CAR_Public/070209.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 29

                            Headlines


APOLLO GOLD: Faces Allegations of WARN Act Violations in Montana
APPLE COMPUTER: Hearing in iTunes-iPod Tie-up Suit Set March
APPLE COMPUTER: March Hearing Set in "Tucker," "Charoensak"
APPLE COMPUTER: Lead Plaintiff Named in Calif. Securities Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over iBook G4's Logic Board

APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Still Faces Suit Over "Secret Commissions"
ASHBRITT INC: Sued by FEMA Subcontractors Over Cleanup Deal
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Suits Over Stock Option Grants Withdrawn
AVAYA INC: Circuit Court Mulls Appeal on Securities Suit Nixing

AXONYX INC: Seeks to Dismiss Stock Suit Related to Phenserine
BETA STEEL: Union Mulls Suit Over "No Decals" on Hard Hats Rule
BRINKER INT'L: Class Certification in Labor Lawsuit Reviewed
CANADA: Bar Owner Sues Provincial Government Over Liquor Levy
CANADA: Courts Approve Indian Residential Schools Settlement

CHEVY CHASE: Court Allows Appeal on Class Status of "Andrews"
CITIZENS PROPERTY: Faces Fla. Suit Over Hurricane Wilma Damage
CONAIR CORP: Recalls Curling Irons Posing Electrocution Hazard
DM MERCHANDISING: Recalls Bracelets for Lead Poisoning Hazard
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit

FOLLETT CORP: Fla. Students File Lawsuit Over Textbooks' Pricing
GENTEK INC: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Pollution Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Fannie Mae Litigation in D.C.
HOME DEPOT: Faces Fla. Suit Over Damage Waiver Fees Policy
INSWEB CORP: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Lawsuit Settlement

JOE'S CRAB: Accused of Violating Wage, Hour Laws in California
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Employment Lawsuit in California
LL BEAN: Recalls Infant Booties with Zipper Tab that can Detach
LOOKSMART LTD: More Plaintiffs Join "Cisneros" in California
LOOKSMART LTD: Continues to Face Click Fraud Lawsuit in Ark.

NBTY INC: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
NEW YORK: Student Files Racial Profiling Suit Against Police
PRICELINE.COM: Still Faces Suit Over Calif. Tax Law Violations
SALOMON SMITH: Appeals Certification of Metromedia Litigation
SHALOM INT'L: Recalls Children's Rings with High Levels of Lead


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Records 4,800 Cases in 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $37.1M Assets, Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Records $44M Reversal of Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Has $538.6M Liability in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Denies Remand Bid in Viad Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $652.8M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Has $7M Benefit in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Faces About 375 Cases from Ex-Unit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Industries Has $2.2M Net Charge in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Unitrin Reserves $18M for A&E Losses in '06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC in Talks to Settle $6B Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SoKor Ministry to Impose Total Ban by 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. DEP Imposes $31T Fine on Contractor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Upholds Campbell Appeal in Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling for Elliott Turbomachinery Upheld

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Contractor Pleads Guilty to Mishandling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. School Employee Withdraws Payout Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Wins Payout for Wrongful Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inventor Gets AUD2.75M Payout from 2 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie to Add AUD184M to Compensation Plan

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Local Units Spend JPY3.4B in '05, '06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Calls for Changes to Congoleum Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Records 15,500 Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alfa Laval AB Named in 210 Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC Seeks to Settle Derivative Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie OKs AUD4B Settlement Agreement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plan Hearing for Federal Mogul Set on May 8
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capitol Tunnel Workers Seek OSHA Probe
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Childhood Exposure to Cancer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texan to be Jailed 15 Months for Breaches


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALVARION LTD: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Files Pa. Securities Lawsuit
CELESTICA INC: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suit Filing
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suit Filing

LG.PHILIPS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in D.C.


                            *********


APOLLO GOLD: Faces Allegations of WARN Act Violations in Montana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Gold Corp. is facing a purported class action filed May
2006 in U.S. District Court Missoula Division of Montana by 14
former employees at the company's Montana Tunnels mine.

The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 and the Montana Wage Act and
breach of contract.

The allegations relate to the termination of the employees
following the cessation of mining in October 2005.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company gave
deficient WARN Act notice and are seeking damages for back pay
and benefits.

The suit is "Clements et al. v. Apollo Gold, Inc. et al., Case
No. 9:06-cv-00084-DWM-JCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana under Judge Donald W. Molloy with
referral to Jeremiah C. Lynch.

Representing plaintiff Christopher Clements is Brian C.
Bramblett at Meloy Law Firm, P.O. Box 1241, 80 South Warren
Helena, MT 59624, Phone: 406-442-8670, Fax: 442-4953, E-mail:
bbramblett@centurytel.net.

Representing defendant Apollo Gold Inc. are:

     (1) Edward John Butler at Sherman & Howard L.L.C., 90 South
         Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500, Colorado Springs, CO 80903
         U.S., Phone: 719-448-4052, Fax: 719-635-4576, E-mail:
         ebutler@sah.com;

     (2) William Sasz at Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., 90 South
         Cascade Ave., Suite 1500, Colorado Springs, CO 80920,
         U.S., E-mail: wsasz@sah.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: Hearing in iTunes-iPod Tie-up Suit Set March
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
is considering consolidating the class action, "Charoensak v.
Apple Computer, Inc.," (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer,
Inc.) with a similar case, "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc."

Plaintiff filed "Slattery" on Jan. 3, 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on
the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa
and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market
power.  

Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the
Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment
and common law monopolization.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 10, 2005.  A
hearing on the motion took place on June 6, 2005.  On Sept. 9,
2005, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in
part.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005 and the
company filed an answer on Oct. 11, 2005.  

On May 8, 2006, the court heard plaintiff's motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs
for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice
and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two
new plaintiffs Charoensak and Rosen.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.  The hearing on class
certification is set for April 16, 2007.

The court scheduled a hearing on March 5, 2007 to determine
whether to consolidate this case with "Tucker v. Apple Computer,
Inc.," according to Apple Computer's Feb. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-
cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to
Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael David Braun of Braun Law Group, P.C., 12400
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025,
         Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:
         service@braunlawgroup.com;

     (2) Roy A. Katriel of The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C., 1101
         30th Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20007,
         Phone: 202-625-4342, E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com; and

     (3) John J. Stoia, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619)
         231-7423, E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company is Caroline N. Mitchell of Jones Day,
555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415 875 5712, Fax: 415 875 5700, E-mail:
cnmitchell@jonesday.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: March Hearing Set in "Tucker," "Charoensak"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
is considering consolidating purported class actions filed
against Apple Computer, Inc. over the alleged tying of music and
videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods
and vice versa.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action, "Tucker v. Apple
Computer, Inc.," on July 21, 2006, alleging various claims
including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased
on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa
and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market
power.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business &
Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was heard on Nov. 20, 2006.  On Dec. 20, 2006,
the court denied the motion to dismiss.

On Jan. 11, 2007, Apple filed an answer denying all material
allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

The court scheduled a hearing on March 5, 2007 to determine
whether to consolidate this case with "Charoensak v. Apple
Computer, Inc.," according to Apple Computer's Feb. 2, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-
04457-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to
Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is Bonny E. Sweeney of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway,
Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-
231-7423, E-mail: bsweeney@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Robert A. Mittelstaedt of Jones
Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415-875-5710, Fax: 415/875-5700, E-mail:
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: Lead Plaintiff Named in Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York City Employees' Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action filed against
Apple Computer, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Plaintiff filed the purported class action, "Vogel v. Jobs et
al." on Aug. 24, 2006 against the company and certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors alleging
improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain
defendants' profits, failing to properly account for those
grants and issuing false financial statements.

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's stock from Dec. 1, 2005 through Aug. 11, 2006,
and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the court appointed the New York City
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff, according to
Apple Computer's Feb. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05208-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to
Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrice L. Bishop of Stull, Stull & Brody, 10940
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024,
         Phone: 310/209-2468, Fax: (310) 209-2087, E-mail:
         service@ssbla.com; and

     (2) Mary Sikra Thomas of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N.
         Market St., Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone:
         302-622-7000, E-mail: mthomas@gelaw.com.

Representing the defendants is David Malcolm Furbush of
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA
94025, Phone: (650) 473-2600, Fax: (650) 473-2601, E-mail:
dfurbush@omm.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over iBook G4's Logic Board
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. is named a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California over the failure rate of its iBook G4's logic
board.

The suit is "Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.," filed on Nov. 7,
2006 on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers
of the iBook G4.  It claims that the computer's logic board
fails at an abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising).  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other
relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case on Jan. 19, 2007,
according to Apple Computer's Feb. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Alan Vitt v. Apple Computer Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-
07152-GHK-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge George H. King with referral
to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James S. Cahill of Rossbacher Firm, 811 Wilshire Blvd.,
         Ste. 1650, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2666, Phone: 213-895-
         6500, Fax: 213-895-6161;

     (2) Taras Kick of Kick Law Offices, 900 Wilshire Boulevard,
         Suite 230, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-624-1588;
         and

     (3) Kevin P. Roddy of Wilentz Goldman and Spitzer, 90
         Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900, Woodbridge, NJ
         07095, Phone: 732-636-8000, E-mail:
         kevin@hagens-berman.com.

Representing the defendants is Ronald K. Meyer of Munger Tolles
& Olson, 355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560,
Phone: 213-683-9100.


APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. has yet to respond to a purported class
action filed against it in California claiming that defects in
its iPod causes hearing loss to users.

The action, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.," alleges that the
company's iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold
with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold
without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced
hearing loss by iPod users.  

The Birdsong action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  It
asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana
class of iPod purchasers.  

A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed
on Jan. 31, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California asserting California causes of action on
behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the
four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006.   

The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of
California, and the Patterson action was dismissed.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the
Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based
claims equivalent to those in Patterson.  

After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006,
plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second
amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007.  

That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches
of implied and express warranties, violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent
misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-
class.  

The company has until March 1, 2007 to respond to the amended
complaint, according to Apple Computer's Feb. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc., Case No. 6:06-cv-
00159-TLM-MEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with
referral to Judge Mildred E. Methvin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John R. Whaley of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, P.O. Box
         1190, Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: 318-487-9874,
         Fax: 318-561-2591, E-mail: jwhaley@nbalawfirm.com;

     (2) Scott Earl Brady of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson
         Hwy., Ste. B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-925-
         5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
         scott@bradylawfirmllc.com; and

     (3) Christopher K. Jones of Keogh Cox & Wilson, P.O. Box
         1151, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-383-3796, Fax:
         225-343-9612, E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com.


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Still Faces Suit Over "Secret Commissions"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. continues to face a purported class
action that challenges the propriety of alleged "undisclosed
contingent commissions" paid pursuant to certain compensation
arrangements between the company and various insurance
companies.  

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  It was terminated when the company's motion for
summary judgment was granted in early 2002, but was reinstated
in September 2003 when an intermediate appeals court overturned
such a ruling.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 2,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Village of Orland Hills v. Arthur J. Gallagher &
Co., Case No. 00 CH 13855."


ASHBRITT INC: Sued by FEMA Subcontractors Over Cleanup Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashbritt Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi over allegations
it defrauded subcontractors in a federal contract to clean up
debris from Hurricane Katrina through the entire state.

Oreo Debris Inc. is suing on its own behalf and as a
representative party on behalf of all other similarly situated
first tier subcontractors whose payments have been withheld or
retained by Ashbritt.

After hurricane Katrina devastated south Mississippi, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers entered into contract with Ashbritt,
which obligated Ashbritt to collect and dispose of all Katrina
debris in the entire state.

The contract required Ashbritt to furnish a payment bond to
guarantee full payment to first and second tier subcontractors
for all work done.  Ashbritt obtained payment bond from Federal
Insurance Company in the penal sum of $100 million.

Ashbritt contracted much of the work to Oreo Debris and other
members of the class to perform various portions of Ashbritt's
contractual obligations to the Corps of Engineers.  Oreo
performed its contract in early 2006 in the Hattiesburg area.

Ashbritt paid about 90% of the invoices as they were submitted
by Oreo.  The subcontract between Ashbritt and Oreo Debris
allowed Ashbritt to retain 10% of all payments until final
funding by the Corps of Engineers.  In Oreo's cause, the
retainage totals $28,000.

Ashbritt's failure to pay the final 10% retainage to Oreo Debris
is a material breach of the contract, the suit alleged.

Ashbritt's plan and strategy to delay payment until the payment
bond has expired is a willful wanton breach of the contract
justifying an award of punitive damages, it stated.

Questions of fact common to all class members include:

     (a) the existence of "pay upon final funding" clause in all
         of Ashbritt's subcontracts with members of the class;

     (b) Ashbritt's failure to pay all members of the class the
         10% retainage based on "payment on final funding"
         clause;

     (c) whether AShbritt had a secret strategy to delay payment
         until after the payment bond had expired, and

     (d) whether AShbritt's conduct is a willful wanton showing
         malice and a reckless disregard and flaunting of the
         rights of the members of the class payment.

Questions of law common to all members of the class include:

     (a) whether the "payment upon final funding" clauses in
         Ashbritt's contracts are unlawful under the Miller Act
         and void as contrary to public policy;

     (b) whether the "pay on final funding" clause is precedent
         to Ashbritt's obligation to pay; and

     (c) whether the "pay on final funding" clause is unlawful
         under the Miller Act if payment is not made before the
         bond expires.

Oreo Debris requested that the court enter judgment in favor of
it and all members of the class for:

     -- all amounts being withheld by Ashbritt under its
        subcontracts with members of the class pursuant to the
        "pay upon final funding" clause in the contracts;

     -- prejudgment interest and legal fees;

     -- punitive damages; and

     -- all other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.


The complaint was filed Feb. 5.

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?198f

The suit is "United States of America v. Ashbritt Inc. et al.,
Case No: 1:07-cv-00094-LG-JMR," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge Louis
Guirola, Jr. with referral to Judge John M. Roper.

Representing plaintiffs is Michael Farrell of YoungWilliams
P.A., P. O. Box 23059, 2000 AmSouth Plaza, Jackson, MS 39225-
3059, Phone: 601/948-6100, Fax: 601-355-6136, E-mail:
mfarrell@youngwilliams.com.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Suits Over Stock Option Grants Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology Inc. reached an agreement for the dismissal of
lawsuits filed over the company's accounting treatment of stock
option grants.

On Sept. 6, 2006, the company announced that in connection with
the preparation of financial statements for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2006, a subcommittee of independent directors was
appointed to review the company's accounting treatment for stock
option grants for prior years.

Following that announcement, the company and certain of its
officers and directors were named defendants in a purported
federal securities class actions filed in Massachusetts federal
district court, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and
claiming material misstatements concerning its financial
condition and results.

In response to the company's motion to dismiss the complaint,
the parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims with prejudice on Sept. 26, 2006 without any payment by
the company.


AVAYA INC: Circuit Court Mulls Appeal on Securities Suit Nixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Avaya Inc. and certain of its
officers.

In April and May of 2005, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  The actions purport
to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock from Oct. 5, 2004 to Apr. 19, 2005.   

The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by
reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the company relating to the cost of the Tenovis Germany GmbH
integration, the disruption caused by changes in the delivery of
the company's products to the market and reductions in the
demand for the company products in the U.S., and that based on
the foregoing the company had no basis to project the company's
stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005.  Avaya signed an agreement
to acquire Tenovis Germany on Oct. 5, 2004.

The company has been served with a number of these complaints.  
No class has been certified in the actions.  The complaints seek
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.   

In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in October 2005.  Pursuant to a scheduling
order issue by the district court, defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in December 2005.

On Feb. 14, 2006, plaintiff submitted its opposition.  Oral
argument on the Motion to Dismiss took place on Aug. 14, 2006
before Judge Mary L. Cooper.  

On Sept. 28, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.  At the end of October 2006, plaintiff appealed the
court's decision on the motion to dismiss.

The appeal is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Charatz v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
02319-MLC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper with referral
to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann  
         & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ  
         07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail:  
         PSP@njlawfirm.com;

     (2) Andrew Robert Jacobs of Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia  
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901,
         Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,  
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com; and  

     (3) James C. Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,  
         LLC, 475 White Horse Pike, Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909,  
         Phone: (856) 858-1770, Fax: (856) 858-7012, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com.

Representing the defendants are Robert T. Egan and Joseph A.  
Martin of Archer & Greiner, PC, One Centennial Square,  
Haddonffield, NJ 08033, Phone: (856) 795-2121, E-mail:
regan@archerlaw.com and jmartin@archerlaw.com.


AXONYX INC: Seeks to Dismiss Stock Suit Related to Phenserine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Axonyx, Inc., now TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. is seeking to
dismiss an amended complaint in a consolidated securities class
action filed against it in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003 through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive Dr. M. Hausman, and
Axonyx chief executive Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named as
defendants in the lawsuits.  These actions were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.  

Plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was filed on May 26, 2006 and will be
submitted to the court for a decision following the parties'
filing of their legal briefs.

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: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (3) Darren J. Robbins and William S. Lerach of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, (San Diego), 401 B
         Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, May Orenstein and Sigmund
Samuel Wissner-Gross of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP,
(NYC), Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 209-
4800 and 212-209-4930, Fax: 212-938-2804, E-mail:
morenstein@brownrudnick.com and swissnergross@brownrudnick.com.


BETA STEEL: Union Mulls Suit Over "No Decals" on Hard Hats Rule
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some Beta Steel Corp. workers are considering filing a class
action against their employer regarding their right to advertise
their union affiliation, their patriotism, or their
individuality on their hard hats, The Andrea Holecek of
nwitimes.com reports.

According to Andre Joseph, president of International
Longshoremen's Association Local 2038, Beta Steel has forbidden
about 325 members of ILA Local 2038 Beta Division from putting
decals of any type on their company-owned-and-issued hard hats.

He pointed out that the "no-decals" rule was imposed in the past
month as the company issued new blue hard hats to all of its
workers in what Beta Steel officials have told him is an effort
to promote a team image.

Mr. Joseph said that because of Beta Steel's actions, his group
has hired counsel to prepare a complaint with the National Labor
Relations Board, charging that its members' right to freedom of
speech and expression has been violated.  He adds that they are
also considering filing a class action against Beta Steel.


BRINKER INT'L: Class Certification in Labor Lawsuit Reviewed
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals is reviewing the class
certification of a lawsuit against restaurant operator Brinker
International, Inc. that was filed in San Diego County Superior
Court.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the
suit, alleging violations of California labor laws with respect
to meal and rest breaks.  

The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees.  It was certified
as a class action in July 2006 by Judge Patricia A.Y. Cowett.  

The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the
company who are alleging violations of California law mandating
workers' meal and rest breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19,
2006).

The California Court of Appeals stayed all trial court activity
in December 2006 and is currently reviewing the certification of
the class, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Dec. 27, 2006.

Brinker International, Inc. on the Net: http://www.brinker.com.


CANADA: Bar Owner Sues Provincial Government Over Liquor Levy
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian bar owner is launching a class action to recover
liquor levies paid to the provincial government in the past few
years, The Rob Antle of The Telegram reports.

Mike O'Neill, owner of Greensleeves Pub in St. John's, filed
court documents that ask the Newfoundland Supreme Court to
certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of other bar
owners in the province.

According to Ian Patey, a lawyer for Mr. O'Neill, his client has
owned the bar for four and a half years.  He claims that Green
Sleeves may have paid out at least tens of thousands of dollars
over that time period.

Mr. Patey adds that the total claims could run "certainly in the
millions" for all 1,500 establishments that could became part of
the suit.

Information gleaned from budget documents revealed that the
provincial government collected as much as CA$2.6 million
annually in liquor levies prior to 2005.

The province introduced its liquor levy in the 1960s.  Bars,
restaurants, and other licensed establishments were forced to
pay a premium over and above the retail booze price paid by
individuals.

Two years ago, the premium was set at 12 percent on spirits and
wines, and 60 cents per dozen on beer.  In 2005, the government
cut the fee, before axing it last year.


CANADA: Courts Approve Indian Residential Schools Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Eight Canadian courts have approved an agreement that will
compensate former Indian residential school students, who were
victims of abuse, and limit legal liability for the churches
that ran the institutions, The Anglican Journal reports.

Courts in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario, Quebec, Nunavut and the Yukon released decisions in
December and January.  Only one court in the Northwest
Territories has yet to rule.

In his judgment, Ontario Superior Court Justice Warren Winkler
wrote that the parties have asked the courts to "approve, as a
term of the settlement, the combining of all outstanding
litigation relating to the residential schools in a single class
action which will effectively be filed in each jurisdiction in
Canada if approval of the settlement is granted."

Three of the eight courts approved the accord unconditionally,
however, five courts identified issues they want to see
addressed before giving final approval.

It is estimated that there are 15,000 claims outstanding against
the federal government and various church entities, seeking
compensation for abuse suffered in the schools.

Canada and churches including the Catholic, Presbyterian,
Anglican and United Church operated residential schools in
Canada from 1848 until the 1970s.  Their objectives included
separating aboriginal children from their traditional languages
and cultures and their assimilation into non-aboriginal society.

The Merchant Law Group represents 9,000 survivors, which the
firm's Web site says is half of all those who sought justice by
means of class action (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).

                        Settlement Terms

In November 2005, a settlement in principle was reached in legal
proceedings over the schools in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan,
Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Nunavut, British Columbia,
Alberta, and Yukon.  

Approval hearings in the Ontario suit took place before Justice
Warren Winkler in Toronto the week of Aug. 28, 2006.  Ontario
Superior Court approved the deal on Dec. 15, 2006.  

The settlement provides:  

     -- at least CA$1.9 billion available for "common
        experience" payments to former students who lived at one
        of the schools.  Payments will be CA$10,000 for the
        first school year (or part of a school year) plus
        CA$3,000 for each school year (or part of a school year)
        after that;  

     -- a process to allow those who suffered sexual or serious   
        physical abuses, or other abuses that caused serious   
        psychological effects, to get between CA$5,000 and
        CA$275,000 each.  Students could get more money if they
        also show a loss of income; and  

     -- money for programs for former students and their   
        families for healing, truth, reconciliation, and   
        commemoration of the residential schools and the abuses   
        suffered: CA$125 million to the Aboriginal Healing
        Foundation, CA$60 million to research, document, and
        preserve the experiences of the survivors, and CA$20
        million for national and community commemorative
        projects (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2006).  

The government will pay lawyers representing former students up
to approximately CA$100 million in fees, plus costs and taxes.

The compensation will only be paid out to former students who
were still living on May 30, 2005, and who have attended
recognized Indian residential schools.  

Students who are eligible can apply for an advance payment of
CAD$8,000 by filling out a form available on the Indian
Residential Schools Resolution Web site (http://www.irsr-
rqpi.gc.ca/) or by calling 1-800-816-7293.   

For more information, contact Residential Schools Settlement   
Administrator, Phone: +1-888-842-1331 Ext. 247.

The Merchant Law Group on the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com/.


CHEVY CHASE: Court Allows Appeal on Class Status of "Andrews"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chevy Chase Bank has been allowed to file an expedited appeal on
a class certification of a lawsuit alleging that the bank
violated the federal Truth-In-Lending Act by misleading
borrowers into thinking they were getting rates lower than those
actually charged.

                        Case Background

Homeowners Susan and Bryan Andrews of Cedarburg filed a lawsuit
on April 20, 2005.  Attorney Kevin J. Demet of Milwaukee in the
case represented the couple.

The suit revolves around so-called option ARMs, an adjustable-
rate mortgage that carries an introductory rate of as low as 1
percent and gives borrowers multiple payment choices.

These choices typically include a minimum payment, which is set
at the start of each year, an interest-only payment and the
standard payment on a 15-year or 30-year mortgage.

However that teaser rate is in effect for only a short period,
typically one to three months.  After that, the rate on the loan
can jump above 5 percent or 6 percent and continue to rise as
short-term interest rates move higher.

Option ARMs are considered particularly risky because borrowers
who elect to make the minimum payment can see their loan balance
grow, also known as negative amortization. Some borrowers say
they weren't clearly informed of these features.

Mrs. Andrews, a registered nurse, and her husband, Bryan, a
carpenter, refinanced their $191,000 mortgage into an option ARM
last year after receiving a promotional mailing offering a
mortgage with a 1.95 percent rate.

In January, Judge Lynn Adelman granted class-action status to
the lawsuit.  The judge also ruled that the couple who sued
could rescind their adjustable-rate mortgage with Chevy Chase
Bank, because the bank failed to clearly explain how the loans
would work.

According to the judge's decision and order document, "When the
Andrewses took out a refinance loan of about $190,000 with Chevy
Chase Bank in 2004, they believed the interest rate of 1.95% was
fixed for five years, as was the $701 minimum monthly payment.
However, that rate turned out to be a "teaser" rate that applied
only to the first month, and the rate then increased every
month.  As a result, an "ever-increasing" portion of the minimum
monthly payment was needed to cover interest, and the payment
itself soon became insufficient to cover interest that accrued."

However, in its appeal, the bank argues that the terms were
clearly stated in the contract and that the family should take
any grievance to the mortgage broker who sent the original sales
flier and acted as an intermediary between them and the bank.

The suit is "Andrews et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case No.
2:05-cv-00454-LA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge Lynn Adelman.

Representing plaintiffs are Donald M. Demet and Kevin J.
Demet of Demet & Demet, SC, 815 N. Cass St., Milwaukee, WI
53202, Phone: 414-291-0800, Fax: 414-291-9560, E-mail:
ddemet@demetlaw.com and KDemet@Sprintmail.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Michael J. Aprahamian of Foley & Lardner, LLP, 777 E.
         Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300, Phone: 414-
         297-5516, Fax: 414-297-4900, E-mail:
         maprahamian@foley.com; and

     (2) David J. Cynamon of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman,
         LLP, 2300 N. St. NW Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 202-
         663-8492.


CITIZENS PROPERTY: Faces Fla. Suit Over Hurricane Wilma Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hurricane Law Group commenced a class action in the Dade
County Circuit Court on behalf of Miami-Dade and Broward County
residents whose homes were insured by Citizens Property
Insurance Corp.

The complaint alleges that Citizens failed to pay and/or
properly adjust claims in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties by
ignoring the Florida Building Code's requirements with regard to
the replacement of windows, which in this case were damaged or
destroyed by Hurricane Wilma.  These requirements necessitate
replacing hurricane-damaged windows with either high impact
glass or non-impact glass and a hurricane shutter.  Citizens
allegedly disregarded the Florida Building Code in its claims
adjustment, and policyholders were only paid to repair their
damaged windows with simple glass window replacements.

As a result tens of thousands of Floridians were underpaid for
their Hurricane Wilma losses and are now at risk should another
storm strike South Florida, the complaint stated.  The lawsuit
charges that Citizens' actions are negligent and evince a
reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the residents of
Florida.

The Florida Building Code was created after Hurricane Andrew to
protect Miami-Dade and Broward County residents from wind
damage.  

"This is a public safety issue that impacts all of South
Florida," stated Paul Berger, Managing Attorney of the Hurricane
Law Group.

"Homeowners relied upon Citizens' adjusters to conduct fair and
honest damage evaluations after Hurricane Wilma.  They used
these evaluations and the monies paid by Citizens under them to
repair their home.  We believe that these damage evaluations
were intentionally incorrect and shows Citizens' utter disregard
for the safety of South Floridians," continued Berger.

The Hurricane Law Group strongly suggests that all South
Floridians who suffered damages from Hurricane Wilma review
their insurance claim summaries to see if they were underpaid by
their insurance company.

For more information, contact Paul Berger of Hurricane Law
Group, Boca Raton, Phone: 561-208-5610, E-mail:
paul@hurricanelawgroup.com.


CONAIR CORP: Recalls Curling Irons Posing Electrocution Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conair Corp., of Stamford, Connecticut, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
322,000 curling irons.

The company said the handle of the curling iron can come apart
exposing its line cord, posing a shock or electrocution hazard
to consumers.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves ceramic, gold-matte finish curling irons.
The irons have a 1, 1 1/4 or 1 1/2-inch barrel, metal counter
rest, vertically placed ON-OFF buttons, and a heat set dial that
ranges from 0 to 30.  A four-digit date code can be found on the
plug prong.  Date codes included in this recall range from
November 2005 through July 2006 (ex. 0706).  The name "Conair"
is printed on the handle of the iron.

These recalled curling irons were manufactured in China and are
being sold at discount retailers and drug stores nationwide
during January 2006 for about $25.

Picture of the recalled curling irons:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07097.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
curling iron and contact Conair to receive a free replacement.

For additional information, contact Conair at (800) 687-6916
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.conair.com/ironrecall.html


DM MERCHANDISING: Recalls Bracelets for Lead Poisoning Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
DM Merchandising Inc., of Elmhurst, Illinois, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 86,400 Children's "Ultra Gear" Bracelets.

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

The recalled bracelets are 8-inch long, silver-colored chain
bands that have a 1 1/2 -inch long casting with assorted
designs, including a snake and a sword.

These recalled "Ultra Gear" bracelets were manufactured in China
and are being sold at U.S. Gifts stores, dollar stores and small
discount stores nationwide from July 2004 through January 2007
for about $1.

Picture of recalled "Ultra Gear" bracelets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07099.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take this jewelry away from
children.  Consumers should return the recalled jewelry to the
store where purchased or contact DM Merchandising for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact DM Merchandising at (800)
548-6784 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.dmmerchandising.com.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
dismissed the amended complaint in the securities fraud class
action against Faro Technologies, Inc., with leave to file an
amended complaint.

"We were hopeful that the court would rule in our favor, and we
are pleased that it did," FARO President and CEO Jay Freeland
said.

On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical
securities fraud suits were filed against the company and of its
certain officers.

On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and
Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead
plaintiff.

On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint against the company and the individual
defendants.

The amended complaint also names Grant Thornton LLP, the
company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an
additional defendant.
  
In the amended complaint, Kornitzer seeks to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004
and March 15, 2006.

On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant
made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during
the class period in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Kornitzer suit alleges:

      -- that the company's reported gross margins and net  
         income were knowingly overstated as a result of  
         manipulation of the company's inventory levels;

      -- that the company failed to disclose deficiencies  
         associated with the company's implementation and use of  
         its enterprise resource planning system and material  
         requirements planning system;

      -- made false and misleading statements regarding the  
         company's internal controls;

      -- failed to disclose the fact that the company was  
         accruing commissions and bonuses which would have a  
         material, adverse effect upon the company's  
         profitability; and  

      -- improperly reported sales and net income based, in  
         part, on sales and new orders obtained in violation of  
         the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 31, 2006.  On Aug. 30, 2006, Kornitzer filed its memorandum
in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the parties' counsel presented oral argument
on the motion to dismiss to the court, which has yet to rule on
it (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

On January 12, 2007, an U.S. magistrate judge issued a Report
and Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed, as against
all defendants, with leave to re-plead.

As to FARO and the individual defendants, the Report and
Recommendation primarily was based on the magistrate judge's
findings that the Complaint failed to adequately allege:

     (i) scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely
         reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and

    (ii) that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions
         actually caused economic loss.

On February 3, 2007, the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation, and set a February 22, 2007 deadline for the
plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to attempt to state
claims "in a fashion sufficient to establish each claim".

The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al, Case
No. 6:05-cv-01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District Court of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway
and with referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John F. Edgar and John M. Edgar of Edgar Law Firm, LLC,
         4520 Main St., Suite 1650, Kansas City, MO 64111, US,  
         Phone: 816/531-0033, Fax: 816/531-3322, E-mail:
         jfe@edgarlawfirm.com and jme@edgarlawfirm.com.

     (2) Patrick A. Klingman, Karen M. Leser, James E. Miller,
         James C. Shah, Nathan Zipperian and Scott R. Shepherd  
         of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone: 860-
         526-1100, 610-891-9880 and 954-943-9191, Fax: 860-526-
         1120, 610-891-9883 and 954-943-9173, E-mail:
         pklingman@sfmslaw.com, kleser@sfmslaw.com,     
         jmiller@sfmslaw.com, jshah@classactioncounsel.com,
         nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com and  
         sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com.

Representing the defendants are:
  
     (i) Richard S. Davis and Robert A. Scher of Foley &  
         Lardner, LLP, Phone: (407) 244-3260 and (212) 682-7474,  
         Fax: (407) 648-1743 and (212) 687-2329, E-mail:
         rdavis@foley.com; and

    (ii) Daniel A. Casey and Jeffrey T. Kucera of Kirkpatrick &  
         Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd.,  
         Suite 2000, Miami, FL 33131-2399, Phone: 305-539-3324  
         and 305-539-3322, Fax: 305-358-7095, E-mail:
         dcasey@klng.com and jkucera@kl.com.


FOLLETT CORP: Fla. Students File Lawsuit Over Textbooks' Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Daytona Beach Community College students have filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against Follett Corp., accusing the company of
overcharging for textbooks, the Daily Kent Stater reports.

The five-count complaint alleges breach of the contract between
Follett and the college, violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and a civil conspiracy.

Co-plaintiffs Thomas Rebman and Danny Brandner accuse Follett of
unfair and illegal pricing practices and sought to recover at
least $5 million in damages.  They have charged the Follett
Higher Education Group and Daytona Beach Community College of
overcharging students pennies on each used-book sale and
underpaying them when buying books back.

Follett, the company that contracts with Buena Vista
University's Lehnus Campus Bookstore, is being charged with
rounding book prices up to the nearest quarter.

Company spokesperson Pam Goodman has gone on record saying that
the Daytona Beach Community College case is an isolated
incident.  According to an Orlando Sentinel article, Goodman
says that the company uses "different pricing" approaches at
their stores.

A federal judge is still deciding whether the case against
Follett qualifies as a class action.

The suit is "Rebman et al. v. Follet Higher Education Group,
Inc. et al., Case No: 6:06-cv-01476-JA-KRS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
John Antoon II, with referral to Judge Karla R. Spaulding.

Representing defendants are Sanford Lewis Bohrer and Scott D.
Ponce, both of Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell Ave., Suite
3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-5441, Phone: 305/374-8500
or 305/789-7575, Fax: 305-789-7799, E-mail: sbohrer@hklaw.com or
sponce@hklaw.com.

Representing plaintiffs are Robert Sheridan Thurlow of Robert S.
Thurlow, P.A., 415 Canal St., New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168-7009,
Phone: 386/424-1530, Fax: 386/424-1493, E-mail:
dianeeyre@bellsouth.net; and Marc A. Wites of Wites & Kapetan,
P.A., 4400 North Federal Highway, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064,
Phone: 954/570-8989, Fax: 954/354-0205, E-mail:
mwites@wklawyers.com.


GENTEK INC: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California, County of Contra
Costa, granted final approval to a settlement of a class action
filed against Gentek, Inc. over the release of sulfur dioxide
and/or sulfur trioxide from the company's Richmond, California
facility.

Prior to October 2002, lawyers claiming to represent more than
47,000 persons filed approximately 24 lawsuits in several
counties in California state court (Alameda, Contra Costa, San
Francisco superior courts), making claims against the company
and, in some cases, a third party.

The case stemmed from the May 1, 2001 and/or Nov. 29, 2001
releases of sulfur dioxide and/or sulfur trioxide from the
company's Richmond, California sulfuric acid facility.  

The first case was filed in 2001 and subsequent cases were filed
from March through July 2002.  On May 1, 2002, a class action
arising out of the same facts was also filed.  

The lawsuits claim various damages for alleged injuries,
including, without limitation, claims for personal injury,
emotional distress, medical monitoring, nuisance, loss of
consortium and punitive damages.  The company filed a petition
for coordination to consolidate the state court cases before a
single judge.  The petition for coordination has now been
granted and follow-on petitions to add additional cases to the
coordinated proceedings have been granted.  The state court
cases were stayed as a result of the company's reorganization.

Approximately 73,000 proofs of claim were submitted in the
bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of the Richmond claimants,
seeking damages for the May 1, 2001 and/or Nov. 29, 2001
releases.  A preliminary review of the claimant list indicated
that the claimants included most of the plaintiffs in the state
court cases, plus several thousand duplicates and some
additional claimants.

In addition, one class proof of claim was submitted.  A motion
for class certification was filed but the motion was later
withdrawn subject to being re-filed in state court.  The company
filed a motion to lift the automatic stay and discharge
injunction to allow liquidation of the claims to proceed in
California State Court.  That motion was granted upon
stipulation of the parties.

In June 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint that is
intended to supersede the prior pleadings on behalf of
individual plaintiffs.  The Master Complaint seeks damages and
other remedies arising out of the May 1, 2001 and Nov. 29, 2001
releases based upon causes of action, among others, for
negligence, Business and Professions Code Section 17200,
nuisance and trespass.  

The Master Complaint also names:

     -- Latona Associates Inc.;
     -- Matthew Friel, GenTek, Inc.'s chief financial officer at
        the time); and
     -- Paul Montrone, a former director and shareholder of
        GenTek, as defendants.

The class action complaint was also amended in June 2004 to add
these additional defendants.  The company has answered the
complaints.  Since that time, plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss
Mr. Friel from the litigation without prejudice.  Pursuant to
the provisions of its management agreements with Latona and
other applicable provisions, the company is also providing a
defense for Latona Associates Inc., Paul Montrone and Matthew
Friel in connection with the master complaint and amended class
action complaint.

In early October 2005, most of the parties, through their
counsel, reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in
its entirety subject to several conditions, including but not
limited to the execution of a global settlement agreement
binding on all parties and court approval (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 14, 2005).

In light of this agreement, the parties further agreed to stay
further activity in the case pending this settlement process and
the state court accommodated that request.

According to the company's form 10-Q filing for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006, the period during which any class member
could elect to opt out of the class and preliminarily approved
class action settlement expired on March 30, 2006 and no
claimant has opted out of the preliminarily approved settlement.

On May 25, 2006 the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Contra Costa granted the parties' joint motion for an
order granting final approval to the class settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Fannie Mae Litigation in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss a consolidated shareholder
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia against Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae).

                        Case Background

Beginning on Sept. 23, 2004, 13 separate complaints were filed
by holders of the company's securities against the company, as
well as certain of the company's former officers, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and other courts.

The complaints in these lawsuits purport to have been made on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of purchasers of
Fannie Mae securities between April 17, 2001 and Sept. 21, 2004.  

The complaints alleged that the company and certain of the
company's officers, including Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material facts in violation of the federal
securities laws.

Plaintiffs' claims were based on findings contained in Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's September 2004 interim
report regarding its findings to that date in its special
examination of the company's accounting policies, practices and
controls.

All of the cases were consolidated and/or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on March 4, 2005 against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer.  

The court has entered an order naming as lead plaintiffs:

      -- the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, and
      -- State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio

The consolidated complaint generally made the same allegations
as the individually-filed complaints, which is that the company
and certain of the company's former officers made false and
misleading statements in violation of the federal securities
laws in connection with certain accounting policies and
practices.

More specifically, the consolidated complaint alleged that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
largely with respect to accounting statements that were
inconsistent with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principle
requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization
of premiums and discounts.

Plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock.  
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other
fees and costs.  Discovery commenced in this action following
the denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss on Feb. 10,
2006.

On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action filed an amended consolidated complaint against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, that added purchasers of publicly
traded call options and sellers of publicly traded put options
to the putative class and sought to extend the end of the
putative class period from Sept. 21, 2004 to Sept. 27, 2005.

Fannie Mae and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss addressing the extended class period and the deficiency
of the additional accounting allegations.  

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 17,
2006 that is still pending, according to the company's recent
regulatory filing.

On Aug. 14, 2006, while those motions were still pending, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding as
defendants:

     -- KPMG LLP, and
     -- Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc.

The additional defendants and allegations are based on the May
2006 report issued by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight and the February 2006 report issued by Paul Weiss.  

Goldman, Sachs moved to dismiss those claims on Nov. 13,
according to an annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.  
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,  
          (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
          617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
          info@bermanesq.com;
  
      (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite  
          500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone:  
          202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail:
          lawinfo@cmht.com; and
  
      (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513  
          Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,  
          Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax:
          513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Fla. Suit Over Damage Waiver Fees Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot USA, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
accusing it of charging a damage waiver fee that provides no
coverage or benefit.

William Spencer filed the suit individually and on behalf of all
persons who were charged and paid a "damage waiver" to a Florida
Home Depot store, in connection with the rental of tools or
other equipment at any store owned or operated by The Home
Depot, Inc.

The suit is brought under Florida law for actual damages based
on the unlawful policy and practice of Home Depot in regard to
its tool rental business.

Home Depot, operating multiple stores in Florida, has a uniform
policy and practice of automatically assessing a 10% "Damage
Waiver a/k/a Damage Protection" charge on all equipment rentals.

The Damage Waiver has no real value, because its exclusions
negate the protection purportedly provided.  As a result,
plaintiff is entitled to a return of the money paid as a Damage
Waiver pursuant to Florida law.

Plaintiff claims the Damage Waiver purports to protect a
consumer from having to pay for accidental damage to the rented
equipment, but that protection is rendered illusory by several
exceptions.

Indeed, one such exception eliminates the Damage Waiver's
purported protection.  The Damage Waiver will not cover any
damage that results from the "failure to care properly for the
equipment in a prudent manner."

Any accident caused by carelessness (i.e. a lack of "prudence")
would not be covered, yet carelessness is at the heart of almost
every accident, court documents said.

The exception swallows the Waiver, because it would be triggered
by any conceivable "accident."  When combined with the fact that
a consumer is not liable under any circumstances for damage
caused by malfunction, the Damage Waiver is purely illusory, and
truly worthless, the complaint states.

There are questions of law or fact common to the class,
including at least the following:

     (a) whether Home Depot is in breach of its contract, and/or
         in violation of Florida statutory or common law by
         selling a Damage Waiver that has no real value because
         of its attendant exclusions;

     (b) whether Home Depot's practices violate the covenant of
         good faith and fair dealing;

     (c) whether Home Depot has been unjustly enriched;

     (d) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief barring Home Depot from continuing in
         its course of conduct;

     (e) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to other
         equitable relief; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages, and if so, what is the proper measure of
         damages.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, pray for relief and judgment against defendants as
follows:

     -- for an order certifying the class under the appropriate
        provisions of Rule 23, as well as any appropriate
        subclasses, and appointing plaintiffs and their legal
        counsel to represent the class;

     -- awarding actual damages as provided by Fla. Stat.
        Section 501.211(2);

     -- awarding injunctive relief as provided by Fla. Stat.
        Section 501.211(1);

     -- awarding declaratory relief as provided by Fla. Stat.
        Section 501.222(1);

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as
        allowed by law;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for
        the class pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 501.2105 and if
        and when pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits are
        obtained on behalf of the class; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as is just and
        proper.

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

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1992

The suit is "Spencer v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No.1:07-cv-
20284-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Marcia G. Cooke, with referral
to Judge Stephen T. Brown.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Tod N. Aronovitz, Steven R. Jaffe and Christopher Lang
         Marlowe, all of Aronovitz Trial Lawyers, 150 W Flagler
         Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower, Miami, FL 33130,
         Phone: 305-372-2772, Fax: 375-0243, E-mail:
         ta@aronovitzlaw.com or srj@aronovitzlaw.com or
         cm@aronovitzlaw.com; and

     (2) Eric C. Brunick, William M. Sweetnam and Paul M. Weiss,
         all of Freed & Weiss, 111 W Washington Street, Suite
         1331, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-220-0000, Fax: 312-
         220-7777, E-mail: erich@freedweiss.com or
         bills@freedweiss.com or paul@freedweiss.com.


INSWEB CORP: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to approve a proposed settlement of a securities class
action filed against InsWeb Corp. in relation to its July 1999
initial public offering.

A securities class action was filed on Dec. 5, 2001 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
common stock from July 22, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain current
and former officers and directors, and three investment banking
firms that served as underwriters for the company's IPO.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration
statements for the offering failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of our stock
         sold in the offerings; and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated
         shares of the stock sold in the offering to those
         customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional shares of company stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations were made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice.

In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claims in the action
against the company, which is alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but allowed the plaintiffs to
proceed with the remaining claims.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.

The company and most of the other issuer defendants accepted the
settlement proposal.  In September 2005, the court issued an
order providing preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
and set a hearing for April 24, 2006 to consider final approval
of the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, a hearing was held to consider final approval
of the settlement; the Court's ruling on final approval of the
settlement remains pending.

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


JOE'S CRAB: Accused of Violating Wage, Hour Laws in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe's Crab Shack - San Diego, Inc. is facing a purported class
action filed against in the Superior Court of California in San
Diego by a certain Kyle Pietrzak and others similarly situated.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendant violated wage and hour
laws, including the failure to pay hourly and overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods and rest periods, failing to
provide minimum reporting time pay, failing to compensate
employee for required expenses, including the expense to
maintain uniforms, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

In June 2006, the lawsuit was amended to include Kristina Brask
as a named plaintiff and named Crab Addison, Inc. and Landry's
Seafood House - Arlington, Inc. as additional defendants.  The
company denies Plaintiffs' claims.

Landry's Seafood House, Rainforest Cafe, The Crab House,
Charley's Crab, The Chart House and Saltgrass Steak House are
the operating names of Landry's Restaurants, Inc.

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.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Employment Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc. is facing a consolidated labor
lawsuit filed in the state Superior Court in San Bernardino,
California.

Landry's operates primarily under the names Landry's Seafood
House, Rainforest Cafe, The Crab House, Charley's Crab, The
Chart House and Saltgrass Steak House.

On Feb. 18, 2005, and subsequently amended, a purported class
action against Rainforest Cafe, Inc. was filed in the Superior
Court of California in San Bernardino by Michael D. Harrison, et
al.  Subsequently, on Sept. 20, 2005, another purported class
action against Rainforest Cafe, Inc. was filed in the Superior
Court of California in Los Angeles by Dustin Steele, et al.

On Jan. 26, 2006, both lawsuits were consolidated into one
action by the state Superior Court in San Bernardino.  The
lawsuits allege that Rainforest Cafe violated wage and hour
laws, including not providing meal and rest breaks, uniform
violations and failure to pay overtime.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages, including unpaid wages,
reimbursement for uniform expenses and penalties imposed by
state law.  

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.


LL BEAN: Recalls Infant Booties with Zipper Tab that can Detach
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.L. Bean, of Freeport, Maine, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,400
Faux-Shearling Infant Booties.

The company said a small metal zipper tab on the infant booties
can detach posing a choking hazard to young children.

L.L. Bean has received six reports of the metal tab detaching
from the booties.  No injuries have been reported.

The booties are sold in infant sizes 1-6.  The booties were sold
in a tan or pink suede.  They have rubber soles and a zipper
closure at the ankle.  The booties are lined with creme-colored
faux shearling acrylic/polyester fleece.  "L.L. Bean" is printed
in white letters on the soles of the booties.  The size and
stock #BNK1 are printed on a tag inside the booties.

These recalled infant booties were manufactured in China and are
being sold at L.L. Bean catalogs, Web sites and retail stores in
Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Virginia from July 2006 through December 2006 for
about $16.50.

Pictures of the recalled infant booties:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07527a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07527b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07527c.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled booties away from
children immediately and contact L.L. Bean to receive a full
refund.

For more information, contact L.L. Bean at (800) 555-9717 any
time, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.llbean.com


LOOKSMART LTD: More Plaintiffs Join "Cisneros" in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Cisneros v. Yahoo! Inc.," which also names
Looksmart Ltd. as defendant, served an amended complaint naming
additional plaintiffs in the suit.

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed a
private attorney general lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class
in Superior Court in San Francisco County, California.  The
complaint names 13 search engines or Web publishers as
defendants, including the company, and alleges unfair business
practices, unlawful business practices, and other causes of
action in connection with the display of advertisements from
Internet gambling companies.

The complaint seeks restitution, unspecified compensatory
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.  
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction on
Aug. 3, 2004.

On Jan. 3, 2005, the company filed a demurrer to the complaint,
which was overruled on Jan. 27, 2005.  On Jan. 3, 2005, the
company also filed a motion to strike certain allegations
regarding claims for restitution, which was denied in part and
granted in part on May 9, 2005.

The company filed an answer to the complaint on Feb. 28, 2005,
consisting of a general denial of all allegations.  On Oct. 11,
2005, the court conducted a trial on two of the company's
affirmative defenses.  The court held that California public
policy bars the plaintiffs from receiving a portion of their
requested damages.

On Dec. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a
preliminary injunction.  The company filed its response on Feb.
27, 2006.  The court has not yet scheduled a hearing for
plaintiffs' renewed motion, according to the company's form 10-Q
filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.  The court has
allowed certain discovery to proceed with respect to plaintiffs'
renewed motion.  

On or about April 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
their complaint to add additional plaintiffs.  The defendants
filed their opposition to the motion on May 1, 2006.  On or
about May 23, 2006, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their
complaint to name additional plaintiffs.  On or about Sept. 8,
2006, plaintiffs served an amended complaint naming additional
plaintiffs.  The company has since filed a general denial to the
amended complaint.


LOOKSMART LTD: Continues to Face Click Fraud Lawsuit in Ark.
------------------------------------------------------------
Looksmart Ltd. remains as third party defendant in the suit
"Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., v. Yahoo! Inc."

On March 14, 2005 the company was served with a second amended  
class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas.  

The complaint names 11 search engines and Web publishers as  
defendants, including the company.  It alleges breach of  
contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and received,  
and civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts  
allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-
click advertising or "Click Fraud".

Plaintiffs in the second amended complaint are Lane's Gifts and  
Collectibles, L.L.C., U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms,  
Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a  
Caulfield Investigations.  

On March 30, 2005 the case was removed to U.S. District Court  
for the Western District of Arkansas.  On April 4, 2005  
plaintiffs U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. and  
Savings 4 Merchants, Inc. filed a motion of voluntary dismissal  
without prejudice.  The motion was granted on April 7, 2005.  

Plaintiffs Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C. and Max  
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations filed a motion to  
remand the case to state court on April 13, 2005, which was  
granted in June 2005.  

In July 2005, defendants, including the company, petitioned the  
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for an appeal of the remand  
order, and moved to stay the proceedings while the appeal is  
pending.  The petition was denied on Sept. 8, 2005 and the case  
was remanded to the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas.  

The company was served with discovery requests on Oct. 7, 2005.   
It has filed and/or joined motions to dismiss on the basis of  
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, lack  
of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.  

Pursuant to the court's initial scheduling order, plaintiffs had  
until Jan. 27, 2006 to respond to the motions to dismiss for  
lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; and until June  
9, 2006 to respond to the motion to dismiss on the basis of  
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  

However the court entered an order staying all proceedings for a  
period of 60 days on Jan. 9, 2006.  On March 8, 2006, the court  
entered an order extending the stay until March 31, 2006.  

On April 1, 2006, the court further extended the stay until  
April 20, 2006.   

On April 20, 2006 the court preliminarily approved a class  
settlement among plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc., and certain  
defendants who display Google advertisements on their Networks.  

The class settlement purports to release Google of all claims  
and also purports to release certain defendants, including the  
company, for any claims associated with the display of Google  
advertisements on their networks.  On July 24 and 25, 2006, the
Court had a final settlement hearing on the Google Settlement,
and on July 26, 2006, the court approved the settlement.

On April 21, 2006, the court ordered the remaining defendants,  
including the company, to mediation and further stayed the  
proceedings to June 21, 2006.  The court further extended the
stay as to LookSmart until Aug. 16, 2006.  The parties
thereafter stipulated that the stay would remain in effect while
the parties continue to comply with the court's order regarding
mediation.


NBTY INC: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed against NBTY, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

From June 24, 2004 through Sept. 3, 2004, six separate
shareholder class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of shareholders
who purchased shares of the company's common stock between Feb.
9, 2004 and July 22, 2004.  

The actions allege that the company failed to disclose material
facts during the class period that resulted in a decline in the
price of the company's stock after June 16, 2004 and July 22,
2004, respectively.

The court consolidated the six class actions in March 2005, and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Newly appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging a class period from Nov. 10, 2003 to July 22, 2004.

Along with the officers and directors, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the action.  The motion was denied on May 1,
2006, and the matter is now in discovery, according to the
company's Feb. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The suit is "In Re: NBTY, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no.
04-CV-2619," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, under Judge Leonard D. Wexler.

Representing the company are Charles W. Stotter and Robert
Novack of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 750 Lexington Avenue, New York,
NY 10022-1200, USA, Phone: 212-308-4411, Fax: 212-308-4844, E-
mail: Cstotter@edwardsangell.com or Rnovack@ealaw.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Paskowitz & Associates, Phone:
800.705.9529, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com; and Roy Jacobs &
Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000, New York, NY, 10118, E-
mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.  


NEW YORK: Student Files Racial Profiling Suit Against Police
------------------------------------------------------------
New York City and its police department were named as defendants
in a purported class action alleging that officers are illegally
making race-based stops and searches against black males, The
New York Sun reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of Nelson Admee, a 19-year-old
African-American student.

Emmanuel Roy, Mr. Admee's lawyer, said that the suit he filed
was not prompted by the release of police department "stop and
frisk" data, which has been the subject of several news reports
in recent days.

According to the complaint, the lead plaintiff claims to have
been stopped six times by police officers in a span of seven
months.  It states that on one occasion last year in Brooklyn,
the plaintiff was also arrested and held for four days before
being released.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1998

The suit is "Edmee v. New York City et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00514-SJ-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. with
referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the plaintiff is Emmanuel Roy of The Law Offices of
Emmanuel Roy, P.C., 26 Court Street, Suite 2302, Brooklyn, NY
11242, Phone: 718-797-8553, E-mail: nylaw1@gmail.com.


PRICELINE.COM: Still Faces Suit Over Calif. Tax Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com, Inc. continues to face a purported consumer class
action, "Bush, et al. v. Cheaptickets, Inc., et al.," in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, according to the
company's May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Superior Court for County of Los Angeles by Ronald Bush and
three other individuals on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated California consumers against the
company and several of the same defendants as named in "City of
Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al."  

The complaint alleges each of the defendants engaged in acts of
unfair competition in violation of Section 17200 relating to
their respective disclosures and charges to customers to cover
taxes under the above ordinances of the City of Los Angeles and
other California cities, and service fees.  

The complaint seeks restitution, relief for alleged conversion,
including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and imposition of
a constructive trust.  

On July 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
claims pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. and claims for breach of
contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.  

On Dec. 2, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery and ordered
that motions challenging the amended complaint would be
coordinated with any similar motions filed in the City of Los
Angeles action.

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.


SALOMON SMITH: Appeals Certification of Metromedia Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals granted a review of the district
court's decision certifying a plaintiff class in "In Re Salomon
Analyst Metromedia Litigation."

Shareholders sued Citicorp Inc., Citicorp USA, Salomon Smith
Barney and analyst Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
alleging that the defendants issued false and misleading analyst
reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network Inc. stocks.

The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations
that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued
between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived.  The shareholders
moved for certification of a class as to these claims.

Plaintiffs had sought certification of the class as:

     all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     securities of Metromedia from March 8, 2001 through July
     25, 2001, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.  
     Excluded from the Class are Defendants; any director,
     officer, subsidiary, or affiliate of Salomon, Citicorp USA,
     Inc., and/or Citigroup; any entity in which any excluded
     person has a controlling interest; and their legal
     representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.

In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint
must allege with particularity that the defendant made
fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the
sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the
plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss.

Certification requires numerous class members to share common
claims.  The district court granted class certification, ruling
that all elements of Rule 23 were satisfied.  The district court
appointed three law firms as class counsel, finding that the
firms were qualified to adequately represent the interests of
the class.

On June 20, 2006, Judge Gerard E. Lynch granted plaintiff Peter
Carolan's motion for class certification and appointment of
proposed class counsel, and certifies Mr. Carolan as
representative of the class.  Plaintiffs motion to certify the
Technology Associates Management Co. and Techgains I, II, III,
IV and V as class representatives is denied.

The court also certified as class counsel:

     -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP;
     -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP; and
     -- Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw.

A copy of the judge's order and opinion is available at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1032

On Oct. 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted a review of
the district court's decision certifying a plaintiff class,
according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC is the general partner of Shearson
Mid-West.

The suit is 02 Civ. 7966 (GEL) filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  Representing the
defendants are Robert B. McCaw, Peter K. Vigeland, Christopher
J. Meade, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, LLP, New York,
New York.


SHALOM INT'L: Recalls Children's Rings with High Levels of Lead
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shalom International Corp., of New York, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
280,000 Children's "Rachael Rose Kidz" Rings.

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

The children's rings are silver or gold-colored with designs or
stones in a variety of colors.  The rings come four to a
package.  "Kidz by Rachael Rose," "Family Dollar $1" and "SKU
1905580" are printed on the packaging.

These recalled children's rings were manufactured in China and
are being sold at Family Dollar stores nationwide from December
2005 through January 2007 for about $1.

Pictures of the recalled children's rings:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07098a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07098b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these recalled rings
away from children and return them to any Family Dollar store
for a full refund, or contact Shalom International for
information on how to receive a full refund.

For additional information, contact Shalom International at
(800) 359-8162 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, or visit Family Dollar's Web site:
http://www.familydollar.com


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Records 4,800 Cases in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings Inc. recorded 4,800 asbestos-related cases filed
against it in 2006, compared with 9,400 cases in 2005, according
to a Company press release dated Jan. 31, 2007.

In the 2006-4th quarter, the Company recorded a charge of US$10
million (US$10 million, net of tax, or US$0.06 per diluted
share) to increase its asbestos litigation reserve.

The Company estimates that its asbestos liability, for pending
and future asbestos claims, will range between US$198 million
and US$247 million.

After the US$10 million charge, the Company's recorded liability
at Dec. 31, 2006 was US$198 million, compared with US$214
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Asbestos-related payments totaled US$26 million in 2006,
including US$9 million under existing settlement agreements,
compared with 2005 payments of US$29 million, which included
US$13 million under existing settlement agreements.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings Inc. produces consumer
packaging with products including aerosol cans, food and
beverage cans, paint cans, plastic bottles and other containers,
and various metal caps, crown, and closures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $37.1M Assets, Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc., for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
US$37.1 million net asbestos-related assets and liabilities,
compared with US$61.3 million for the 12 months ended Dec. 31,
2005, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 31, 2007.

As part of its reconciliation to ongoing operations, the Company
recorded a US$13 million net income (loss) asbestos expense, net
of insurance settlements, for the three and 12 months ended Dec.
31, 2006.

Based in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. manufactures and
markets chemical specialties globally for making a variety of
products for home, office and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Records $44M Reversal of Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its 4th Quarter results, USG Corp. reported that consolidated
2006 net earnings included a reversal of the reserve for
asbestos-related claims. This reversal, which totaled US$44
million (US$27 million, or US$0.41 per share, after-tax), is
reflected as income in the consolidated statement of earnings,
according to a Company press release, dated Jan. 29, 2007, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company reported 2006-4th quarter net sales of US$1.29
billion and net earnings of US$100 million.

Diluted earnings per share for the 2006-4th quarter were US$1.11
based on 90.1 million average diluted shares outstanding.

For the same period in 2005, the Company recorded net sales of
US$1.34 billion and a net loss of US$1.8 billion, or US$30.92
per share, including a provision for asbestos claims, based on
57.6 million average diluted shares outstanding.

The Company achieved a record US$5.8 billion in net sales for
the full year of 2006, exceeding 2005's record sales by US$671
million, or 13 percent. The Company recorded net earnings of
US$288 million for all of 2006 and reported a net loss of US$1.4
billion for all of 2005, including the asbestos claims-related
provision.

Company Chairman and CEO William C. Foote said, "I am proud of
all that USG accomplished in 2006. We began the year with a plan
to emerge from a five-year bankruptcy and continue building the
USG franchise. We accomplished the plan and much more. We
preserved shareholder value, resolved legacy asbestos
liabilities, repaid creditors in full, reinvested in our three
core businesses and achieved record sales and operating
profits."

Diluted earnings per share for the full year of 2006 were
US$4.33. For the same period in 2005, the Company reported a net
loss of US$25.49 per share.

The Company's 2006 consolidated results included an after-tax
charge of US$325 million, or US$4.88 per diluted share, for
post-petition interest and fees paid under the Company's plan of
reorganization.

In December 2006, USG made the final US$3.05 billion payment to
the United States Gypsum Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement
Trust under the previously announced settlement agreement and
plan of reorganization that enabled the company to emerge from
its reorganization proceedings on June 20, 2006.

The payment was funded using cash on hand, proceeds from the
US$500 million senior note offering completed in November and
borrowings under the bank term loan and tax bridge term loan
facilities established in August. An anticipated federal tax
refund of about US$1.1 billion will be used to repay borrowings
under the tax bridge term loan facility.

Based in Chicago, USG Corp. manufactures and distributes
building systems through its United States Gypsum Co., USG
Interiors Inc., and L&W Supply Corp. subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Has $538.6M Liability in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, had US$538.6 million
long-term asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$572.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a Company press
release dated Jan. 31, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$453.5 million non-
current asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$572.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2005, and US$473 million as of Sept. 30,
2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006)

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$149 million, compared with US$158 million as
of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$149 million current
asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$158 million as of
Dec. 31, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
8, 2006)

For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company made
asbestos-related payments of US$34.9 million, compared with
US$35.9 million for the same period in 2005.

For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company made
asbestos-related payments of US$162.5 million, compared with
US$171.1 million for the same period in 2005.

The Company recorded a non-cash charge of US$120 million (pre-
tax and after tax) to increase the accrual for future asbestos-
related costs.

In 2005, the Company increased its accrual for future asbestos-
related costs by US$135 million, US$86.0 million after tax. As
of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's accrual for future asbestos-
related costs was US$687.6 million.

Based in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois Inc. makes glass
containers, healthcare packaging, and specialty closure systems.
Established in 1903, the Company employs more than 28,000 people
and has 100 manufacturing facilities in 23 countries. In 2006,
annual sales were US$7.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Denies Remand Bid in Viad Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division, denied
Robert E. Ferguson's motion to remand in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed against Viad Corp. and other defendants.

The Court granted Viad's motion to file a sur-reply and the
Court ordered the case transferred to the Asbestos Multi-
District Litigation Panel.

Chief Judge James G. Carr handed down the decision of Case No.
1:06CV10006 on Jan. 30, 2007.

Viad is a successor to the Griscom-Russell Co., which made
evaporators used on naval vessels. As installed on those
vessels, the evaporators, also known as desalinators or
distillers, were encased in asbestos.

Mr. Ferguson was in the Navy during World War II, serving on the
Robert I. Paine, a destroyer escort, from 1943 to 1946. The
Paine was equipped with a Griscom-Russell evaporator, and Mr.
Ferguson worked with that equipment while on board that vessel.

Mr. Ferguson filed suit in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of
Common Pleas. Viad removed the case to this court on the basis
of "federal officer" removal.

Viad contended that the removal was proper because when Griscom-
Russell supplied the evaporators, it did so in accordance with
Navy specifications.
      
Viad has satisfied the standard for federal officer removal. The
motion to remand was denied.

John D. Mismas, Patrick M. Walsh, and Thomas W. Bevan of Bevan
and Associates in Northfield, Ohio, represented Mr. Ferguson and
the other plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $652.8M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
US$652.8 million as long-term asbestos-related liability,
compared with US$673 million as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 1, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos liability
was US$665.5 million. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006)

The Company's long-term asbestos receivable, as of Dec. 31,
2006, was US$336.6 million, compared with US$384 million as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos
receivable was US$381.8 million. (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
20, 2006)

Based in Piscataway, N.J., American Standard Companies Inc.
makes air-conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. The Company employs about 62,000
people and has manufacturing operations in 28 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Has $7M Benefit in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., in the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2006, recorded an after-tax benefit of US$7 million, US$14
million pre-tax, for net favorable prior year reserve
development, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 1,
2007.

The benefit was due to increases to asbestos and environmental
reserves.

The benefit compared with an after-tax charge of US$438 million,
US$657 million pre-tax, for net unfavorable prior year reserve
development in the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Faces About 375 Cases from Ex-Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp., through formerly owned McKesson Chemical Co.
division, faces about 375 cases involving the alleged
distribution of asbestos, according to a Company report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 1,
2007.

These cases involved either single or multiple plaintiffs
claiming personal injuries and unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.

Under an indemnification agreement signed at the time of the
1986 sale of McKesson Chemical Co. to what is now called Univar
USA Inc., the Company has tendered each of these actions to
Univar.

Univar has raised questions concerning the extent of its
obligations under the indemnification agreement, and while
Univar continues to defend the Company in many of these cases,
it has been rejecting the Company's tenders of new cases since
February 2005.

The Company said that it believes Univar remains obligated for
all tendered cases under the terms of the indemnification
agreement.

However, the Company is beginning to incur defense costs in
connection with these more recently served actions.

Based in San Francisco, McKesson Corp. is a pharmaceutical
distributor that operates in three segments: pharmaceutical
distribution, Medical-Surgical Unit, and Provider Technologies
segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Industries Has $2.2M Net Charge in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a net
charge of US$2.2 million related to an update of the asbestos
contingent liability, according to a Company report, on Form 8-
K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 1, 2007.

Based in West Paterson, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. produces
building-block chemicals from which it makes engineered
materials, specialty chemicals, and additives used in treating
water and in industrial processes. In 2006, the Company sold its
water treatment for about US$240 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Unitrin Reserves $18M for A&E Losses in '06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin Inc.'s total asbestos and environmental reserves, in the
Unitrin Business Insurance segment, were about US$18 million at
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report, on Form
10-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 2, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's total A&E reserves, in the
Unitrin Business Insurance segment, were about US$19 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Chicago, Unitrin Inc.'s subsidiaries serve the basic
financial needs of individuals, families and small business by
providing property and casualty insurance, life and health
insurance, and consumer finance services. The Company was
incorporation in Delaware in 1990.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC in Talks to Settle $6B Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC is in talks with federal regulators and several
states about the possibility of settling more than US$6 billion
in environmental claims, including asbestos claims, that the
Company faces in Texas federal bankruptcy court, Arizona Daily
Star reports.

However, the Company asked the Court to sort out how much it may
actually owe to clean up the toxic legacy of its mining,
smelting, and other operations at nearly 100 sites in the United
States.

The Court is already set to review more than 95,000 asbestos-
related claims that could be worth between US$500 million and
US$1 billion.

The Company has turned over more than 2 million documents to the
lawyers representing the asbestos claimants and an estimation
hearing is scheduled this fall.

The talks come as Asarco's current Mexican owner, Grupo Mexico
S.A. de C.V., has sought to reassert control over its
subsidiary, asking Judge Richard Schmidt to expand its current
three-member board by two members to be chosen by Grupo.

Court filings alleged Grupo Mexico stripped the Company of its
most valuable assets, two Peruvian copper mines, and then let
the Company slip into bankruptcy to avoid environmental cleanup
costs and asbestos-related claims. Grupo Mexico has denied the
allegations.

In September 2005, ASARCO filed for bankruptcy protection.

Grupo Mexico, through a web of subsidiaries, continues to own
100 percent of Asarco.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SoKor Ministry to Impose Total Ban by 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Korea's Ministry of Labor, on Feb. 2, 2007, said that the
manufacture, import and use of asbestos will be banned from 2000
as it causes severe health problems like cancer when inhaled,
The Korea Times reports.

Also, asbestos-removal companies must register with the Ministry
and all articles, which encourage the use of asbestos, will be
removed from the construction law and related regulations.

Under the plan, the Ministry will restrict the use of products
including asbestos step by step until 2008 while examining
possible replacements, and will impose the total ban by 2009.

Asbestos has been often used to make floor tiles, and pipe
insulation materials because it is flexible and fireproof.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. DEP Imposes $31T Fine on Contractor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
issued a US$31,230 penalty to Christopher Dillon and his
company, Dillon Environmental Services, for asbestos removal
violations in summer 2006 at a building on Fasce Place,
BerkshireEagle.com reports.

According to the DEP, a state DEP inspector and an inspector
from the state Division of Occupational Safety, observed Mr.
Dillon performing an illegal asbestos-removal project when they
inspected the basement of the Fasce Place building on Aug. 23,
2006.

According to the DEP, Mr. Dillon's asbestos license had expired
and he had not received permits for the project. His activities
resulted in the building's owner having to retain a licensed
contractor to decontaminate the entire basement.

Mr. Dillon was also the subject of a 2002 consent order with the
state DEP in which he agreed to pay US$5,000 for failing to
properly notify the agency before performing an asbestos-removal
job in August 2001.

Michael Gorski, the director of the DEP's Western Regional
Office in Springfield, Mass., said, "People with questions about
asbestos, including notification requirements, proper removal
and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are
encouraged to contact MassDEP for assistance."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Upholds Campbell Appeal in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Department, New York,
upheld a Supreme Court, Erie County, appeal in favor of David W.
Campbell and Glenda Campbell in an asbestos-related personal
injury action.

The case was appealed from an Aug. 2, 2006 amended order of the
Supreme Court, Erie County. The amended order granted the
Campbells' motion for a protective order.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Scudder, Martoche, Smith,
Peradotto, and Pine, handed down the decision of Civil Action
No. 06-02573 on Feb. 2, 2007.

The defendants included Aerospace Products International (f/k/a
Aircraft Parts International Combs Inc.) and a subsidiary of
First Aviation Services Inc., et al. The defendant-appellants
included Garlock Inc. and Parker-Hannifin Corp.

The Campbells sought damages for injuries sustained by Mr.
Campbell as a result of his exposure to asbestos.  

The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the Campbells' motion
for a protective order directing defendants to return a document
that was inadvertently disclosed to defendants' attorneys on the
ground that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege.  

The document was a chronology written by Mr. Campbell concerning
the history of his asbestos exposure, and a review of the
document established that Mr. Campbell prepared it at the
request of his attorneys for their first meeting "for the
purpose of obtaining legal advice or services."   

The record established that the Campbells' attorneys took
reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure and that Mr.
Campbell did not waive the attorney-client privilege when the
document was inadvertently disclosed.  

Defendants failed to establish that Mr. Campbell reviewed the
document in order to prepare for his deposition or to refresh
his recollection with respect to his deposition testimony and
thereby waived the attorney-client privilege.

John Ned Lipsitz of Lipsitz & Ponterio LLC in Buffalo, N.Y.,
represented the Campbells.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling for Elliott Turbomachinery Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, upheld
the decision of the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Tex.,
granting summary judgment based on limitations to Elliott
Turbomachinery Co., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
Daniel and Virginia Podolny.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Hinojosa, Yanez, and Rodriguez,
handed down the decision of Case No. 13-04-499-CV on Feb. 1,
2007.

In 1996, Mr. Podolny was diagnosed with lung cancer. Before his
diagnosis, doctors informed him that he had pleural
calcification on his lungs. However, he asserted that doctors
never told him his pleural calcification and lung cancer were
caused by his prior exposure to asbestos while serving in the
U.S. Navy.

In May 2000, Mr. Podolny received literature from an undisclosed
law firm, in which the literature stated that lung and breathing
problems could be caused by asbestos exposure.

Mr. Podolny later contacted this law firm to inquire as to
whether his pleural calcification was caused by asbestos
exposure. He asserted that he did not associate his lung cancer
with his asbestos exposure at this time, nor did he inform
anyone from the law firm that he had lung cancer.

Mr. Podolny was eventually referred to another law firm, Waters
& Kraus. His first contact with this firm was in October 2000,
at which time he provided the firm with information about his
asbestos exposure and medical history.

Later, a Waters & Kraus attorney told Mr. Podolny that his lung
cancer was likely caused by asbestos. Mr. Podolny said this was
the first time someone told him of a connection between his lung
cancer and asbestos exposure.

Mr. Podolny asserted that the limitations period for his lung
cancer could not have started running any sooner than October
2000, less than two years prior to his filing suit against
Elliott on Aug. 22, 2002.

Mr. Podolny further asserted that it is arguable that the
limitations period did not start running until Jan. 26, 2002,
the date when a medical doctor first attributed his lung cancer
to asbestos exposure.

Elliott's motion for summary judgment included Mr. Podolny's
medical reports, one of which was made in April 2000. The
Appeals Court believed that the report provided sufficient
evidence that had Mr. Podolny made a diligent inquiry as to what
caused his injury, he would have discovered, before Aug. 22,
2000, that his lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court concluded that there was no
genuine issue of material fact regarding the accrual of the
statute of limitations and that Elliott is entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law.

F. Leighton Durham III, Kirk L. Pittard, and Barry Bobbitt
represented Daniel and Virginia Podolny.

Shannon Gibson and Hubert A. Crouch III represented Elliott
Turbomachinery Company Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Contractor Pleads Guilty to Mishandling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ex-contractor John Edward "Eddie" Callahan, on Feb. 7, 2007, has
pleaded guilty to one count of mishandling asbestos during
renovation of a downtown Roanoke, Va. building in 2005, The
Roanoke Times reports.

Mr. Callahan faces a US$250,000 penalty and five years in prison
when he is sentenced in June 2007.

Prosecutors dropped four other counts in exchange for Mr.
Callahan's plea. The unlicensed former contractor hired three
homeless men to remove the hazardous material without giving
them proper training or equipment.

Mr. Callahan's case has prompted the city of Roanoke to tighten
its asbestos regulations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. School Employee Withdraws Payout Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Keeley, a former employee in the old Second Street School in
Northumberland, Pa., has withdrawn from a workers' compensation
claim regard exposure to asbestos in the school, The Daily Item
reports.

According to borough secretary Janice Bowman, Mr. Keeley has
withdrawn from the claim, saying he has suffered no ill effects
of asbestos exposure. Former public works supervisor Nathan
Fisher withdrew his name from the claim on January 2007.

Mrs. Bowman said a Philadelphia physician with the Asthma,
Allergy and Pulmonary Associates would examine two other
employees, Steve Carr and Todd Snyder. It was not immediately
clear if the fifth man involved, former employee Steve Haas,
will go forward with his claim.

The employees alleged the asbestos exposure happened in 2003,
about three years after the borough bought the school from the
Shikellamy School District.

They claimed Mrs. Bowman told them to remove tiles from the
gymnasium floor that had been damaged by a leaking roof and
dispose of them in two borough-owned Dumpsters, a charge she has
denied. Then, they said, borough officials ignored their
concerns of asbestos exposure and ordered them to work anyway.

Since the workers' compensation claim came to light, the council
has secured the services of Volz Environmental Inc., of
Pittsburgh, to inspect the building for asbestos before
renovations.

According to Mrs. Bowman, a report by Volz Environmental showed
that there is a minimal amount of asbestos in the school. The
tiles, Mrs. Bowman said, tested positive for chrysotile asbestos
at a rate of five percent.

According to Mrs. Bowman, Volz Environmental officials
recommended the borough remove the tile and adhesive, although
covering the tiles also is an option.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Wins Payout for Wrongful Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Widow Ariel Holdsworth has won a substantial five-figure payout
from the Calderdale Council in the United Kingdom for the death
of her husband, John Michael Holdsworth, Evening Courier
reports.

In June 2006, Mr. Holdsworth died at the age of 71 from
mesothelioma. The Calderdale authority between 1969 and 1989
employed him as a maintenance engineer. He worked at swimming
pools across Calderdale where asbestos was present on boilers
and pipes.

Mr. Holdsworth and his colleagues removed asbestos but were not
adequately protected from the dust by their employer.

Calderdale Council admitted exposing Mr. Holdsworth to asbestos
and agreed an out-of-court settlement in January 2007 with Mrs.
Holdsworth.

It is not known how many former council employees are at risk
and 64-year-old Mrs. Holdsworth, who used to handle her
husband's work clothes, has the constant worry of not knowing if
she will become another victim.

Mr. Holdsworth developed flu symptoms in December 2004 and
gradually deteriorated, and while mesothelioma was suspected he
was not given a definitive diagnosis. An inquest concluded he
died from the disease.

John Pickering and Partners, of Halifax, acted on behalf of Mrs.
Holdsworth. Mr. Holdsworth's diary from 1979 detailed some of
his work with asbestos.

Solicitor Fozia Hussain said there would be more claims against
Calderdale Council.

A Calderdale Council spokesperson said, "The council has settled
three separate claims relating to asbestos conditions and is
dealing with one other outstanding claim. We are currently
unaware of any other potential claims."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inventor Gets AUD2.75M Payout from 2 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Lacone, an inventor from Melbourne, Australia, entered a
settlement with James Hardie Industries NV and another asbestos
maker for an AUD2.75 million payout, Herald Sun reports.

Mr. Lacone, 58 years old, was developing a revolutionary
swimming pool and industrial water filter when he was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in August 2006.

The Supreme Court heard that dust from asbestos-based sheeting
made by the two companies in the 1970s, and used by Mr. Lacone
to build a glasshouse and his own rural home, had caused the
onset of mesothelioma.

Mr. Lacone was six days into a civil trial with Amaca Pty. Ltd.
(formerly James Hardie Pty. Ltd.) and Selstram Pty. Ltd.
(formerly Wunderlich Pty. Ltd.) when the settlement was reached.

Margaret Kent, Mr. Lacone's solicitor, said she believed it was
the biggest single asbestos-related payout in Australian
history.

Mr. Lacone, from Gruyere in Melbourne's outer east, said he
would leave a substantial amount of his payout to fund research
into mesothelioma.

During the six-day trial, a jury of four men and six women heard
Mr. Lacone and experts from the filter and swimming pool
industry explain the mechanics of his revolutionary filter and
its potential to slash water usage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie to Add AUD184M to Compensation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV plans to deposit AUD184 million into
a new asbestos compensation scheme on Feb. 14, 2007, The Sydney
Morning Herald reports.

The transfer of the sum, enough to pay about two years of claims
and to be followed by an estimated AUD1.3 billion more, will
bring to an end a six-year struggle for compensation for
Australians falling ill from exposure to Hardie asbestos
products.

Company executives were first told in April 2001 that a trust
set up two months earlier was likely to run out of money decades
before all claims were paid. The Company did not agree to meet
the shortfall until July 2004, after a New South Wales special
commission of inquiry sparked a public furor.

The new scheme, which is underpinned by NSW legislation but
contains no absolute guarantee that Company profits will be high
enough to meet all future claims, was agreed in drawn-out
negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions,
asbestos support groups, and the NSW Government.

The Company's lenders approved the agreement in December 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Local Units Spend JPY3.4B in '05, '06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's prefectural and municipal governments used more than
JPY3.4 billion in central government subsidies to deal with the
asbestos problem at public facilities from fiscal 2005 through
2006, The Asahi Shimbun reports.

The JPY3.4 billion was about seven times the JPY475 million used
for private buildings.

The subsidies were originally intended to contain the hazards of
asbestos at private buildings, whose owners lacked the funds to
take those measures. However, many local governments are not
using the system because they would also have to shoulder the
expenses.

A September 2006 survey covering private buildings with floor
areas of about 1,000 square meters or more underscored the
extent of the asbestos problem.

A total of 15,787 buildings had exposed asbestos, but the owners
of 5,950 had voluntarily taken measures to remove or contain the
substance. About 2,000 others had plans to deal with asbestos.

Many building owners cited the high costs required, which are
usually tens of thousands of yen per square meter of the
asbestos-affected area. For large buildings, the expenses could
reach several tens of millions of yen.

For that reason, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and
Transport secured JPY8 billion to encourage the private sector
to eliminate the asbestos risks.

The Ministry's subsidy system is supposed to cover costs for
inspections and asbestos disposal at halls, office complexes,
shopping malls, factories and other facilities frequently used
by many people.

Specifically, the subsidies cover one-third of the expenses a
local government spends on anti-asbestos measures for a public
facility. For a private building, the state subsidies cover up
to two-thirds of the total costs, with the local government
shouldering half of the subsidy burden.

The Asahi Shimbun learned that the Japanese central govt.
provided JPY12.62 million to prefectural and municipal
governments for 44 inspections from April 2005 through November
2006. The local governments received JPY3.4 billion for removal
and containment measures in 978 cases during that period.

However, the private sector has received JPY5.63 million for 145
inspections and JPY469.56 million for 151 cases to remove or
seal off exposed asbestos.

Many local governments are reluctant to introduce the subsidies
system because they would also have to pay from their own
coffers to make private facilities safe from the asbestos
hazard.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Calls for Changes to Congoleum Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp., on Feb. 5, 2007, said that the judge overseeing
its reorganization has issued rulings on motions filed by
insurers seeking to prevent confirmation of its most recent
reorganization plan, according to a Company press release dated
Feb. 5, 2007.

In her opinion, the judge found that certain aspects of
Congoleum's plan must be modified to comply with the
requirements of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "Although I
was disappointed by the ruling, we now have clear direction from
the court on what aspects of our plan need to be changed. With
this guidance I believe we can craft a plan that should satisfy
the court.

"It is better that these issues were surfaced now, before we
incurred the time and expense of soliciting another plan, than
if they had arisen at the confirmation hearing. Our goal is to
have a plan confirmed, and knowing exactly what the court
expects moves us a step closer to achieving that."

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case
No. 03-51524) seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted against it
related to the use of asbestos in its products decades ago.

Based in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corp. makes resilient
flooring, serving both residential and commercial markets. Its
sheet, tile and plank products are used in remodeling,
manufactured housing, new construction, and commercial
applications. The Company is a 55 percent owned subsidiary of
American Biltrite Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Records 15,500 Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of Dec. 29, 2006, recorded about
15,500 asbestos liability cases pending against it and its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6,
2007.

The Company and some of its subsidiaries face personal injury
lawsuits 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 of these cases have been filed against subsidiaries in
Healthcare and Engineered Products and Services. A limited
number of the cases alleged premises liability, based on claims
that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property.

Most of the cases involved product liability claims, based on
allegations of past distribution of heat-resistant industrial
products incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of
industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets
or packing. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds
of corporate defendants.

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

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

Based in Princeton, N.J., Tyco International Ltd. is organized
into four business segments: Fire and Security, Electronics,
Healthcare, and Engineered Products and Services. In 2006, the
Company sold its Plastics & Adhesives unit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alfa Laval AB Named in 210 Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfa Laval AB said, as of Dec. 31, 2006, that it had been named
in a total of 210 asbestos related lawsuits with a total of 348
plaintiffs, AFX News reports.

Based in Lund, Sweden, Alfa Laval AB is organized around its
three main product lines: separation, fluid handling, and heat
transfer. The Company's equipment and services are designed to
help optimize processes like heating, cooling, separating, and
transporting products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC Seeks to Settle Derivative Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2006, ASARCO LLC, the Future Claims Representative and
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors sought approval of a compromise and
settlement agreement regarding ASARCO's derivative asbestos
claims.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. objected to the Settlement Motion
and discussed with the Proponents a resolution of its
objections. The parties, however, were unable to resolve their
differences, Veronica Martinsen Bates, Esq., at Hermes Sargent
Bates, in Dallas, Texas, relates.

After a hearing on Dec. 15, 2006, and at the Court's direction,
the parties each submitted proposed versions of an order
approving the Settlement Motion.

The Scheduling Order, dated Jan. 22, 2007, did not include the
proposed Settlement Orders, Ms. Bates points out. Also, the
Scheduling Order does not address whether FFIC will have a full
and fair opportunity to participate in the estimation of the
Derivative Asbestos Claims and, if not, whether FFIC can be
bound by any rulings made in any claim estimation proceedings,
Ms. Bates adds.

Accordingly, FFIC asks the Court to reconsider and vacate the
Scheduling Order, dated Jan. 22, 2007.

FFIC asks Judge Schmidt to include in any case management order
governing the estimation of the Derivative Asbestos Claims to
contain appropriate protective "insurance neutrality" terms to
the effect that the Derivative Asbestos Claims Estimation (i) is
not binding to FFIC for any insurance coverage or any other
purpose, and (ii) is not used against FFIC by any party alleging
that findings and rulings from the estimation trigger any
indemnification or other coverage obligations on FFIC's part.

In the alternative, FFIC seeks the Court's permission to fully
and meaningfully participate in any aspect of any estimation
proceeding, including, without limitation, the fashioning of
terms of, and the appropriateness of any estimation methodology
adopted in any case management order.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 38; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie OKs AUD4B Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV has agreed to a AUD4 billion
compensation deal with its asbestos victims, Herald Sun reports.

The agreement, which came after six years of wrangling, paves
the way for victims of asbestos-related diseases caused by
products made by former James Hardie subsidiaries, to get their
hands on compensation worth up to AUD4 billion over the next 40
years.

Hardie chairwoman Meredith Hellicar said she was "heartened and
proud" the overwhelming majority of shareholders had approved
the plan.

The compensation deal was negotiated with the Company by
asbestos victims' groups, unions and the New South Wales
Government, whose support for the deal has been widespread, even
though James Hardie has said it could not guarantee the package
would provide enough funds to meet all long-term claims made
against it.

The Company reached an agreement with the Australian Taxation
Office in November 2006, allowing payments from the special
purpose fund to be tax deductible.

Bernie Banton, an asbestos victims advocate, said that by 2020
it was expected there would be another 53,000 people diagnosed
with asbestos-related disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plan Hearing for Federal Mogul Set on May 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. said that Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald, on
Feb. 2, 2007, approved the Supplemental Disclosure Statement
describing the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization and
set May 8, 2007 as the date for the confirmation hearing on the
Amended Plan, The Auto Channel reports.

Judge Fitzgerald is of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.

The Bankruptcy Court also approved the solicitation and voting
procedures by which the votes of a limited number of classes of
creditors will be solicited.

The Amended Plan is jointly proposed by the Company, the
Unsecured Creditors Committee, the Asbestos Claimants Committee,
the Future Asbestos Claimants Representative, the Agent for the
Prepetition Bank Lenders and the Equity Committee. The Plan also
has the support of the Asbestos Property Damage Committee and
the Ad Hoc Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

"Federal-Mogul is pleased with the developments accomplished at
this hearing which together with the resolution for emergence of
the United Kingdom Administrated companies, with activities in
the Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific, represent major
milestones toward exit from Chapter 11," said Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer Jose Maria Alapont.

Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. is a global
supplier, serving equipment manufacturers of automotive, light
commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, off-road and
industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket.
Founded in Detroit in 1899, the Company employs 45,000 people in
35 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capitol Tunnel Workers Seek OSHA Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of workers said on Feb. 1, 2007 that asbestos exposure
and falling slabs of concrete are two reasons that the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health should check the
passages under the U.S. Capitol complex, Guardian Unlimited
reports.

The workers' group asked the NIOSH, a branch of the Centers for
Disease Control, for an evaluation of health hazards in the
underground warren.

The 10 workers who raised this issue are responsible for
maintaining the plumbing that provides steam and chilled water
to Congress, the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court and
other federal buildings. The Architect of the Capitol employs
the 10 workers.

David Marshall, an attorney representing the workers, said the
AoC had known for years that the asbestos levels in the tunnels
were unacceptably high and were affecting the health of workers.

Mr. Marshall said the architect's office started requiring
respirators when the asbestos danger came to light last year.
Some members of the group have worked in the tunnels for 20
years.

The NIOSH complaint is the latest development in a dispute
between the workers and the AOC over safety conditions in the
tunnels. In 2006, the workers appealed for help to members of
Congress and began attending Senate hearings on the issue, at
which they spoke to reporters.

The workers also asked senators for support in obtaining medical
treatment and transportation so that a Detroit doctor,
considered a leading expert on asbestos-related illness, could
evaluate them.

The workers have alleged that the AoC retaliated against them
for making their complaints public. They are not covered by the
Whistle-blower Protection Act, which applies to executive branch
employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Childhood Exposure to Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coroner Gordon Ryall ruled that Stephan Wise's childhood
exposure to asbestos was probably to blame for his death from
mesothelioma, The Evening Telegraph reports.

An inquest in Stamford in the United Kingdom said that Mr. Wise
may have been exposed to the substance as a child when his
father worked at an asbestos plant in Essex.

Mr. Wise died on October 2006 at the age of 53.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texan to be Jailed 15 Months for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Eugen Riecke II, of Palmer, Tex., has been ordered to 15
months in prison for failing to comply with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency regulations on the handling of asbestos, North
Texas e-News reports.

U.S. Attorney Richard B. Roper of the Northern District of Texas
said that Mr. Riecke was convicted in August 2006 for failing to
comply with EPA regulations and mail fraud.

U.S. Chief District Judge A. Joe Fish to 15 months in prison
sentenced Mr. Riecke. Judge Fish ordered that the 53-year-old
Mr. Riecke surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on Feb. 20, 2007.

Mr. Riecke is the General Manager of National Converting and
Fulfillment Co., based in Ellis County, Tex.

In a case arising from allegations of wrongful handling of
asbestos-containing floor tile, Mr. Riecke II convicted on two
counts of failing to comply with federal work practice standards
regulating demolition of a building containing asbestos and
disposing of the resulting waste, one count of false statements
to the Texas Department of Health, Toxic Waste Control Division,
and one count of mail fraud.        

The case stems from an investigation in 2002 by the City of
Dallas into illegal dumping. Dallas Code Inspectors discovered a
three and one-half acre tract in an industrial area of West
Dallas where illegal waste had been dumped.  

Further investigation revealed that the waste included hazardous
asbestos-containing floor tiles and floor tile mastic that had
been removed from an old Payless Cashways lumber and hardware
store building that had been located on Beltline Road in
Addison, Tex.

Evidence presented at trial showed that Mr. Riecke contracted
with the building's owner, Beltway Commercial Real Estate, to
demolish the structure, which a pre-demolition survey showed
contained the asbestos. The contract required that he fully
comply with all regulations regarding asbestos removal.  

However, from Nov. 6, 2001 through Dec. 10, 2001, Mr. Riecke and
his crew removed the floor tile from the site without making any
effort to comply with federal work practice standards for
handling asbestos that had been established under the Clean Air
Act.

When the asbestos containing material was stripped and removed
from the site, Mr. Riecke failed to comply with these standards,
including the requirement that he have on site at least one
employee who was trained in the proper removal of asbestos.  

Mr. Riecke also failed to prevent the discharge of visible
emissions into the outside air during the stripping, collection,
processing, packaging and transporting of the asbestos; failed
to deposit all the asbestos as soon as practical at a proper
waste disposal site; and failed to properly mark vehicles used
to transport the asbestos-containing waste.

The government also presented evidence that Mr. Riecke
intentionally made false statements on an asbestos
demolition/renovation Notification Form he sent via Federal
Express to the Texas Department of Health, Asbestos Notification
Section, Toxic Substances Control Division.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALVARION LTD: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Alvarion Ltd. between Nov. 3, 2004 through May 12,
2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Alvarion and certain of its officers
and directors violated Federal Securities laws. Specifically,
defendants made false and misleading statements and material
omissions regarding the company's business and operations.

In 2004, Alvarion experienced unprecedented growth in revenues
based primarily on the large contract orders of Alvarion's
largest customer, Telmex. Throughout the Class Period,
defendants portrayed Alvarion's outlook as robust, but concealed
the following facts from investors:

     (i) Telmex was not planning to make additional orders;

    (ii) there was no basis to believe that Telmex would
         continue to provide substantial revenues in 2005; and

   (iii) Alvarion could not sustain its growth rate without the
         substantial revenue contribution from Telmex purchases.

On May 12, 2006, Alvarion filed their Annual Report on Form 20-F
with the SEC which confirmed that the cause of Alvarion's
declining growth rate was the lack of purchases from Telmex.

On this news, shares of Alvarion fell to $7.92 per share on May
12, 2006. During the Class Period, Alvarion traded as high as
$14.22 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 6,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Files Pa. Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Celestica, Inc. between July 27,
2006 and Dec. 12, 2006, inclusive.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented that:

     (1) demand for products produced by its Information
         Technology and Communications Divisions was declining
         due to a drop off in orders placed by its key
         customers;

     (2) inventory at the company's Monterrey, Mexico facility
         built up to the level where much of it had to be
         written off;

     (3) that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) as a result, the company's statements about its
         financial health and future business prospects were
         lacking any reasonable basis.

On Dec. 12, 2006, in contrast to its prior statements, the
company announced that it was drastically lowering its financial
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006.

In reaction to this news, Celestica shares fell $1.14 per share,
or 12% to close on Dec. 12, 2006 at $8.23 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 13,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law
Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: (888) 753-2796,
E-mail: info@gsk-law.com.


CELESTICA INC: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP announces that
lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Celestica, Inc. (NYSE: CLS) during the period July
27, 2006 through Dec. 12, 2006, inclusive.

The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing statements, concerning the company's financial
performance and future prospects, that were materially false and
misleading when made.

It is further alleged that when making these statements, the
company failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the fact that
the company was experiencing declining demand in its Mexican
operations and in its Information Technology and Communications
market segments, and therefore had no reasonable basis to
project adjusted earnings per share ranging from $0.12 to $0.20.

Shares of Celestica declined when this undisclosed information
later became public.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 13,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020 toll-
free, E-mail: parekhb@yaplaw.com, Website:
http://www.yaplaw.com.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
sellers of common stock of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited
(FFH) over the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) between Dec. 18,
2002 and July 25, 2006, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint filed states that the case "arises from a massive,
illegal stock market manipulation scheme that has targeted and
severely harmed ... shareholders of Fairfax, and has resulted in
immense ill-gotten profits for defendants S.A.C. Capital, Exis
Capital, Third Point, Rocker Partners and other extremely
powerful hedge funds."

The Complaint further alleges that Defendants "launched a
manipulation scheme ... which was an abusive short selling
strategy coupled with a public relations campaign chock full of
false and misleading statements about Fairfax, its executives,
its business, and its common stock price designed to drive down
(Fairfax's) stock price."

For more information, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq., Eric
T. Chaffin, Esq. and Roopal P. Luhana, all of Seeger Weiss LLP,
One William Street, New York, New York 10004, Phone: (212) 584-
0700 or (877) 541-3273 Toll Free, E-Mail:
cseeger@seegerweiss.com or echaffin@seegerweiss.com or
rluhana@seegerweiss.com, Website: http://www.seegerweiss.comor  
http://www.lawyerseek.com.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP announced that lawsuits seeking
class action status have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Louisiana on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Hornbeck
Offshore Services, Inc. (NYSE: HOS) during the period Nov. 1,
2006 through Jan. 10, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing statements, concerning the company's stock option plans
and compensation practices, that were materially false and
misleading when made.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the company announced that its earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for
the fourth quarter of 2006 would be in a range between $39
million and $41 million, with earnings per share between $0.69
and $0.74 per share.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the company announced a $200 million offering
of convertible senior notes. On Nov. 13, 2006, the offering
closed and the company raised its EPS guidance to a range of
$0.72 to $0.77 per share.

However, on Jan. 10, 2007, the company announced that it was
reducing the range for EBITDA between $33 million and $34
million, and lowering EPS to a range of $0.61 to $0.63 per
share.

It is alleged that shares of Hornbeck declined on this news,
falling from $33.51 per share to $26.14 per share, a one-day
decline of almost 22%.

For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020 toll-
free, E-mail: parekhb@yaplaw.com, Website:
http://www.yaplaw.com.


LG.PHILIPS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. publicly traded securities during the
period between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 2006.

The complaint charges LG.Philips and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made positive statements concerning the company's LCD business
while, unbeknownst to investors, defendants were using
artificial antitrust mechanisms, including price fixing, to
support the company's already inflated margins.

However, by late spring 2006, as the company's executives became
aware of fines and jail sentences imposed for price fixing in
the industry, they began ceasing their price-fixing behavior and
rumors about the reasons for the sudden "weak pricing" in the
LCD marketplace circulated throughout the markets. Without
artificial anticompetitive mechanisms in place, the company's
profits began to fall and its share price declined from $22 to
$15.

On Dec. 8, 2006, officials from South Korea's Fair Trade
Commission appeared at the company's Seoul headquarters to
proceed with a formal investigation of the company and its top
executives.

Then on Dec. 11, 2006, the company announced it was being
investigated for possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD
industry. The announcement spurred a two-day stock slide that
erased about $1.6 billion in market value from the top five
producers, including LG.Philips.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
concealed the following material adverse facts from the
investing public:

     (a) from on or about June 2004 until on or about June 2006,
         LG.Philips and its co-conspirators entered into and
         engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the United
         States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate
         competition by fixing the prices of LCD panel products
         to be sold to resellers and consumers; and

     (b) as a result, the company's shares traded at inflated
         prices, enabling the company to consummate its initial
         public offering raising $1 billion, its secondary
         offering raising $1.4 billion, and obtain an additional
         $500 million in other securities offerings on terms
         otherwise unobtainable but for defendants' conduct,
         including the use of defective prospectuses for each
         such offering.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of LG.Philips publicly traded securities during the Class
Period.

LG.Philips engages in the manufacture and supply of thin film
transistor liquid crystal displays ("LCD") to original equipment
manufacturers and multinational corporations. It sells its
products primarily in the U.S., Korea, Asia, and Europe.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins,
both of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. has been named defendant in a class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California over alleged violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a class, which
includes all persons who acquired Powerwave stocks from May 2,
2005 through Oct. 9, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Website:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against Sunrise
Senior Living, Inc. and certain officers and directors, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Sunrise between Aug. 4, 2005 and June 15,
2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business, its stock option
plans, its compensation practices and its financial results.

On May 9, 2006, Sunrise disclosed that it would delay reporting
its first quarter 2006 results to conduct a review of its
financial results.

On July 31, 2006, Sunrise revealed that it would be forced to
restate its financial statements dating back to at least 1999.
The company also indicated that it could not file its current
period financial results 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
would be eliminated.

In reaction to these developments, Sunrise's stock fell from
$39.62 on May 8, 2006 to as low as $24.40 on July 31, 2006.

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

For more information, contact Brian Penny Esq., of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130.


                            *********


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  * * *