestern  
Electric Power Co..  The service areas of AEP's public  
utility subsidiaries cover portions of the states of Arkansas,  
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma,  
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Face Cornerstone Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Co., Inc. continues to face a
consolidated lawsuit over alleged price manipulation of natural
gas futures and options on the NYMEX.

In the third quarter of 2003, Cornerstone Propane Partners filed
an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against 40 companies, including American Electric
Power Co., Inc. and AEP Energy Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AEP Resources, Inc.

The suit seeks class certification.  It alleges unspecified
damages from claimed price manipulation of natural gas futures
and options on the NYMEX from January 2000 through December
2002.  

Thereafter, two similar actions were filed in the same court
against a number of companies, including American Electric and
AEP Energy Services, making essentially the same claims as
Cornerstone Propane Partners and also seeking class
certification.  These cases were consolidated.

In January 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which the Court denied.  In October 2005, the Court
granted the plaintiffs motion for class certification.

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.

The suit is "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor Marrero and
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applebee's International and the company's former general
manager, John Sonefeld, are facing a class action filed by at
least 15 employees alleging sexual harassment, unwanted sexual
contact and retaliation, WTOL 11 Toledo reports.

Plaintiffs Nicole Poore and Julie Bellestri say their former
manager would rub up against them and say inappropriate things
to them and take pictures of their backsides with his cell
phone, according to the report.  When they complained to Mr.
Sonefeld's boss, Karim Jaffer, they were either ignored -- or
worse it only triggered retaliation.
  
The women say it was harassment they endured for five years
while working at the Applebee's store in Dundee, Michigan, about
30 miles north of Toledo.

Applebee's statement to WTOL 11 regarding the suit states:
"Applebee's strives to provide a safe and professional working
environment for our associates.  We take allegations like these
very seriously, however we cannot comment on pending
litigation."


APPLERA CORP: Faces Suit Over 2000 Follow-on Public Offerings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. is subject to a class action relating to its 2000
offering of shares of Applera-Celera stock.

The company and some of the company's officers are defendants in
a lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera
stock in the company's follow-on public offering of Applera-
Celera stock completed on March 6, 2000.

In the offering, the company sold an aggregate of approximately
4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera stock at a public offering
price of $225 per share.  The lawsuit was commenced with the
filing of several complaints in 2000, which have been
consolidated into a single case, which has been certified by the
court as a class action.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or
misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged
opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its
supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to
providing patent protection to the company's genomic-based
products.

Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended
to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the
complaint also alleges that the company did not adequately
disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group would not be
able to patent this data.  The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses,
and other relief as the court deems proper.

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.


BROADCOM CORP: Faces Consolidated Stock Options Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corp. is a defendant in a consolidated class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
over backdated stock options, according to the company's Jan.
23, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

From August through October 2006 several plaintiffs filed
purported shareholder class actions against Broadcom and certain
of its current or former officers and directors.  These suits
are:

      -- "Bakshi v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx),"

      -- "Mills v. Samueli, et al., Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
         R(CWx)," and

      -- "Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v.
         Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R
         (CWx)."

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that Broadcom
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things,
Broadcom's business and financial condition.

Plaintiffs also allege that Broadcom failed to account for and
pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual
defendants sold Broadcom stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct caused
the artificial inflation of Broadcom's stock price and damages
to the putative plaintiff class.

They asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

In November 2006, the court consolidated the class actions,
appointed:

     * the New Mexico State Investment Council

as lead class plaintiff, ordered the lead class plaintiff to
file a consolidated complaint within 60 days after a restatement
of the company's financial statements, and extended the deadline
for the defendants to respond to the complaint to 60 days after
the filing of the consolidated complaint.

The suit is "Sonam Bakshi v. Henry Samueli et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-05036-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with
referral to Judge Carla Woehrle.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter E. Borkon of Schubert and Reed, Three Embarcadero
         Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
         415-788-4220, E-mail: pborkon@schubert-reed.com; and

     (2) Michael D. Braun of Braun Law Group, 12400 Wilshire
         Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025, Phone:
         310-442-7755, E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Gordon A. Greenberg of McDermott Will & Emery, 2049
         Century Park E, 34th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208,
         Phone: 310-277-4110, Fax: 310-277-4730; and

    (ii) Stephen S. Hasegawa of Irell & Manella, 1800 Avenue of
         the Stars, Ste. 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276, Phone:
         310-277-1010, E-mail: shasegawa@irell.com.


BROOKSTONE INC: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over Air Purifiers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brookstone, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
filed in the California Superior Court in Los Angeles County
regarding certain air purifiers that were sold by the company.  

The putative class action was commenced against the company on
Sept. 15, 2004.  The complaint, as amended, alleges, among other
things, that the company engaged in unfair business practices
under California's Unfair Competition Laws by selling certain
air purifiers that failed to perform as intended.

On May 4, 2006, the Superior Court issued a decision certifying
that the action may be brought on a class-wide basis.

A trial is scheduled for March 5, 2007.

The company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend the matter vigorously if cannot otherwise be resolved.

The company reported no material updates on the lawsuit in its
Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Merrimack, New Hampshire-based Brookstone, Inc. --
http://www.brookstone.com/-- sells gifts, gadgets, and other  
doodads targeted primarily toward men through about 300 stores
in more than 40 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.  Osim International owns the company.


BROOKSTONE INC: Reaches Settlement in Ala. Air Purifiers Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brookstone, Inc. reached a settlement for the purported class
action filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama over certain air purifiers that
were sold by the company.

On June 23, 2005, the company was served with a lawsuit on
behalf of all consumers who purchased a certain air purifier
from the company alleging, among other things, that such
products fail to perform the purposes for which they are
advertised and sold and seeking unspecified damages.  

After the plaintiff's motion for class certification and the
company's opposition to the motion were filed with the court,
the parties engaged in settlement negotiations with the
assistance of a professional mediator.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the parties reported to the court that they
had settled the plaintiff's claims against the company.

The amounts the company was required to pay under the
settlement, which is still subject to final approval by the
court, have been recorded as an adjustment to the successor
company's opening Balance Sheet.

There is no finding or admission of fault by the company as part
of the settlement.

The suit is "Matthews v. Brookstone Co., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00369-WS-C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama under Judge William H. Steele with referral
to Judge William E. Cassady.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Enrique Jose Gimenez of Lightfoot, Franklin & White,      
         400 North 20th Street, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:  
         205-581-0700, E-mail: hgimenez@lfwlaw.com; and

     (2) Benjamen T. Rowe of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas  
         & O'Neal, P.O. Box 2906, Mobile, AL 36652, Phone: (251)  
         415-7302, Fax: 2514157350, E-mail: btr@cabaniss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) James Bruce Carlson of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., 2311  
         Highland Avenue South, P.O. Box 55727, Birmingham, AL  
         35255-5727, Phone: (205) 930-5450, Fax: (205) 930-5335,  
         E-mail: jcarlson@sirote.com; and

    (ii) W. Michael Atchison of Starnes & Atchison, LLP, P.O.  
         Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259, Phone: (205) 868-
         6000, E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com.


CANADA: Hoodwinked Couples Consider Suit Over Sham Marriages
------------------------------------------------------------
A father and daughter who were both duped in separate wedding
ceremonies by a defrocked minister into thinking they had tied
the knot are planning to launch a class action, The Toronto Sun
report.

Norm Vachon and her daughter want other couples scammed into
thinking they were married to join their planned lawsuit against
Maggie Montgomery-Heersink, a former minister with the Bancroft-
area Bay of Quinte Conference of the United Church of Canada,
who had her credentials revoked in 2001.

According to reports, the minister continued to perform bogus
wedding ceremonies after that.  She recently wrote letters to
all the couples about the scam and then fled to Calgary.

Minister Montgomery-Heersink married Mr. Vachon in the backyard
of his Thornhill home in 2005.  She was paid CAD$500 to perform
his ceremony.

Mr. Vachon said that the wedding of his daughter -- who was the
first to avail of Minister Montgomery-Heersink's services -- was
also fake and not legally registered.

Thus, Mr. Vachon and his daughter are mulling the possibility of
filing a class action against the former minister.  So far, 10
couples who thought Minister Montgomery-Heersink married them
have come forward, according to Rev. Wendy Bulloch, executive-
director of the Bay of Quinte Conference of the United Church of
Canada.

In 2001, Rev. Bulloch informed Minister Montgomery-Heersink that
she was on the church's "discontinued service list and
prohibited from performing any church functions."

That ruling stemmed from the "inappropriate" adoption of
Montgomery-Heersink by a dying parishioner who left her new
daughter a sizable estate, according to the report.

Rev. Bulloch says that the church's legal council is trying to
find a solution for the duped couples.  He pointed out that none
of the marriages were church ceremonies and said the couples'
concerns are legal issues, such as income tax, insurance and
wills.


COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Proceedings Stayed in Del. Stockholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported stockholder class action filed against
Collegiate Pacific, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of the state
of Delaware in and for New Castle County agreed to have
proceedings in this stayed indefinitely.

On Dec. 15, 2005, a stockholder of Sport Supply Group, Inc.,  
Jeffrey S. Abraham, as trustee of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S.  
Abraham Money Purchase Plan, dated Dec. 31, 1999, f/b/o Jeffrey  
S. Abraham, filed a lawsuit against:

     -- Emerson Radio Corp.,  
     -- Geoffrey P. Jurick,  
     -- Arthur J. Coerver,  
     -- Harvey Rothenberg,  
     -- the company, and
     -- Michael J. Blumenfeld  

Plaintiff filed the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of the
public stockholders of Sport Supply in connection with the Sept.
8, 2005, Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which the
company was to have acquired the remaining shares of the
outstanding capital stock of Sport Supply that it did not
already own and the company's subsequent acquisition of an
additional 1.66 million shares of Sport Supply for approximately
$9.2 million cash from an institutional stockholder.

The lawsuit seeks damages against Emerson Radio Corp. and Mr.
Jurick for breach of fiduciary duty to the Sport Supply
stockholders and a derivative claim against the company and the
defendant directors for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment in connection with the use of Sport Supply assets
without due compensation.  The defendant directors and the
company filed their answer to the complaint on March 15, 2006.

Defendants Emerson and Mr. Jurick filed a Motion to Dismiss
Count I of the complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty as to
Emerson and Mr. Jurick.

The Court issued its Opinion on July 5, 2006 and ordered that
Count I as to Emerson and Mr. Jurick be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Proceedings in this case have been stayed indefinitely by
agreement of the parties, according to the company's Nov. 14,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


CONSTAR INT'L: Discovery Proceeds in Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Constar International, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters
were named defendants in a consolidated putative securities
class action, "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020."

This action is a consolidation of the lawsuits:

      -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
          al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

      -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
          Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

The consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted on June 7, 2005
and the company's answer was filed on Aug. 8, 2005.

The Special Master issued a Report and Order denying the
company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Feb. 22, 2006.  

The company filed objections to the Report and Order on March 6,
2006.  The court heard the objections on May 1, 2006 and issued
an order overruling the objections on May 24, 2006.  The case is
now proceeding with class certification and discovery.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Edmund V. Ludwig.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-779-1414, E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes &
         Lerach, LLP, 401 B. Street, STE. 1700, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com;
         and

     (3) Darren J. Check of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Steven B. Feirson, Michael L.
Kichline and Scott A. Thompson of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 1717
Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2793, Phone: 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2390, Fax: 215-994-2222,
E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com
and scott.thompson@dechert.com.


CREDIT SUISSE: N.Y. Suit Over "Short Selling" Practice Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, a subsidiary of Credit
Suisse (USA), Inc., is a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York over the practice of "short selling."

In April 2006, putative class action complaints were filed
against numerous investment banks, including Credit Suisse
Securities, alleging that the bank defendants charged their
prime brokerage customers fees, commissions, and/or interest
payments for covering short positions when, in fact, the
defendants did not cover them and also conspired not to effect
buy-ins on delivery failures relating to short sales.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, an amended putative class action complaint was
filed against numerous investment banks, including Credit Suisse
Securities.  

The complaint alleges that the bank defendants conspired to fix
the minimum loan rate for certain securities and unlawfully
agreed not to effect buy-ins on delivery failures relating to
short sales, thus enabling the defendants to charge customers
borrowing fees for securities that were never actually borrowed.  

Plaintiffs also allege that the bank defendants conspired to
charge their customers improper "finders" or "locate" fees in
connection with short sale transactions.  

The complaint includes claims for violation of antitrust law,
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

Credit Suisse (USA), Inc. on the Net:
http://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en.


DYNEX CAPITAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc. and its subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp. is
still waiting for a ruling on their motion for reconsideration
and interlocutory appeal of the decision by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York that rejected their
motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against
them, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Feb. 11, 2005, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and various state
common law claims was filed against:

     -- Dynex Capital, Inc.,
     -- subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp.,
     -- Stephen J. Benedetti, the company's executive vice    
        president, and
     -- Thomas H. Potts, the company's former president and a
        former director

in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund.

The lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds.  On July 15, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  

On Feb. 10, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims
against Messrs. Benedetti and Potts, but did not dismiss the
claims against Dynex and MERIT.  

On Feb. 24, 2006, Dynex and MERIT moved for reconsideration and
interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order denying the
motion to dismiss Dynex and MERIT.  

The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund
et al v. Dynex Capital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01897-HB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Harold Baer.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joel P. Laitman, Christopher
Lometti and Samuel P. Sporn, Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton
Street, Suite 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone: 212-964-0046, Fax:
212-267-8137, E-mail: chris@spornlaw.com.

Representing the company are Monica Shelton Call, Eric Harrison
Feiler, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Terence James Rasmussen and Joseph
John Saltarelli of Hunton & Williams, LLP, (Richmond VA), 951
East Byrd Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: (804)-788-8632,
Fax: (804)-788-8218, E-mail: trasmussen@hunton.com or
jsaltarelli@hunton.com.


E1 AI: Israeli Airline Faces $114.7M Suit Over Security Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. is facing a NIS485 million ($114.7
million) lawsuit seeking class-action status in Jerusalem
District Court, Globes Online reports.

The suit alleges that El Al charges a security fee on
reservations, even when the flight is made by another airline,
without notice, and without providing security services at the
level that El Al gives.

It further claims that El Al misleads consumers, acts in bad
faith towards them, and is in breach of contract.

Plaintiff says that she bought round-trip tickets to Spain on El
Al for herself and her family.  The return flight was made by
another airline with which El Al has a cooperation agreement.

She says that El Al charged an $8 security fee per ticket for
the return flight to Israel, without notifying the passengers
that another airline would make the flight and was responsible
for security arrangements.

She says this act caused her and her family considerable
distress and anxiety during the return flight.


ENRON CORP: Founder, Law Firm Released From Tex. Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
granted a request by former shareholders and investors suing
Enron Corp. to drop from their lawsuit several individuals and
firms, including deceased company founder Kenneth Lay, The
Associated Press reports.

Previously, The Regents of the University of California, the
lead plaintiff in the securities fraud suit against Enron and
several banks filed a motion to dismiss former chairman Ken Lay
and four other former executives from their class action (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2007).  Attorneys for the Board of
Regents emphasized that the dismissals not be considered
settlements, the report said.  

The plaintiffs are suing investment firms and global banks they
claim played key roles in Enron's collapse.  The lawsuit, set
for trial in April, is seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Mr. Lay, 64, died of coronary artery disease in July 2006 more
than a month after he was found guilty of hiding financial
troubles at Enron.  His conviction was vacated months later
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2006).

Besides Mr. Lay and his estate, those dismissed from the lawsuit
include:

      -- Vinson & Elkins, Enron's former outside law firm;

      -- Kenneth Rice, former chief executive of Enron's
         broadband unit;

      -- Joseph Hirko, another former CEO of the broadband unit;
       
      -- Kevin Hannon, former chief operating officer for the
         broadband unit;

      -- Lawrence "Greg" Whalley, a former CEO of Enron's
         wholesale trading unit; and

      -- Lou Pai, former retail energy unit CEO at Enron.

According to Trey Davis, a spokesman for the lead plaintiffs,
the decision to remove these individuals from the lawsuit was
made, since it was unlikely investors would be able to recoup
any money from them.

In granting the request, Judge Melinda Harmon pointed out that
her ruling does not prevent individual investors from pursuing
claims against those dismissed from the lawsuit.

                       Case Background

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  On July
5, 2006, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston granted
class-action status to a suit by shareholders.  

Defendants are opposing the certification.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans agreed on Nov. 1 to
hear arguments by Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse and the law
firm Vinson & Elkins challenging the certification (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 13, 2006).  Other defendants in the shareholders'
suit are Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland and
Toronto-Dominion Bank.

The University of California Board of Regents has reached
settlements with Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, the Outside
Directors, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and CIBC totaling over $7
billion for investors.

                    Non-settling Defendants

The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co.,  
Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada,  
Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.  

Representing the defendants is J Mark Brewer of Brewer and  
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:  
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com.

Contact for William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin: 655 West
Broadway, Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


EUROWEB INT'L: Awaits Approval of Del. Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has yet to approve the settlement
in a purported stockholders' class action, "Laurence Paskowitz
v. Csaba Toro et al., C.A. No. 2110-N," which names Euroweb
International Corp. as a defendant.

On April 26, 2006, a lawsuit was filed by a stockholder of the
company against it, each of the company's directors and CORCYRA
d.o.o., a stockholder of the company that beneficially owns
39.81% of the company's outstanding common stock.  

The complaint was brought individually and as a class action on
behalf of certain of the company's common stockholders excluding
defendants and their affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges the proposed sale of 100% of the company's
interest in the company's two Internet and telecom-related
operating subsidiaries constitutes a sale of substantially all
of the company's assets and requires approval by a majority of
the voting power of the company's outstanding common stock under
Section 271 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.  

Plaintiff also alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the sale of the subsidiaries and the
disclosures contained in the proxy statement filed on April 24,
2006.  

The company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing,
however, in the interests of conserving resources.  On April 28,
2006, the parties to the litigation entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, subject to confirmatory discovery
by plaintiff, the negotiation of a formal stipulation of a
settlement of the litigation.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the board of directors of
the company has determined to:

      -- increase the vote required to approve the sale of 100%
         of the company's interest in the subsidiaries;

      -- revise the disclosure within the proxy statement to
         eliminate the bonus of up to $400,000, which the  
         Compensation Committee of the company had the option  
         to pay to select members of management, as the Board  
         of Directors had previously elected to terminate the
         ability to pay such bonus; and

      -- provide supplemental disclosure as contained in the
         Supplemental Proxy Statement.  

The settlement will provide for the dismissal of the litigation
with prejudice and is subject to court approval.  

As part of the settlement, the company has agreed to pay an
amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be negotiated between
the two parties or, lieu of such agreement between the two
parties, will be determined by the court.

As part of the settlement, the company has agreed to pay an
amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that are to be negotiated
between the two parties or, lieu of such agreement between the
two parties, which will be determined by the court.

The court has yet to make a ruling, according to the company's
Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-QSB filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2006.

Euroweb International Corp. on the Net:
http://www.euroweb-international.com/.


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Several Suits Over Hotel Accommodation Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. is a defendant in multiple purported class actions
over its alleged failure to pay hotel accommodations taxes in
various cities, municipalities and counties throughout the U.S.,
according to the company's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

              City of Orange, Texas Litigation

On July 18, 2006, the City of Orange, Texas filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia.  The suit, "City of Orange, Texas, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 1:06-CV-0413-RHC-KFG," was filed in
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
municipalities hotel accommodations taxes as required by
municipal ordinances.

It purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances,
conversion, civil conspiracy, and declaratory judgment.  The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

To the company's knowledge, defendants Expedia, Hotels.com and
Hotwire have not been served with a summons or complaint and,
thus, there was no deadline to respond to the lawsuit.

          City of Jacksonville, Florida Litigation

On July 28, 2006, the City of Jacksonville, Florida filed a
putative statewide class action in state court against a number
of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia.

The suit, "City of Jacksonville, Florida, et al. v. Hotels.com,
LP, et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
municipalities hotel accommodations taxes as required by
municipal ordinances.

It purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances,
conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive
trust, and declaratory judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 17, 2006, Expedia was served with a summons and
complaint.  To the company's knowledge, defendants Hotels.com
and Hotwire have not been served with a summons or complaint.

                Leon County, Florida Litigation

On July 27, 2006, Leon County, Florida filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia.  

The suit, "Leon County, et al. v. Hotels.com, et al.," was filed
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the municipalities hotel accommodation taxes as required by
municipal ordinances.  

It purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances
and thus seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 4, 2006, defendants Hotels.com and Hotwire were served
with a summons and complaint.  

To the company's knowledge, defendant Expedia has not been
served with a summons or complaint.

        Cities of Columbus and Dayton, Ohio Litigation

On Aug. 8, 2006, the City of Columbus, Ohio and the City of
Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action in federal
court against a number of Internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.  

The suit, "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
counties and cities in Ohio hotel accommodation taxes as
required by local ordinances.  

It purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances,
unjust enrichment, violation of the doctrine of money had and
received, conversion, declaratory judgment, and seeks imposition
of a constructive trust.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.  

To the company's knowledge, defendants Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia have not been served with a summons or complaint.

           Miami-Dade County, Florida Litigation

On Sept. 21, 2006, Miami-Dade County, filed a lawsuit in state
court against a number of Internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia.

The suit, "Miami-Dade County v. Internetwork Publishing Corp.,
et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay the
county hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinance.

It purports to assert claims for violation of that ordinance,
violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices
act, breach of fiduciary and agency duty, unjust enrichment,
equitable accounting, injunctive relief, and declaratory
judgment.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants Expedia and Hotels.com, L.P. were served with a
summons and complaint on Sept. 27, 2006 and Oct. 2, 2006,
respectively.  

To the company's knowledge, Hotels.com GP, LLC and Hotwire, Inc.
have not been served with a summons or complaint.

                       Kentucky Litigation

On Sept. 21, 2006, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government filed a putative statewide class action in federal
court against a number of Internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia.

The suit, "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay the
counties and cities in Kentucky hotel accommodation taxes as
required by local ordinances.  

It purports to assert claims fro violation of those ordinances,
unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion,
imposition of a constructive trust, and declaratory judgment.  
It seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

To the company's knowledge, defendants Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia have not been served with a summons or complaint.


GILMAN & CIOCIA: March 2007 Hearing Set for Del. Investors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 26, 2007 trial is slated for the purported stockholders'
class action against Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., which is pending in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with a Summons and a
shareholder's class action and derivative complaint filed by
Gary Kosseff against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P.
Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward H.
Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, and Gilman & Ciocia,
Inc., Civil Action No. 188-N.

The action accuses the company, its board of directors and its
management of breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty in
connection with the sale of offices to Pinnacle Taxx Advisors,
LLC in 2002.

The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate
consideration and without a fairness opinion by independent
financial advisors, without independent legal advice and without
a thorough evaluation and vote by an independent committee of
the board of directors.

The action seeks:

     -- a declaration that the company, its board of directors
        and management breached their fiduciary duty and other
        duties to the plaintiff and to the other members of the
        purported class;

     -- a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement;

     -- unspecified monetary damages; and

     -- an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements,

        including reasonable legal, expert and accountants
        fees.

On March 15, 2004, counsel for the company and for all
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On June 19,
2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On July 12, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 8,
2005, oral argument was heard on the motion to dismiss, and on
July 27, 2005 the case master delivered his draft report denying
the motion.

The parties filed exceptions to the report and on Aug. 3, 2006,
the master delivered his final report denying the motion to
dismiss.  The parties are proceeding with discovery and the case
is scheduled for trial on March 26, 2007.


GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Delinquent Taxpayers Suit Granted Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification for the lawsuit filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against GLS Capital,
Inc., a subsidiary of the company, and the County of Allegheny,
has been granted class certification on Oct. 27, 2006, according
to Dynex Capital, Inc.'s Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

Plaintiffs allege that GLS illegally charged the taxpayers of
Allegheny County certain attorney fees, costs and expenses, and
interest in the collection of delinquent property tax
receivables owned by GLS.  

On Oct. 27, 2006, the Court certified the class action status of
the litigation, which was originally filed in 1998.  In its
Order, the Court left open the possible decertification of the
class if the fees, costs and expenses charged by GLS are in
accordance with public policy considerations as well as the
statute and relevant ordinance.  

The company may seek to stay this action pending the outcome of
other litigation before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which
GLS is not directly involved but has filed an Amicus brief in
support of the defendants.  

Glen Allen, Virginia-based Dynex Capital, Inc. (NYSE: DX) --
http://www.dynexcapital.com-- together with its subsidiaries,  
is a specialty finance company organized as a real estate
investment trust that invests in loans and securities consisting
principally of single-family residential and commercial mortgage
loans.  The company finances these loans and securities through
a combination of non-recourse securitization financing,
repurchase agreements and equity.  It employs financing in order
to increase the overall yield on the invested capital.


IDT CORP: To Donate $2M Under Card Rates Suit Settlement in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corp., Union Telecard Alliance, LLC and IDT Telecom, Inc.
(collectively, IDT) reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a
nationwide calling card related class action.  

IDT previously accrued for and disclosed an agreement in
principle in March 2005 in its quarterly report.  The action
related to claims concerning IDT's prepaid and rechargeable
calling card disclosures regarding rates and charges.  This
settlement resolves all of the companies' pending calling card
litigations.  As part of the settlement, IDT denies any wrong-
doing or liability and the parties agreed to the settlement to
avoid further costs and uncertainties related to litigation.

The class action, "In re IDT Corp. Calling Card Terms
Litigation," remains pending before the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey until the settlement
agreement is given final approval by the Court.

The settlement affects customers who purchased an IDT calling
card in the U.S. at any time between Jan. 1, 1997, and Jan. 22,
2007, or purchased an IDT calling card in the U.S. any time
between Jan. 22, 2007, and Dec. 16, 2007.  The settlement will
provide refund PINs to those people who submit an eligible PIN
to IDT.

IDT agreed to provide refund PINs worth up to $20 million to
eligible consumers of IDT calling cards for domestic telephone
calls.  Eligible consumers of IDT prepaid calling cards are
entitled to a refund PIN with a value of $0.50 for domestic
calls at $0.10 per minute for each eligible PIN submitted.

Eligible consumers of IDT rechargeable calling cards are
entitled to a refund PIN with a value of $0.50 for domestic
calls at $0.10 per minute for every $5.00 worth of calling time
that was loaded onto the card when it was first purchased and
charged.  

IDT also has agreed to modify the disclosures contained on its
calling cards and to propose a uniform calling card regulation
to the New Jersey Attorney General's Office.  In addition, IDT
has agreed to make $2 million or the equivalent dollar value of
donations to charitable organizations such as educational
scholarships and/or donations of calling cards as additional cy
pres relief.

If the settlement receives final approval by the Court, members
of the settlement class can submit a claim by accessing IDT's
interactive voice response telephone system by either calling a
toll-free number (800-921-2781) or any IDT calling card access
number or customer service number, or through http://www.idt.net
or http://www.uniontelecard.com.   

They must then enter a PIN number from an IDT calling card that
was purchased on or before Jan. 22, 2007 or purchased any time
after Jan. 22, 2007, but before Dec. 16, 2007.  Members of the
settlement class may be required to provide their names and
addresses, and the name of the calling card associated with the
PIN number.  IDT, subject to Court review, will then determine
whether the member of the settlement class is eligible for a
refund based on confirmation of a legitimate PIN and remaining
funds in the pool.  If eligible, IDT will provide members of the
settlement class with a refund PIN.

The plaintiffs in "In re IDT Corp. Calling Card Terms
Litigation," are represented by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Peter
S. Linden, Esq. of the law firm of Kirby, McInerney, & Squire,
LLP; by Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, the law firm of Laurence J.
Sass, Attorney at Law; and by other class counsel.

IDT Corporation, UTA and IDT Telecom, Inc. are represented by
James E. Tyrrell, Jr., Esq., Scott Louis Weber, Esq. and Elissa
J. Glasband, Esq. of the law firm of Patton Boggs LLP.


ILLINOIS: Chicago Election Board Sued for Leaking Voter Data
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit brought on behalf of some 1.3 million voters in
Chicago was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
against the Chicago Board of Election, alleging that the Board
failed to adequately protect the privacy of voters in the city,
reports say.

The complaint alleges that the Board was negligent when it
distributed more than 100 computer disks containing Social
Security numbers and other personal data on more than 1.3
million voters to alderman and ward committee members.

Named plaintiff Peter Zelchenko claims the Board compromised
voters' personal information by compiling and copying onto
computer discs their names, address histories, voting histories,
telephone numbers and Social Security numbers, and distributing
the discs to aldermen and ward committeemen.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) the number, timing and place of publication or
         disclosure of the compact disk containing the social
         security numbers and other private information;

     (b) the availability and detail of the injunctive relief  
         requiring the immediate redaction and recalling of such
         compact disks;

     (c) the availability, amount and term of the endowment fund
         to insure the payment of damages for injuries to Mr.
         Zelchenko and putative class plaintiffs;

     (d) the amount and distribution of punitive damages to be
         awarded; and

     (e) questions of law as to whether the inclusion of social
         security numbers and other private information, was
         permitted to be released in the compact disk.

Mr. Zelchenko, individually and on behalf of all putative class
plaintiffs, prays for judgment in his favor and against the
Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and for the following
relief:

     -- certify this matter as a class and appoint plaintiff's
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- award compensatory damages to e determined at trial on
        the merits;

     -- award punitive damages as permitted under section 10 of
        the Fraud Act;

     -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- injunctive relief to direct the Board to:

             (a) immediately stop disseminating personal
                 information of plaintiff and all putative class
                 members' information under the Act;

             (b) direct the Board to remove all class members'
                 protected information from the public domain;

             (c) direct the Board to immediately take steps to
                 remove personal information from the current
                 voter registration roll that is made available
                 to the public;

             (d) direct defendant to serve on Mr. Zelchenko and
                 on the court written information that there has
                 been compliance with the relief granted in this
                 order within 72 hours of the time the order was
                 issued;

             (e) direct defendant to set up an endowment fund in
                 an amount and term to be determined by the
                 court to fund anticipated financial losses for
                 Mr. Zelchenko and all other putative class
                 members and compromised individuals to
                 compensate them for damages they may sustain as
                 a result of defendants' unlawful conduct, and,
                 grant plaintiff's request that the court
                 appoint a guardian to oversee the investment,
                 safekeeping and the payment of claims against
                 said fund;

             (f) grant Mr. Zelchneko and putative class
                 plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs and
                 expenses for bringing this action, as provided
                 by the Illinois Personal Information Protection
                 Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
                 Deceptive Business Practices Act, section 10;
                 And

             (g) all other relief the court deems just and
                 equitable under the circumstances.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18e6

The suit is "Zelchenko et al. v. Chicago Board of Election
Commissioners, Case No. 07CH01970," filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs is Nicholas C. Kefalos, P.C. of Vernor
Moran, LLC, 27 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois
60606-2800, Phone: (312) 264-4460.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Inspire Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and certain other defendants.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purported
shareholder class action complaints was filed against the
company and certain of its senior officers.

Each complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focused on statements that
are claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3
clinical trial of the company's dry eye product candidate,
ProlacriaTM (diquafosol tetrasodium).

Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's securities
between June 2, 2004 and Feb. 8, 2005.

On March 27, 2006, following consolidation of the lawsuits into
a single civil action and appointment of lead plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and certain of
its present or former senior officers or directors.  It also
asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 based on statements alleged to be false and
misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of Prolacria, and
also adds claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint also asserts claims against certain parties that
served as underwriters in the company's securities offerings
during the period relevant to the complaint.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities from May 10,
2004 to Feb. 8, 2005.

In May 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss their
claims against the underwriters on the basis that they were
time-barred.  

On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants moved that
the court dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does not
satisfy the pleading requirements under applicable law.  
Briefing on that motion is now complete and it is currently
pending before the court, 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 "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L.
Osteen.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Leslie Bruce Mcdaniel Of Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P.,
         P.O. Box 58186, RALEIGH, NC 27658-8186, Phone: 919-872-
         3000, Fax: 919-790-9273, E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com; and

     (2) Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Ctr. Cir., Ste. 600, Boca
         Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5022, Fax: 561-367-
         8400, E-mail: kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) William Mark Conger of Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.,
         1001 W. Fourth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone:
         336-607-7309, Fax: 336-734-2633, E-mail:
         mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

    (ii) Barry m. Kaplan of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100, Seattle, WA 98104, US,
         Phone: 206-883-2500, Fax: 206-883-2699.


INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Still Faces Suit Over Defective Windows
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Aluminum Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries  
remain defendants in a class action, "Klotzer, et al. v.  
International Windows In Time, Inc. (FCS021196)," filed in the  
Superior Court for Solano County, California.  

The suit alleges that the company's Series 6200 aluminum windows  
were defective in design and manufacture.  The plaintiffs seek  
monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs based upon various  
legal theories.   

The same lawyers who represent plaintiffs in this action have  
also brought similar class actions against other manufacturers  
of aluminum windows in California

In their third amended complaint filed in August 2005, the  
plaintiffs assert various causes of action, including strict  
product liability, breach of warranty, and violation of the  
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.   

Plaintiffs also purport to represent a statewide class of  
persons who own buildings in California that contain the  
company's Series 6200 horizontal sliding, vertical hung, or  
fixed aluminum windows manufactured during the period 1993 to  
the present.  In November 2005, the court certified the  
plaintiff class.

According to plaintiffs, the essence of their claims is that the  
Series 6200 windows leak at the lower corners.  Plaintiffs  
contend that these leaks are caused by the design and  
manufacture of the lower corners and voids and gaps in the  
sealant used in the window corners; and that the leaking windows  
have damaged parts of the homes in which they were installed.

   
Plaintiffs also claim that the windows do not perform as  
warranted and do not perform in compliance with American  
Architectural Manufacturer's Association, or AAMA, standards.   

There are approximately 80,000 owners of the Series 6200 windows  
in the class.  The named plaintiffs seek actual and punitive  
damages, as well as injunctive and restitutionary relief on  
their claims, including the cost to remove and replace all of  
the Series 6200 windows in the class.  The company denies any  
liability.

The company's insurers have accepted the defense of this lawsuit  
under reservation of rights.  The scope of the company's  
insurance coverage may depend upon the ultimate disposition of  
the plaintiffs' claims.

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.

Monterey Park, California-based International Aluminum Corp.  
(NYSE: IAL) -- http://www.intlalum.com/-- is an integrated   
building products manufacturer of diversified lines of aluminum  
and vinyl products.  It operates in three segments: Commercial  
Products, Residential Products and Aluminum Extrusions.  The  
company markets its residential products primarily to lumber  
yards, home improvement centers, independent dealers and  
distributors.  Commercial building products are marketed  
primarily to glazing and tenant improvement contractors.   
Aluminum extrusions are marketed principally by direct sales to  
other manufacturers.


INLAND MORTGAGE: Dismissal of Ala. RESPA Case Still Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage  
Corp.," are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th  
Circuit, the dismissal of the case by the U.S. District Court  
for the Northern District of Alabama.

Since it was filed back in April 1996, the plaintiffs obtained  
class action status for their complaint alleging that the  
company violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures  
Act (RESPA) relating to it's payment of broker fees to mortgage  
brokers.  

In June 2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld  
the district court's certification of the class.  However, in  
October 2001, the Department of Housing and Urban Development  
(HUD) issued a policy statement that explicitly disagreed with  
the 11th Circuit's interpretation of RESPA in upholding class  
certification.  

Subsequent to the HUD policy statement, the 11th Circuit decided  
a RESPA case similar to the company's, concluding the trial  
court had abused its discretion in certifying the class.  The  
11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in effect, overruling  
its previous decision upholding class certification in the  
company's case.  

On Feb. 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of Alabama dismissed this case, by granting the motions  
of the company, to decertify the class and for summary judgment,  
and by denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.   

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the Court of  
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

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.

Irwin Mortgage is formerly Inland Mortgage Corp., an indirect  
subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp.

The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case  
No. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for  
the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson  
Hopkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David R. Donaldson, David J. Guin and Tammy McClendon  
         of Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC, Two North Twentieth  
         Building, North 20th Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham,  
         AL 35203, Phone: 226-2282, Fax: 226-226-2357, E-mail:  
         DavidD@dglawfirm.com, davidg@dglawfirm.com and  
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com

     (2) Richard S. Gordon and Kieron F. Quinn of Quinn Gordon &  
         Wolf, 40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408, Baltimore,  
         MD 21204-4803, Phone: 1-410-825-2300, Fax: 1-410-825-
         0066.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) David S. Hay, Janel E. LaBoda, Alan Hall Maclin, J.  
         Patrick McDavitt, Robert J. Pratte and Margaret K.  
         Savage of Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South  
         8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 1-612-977-
         8400, Fax: 1-612-977-8650; and

    (ii) Sarah Y. Larson, Alexander J. Marshall III and Cathy S.  
         Wright of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, AmSouth Harbert  
         Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham,  
         AL 35203-2618, Phone: 254-1000, Fax: 254-1999, E-mail:  
         slarson@mcglaw.com.


IRWIN FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity  
Corp. and Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co.," are appealing to  
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the dismissal of  
their case against two Irwin Financial Corp. subsidiaries.

The suit was filed on Aug. 12, 2005, alleging the defendants  
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by using or obtaining
plaintiffs' consumer reports for credit transactions not
initiated by plaintiffs and for which they did not receive  
firm offers of credit.

The plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to provide
clear and conspicuous disclosures as required by the FCRA.  The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory
damages of $1,000 per each separate violation and punitive
damages for alleged willful violations of the FCRA.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 4, 2005.  On Oct.  
18, 2005, the company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for  
failure to state a claim.  

In response to the defendants' motion, the court dismissed the  
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006.   
Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  
9th Circuit on April 13, 2006.  

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.

The suit is "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. et al., Case  
No. 3:05-cv-03289-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin, Douglas Bowdoin, P.A., 255 South  
         Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:  
         407-422-0025, Fax: 407-843-2448, E-mail:  
         dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;  

     (2) Gail Killefer, 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300, San  
         Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/362-8640, e-mail:  
         gkillefer@aol.com; and
  
     (3) Kathleen Clark Knight, Terry A. Smiljanich, James,  
         Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, 4830 W. Kennedy Blvd.,  
         Suite 550 Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100 x4214,  
         Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com or  
         tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Virginia W. Barnhart, J. Preston Turner of Pope &  
         Hughes, P.A., 29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 110,  
         Towson, MD 21204, Phone: 410-494-7777, Fax: 410-494-
         1658, E-mail: virginia.barnhart@popehughes.com or  
         jpturner@popehughes.com; and  

    (ii) Tomio B. Narita, Wineberg Simmonds & Narita, 44  
         Montgomery St., Ste 3880, San Francisco, CA 94104-4811,  
         Phone: (415) 352-2200, Fax: (415) 352-2222, E-mail:  
         tnarita@wsnlaw.com.


LIVE NATION: Panel Consolidates Ticket Pricing Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
consolidation of several purported class actions filed against
Live Nation, Inc. with those pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

The suit alleges anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the company caused artificially high-
ticket prices.

Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class
actions filed by different named plaintiffs in various U.S.
District Courts throughout the country.

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to
claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets
alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members
of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.  

The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied
liability.  On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the
above-listed actions and any similar ones commenced in the
future to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-
trial proceedings.  

On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and
ordered the consolidation and transfer of the actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The company reported no further developments in the matter in
its Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
         Shapiro, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) [Defendants] Paul Chalmers of Paul Chalmers Law
         Offices, Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW,
         #405, New York, NY 920036, US, Phone: 202-772-1834;

     (3) [Defendants] Sara B. Ciarelli of Wilson Sonsini
         Goodrich and Rosati, 12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor,
         New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: 212-999-5859; and

     (4) Renata Hesse of Renata Hesse Law Offices, Two Lafayette
         Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW, #405, Washington, DC,
         20036, US, Phone: 202-772-1834.


PARADYNE NETWORKS: Working to Settle Paradyne IPO Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhone Technologies, Inc. has yet to report that the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved a settlement of a consolidated securities class action
pending against Paradyne Networks, Inc., a company it acquired
in 2005.

A purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in  
December 2001 in the U.S District Court in the Southern District  
of New York against Paradyne, Paradyne's then-current directors  
and executive officers, and each of the underwriters who  
participated in Paradyne's initial public offering and follow-on
offerings.  

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Paradyne  
offerings, the underwriter defendants charged excessive  
commissions, inflated transaction fees not disclosed in the  
applicable registration statements and allocated shares of the  
Paradyne offerings to favored customers in exchange for  
purported promises by such customers to purchase additional  
shares in the aftermarket, thereby allegedly inflating the  
market price for the Paradyne offerings.  

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the  
purported class for the losses suffered during the class period.  
This action has been consolidated with hundreds of other  
securities class actions commenced against more than 300  
companies (collectively, the Issuer Defendants) and  
approximately 40 investment banks in which the plaintiffs make  
substantially similar allegations as those made against Paradyne  
with respect to the initial public offerings and/or follow-on  
offerings at issue in those other cases.  

All of these actions have been consolidated under the caption,  
"In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  

In 2003, the Issuer Defendants participated in a global  
settlement among the plaintiffs and the insurance companies that  
provided directors' and officers' insurance coverage to the  
Issuer Defendants.   

The settlement agreements provide for the Issuer Defendants,  
including Paradyne, to be fully released and dismissed from the  
IPO Actions.   

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, Paradyne is not  
required to make any cash payment to the plaintiffs.  Although  
the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreements, the  
preliminary approval is subject to a future final settlement  
order, after notice of settlement has been provided to class  
members and they have been afforded the opportunity to oppose or  
opt out of the settlement.  There can be no assurance that these  
conditions for final settlement will be satisfied.

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.

The suit is "In re Paradyne Networks, Inc. Initial Public  
Offering Sec. Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-10797-SAS," related  
to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master  
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for  
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stanley D. Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail:
         bernstein@bernlieb.com; and  

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

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

PROTECTIVE LIFE: Fla. Insurance Suit by Client Affirmed in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeal of the state of Florida, 4th
District upheld the judgment in favor of Protective Life
Insurance Co. on a class action accusing the insurer of
improperly raising premiums.

Mark Lutz, an insurance policy holder, is suing the company for
breach of contract by improperly raising his and other group
members' premiums based on individual health status/claims-
related factors contrary to Part VII of Chapter 627 (Group,
Blanket, and Franchise Health Insurance Policies).

Mr. Lutz also sought a declaration that the group policy issued
by Protective Life failed to meet the statutory conditions in
section 627.6515(2), which would exempt it from the general
provisions of Part VII of Chapter 627, and that Protective Life
improperly raised the class members' premiums based on their
claims history and/or health status, contrary to "Florida Law."

The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of
Protective Life on both counts of the complaint based on its
conclusion that a private right of action was not available to
enforce violations of the statutory provisions which Mr. Lutz
cited.

The trial court believed that Mr. Lutz's claims were actually
"for breach of the statutes couched in the form of actions for
breach of contract and declaratory relief."  An appellate court
considers a trial court's granting of a judgment on the
pleadings by a de novo standard of review.

The U.S. District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on the
pleadings with respect to the breach of contract claim because
the complaint did not establish that the plaintiff is entitled
to relief on the breach of contract claim but reverse on the
count for declaratory relief.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1902  

The suit is Case Nos. 03-12523, on appeal from the Circuit Court
for the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jonathan D.
Gerber, Judge.

Philip M. Burlington of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and
Jeffrey M. Liggio and Richard M. Benrubi of Liggio, Benrubi &
Williams, P.A., West Palm Beach represent the appellant.

Irma Reboso Solares of Jorden Burt LLP, Miami, Phillip E. Stano
of Jorden Burt LLP, Washington, D.C., and W. Michael Atchison,
Anthony C. Harlow and Alfred H. Perkins, Jr., of Starnes &
Atchison LLP, Birmingham, Alabama represent the appellee.


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Suit Gets Partial Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County partially
granted class-action status to a labor-related litigation
against Public Storage, Inc.

The Brinkley plaintiffs are suing the company on behalf of a
purported class of California property managers who claim that
they were not compensated for all the hours they worked.  

Filed on April 2005, the suit, "Brinkley, et al. v. Public
Storage, Inc.," is based upon California wage and hour laws.  
The maximum potential liability cannot be estimated, but would
be increased if a class or classes are certified or, if claims
are brought on behalf of others under the California Unfair
Business Practices Act.

In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking
to certify five subclasses.  Plaintiff is seeking certification
for alleged meal period violations, rest period violations,
failure to pay for travel time, failure to pay for mileage
reimbursement, and for pay stub violations.

In October 2006, the court declined to certify three out of the
five subclasses.  The court did, however, certify subclasses
based on alleged meal period and wage statement violations.

Public Storage, Inc. on the Net: http://www.publicstorage.com/.


QWEST COMMS: AUSWR Plans Litigation Over Life-Insurance Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Association of U.S. West Retirees (AUSWR) is set to file a
purported class action against Qwest Communications as soon as
the first Qwest/U.S. West retiree passes away this year, The
Denver Post reports.

The group's executive director, Nelson Phelps, made the
announcement earlier this week.  Mr. Phelps says that the suit
will challenge changes in life-insurance benefits that went into
effect this month, Phelps said.

According to the report, Mr. Phelps said: "We have several
people that are in hospice care, and they're going to pass away.  
It's a sad thing.  We're waiting for them to pass away, and ...
their spouse has already agreed to be part of the lawsuit."

Starting this year, Qwest, which acquired U.S. West in 2000,
capped life-insurance coverage for management retirees at
$10,000.  Previously, the benefit was equivalent to one year's
annual salary.  Non-management retirees had their life-insurance
benefits capped in 2006.

Qwest reportedly provides benefits for 180,000 people, which
includes current and former employees and their families.

According to Mr. Phelps, AUSWR expects to file a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Association of U.S. West Retirees on the Net:
http://www.uswestretiree.org/.  

For more details, contact Curtis L. Kennedy (attorney for
AUSWR), 8405 E. Princeton Ave., Denver, CO 80237-1741, E-mail:
CurtisLKennedy@aol.com.


SAFECO INSURANCE: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in FCRA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court heard last week arguments by Safeco
Insurance Co. and Berkshire Hathaway's Geico General Insurance
Co. in a suit over low credit scores reporting, The Economic
Times reports.

The Supreme Court agreed on Sept. 29 to review a ruling by the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco in the class
actions:

     -- "Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 06-84," and
     -- "GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Edo, 06-100."

The companies are accused of violating the Fair Credit Reporting
Act by not telling consumers low credit scores resulted in
higher quotes for insurance coverage.

The federal appeals court ruled that companies must tell
consumers when credit scores result in higher insurance rates.  
It also said companies can be found liable for violating federal
credit laws even without meeting a tougher "willful" legal
standard that requires the companies know they were breaking the
law.

The companies say the ruling made it too easy to win large
damage awards in suits under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The
insurance industry wants the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth
Circuit ruling on both the liability standard and the disclosure
requirements.  

The Supreme Court is to rule by July, according to Bloomberg
News.

Geico's Supreme Court lawyer is Maureen Mahoney of Latham &
Watkins, 555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, District
of Columbia 20004-1304, Phone: 202-637-2200, Telecopier: 202-
637-2201.

The consumers' lead lawyer is Scott A. Shorr at Stoll Stoll
Berne Lokting & Shlachter, P.C., 209 S.W. Oak Street, 5th Floor
Portland, Oregon 97204 (Clackamas, Multnomah & Washington Cos.),
Phone: 503-227-1600, Telecopier: 503-227-6840.


SISTERS OF ST FRANCIS: Faces Identity Theft Lawsuit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sisters of St. Francis Health Services and its outside
contractor are facing a new lawsuit in Marion County Superior
Court over alleged disclosure of about 260,000 patients in
Indiana and Illinois, exposing them to the possibility of
identity theft, the Indianapolis Star reports.

Greenwood resident Michael Chaney, one of those who were
notified of the information leak, originally sued the hospital
system and Tennessee-based Advanced Receivables Strategy (ARS)
over what his attorney claims were violations of privacy and
negligence.

Last summer, an employee of ARS mistakenly left compact discs
containing patients' names and Social Security numbers in a
computer bag being returned to a retail store.  The patients
were notified about the incident in October.

In October 2006, Mr. Chaney's lawyer, Scott Benkie, filed a
lawsuit seeking class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

The "Chaney v. Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. et
al, Case No. 1:06-cv-01583-SEB-VSS," was voluntarily dismissed
on the same year.

The new suit seeks damages of at least $1,000 for each affected
class member.

The CDs contained information on about 260,000 patients and
about 6,200 employees, board members and physicians associated
with St. Francis.


TASTEFULLY SIMPLE: Recalls Pesto Mix Over Undeclared Sulfites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tastefully Simple is voluntarily recalling all codes of its 3-
ounce jar of Dried Tomato & Garlic Pesto Mix (item #209106) and
its Dried Tomato & Garlic Pesto Mix sample packets (item
#209704) because they contain sulfites, which are not declared
on the label.

This recall applies to the 3-ounce plastic jar sold after Feb.
6, 2006.  The 1.8-ounce glass jar and samples sold prior to that
date are not affected.

Anyone who is allergic to sulfites should not consume this
product.  People who are allergic to sulfites and eat this
product run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction.  There is no risk to individuals who are not allergic
to sulfites.

The presence of sulfites was discovered through routine product
testing by Tastefully Simple's Director of Quality Assurance on
Jan. 16.  No illnesses have been reported to date.

All products being shipped from today forward will be correctly
labeled to reveal the presence of sulfites.

Consumers are urged to call 1.888.759.2907 between 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. CST Monday through Friday for more information, as
well as for a full refund, credit or replacement.


TRIPOS INC: Mo. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
approved the settlement of the consolidated securities fraud
class action, "Montalvo, et al. v. Tripos, Inc., et al."

On or about July 24, 2003, Tripos, Inc. and two of its executive
officers, Dr. John P. McAlister and Mr. B. James Rubin, were
sued in federal district court in St. Louis on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the first half
of 2002.  

The consolidated class action complaint alleged that statements
made by the company in press releases and other public
disclosures contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws.  

On or about May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 9, 2000 and July 1, 2002.  

The second amended complaint generally alleges that, during the
class period, defendants made false or misleading statements of
material fact about the company's prospects and failed to follow
generally accepted accounting principles in violation of the
federal securities laws.  

The second amended complaint also named Ernst & Young LLP, the
company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
as a co-defendant.  

In August 2004, the company and the individual defendants and
Ernst & Young filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  

On Sept. 30, 2005, the company was informed that its motion to
dismiss was denied, however, the motion to dismiss filed by
Ernst & Young was granted.

On March 21, 2006, the parties reached a verbal agreement to
settle the class action litigation.  The total amount of the
settlement is $3,150, which is to be paid by the company's
insurers.  

The settlement is subject to court approval after notice and an
opportunity to object is provided to the putative shareholder
class.  

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court entered an order approving the
settlement and dismissing with prejudice all claims against the
defendants, according to the Tripos' Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Montalvo, et al. v. Tripos, Inc., et al., Case No.
03-CV-00995," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri under Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh

Plaintiff firms named in complaint:

     (1) Marcus N. Bozeman of Cauley and Bowman, 1101 Executive
         Center Drive, Suite 200, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock,
         AR 72211, Phone: 501-312-8500, Fax: 501-312-8505, E-
         mail: mbozeman@cauleybowman.com;

     (2) Don R. Lolli of Dysart and Taylor, 4420 Madison Avenue,
         Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64111, Phone: 816-931-2700,
         Fax: 816-931-7377, E-mail: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com; and

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: 212-594-
         5300 or 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are, Steven M. Schatz, Diane M.
Walters and Lloyd Winawer of Wilson and Sonsini, 650 Page Mill
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-
565-5100, E-mail: sschatz@wsgr.com, dwalters@wsgr.com and
lwinawer@wsgr.com.


UBS FINANCIAL: Brokers' $45M Suit Settlement Nears Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
is close to approving the $45 million settlement in the wage-
and-hour class action, "Glass et al. v. UBS Financial Services
Inc. et al.," The Recorder reports.

The suit was filed in November 2005, claiming that the brokerage
house had improperly categorized about 13,000 stockbrokers as
exempt from some wage-and-hour laws, such as overtime.

At a Jan. 19 hearing, Judge Maxine Chesney appeared close to
ratifying a proposed deal, the first nearly nationwide wage-and-
hour settlement that affects stockbrokers, according to the
report.

However, the judge grilled attorneys to address claims that the
attorney fees seemed exceptionally high.  Plaintiffs' attorney
Kevin McInerney and, UBS' attorney M. Kirby Wilcox of Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, presented the court with a proposed
settlement that includes over $11 million in fees.  

Several parties, including class members and the New York state
attorney general, formally objected that those fees, contending
that they were too high.  

Lawrence Schonbrun of Berkeley, Calif., solo representing Marty
Evans, a UBS stockbroker, argued against settlement approval and
the attorney fees.  

The judge hinted that she was inclined to approve the
settlement, and appeared to be leaning toward the requested
fees, according to the report.

The suit is "Glass et al v. UBS Financial Services Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-04068-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kevin J. McInerney of McInerney &
Jones, 18124 Wedge Parkway #503, Reno, NV 89511, Phone: 775-849-
3811, Fax: 775-849-3866, E-mail: kevin@mcinerneylaw.net.

Representing the defendant is M. Kirby C. Wilcox of Paul
Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 55 Second Street, 24th Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94105, 415/856-7000, E-mail:
kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com.

Representing the objector is Lawrence William Schonbrun of The
Law Offices of Lawrence W. Schonbrun, 86 Eucalyptus Road,
Berkeley, CA 94705, Phone: (510) 547-8070, E-mail:
lschon@inreach.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Class Status Motions in "Ovcon 35" Suit Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied
without prejudice all three motions for class certification to
allow further discovery to occur in a consumer lawsuit against
Warner Chilcott, Ltd., and Barr Pharmaceuticals over the firms'
agreements in relation to Ovcon 35 oral contraceptives.

Filed on March 6, 2006, the suit alleges that the Ovcon
agreements violate sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the
antitrust laws of 18 states and the unjust enrichment laws of 50
states.

Thus, plaintiff seeks to certify three separate classes
consisting of:

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use who
         are seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and
         restitution under the Sherman Act;

      -- all persons in the eighteen states referenced above who
         purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use; and

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use.

The consumer plaintiff seeks treble damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, disgorgement, and costs including attorney's fees.

On April 19, 2006 the consumer plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint.  The amended complaint dropped antitrust
claims in four states and added an additional named plaintiff.

On May 5, 2006 defendants moved to partially dismiss the
consumer plaintiffs' claims.  In particular, the company moved
to dismiss the consumer plaintiffs' claims brought under the
laws of 12 states, New York General Business Law Section 349, et
seq., and unjust enrichment law.  

The consumer plaintiffs opposed the motion.  The motion is fully
briefed and is pending before the court.  

On July 28, 2006, the consumer plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification seeking to certify three classes:

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use who
         are seeking injunctive relief under the Sherman Act;

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use in
         any of the Indirect Purchaser States; and

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use in
         any of the fifty states.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the court denied without prejudice all three
motions for class certification to allow for further discovery.

The suit is "Cohen v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00401-CKK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly.

Representing the plaintiffs is John M. Mason of The Law Offices
of Robert W. Sink, 319 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063, US,
Phone: 610-566-0800, Fax: 610-566-4408, E-mail:
sinklawoffices@comcast.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Peter Coyne Thomas of Simpson Thacher & Barlett, LLP,
         555 11th Street, NW, Suite 725, Washington, DC 20004,
         US, Phone: (202) 220-7735, Fax: (202) 220-7703, E-mail:
         pthomas@stblaw.com; and

     (2) Karen Natalie Walker of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 655 15th
         Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 879-5000, Fax: (202) 879-5200, E-mail:
         kwalker@kirkland.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Class Status Sought for Third-Party-Payor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a third-party-payor case against Warner Chilcott
Holdings, Ltd., and Barr Pharmaceuticals over their agreements
regarding the drug Ovcon are seeking class certification for the
lawsuit.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek to certify and represent a
class of all third-party-payors in the U.S. who purchased,
reimbursed and/or paid for Ovcon 35 after the Ovcon Agreements
were entered into.  The proposed class includes insurance
companies and employee benefit plans.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs allege in their first amended
complaint that the Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, the antitrust laws of 23 states and the District of
Columbia, the consumer protection acts of all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.  They also claim that the agreements
constitute a cause of action for unjust enrichment in
unspecified jurisdictions.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek an injunction, treble
damages, the amounts by which defendants have been unjustly
enriched, restitution, disgorgement, a constructive trust, and
costs including attorneys' fees.

On April 14, 2006 the third-party-payor plaintiffs filed a
second amended class action complaint.  In response to
defendants' previous motion to dismiss, the third-party-payor
plaintiffs dropped antitrust claims in two states and consumer
protection claims in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

On May 3, 2006 defendants moved to partially dismiss the third-
party-payor plaintiffs' claims.  In particular, defendants moved
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims brought under the laws of twenty-
one states and the District of Columbia, unjust enrichment law,
and all claims brought by plaintiff United Food.  The third-
party-payor plaintiffs opposed the motion.  

The motion is fully briefed and is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  On July 28, 2006
the third-party-payor plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification seeking to certify:

     * a class of "all Third Party Payors in the U.S. who
       purchased, reimbursed and/or paid for Ovcon 35 at any
       time from April 22, 2004, through the present and
       continuing until the effects of defendants'
       anticompetitive conduct have ceased."

Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott, Ltd. is a defendant in several securities fraud
class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

In November 2006, the company and certain of its' officers, were
named as defendants in the purported class action, "Albano v.
Warner Chilcott Limited et al."  Subsequently, similar purported
class actions have been filed.  

The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with its initial public offering.  

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning its decision
to stop shipping Ovcon 35 in connection with the transition to
Ovcon Chewable.  

The first identified complaint is "Angelo Albano, et al. v.
Warner Chilcott Limited, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Kenneth A. Elan, 217 Broadway Suite 404, New York, NY,
         10007, Phone: 212.619.0260;

     (2) Klafter & Olsen, LLP, 2121 K St., NW Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20037, Phone: 202.261.3553, Fax:
         202.261.3533, E-mail: info@klafterolsen.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

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

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

     (7) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-
         5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Parties Seek Mediator in D.C. Ovcon Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated class action over agreements between
Warner Chilcott, Ltd., and Barr Pharmaceuticals, regarding the
drug Ovcon, are seeking for the appointment of Magistrate Judge
Alan Kay as a mediator for the direct purchaser cases.

Initially, eight direct purchaser lawsuits were filed against
the companies.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs allege that the
Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  All of
the direct purchaser plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, and costs including attorneys' fees.  

Six of the lawsuits, which were all filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, are class actions.  The
remaining two suits are brought on behalf of individual direct
purchasers.

On April 14, 2006, the six direct purchaser class action
plaintiffs jointly filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint and dismissed their complaints in the remaining five
cases.

On July 14, 2006, the direct purchaser class action plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification.  The motion seeks to
certify a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs consisting of all
persons and entities in the U.S. "who purchased Ovcon 35
directly from defendants or their subsidiaries at any time from
April 22, 2004, through the present and continuing until the
effects of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct have ceased."

On Nov. 8, 2006, the company filed a joint motion with
plaintiffs and Barr to appoint Magistrate Judge Alan Kay as a
mediator for the direct purchaser cases.

Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com.


WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Commercial Boilers Not Properly Sealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weil-McLain Co., of Michigan City, Indiana, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
171 units of Model 80, 88, 94, and LGB Packaged Commercial
Boilers.

The company said the boiler assembly is not properly sealed.
Exhaust and carbon monoxide can leak during operation and
accumulate, posing a risk of poisoning.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves the Weil-McLain Model 80, 88, 94, and LGB
Packaged Commercial Boilers built from Dec. 1, 2005 through Oct.
26, 2006.  The model information is written on a name plate or
rating label on the front blue sheet metal jacket panels.

These recalled boilers were manufactured n the U.S. and are
being sold at Weil-McLain and shipped to job sites per boiler
order shipping instructions.  Price to consumer (not installed)
may range from:

Model                  Rating Base             List Price
                                               (approximate)

LBG (Gas)              400 - 2860 MBH input    $4,400 - $21,500
80 (Gas/Oil)           346 - 1674 MBH input    $2,800 - $8,300
88 (Gas/Oil)           996 - 5845 MBH input    $7,000 - $26,900
94 (Gas/Oil)           2527 - 8660 MBH input   $32,100 - $88,000

Pictures of recalled boilers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07521a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07521b.jpg

Weil-McLain has directly notified all customers with recalled
boilers and is providing a repair free of charge.

For more information, call Weil-McLain at (219) 879-6561 between
8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit their Web
site: http://www.weil-mclain.com.


WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wink Communications has still to report that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York has finally approved
a settlement of a securities class action filed against it over
an initial public offering.

In November 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Wink Communications and two of its officers and
directors and certain investment banks which acted as
underwriters for Wink Communications' initial public offering.

OpenTV Corp acquired Wink Communications in October 2002.  The
lawsuit is now captioned, "In re Wink Communications, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  

The operative amended complaint alleges undisclosed and improper
practices concerning the allocation of Wink Communications'
initial public offering shares in violation of the federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who purchased Wink Communications' common stock during
the period from Aug. 19, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.

This action has been consolidated for pretrial purposes as "In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  On Feb. 19,
2003, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss filed by all
defendants in the consolidated cases.  The Court denied the
motions to dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
granted the motion to dismiss the claims under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Wink Communications
and one individual defendant, and denied that motion against the
other individual defendant.

As described above, a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants has been submitted to and
preliminarily approved by the Court.

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.


OPENTV CORP: Del. Suit Over ACTV Acquisition Remains Inactive
-------------------------------------------------------------
OpenTV Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action pending
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for the
County of New Castle relating to the acquisition of ACTV, Inc.

On Nov. 18, 2002, a complaint was against ACTV, its directors
and company, which generally alleges that the directors of ACTV
breached their fiduciary duties to the ACTV shareholders in
approving the ACTV merger agreement pursuant to which the
company acquired ACTV on July 1, 2003, and that, in approving
the ACTV merger agreement, ACTV's directors failed to take steps
to maximize the value of ACTV to its shareholders.

The complaint further alleges that the company aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties committed by ACTV's
directors on the theory that the merger could not occur without
the company's participation.  No proceedings on the merits have
occurred with respect to this action, and the case is dormant,
according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Study to Track 40T Potential Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers at Juntendo University in Tokyo, Japan, on Jan. 18,
2007, said they would begin a five-year survey in February 2007
that will track about 40,000 people in a bid to find people
susceptible to mesothelioma, The Japan Times reports.

Okio Hino, a professor of pathology and oncology at the
university, said the group hopes the data will reveal a model
for diagnosing mesothelioma tumors at an early stage.

The project uses a simple diagnostic kit developed by Prof. Hino
and his fellow researchers. It detects in a blood sample an
antibody that comes with a type of protein secreted by the
tumor.

The university group will work with Tokyo health-care
institutions and ask construction and factory workers who may
have inhaled asbestos particles to undergo diagnosis with the
kit free of charge.

The group said that those diagnosed with the antibody have to
undergo further checkups at the university.

Juntendo Hospital, a university affiliate, opened an outpatient
department for mesothelioma in August 2005.

The group further said the 40,000 people in the study would be
asked to undergo periodic checks in every spring and autumn
through 2012.

An increasing number of people are considered susceptible to
developing mesothelioma because imports of asbestos, used
chiefly in building materials, peaked in the mid-1970s.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Education Board, Nova Dev't. Fined $6T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of New Jersey has issued a US$6,000 penalty to the
Bayonne Board of Education and contractor Nova Development Group
for violations of the New Jersey Asbestos Hazard Abatement Code,
The Jersey Journal reports.

The breaches stemmed from the removal of asbestos from a pipe
during construction of an addition to the Walter Robinson School
in summer 2006.

Representatives of New Brunswick, N.J.-based Nova Development
denied the firm did the removal work.

According to the state Department of Community Affairs, the
Bayonne school district was fined US$4,500 for:

-- Failing to apply for a permit before it hired Nova
Development;

-- Failing to have the asbestos removal work supervised by an
asbestos safety control monitoring company; and

-- Failing to notify the building's occupants in writing 20
business days before work began.

DCA fined Nova Development US$1,500 for:

-- Failing to provide for proper monitoring of the asbestos
removal;

-- Failing to provide a certified asbestos safety technician at
the work site; and

-- Failing to conduct mandated air sampling during the removal
of friable asbestos from the work site.

Nova attorney Ron Steinvurzel said, "Nova never performed any
work at Robinson School, had no request to do any work there,
had no proposal for any work to be done there, has no invoices,
has received no payment, has no record of any of its employees
doing work there."

The state shut down work on the Robinson addition on July 19,
2006, after the pipe at issue tested positive for asbestos. The
school board then hired a state-approved environmental
contractor to clean the area and the state allowed work on the
addition to continue. The addition opened in the fall of 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Program Assists Libby Locals on Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Environmental Protection Agency program, which is under
development, provides emergency assistance to Libby, Mont.,
residents faced with unplanned encounters with asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite, The Western News reports.

Local EPA project manager Mike Cirian said help is also
available to homeowners planning remodeling projects that might
lead to vermiculite exposure.

Since Mr. Cirian began piloting the program in November 2006, he
has responded to several emergency calls.

Mr. Cirian said the pilot program is helping define what will
become a permanent "environmental resource specialist" position.

Details like the necessary budget, training and equipment are
still being worked out.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's $157M Net Income Reflects Obligation
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., for the 2004-4th quarter, recorded US$157
million net income, or US$0.94 a share, which includes an
aftertax charge of US$3 million, or US$0.02 a share, to reflect
the net increase in the current value of its obligation under
its proposed asbestos settlement agreement reported in May 2002,
according to a Company press release dated Jan. 18, 2007.

That compares with 2005-4th quarter net income of US$113
million, or US$0.68 a share. The US$113 million net income
included US$3 million, or US$0.02 a share, to reflect the net
increase in the value of the Company's obligation under its
proposed asbestos settlement agreement. Sales were US$2.5
billion.

For the 2006-4th quarter, the Company reported record sales of
US$2.8 billion, surpassing 2005-4th quarter record sales by 11
percent.

For all of 2006, the Company recorded net income of US$711
million, or US$4.27 per share, including US$17 million, or
US$0.10 a share, to reflect the net increase in the current
value of the Company's obligation under the proposed asbestos
settlement agreement.

Net income also included aftertax earnings of US$24 million, or
US$0.14 cents a share, for insurance recoveries. Sales for 2006
were US$11 billion, a record for any year.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's Claims Settlement Totals $557M at 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc.'s current settlement for asbestos-related
claims, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was US$557 million, compared with
US$472 million as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a Company press
released dated Jan. 18, 2006 reported to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current settlement for
asbestos-related claims was US$561 million. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 27, 2006)

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos settlement
was US$332 million, compared with US$385 million as of Dec. 31,
2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos-related
settlement was US$327 million. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 27,
2006)

For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
US$5 million net asbestos settlement, compared with US$6 million
for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the six months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
US$28 million net asbestos settlement, compared with US$22
million for the six months ended Dec. 31, 2005.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Tyco Int'l. Drop to 5,250
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about
5,250 asbestos-related liability cases pending against it and
its subsidiaries, according to a Company registration statement,
on Form S-1, dated Jan. 18, 2007.

As of Sept. 29, 2006, the Company recorded about 15,500 asbestos
liability cases pending against it and its subsidiaries. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006)

The Company and some of its subsidiaries are named as defendants
in personal injury suits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing materials. Most cases have been filed against
subsidiaries in healthcare and engineered products and services.
Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the Company announced that its board of
directors had approved a plan to separate Tyco International
Ltd.'s businesses into three independent, publicly-traded
companies: one for its healthcare businesses (Tyco Healthcare),
one for its electronics businesses (Tyco Electronics), and one
for its fire and security and engineered products and services
businesses (Tyco International).

Based in Princeton, N.J., Tyco International Ltd. provides
electronic security, fire and safety services and products,
valves and controls and other industrial products. The Company
also makes steel pipe and tubular products and provides services
to infrastructure markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Records 9,900 Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco Healthcare Group, as of Sept. 29, 2006, recorded about
9,900 asbestos liability cases pending against its subsidiary
Mallinckrodt Inc., according to a Company registration
statement, on Form S-1, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 18, 2007.

Mallinckrodt faces personal injury suits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials. The Company has
observed an increase in the number of these suits in the past
several years.

Most cases involve product liability claims, based on
allegations of past distribution of products with asbestos. A
limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on
claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property.

Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in
addition to Mallinckrodt. The Company's involvement in asbestos
cases has been limited because Mallinckrodt did not mine or
produce asbestos. Furthermore, a large percentage of these
claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts.

The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims. When appropriate, the
Company settles claims. However, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial.

Headquartered in Mansfield, Mass., Tyco Healthcare Group
develops, manufactures and distributes medical devices and
supplies, diagnostic imaging agents, pharmaceuticals and other
healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Subway Exposes Passengers to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections conducted by Seoul Metro on 30 Korean subway
stations, in November 2006, revealed that 17 stations had
asbestos in the ceilings and platforms, The Korea Times reports.

Among the 17 stations, 14 stations were on Subway Line 2: City
hall, Euljiro Ipgu, Sangwangshimni, Hanyang University, Samsung,
Sollung, Seoul National University of Education, Socho, Pangbae,
Naksongdae, Pongchon, Mullae, and Youngdungpogu office.

Asbestos was also found in the air at Chungmuro of line three
and Sungshin Women's University and Sookmyung Women's University
stations.

This is the first time asbestos has been found in passenger
sections of subway stations. The material is said to absorb
noise, and stations used it on facilities to lessen the noise
and vibration from trains.

Professor Lim Sang-hyuk, of Wonjin Green Hospital, said, "The
health of subway workers and passengers is actually in danger.
But people are not as aware of the danger as they are for
radioactivity."

Seoul Metro said that asbestos used in construction is usually
solid and safe at most times, but the aging of facilities might
have caused the problem. A Company spokesman said, "We will
conduct monthly air quality audit from this year, and also
gradually get rid of the asbestos."

In the United States or European countries, asbestos is banned
from use. In Korea the use will be banned from industrial sites
from 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Supreme Court Mulls Rules for Juries
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Supreme Court, on Jan. 17, 2007, held a public
hearing to consider proposals aimed at giving jurors more
information to help them render fair, impartial verdicts, The
Associated Press reports.

The Court heard mixed testimony on whether to retain a rule
prohibiting suits filed by people alleging exposure to asbestos
from being combined.

Some asbestos lawyers said the Court was trying to fix a problem
that does not exist and tying trial judges' hands. However,
others said there are instances where cases filed by sick
patients and those without symptoms are "bundled" and then
settled or tried together.

Supporters of the rule said that some suits are used as leverage
to resolve other cases when every case should be considered on
its own merits.

Lawyers who showed up to testify opposed some of the proposals,
particularly letting judges schedule expert testimony in an
order that some say may help jurors better understand complex
issues. Judges also could allow experts to question each other
during panel discussions heard by jurors.

The Court also heard testimony on a rule to shield public access
to records the State Bar of Michigan maintains for some of its
internal programs, unless ordered by a court or under subpoena.

The Court is under no timetable to act on any of the rules, and
it could decide to not adopt them.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Railway Worker Wins Payout for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Stead, of Yorkshire in the United Kingdom, has won an
undisclosed sum in compensation from British Rail after he was
diagnosed with pleural thickening, which is caused by exposure
to asbestos, Evening Post reports.

Mr. Stead, 65 years old, was exposed to asbestos as an
apprentice plumber while working for British Rail from 1956 to
1957 at various stations around Yorkshire. He was 16 when he was
charged with stripping out asbestos-laden pipes from old boiler
houses.

Mr. Stead was given no protection from the dust, which can often
lead to lethal lung conditions like mesothelioma and asbestosis.

Mr. Stead contacted personal injury lawyers Thompsons Solicitors
after getting in touch with Ridings Asbestos Support and
Awareness Group.

RASAG, a registered charity, provides free advice and support to
people and their families throughout Yorkshire who have been
affected by asbestos.

Solicitor Helen Tomlin, of Thompsons Solicitors' Leeds office,
said, "We are pleased to have won compensation for Mr. Stead who
was exposed to asbestos through the negligence of his
employers."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Has $61M Insurance Recoveries in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., for the 2006-4th quarter,
recorded US$61 million in asbestos insurance recoveries, pretax,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2007.

For the 2006-4th quarter, the Company recorded US$40 million in
asbestos insurance recoveries, aftertax. Amount per share of the
insurance recoveries was US$0.04.

The US$61 million insurance recoveries related to asbestos
litigation expenses incurred by the Company in prior periods.

Based in Wilmington, Del., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. is a
science-based products and services company. Operating in more
than 70 countries, the Company offers innovative products and
services for markets including agriculture and food, building
and construction, communications, and transportation. The
Company was founded in 1802.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Bars Brayton Purcell From Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harry A. Hanna of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in
Cleveland, Ohio has barred the law firm Brayton Purcell from an
asbestos-related suit, saying that one of its lawyers
deliberately misled the Court, Marin Independent Journal
reports.

San Francisco, Calif. attorney Mark Abelson, who represents the
law firm and Brayton Purcell attorney Christopher Andreas, said
Mr. Andreas had stepped down from the case against Lorillard
Tobacco Co.

An unnamed Ohio attorney continued to handle the case brought by
the family of Harry Kananian, a World War II veteran who died of
mesothelioma.

According to a businessinsurance.com report, Judge Hanna, in a
Jan. 18, 2007 ruling, said Mr. Andreas lied about medical
testing on Mr. Kananian's lung tissue, filed false claims to an
asbestos trust regarding Mr. Kananian's exposure in a shipyard,
lied to the Court about his knowledge of amendment of the claim
to the trust, and withheld e-mails showing his involvement in
amending the claim.

Brayton Purcell, a product liability and personal injury law
firm that has won numerous asbestos cases, employs 50 attorneys
and 220 support staffers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Liability Still at $1.7B in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s long-term asbestos-related liability, for the
quarters ended Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, was US$1.7
billion, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 24,
2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability, for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, remained at US$1.7 billion; the
same as for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 27, 2006)

For the quarters ended Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the
Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500
million.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries
and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed for reorganization under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware in order to resolve the Company's
asbestos-related liabilities.

In January 2005, the Company filed an amended plan of
reorganization and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court.

Expenses, net of interest income, related to the Company's
Chapter 11 proceedings were US$17.7 million in the 2006-4th
quarter and US$49.9 million for the full year.

Expenses, net of interest income, related to the Company's
Chapter 11 proceedings were US$11 million for the 2005-4th
quarter and US$30.9 million for the full year.

The expenses reflected a higher level of activity in the
bankruptcy proceeding related to claims adjudication and
estimation.

Most of the Company's non-core liabilities and contingencies,
including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations, are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products to petroleum refiners. With annual sales of more
than US$2.8 billion, the Company has about 6,600 employees and
operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Links Loss to $16.7M A&E Development
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corp.'s underwriting loss in 2006 included US$16.7
million, US$31.3 million in 2005, of loss reserve development on
asbestos and environmental exposures and related reinsurance bad
debt, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 24, 2007.

The increase in A&E reserves in both years was a result of the
completion of the Company's annual review of these exposures
during the 2006-3rd quarter and 2005-3rd quarter.  

During these reviews, the Company noted an increase in the
severity of losses on reported claims, which caused the Company
to increase its estimate of ultimate loss reserves for A&E
exposures.

Based in Glen Allen, Va. Markel Corp. markets and underwrites
specialty insurance products and programs to various niche
markets. The Company's subsidiaries include Essex Insurance Co.,
Shand Professional/Products Liability, Markel Insurance, and
Markel Southwest Underwriters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Posts $139M Gain for PCC Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc.'s 2006-4th quarter results included a US$139
million pretax and after-tax gain to reflect the decrease in the
market value of Corning common stock to be contributed to settle
Pittsburgh Corning Corp.'s asbestos litigation, according to a
Company press release dated Jan. 24, 2007.

On March 28, 2003, the Company said that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the
Company and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or
operations.

The asbestos settlement arrangement to be incorporated into the
PCC reorganization plan, when it becomes effective, will require
the Company to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute
its equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe, and 25 million
shares of Corning common stock to a trust.

In March 2003, the Company also agreed to make cash payments
with a value of US$131 million over six years from the effective
date of the settlement and to assign insurance policy proceeds
from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance
at the time of the settlement.

In the 2006-4th quarter, the Company recorded a credit of US$139
million, and a charge of US$14 million in the 2005-4th quarter,
to reflect changes in the estimated fair value of the components
of the settlement offer.

In the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a
credit of US$2 million, and a charge of US$218 million in the 12
months ended Dec. 31, 2005, to reflect the changes in the
estimated fair value of the components of the settlement offer.

Based in Corning, N.Y., Corning Inc., once known for its
kitchenware and lab products, now provides optical fiber, cable
products, and communications network equipment. Its display
technologies unit produces glass substrates for flat-panel
displays. Other business segments include environmental
technologies and life sciences.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $577M in 4Q for Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve, as of
Dec. 31, 2006, was US$577 million, compared with US$512 million
as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a Company press release dated
Jan. 24, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$585 million as
non-current asbestos litigation reserve, compared with US$521
million for the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 3, 2006)

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
insurance reserve was US$440 million, compared with US$363
million for the same period in 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
insurance receivable was US$444 million, compared with US$370
million for the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 3, 2006)

Based in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. has four business units:
Ashland Distribution, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland
Water Technologies, and Valvoline. In 2006, the Company sold its
construction unit APAC to Oldcastle Materials for US$1.3
billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Carpenter Pleads Guilty to CAA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Chick, a Cayuga County, N.Y.-employed carpenter, on Jan.
24, 2007, has pleaded guilty before the U.S. District Court to
an asbestos-related charge that he committed conspiracy to
violate the federal Clean Air Act, The Citizen reports.

Mr. Chick, 64 years old, admitted to illegally removing and
ordering the removal of asbestos material from the Cayuga County
Board of Elections building in February 2006.

Paul Carey, Mr. Chick's attorney, said his client was a man with
a 10th-grade education who was following orders from superiors.
He claimed that the decision to illegally remove a county boiler
and pipes covered with asbestos in February 2006 was made by
county higher-ups who "apparently wanted to cut costs."

County Manager Wayne Allen said, "We cannot speculate on Mr.
Chick's statements that others were involved. We will know the
facts when these investigations are completed. I can assure you,
the County has been taking the necessary steps to prevent
anything like this from happening again."

Mr. Chick could face up to five years in prison and three years
of supervised release when he is sentenced on June 5, 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Favors Stephens in Insurers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nicholas Marston, of the Swindon County Court in the
United Kingdom, ruled that widow June Stephens could claim for
compensation despite heavy resistance from insurers, This Is
Wiltshire.co.uk reports.

Brigitte Chandler, of Swindon law firm Charles, Lucas and
Marshall solicitors, won the right to take action even though
the compensation application was made too late.

In March 2003, Jack Stephens died after developing asbestosis.
He had worked across the country as a ceiling fixer for
Anderson, Firmin & Collins and had worked putting up asbestos
tiles in numerous stores and supermarkets.

Mr. Stephens was first diagnosed with asbestosis in 1997 but did
not take any legal action because he was told the company was in
liquidation and believed there would be no money to pay him any
damages.

Mrs. Stephens was then told that any personal injury claim had
to be brought within three years of diagnosis.

However, Mrs. Chandler managed to find insurers who were
responsible for employer liability claims for the Andersons and
decided to apply to the court to bring a claim out of time.

At a Dec. 14, 2006 court hearing in Swindon, Mrs. Stephens was
represented by Mrs. Chandler.

The insurance firms responsible for liabilities incurred by
Anderson, Firmin & Collins argued that Mrs. Stephens claim had
been brought too late.

However, on Jan. 23, 2007, Judge Marston decided that Mrs.
Stephens can pursue her claim and has given permission to Mrs.
Chandler to pursue the case.

Anderson, Firmin & Collins had central offices in London, with
contractors working around the U.K.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Worker Sues 89 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Danny Westerman, of Wyoming, sued 89 defendant
corporations in an asbestos-related lawsuit on Jan. 19, 2007 in
Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

According to the suit filed by his daughter Justina Reilly, Mr.
Westerman was allegedly exposed to asbestos while employed as a
laborer, railroad worker, telephone line installer, welder, and
maintenance worker from 1965 to 2005.

Several defendants include AT&T Inc., Bondex Inc.,
DaimlerChrysler Corp., The Dow Chemical Co., Ford Motor Co.,
General Electric Co., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., John Crane
Inc., Riley Stoker Corp., Sears, and Thyssenkrupp Budd Co.

The suit also claimed Mr. Westerman was exposed to asbestos
fibers and dust that his father would bring home on his clothes
after working. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in September
2005 and died on Feb. 15, 2006.

Mrs. Reilly claimed her father was also exposed to asbestos
during non-occupational work projects including home and
automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

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

Mrs. Reilly claimed the defendants:

-- Included asbestos in their products when they knew asbestos
fibers would have a highly deleterious effect on the health of
people absorbing them,

-- Included asbestos in their products when adequate substitutes
were available; and

-- Failed to provide warnings to people working with or around
asbestos and failed to conduct tests on asbestos-containing
products in order to determine the hazards to workers.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Mrs. Reilly claimed Mr.
Westerman was exposed to fibers with asbestos and developed a
disease that disabled and disfigured him.

Mrs. Reilly also claimed that she has sought, but 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.

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

Mrs. Reilly claimed that Mr. Westerman experienced great pain
and mental anguish, became liable for medical expenses, and lost
large sums of money he otherwise would have earned.

Mrs. She claimed the family has been deprived of his means and
support and has lost the society of Mr. Westerman. She also
claimed the family spent substantial sums of money for his
funeral and burial.

Mrs. Reilly seeks damages in excess of US$700,000, plus punitive
damages in an amount to punish the defendants for their alleged
misconduct.

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

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Royal & Sun from GM Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Circuit Court, on Jan. 23, 2007, ruled that General
Motors Co. is not entitled to coverage for its asbestos and
environmental liabilities, dating back as far as 30 years, thus
dismissing Royal & SunAllliance USA Inc. from the suit,
according to a Company press release dated Jan. 23, 2007.

The Court's decision to dismiss the complaint confirmed R&SA
USA's long-held resolve that GM's case was without foundation
and that the claims presented to R&SA were under policies that
had long since expired.

R&SA USA President and CEO John Tighe said, "We have always been
confident that GM's suit was without merit and should never have
been brought before the Court. Today's ruling validates our
position, and we are pleased that the case has been dismissed."

According to Mr. Tighe, General Motors sued R&SA USA in 2005. GM
mounted a legal and public relations campaign beginning in 2005
to seek to have R&SA USA cover these claims despite having
disclosed for decades to the federal government and others that
it had no coverage.

R&SA USA successfully argued that GM has known for years Royal's
view that there was no coverage available for those claims.

Judge John McDonald of the Michigan Circuit Court in Oakland
County dismissed the suit after two years of intense litigation.

R&SA USA was represented by Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP and,
locally, by Plunkett & Cooney.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Royal & SunAlliance USA Inc. operates
as an insurance company. It was a subsidiary of Royal & Sun
Alliance Insurance Group plc. The Company has announced that it
will be acquired by a group of its management and outside
directors operating under the name Arrowpoint Capital.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Contractor Indicted for CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, on Jan. 23, 2007, indicted Charlie
Powell Jr., the owner of Powell Demolition, and one of his
supervisors, Isaiah Newton, on eight counts of Clean Air Act
violations, nwitimes.com reports.

Mr. Powell, a former Democratic Party chief in the city of East
St. Louis, Ill., is already imprisoned for vote fraud.

Federal prosecutors said that Mr. Powell, 63 years old, and Mr.
Newton, 55 years old, improperly removed and disposed of
asbestos while renovating the vacant 12-story Spivey Building
five years ago. The two also are charged with plotting to skirt
those environmental standards.

The indictment alleged that Mr. Powell, as owner of Powell
Demolition, ordered the removal of pipes wrapped with asbestos
insulation from the building, which dated to 1929, and dumped
them on a sidewalk, knowing the debris had asbestos.

The indictment said that Mr. Powell had hired Mr. Newton to
supervise the renovation, which took place in early 2002.
Workers with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency later
noticed that hundreds of feet of asbestos-wrapped pipes had been
removed.

The Clean Air Act makes it illegal to dump asbestos, a building
material long associated with lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The indictment accuses Mr. Powell and Mr. Newton of:

-- Failing to tell authorities in writing beforehand that they
were going to remove the asbestos,

-- Removing it without an authorized onsite representative, and

-- Failing to adequately wet the fibrous material to keep it
from becoming airborne.

Each count in the indictment is punishable by up to five years
in prison and US$250,000 in fines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.V. Group Continues Fight for Tort Reform
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of business interests called West Virginians for
Fairness is continuing its fight for lawmakers to make some
changes in how asbestos- and silica-based personal injury
lawsuits could be pursued, West Virginia Media reports.

In 2006, the group did not get very far. The 2006 FAIR Act never
got out of committee in the House of Delegates, and the Senate
put it back in committee before voting on it.

Randy Cox, a lawyer and spokesman for the group, said he
believes attitudes have changed about this kind of civil justice
reform since last year.

Mr. Cox said he hopes West Virginia lawmakers will consider
Senate Bill 474, which would require plaintiffs to meet
established medical criteria regarding illnesses related to
asbestos or silica exposure.

Moreover, plaintiffs will have to demonstrate a doctor-patient
relationship with the physician making the diagnosis, which
means that courts would not accept a diagnosis from a doctor
based only on an X-ray.

The West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association said it is willing
to work with the group to reach a compromise on SB474.

In November, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the state's
new asbestos litigation law that required plaintiffs to show
evidence that asbestos was "a substantial contributing factor to
their medical condition" or face dismissal of their lawsuit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Discover Asbestos in Fraternity House
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning crews discovered asbestos in the Phi Kappa Tau
fraternity house ceilings, which were damaged by a broken
sprinkler head, The Daily Californian reports.

Fraternity President Tom Koch said that all 25 residents were
evacuated after a sprinkler head broke, releasing water into the
house and causing damage to the second and third floors as well
as the ceiling of the ground floor.

Mr. Koch said that the house was closed by the city of Berkeley,
Calif. after the asbestos was discovered. Members are now living
in Hotel Durant as there were not openings in the residence
halls.

Mr. Koch said, after gushing for 40 minutes the night of Jan.
15, 2007, the water was shut off, but it had already made its
way to the ground floor. He said, "On the ground floor,
substantial amounts of water in the ceilings caused a partial
collapse of the panels in the dining room, though there was no
structural damage."

Cleaning crews came on Jan. 16, 2007 but asbestos was found in
the damaged ceiling on the ground floor, meaning the members may
not be able to move back in as soon expected.

Mr. Koch said, "Asbestos abatement crews quarantined the
affected areas of the ground floor and removed the ceilings, and
we are now waiting for the exposed structure to completely dry
out so that mold will not be an issue."

Mr. Koch said an estimated five days are required to dry the
building completely. If the asbestos is contained, residents
will be able to move back in during reconstruction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. School Heads Await Testing Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of the Athol High School in Athol, Mass. are awaiting
results of testing done on Jan. 19, 2007, to see if students and
staff face health risks from asbestos contamination,
telegram.com reports.

Concern over asbestos was raised during a recent meeting of the
Athol-Royalston Regional School Committee, and school officials
have been working since to see if the concerns are valid and, if
there is asbestos contamination, what should be done about it.

On Jan. 19, 2007, Superintendent of Schools Anthony T. Polito
said that an asbestos engineer from the company of Tighe & Bond
was performing an inspection of the building, paying attention
to areas pointed out in a visual presentation by Athol Teachers
Association President Robert J. Harris at the School Committee
meeting on Jan. 17, 2007.

Mr. Polito said Tighe & Bond, a Westfield, Mass. engineering
firm, inspected the school in 2004 and had already been asked to
do another inspection, at some point during 2007, when Mr.
Harris brought his concerns to the School Committee.

Representatives from the state Department of Environmental
Protection were also at the school on Jan. 19, 2007 to look into
the matter.

After the asbestos issue was raised, Mr. Polito set up the Tighe
& Bond inspections of the high school and asked School Committee
member Lee E. Chauvette of Athol, Mass. to review a report of
the 2004 inspection of the school and make recommendations as to
what steps the district should take.

Mr. Chauvette said that although he does not have the expertise
or information to say if teachers and students could be harmed
by asbestos contamination in the high school, the 2004 report
does list several areas of concern that have not been dealt with
properly.

In his report to Mr. Polito, Mr. Chauvette said the district has
failed to meet EPA criteria set down in the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act by doing only one inspection since 1996.
The district is required to perform visual inspections of areas
of concern every six months and have a full inspection performed
every three years.

Mr. Chauvette said the district also needs to ensure that all
custodial staff are properly trained about asbestos, and that
yearly notices are sent to staff and students, or their parents,
to inform them of testing, re-inspections, response actions and
other actions connected with the asbestos issue.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SUNRISE SENIOR: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit, seeking class-action status, has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. between Aug. 4, 2005 and June 15,
2006.

The class includes those who owned Sunrise common stock from
2000 through 2006 at the time Sunrise's 2000-2006 Proxy
Statements were circulated to shareholders to solicit their
votes on various matters.

The Complaint alleges that Sunrise and certain of its officers
and directors violated Federal Securities laws.

Specifically, defendants issued materially false statements
regarding the company's stock option plans, its compensation
practices and its financial results.

While Sunrise's common stock traded at artificially inflated
levels, as a result of the misrepresentations, the individual
defendants sold their shares for proceeds of over $34 million.
It is also alleged that defendants had previously manipulated
the company's stock option plans so as to enrich themselves by
"backdating" the stock options they were granted.

On May 9, 2006, Sunrise disclosed a delay in reporting its first
quarter 2006 results and on July 31, 2006, Sunrise revealed it
would restate its financials going back at least to 1999 and
that its prior financial statements could no longer be relied
upon.

Sunrise also admitted it could not file current period financial
statements for the first, second and third quarters of 2006 and
that when it restated its financial results, at least $100
million of previously reported profits from its joint ventures
and real estate sales would be eliminated.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19,
2007, for lead plaintiff approval.

For more information on the suit, contact Wayne T. Boulton and
Nancy A. Kulesa both of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800)
797-5499 (toll-free), E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Website:
http://www.snlaw.net.


                            *********


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, Ma. Cristina Canson, Janice Mendoza,
and Guada Fe Fernandez, 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  * * *