CAR_Public/070223.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 39

                            Headlines


BROADCOM CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
CA INC: N.Y. High Court Orders Turnover of Settlement Documents
CANADA: Lawyer Sues Gov't. for Exposing Aborigines to Alcohol
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Settles Suit Over "Chicago Cards" for $199,400
COLDWELL BANKER: Faces Charges Over Alleged Secret Incentives

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face "Rix" Litigation in Ill.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Begins in Pa. Uninsured's Litigation
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Briefing to Begin in Ala. Uninsured's Lawsuit
COTTRELL INC: Truck Drivers' Lawyers Want Unrelated Case's Info
EL PASO: March Hearing Set for $285M Securities Suit Settlement

EQ INDUSTRIAL: Lawyer Asks Superior Court to Seal Documents
FERRO CORP: Ohio Court Approves $4M ERISA Litigation Settlement
FERRO CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Multiple Suits Over Client Information Leak
FIFTH THIRD: Still Faces Payment Card Interchange Fee Lawsuit

GIANT EAGLE: Withdraws Pasta Ribbons Containing Undeclared Eggs
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Pa.
ILLINOIS: Circuit Court Blocks Intervention in "Ligas" Lawsuit
JARDEN CORP: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
KITEC MAKERS: Nev. Suit Now Includes Las Vegas Valley Homes

MCKESSON HBOC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 13
MICROSOFT CORP: March 6 Hearing Set for Ark. Antitrust Suit Deal
NEW YORK: Litigation Over Fees for Inmates' Phone Calls Revived
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Amended Securities Suit Over PFA Offer Junked
PIONEER NATURAL: Kans. Court OKs Royalty Owners' Suit Settlement

PT PRIMA: Faces Possible Suit Related to Senopati Ferry Sinking
RHEEM SALES: Recalls Water Heaters Posing CO Poisoning Risk
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Insurer Sues Over Alleged Fraudulent Marketing
SINGAPORE: Appeals Court Hears Gov't Employees' Suit Over CFP
TAP MACHINE: Recalls Sake Warmers Posing Serious Burn Hazards

TYSON FOODS: Workers to Ask "Chavez" Settlement Process Review
UNITED LIFE: Ordered to Reveal Info on Policies Sold Since 1991
UTAH: Exit Agreement Filed in Suit Over Child-Welfare System
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Suits Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit
WILD KITTY: Recalls Cat Foods Due to Salmonella Contamination

WILLBROS GROUP: $10.5M Stock Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
WR GRACE: Anderson Memorial's Motion for Discovery Granted
ZIMMER INC: B.C. Man Sues Over "Defective" Hip Replacement Part


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allen v. Uniroyal Suit Remanded for Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcoa, Units Still Face "Premises" Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Corp. Records 11,116 Open Claims in '06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Records $305M Charge in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Co. Accrues $1.2M for Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Contractor Charged for CAA Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 100 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Geographic Study Launched in New Caledonia
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge to Rule on Objections to Grace Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Objects to BNSF Proofs of Claim

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Electrolux Rise to 1,688 in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Northern Has 1,975 Claims in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Inc. Drop to 45T in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Faces CNA Coverage Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Continues to Face G-I Holdings Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Still Faces "Property" Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Spends $2.9M for Cleanup in 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 124,000 in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Have $1.819B Liability in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Records 57,108 Pending Claims in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Estimates $1.3B for NARCO Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Accrues $557M Liabilities in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith Faces Suits with 72T Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zenith National Records 500 Workers' Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Makes $4.07B Payment for Claims in '06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kansai Electric Pays Compensation to Kin
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GBP150T Claim Filed for Caretaker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Yokohama Deaths Linked to Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Electric to Record $115M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe Lobbies for Mining of Chrysotile

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands "Grant v. Eagle" Suit  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Supply Has 25T Claims in 6 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Records 111,887 Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $62M Defense Costs in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $300M Receivables in 4Q06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Suit in N.Y. Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Electronics Has 4,370 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Subsidiary Has Active Cases in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Still Faces Claims as "Successor"
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Records $18.7M Liability in 4Q


                           *********


BROADCOM CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corp. is a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's Feb. 20 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

From August through October 2006 several plaintiffs filed
purported shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Broadcom and
certain of its current or former officers and directors (Options
Class Actions):

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

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

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

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

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

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

In November 2006, the court:

     * consolidated the Options Class Actions;

     * appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as lead
       class plaintiff;

     * ordered the lead class plaintiff to file a consolidated
       complaint within 60 days after a restatement of the
       company's financial statements; and

     * extended the deadline for the defendants to respond to
       the complaint to 60 days after the filing of the
       consolidated complaint.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Bryan L. Crawford of Heins Mills & Olson, 3550 IDS      
         Ctr., 80 South 8th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:
         612-338-4605, Fax: 612-338-4692.

Representing the defendants are:

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

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


CA INC: N.Y. High Court Orders Turnover of Settlement Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New York granted a motion by CA Inc.
shareholder Sam Wyly to get access to documents gathered by
three law firms that pursued and settled class actions alleging
accounting fraud by company executives, Newsday (Melville, N.Y.)
reports.

On Feb. 8, Judge Joan Madden ordered law firms including Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Shulman LLP and Stull, Stull & Brody to turn
over the documents within 45 days.

Mr. Wyly and his lawyers argued that the settlement was reached
fraudulently because the CA lawyer who helped negotiate it later
pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice.  He wants the
settlement releases voided so he can pursue claims from former
CA executives.  

                    Stockholder Class Action

The company, its former chairman and chief executive Charles B.
Wang, its former chairman and chief executive Sanjay Kumar, its
former chief financial officer Ira Zar, and its executive vice
president Russell M. Artzt were defendants in one or more
stockholder class actions, filed in July 1998, February 2002,
and March 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The suits alleges among other things, that a class consisting of
all persons who purchased the company's common stock during the
period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998 were harmed by
misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions
regarding the company's future financial performance.

In addition, in May 2003, a class action, "John A. Ambler v.
Computer Associates International, Inc., et al." was filed in
the federal court.  

The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf
of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the
participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class
period running from March 30, 1998, through May 30, 2003,
asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The named defendants were the company, the company's board of
directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the
CASH Plan, and the following current or former employees and/or
former directors of the company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar,
Artzt, Peter A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various
unidentified alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan.  

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in company
securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

                       Derivative Lawsuit

Charles Federman filed a derivative lawsuit against certain
current and former directors of the company, based on
essentially the same allegations as those contained in the
February and March 2002 stockholder lawsuits.  This action was
commenced in April 2002 in Delaware Chancery Court, and an
amended complaint was filed in November 2002.  

The defendants named in the amended complaint were the company
as a nominal defendant, current company directors Mr. Lewis S.
Ranieri, and The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato, and former
company directors Ms. Shirley Strum Kenny and Messrs. Wang,
Kumar, Artzt, Willem de Vogel, Richard Grasso, and Roel Pieper.

The derivative suit alleged breach of fiduciary duties on the
part of all the individual defendants and, as against the former
management director defendants, insider trading on the basis of
allegedly misappropriated confidential, material information.  

The amended complaint sought an accounting and recovery on
behalf of the company of an unspecified amount of damages,
including recovery of the profits allegedly realized from the
sale of common stock of the company.

                           Settlement

On Aug. 25, 2003, the company announced the settlement of all
outstanding litigation related to the above-referenced
stockholder and derivative actions as well as the settlement of
an additional derivative action filed by Charles Federman that
was filed in Delaware.  

As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by
the federal court in December 2003, the company agreed to issue
a total of up to 5.7 million shares of common stock to the
stockholders represented in the three class actions, including
payment of attorneys' fees.  The share issuance was ultimately
valued at around $140 million, according to the report.

The company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares
as well as payment of $3.3 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys
in legal fees and related expenses.

In settling the derivative suits, which settlement was also
approved by the federal court in December 2003, the company
committed to maintain certain corporate governance practices.  

Under the settlement, the company, the individual defendants and
all other current and former officers and directors of the
company were released from any potential claim by stockholders
arising from accounting-related or other public statements made
by the company or its agents from January 1998 through February
2002 (and from January 1998 through May 2003 in the case of the
employee ERISA action).

      Motions to Vacate Final Judgment and Dismissal Order

The individual defendants were released from any potential claim
by or on behalf of the company relating to the same matters.  On
Oct. 5, 2004 and Dec. 9, 2004, four purported company
stockholders served motions to vacate the Order of Final
Judgment and Dismissal entered by the federal court in December
2003 in connection with the settlement of the derivative action.

These motions primarily seek to void the releases that were
granted to the individual defendants under the settlement.  Mr.
Wyly and certain related parties filed a motion on Dec. 7, 2004
to vacate the order of final judgment and dismissal entered by
the federal court in December 2003 in connection with the
settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder lawsuits

The motion seeks to reopen the settlement to permit the moving
stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present
and former officers of the company.  

On June 14, 2005, the Federal Court granted movants' motion to
be allowed to take limited discovery prior to the Federal
Court's ruling on the 60(b) Motions.  Such discovery is ongoing.  

Representing Mr. Wyly is attorney William Brewer.


CANADA: Lawyer Sues Gov't. for Exposing Aborigines to Alcohol
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian attorney Harold Johnson filed a lawsuit against the
federal and Saskatchewan provincial governments, claiming they
should be held liable for evil influences alcohol has caused in
the lives of Treaty 6 members, The Prince Albert Daily Herald
reports.

According to Mr. Johnson, he filed the lawsuit after too often
seeing people suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS).  He
filed the lawsuit papers in Prince Albert's Court of Queen's
Bench

Mr. Johnson simply explains that he filed the suit after he got
tired of seeing clients at least once a week that he suspects to
have FAS.

The Treaty 6 agreement says no intoxicating liquor shall be
introduced or sold on reserves or within the Treaty 6
boundaries.

It was agreed upon by the federal government that it was
responsible for protecting the Indians "from the evil influence
of the use of intoxicating liquors."  

However, that hasn't happened, Mr. Johnson claims.  In a phone
conversation with The Prince Albert Daily Herald he says that
the poorest of the poor are completely addicted to a substance
that the government is providing.

Mr. Johnson expects a decision any day from the court as to
whether he is properly suing the Saskatchewan government.  He
explains that since the treaty was signed between the federal
government and aboriginals, the province says it holds no
responsibility.

If the lawsuit against Saskatchewan doesn't go through, Mr.
Johnson will focus his efforts on the lawsuit against the
Canadian government.  He is trying to have the suit deemed as a
class action.

In its current form, the suit seeks financial compensation for
damages done to Treaty 6 members as a result of being exposed to
alcohol.  

Mr. Johnson said that if the lawsuit is successful, he hopes
that the government would then cross-claim liquor companies and
holding them accountable to provide monetary compensation.


CHICAGO TRANSIT: Settles Suit Over "Chicago Cards" for $199,400
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Transit Authority agreed to settle a class action
filed in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of riders who were
unable to buy "Chicago Cards" when the transit agency's fare
structure changed a year ago.
     
Terms of the settlement, reached in Jan. 29, set aside $199,400
for riders.  However, neither the authority nor the class-action
attorneys are certain how many riders could be covered by the
settlement, according to a report by WBBM780.
     
As a result, CTA spokesperson Sheila Gregory said that the terms
of the settlement require riders to file claim forms that
require them to tell where and when they tried unsuccessfully to
obtain "Chicago Cards," which were being distributed free at the
time.  It also asks how much riders spent on fares that they
otherwise could have saved.
     
In general, according to Ms. Gregory, the individual payouts
will depend on the number of claims that are verified.
     
The Chicago Card and the companion Chicago Card Plus allow
riders to travel aboard CTA trains and buses for $1.75 a ride,
with a 25-cent transfer.

CTA no longer sells cash transfers.  It charges $2 a ride for
those who pay cash, and riders must pay a new fare each time
they switch trains or buses.

Those using the old magnetic-strip fare cards can transfer
between buses, but not between buses and trains.
     
Under the settlement terms, claims must be filed by May 29 to
the class-action attorneys of the law firm of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin.
     
The refunds will be credited to the customers' Chicago Cards or
to their Chicago Card Plus accounts.  The Chicago Card Plus is
rechargeable, using credit cards.

                         Case Background

The suit alleged that CTA failed to provide a sufficient stock
of Chicago Cards at the supermarkets and currency exchanges that
acted as vendors.
     
It was filed on behalf of Tiffany Chancellor, an African-
American, whose attorneys say is spending as much as three times
the cost of riding CTA to and from work because of the inability
to find the "Chicago Card" in stores near where she lives near
69th Street and Clyde Avenue (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12,
2006).  

According to Al Hofeld Jr., of Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LCC, in Chicago, "The CTA is running out of the Chicago
Card or they have ran out of Chicago Cards."  He also told The
Chicago Defender, "Our client is a young woman who lives in the
South Shore neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago.  She
tried various currency exchanges but couldn't find any Chicago
Cards.  She works downtown and tried to find the 'Chicago Card'
at various locations downtown, and still found none."

Attorney Daniel A. Edelman, also of Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LCC, said that as a result, Ms. Chancellor has been
required to pay about  $12 a day roundtrip in cash to take three
buses to drop her child off to school and then get to her job.

He contends that if she had found adequate locations to purchase
the Chicago Card, his client would only pay an average $4
roundtrip per day.

For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LCC, 120 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60603,
Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: (312) 419-0379, Web site:
http://www.edcombs.com.


COLDWELL BANKER: Faces Charges Over Alleged Secret Incentives
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul, Minnesota lawyer William Crowder filed a lawsuit in
Hennepin County District Court against Edina-based Coldwell
Banker Burnet for allegedly secretly providing incentives to
agents for client referral to affiliated Burnet Title, the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune reports.

The suit, which seeks class-action certification, was filed on
behalf of Kenneth and Dylet Grady of Plymouth, who claim that
the company didn't represent their best interests because it
knowingly steered them to Burnet Title for high-priced title and
closing services.

The suit claims that the only disclosure Coldwell Banker Burnet
makes that describes its relationship with Burnet Title is an
affiliated-business disclosure that satisfies the minimum
requirements of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act but
"doesn't satisfy the greater obligations of a fiduciary ... to
fully disclose all material facts of which it is aware."

If certified as a class action, the suit will seek monetary
damages and relief for the plaintiffs and changes in the
company's practice.

Representing plaintiffs is William H. Crowder of Crowder, Bedor
& Paulson, LLP, 555 W 7th St., Suite 201, St Paul, MN 55102-
3009, Phone: (651) 225-8330, Fax: (651) 225-4847.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face "Rix" Litigation in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
remain defendants in the purported class action, "Sheri Rix v.
Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems,
Inc.," which was filed in the Circuit Court of Williamson
County, Illinois.

This class action, served against the company on March 3, 2005,
was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the
representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who
were treated at the company's Heartland Regional Medical Center.

Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

Plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of
overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  It also seeks
compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

The Circuit Court Judge recently granted company's motion to
dismiss this case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her
case.  The parties are briefing their positions, according to
the company's Feb. 20 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Community Health Systems, Inc., on the Net: http://www.chs.net.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Begins in Pa. Uninsured's Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a class action filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania against Community
Health Systems, Inc. and its management company subsidiary.

The class action, "James Monroe v. Pottstown Memorial Hospital
and Community Health Systems, Inc.," was brought by the
plaintiff on behalf of himself and as the representative of
similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the
company's Pottstown Memorial Hospital or any of its other
Pennsylvania hospitals.  

Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company use
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

The plaintiff seeks recovery under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, restitution of
overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and
injunctive relief.  

The case was recently dismissed and re-filed, adding Community
Health's management company subsidiary as a defendant.

Discovery has commenced in this case, according to the company's
Feb. 20 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Community Health Systems, Inc., on the Net: http://www.chs.net.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Briefing to Begin in Ala. Uninsured's Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing will proceed in a class action filed against Community
Health Systems, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Barbour County,
Alabama, Eufaula Division.  

The suit is "Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols vs. Eufaula
Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc., South
Baldwin Regional Medical Center and Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corporation."

The class action, previously, captioned, "Arleana Lawrence and
Robert Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community
Health Systems, Inc.," was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and as the representatives of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview
Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals.

Plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company use
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

They seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other
allowable damages and injunctive relief.

In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of
the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management
company subsidiary as a defendant.  

In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another
plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, the company's
hospital in Foley, Alabama, South Baldwin Regional Medical
Center.

Discovery has been concluded on the class determination issues
and briefing will proceed, according to the company's Feb. 20
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Community Health Systems, Inc., on the Net: http://www.chs.net.


COTTRELL INC: Truck Drivers' Lawyers Want Unrelated Case's Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Collinsville (Illinois) attorneys Brian Wendler and Thomas Maag
who are pursuing cases on behalf of truck drivers against
Georgia trailer maker Cottrell Inc. had asked for records under
seal in a separate suit, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The documents being sought are in relation to a patent
infringement suit that Boydstun Metal Works filed against
Cottrell.  The motions by Mr. Maag and Mr. Wendler are filed in
two similar suits they are pursuing for Keith Yount and Gary
Clark against Cottrell.  The plaintiffs are suing Cottrell and
Cassens business over injuries they claim they suffered while
securing vehicles to trailers.

Madison Circuit Judge Daniel Stack set a Feb. 28 hearing on any
objections from Cottrell.


EL PASO: March Hearing Set for $285M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on March 6, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for the
proposed $285 million settlement in the matter, "Wyatt et al.,
et al. v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-02717."

The court will hold the hearing at U.S. District Courthouse, 515
Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Feb. 2, 2007.  Claim forms should be submitted by April
18, 2007.

The settlement covers persons or entities that acquired
securities of El Paso Corp. from Feb. 20, 2000, through Feb. 17,
2004.

                       Case Background

Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr., Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund,
and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System brought
the securities class action against El Paso Corp. and other
defendants, alleging violations of the securities laws.  

Under the settlement, defendants will pay $285 million.  Of
this, $273 million will be paid by El Paso, while
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP will pay $12 million.  After
deductions for attorneys' fees and other expenses, the remainder
will be distributed to the class members.  

For more details, contact A.B. Data, Ltd., Phone: (800) 949-
0148, Web site: http://www.elpasosecuritiessettlement.com.


EQ INDUSTRIAL: Lawyer Asks Superior Court to Seal Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for EQ Industrial Services Inc. asked Wake County
(North Carolina) Superior Judge Howard Manning to seal internal
documents of the company that are currently in the possession of
the state in relation to a class action filed over an October
chemical fire at the company, The News & Observer reports.

On Oct. 5, 2006, a chemical explosion occurred at EQ's waste
storage plant in Apex, North Carolina causing a fire that forced
the evacuation of thousands of nearby residents.

Afterwards, the law firms of Parker & Waichman, LLP, Greg Jones
& Associates, PA, Neblett, Beard Arsenault, Becnel Law Firm,
LLC, and The Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton filed a suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Raleigh Division on behalf of thousands of individuals and
businesses who suffered damages due to the explosion (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006.

It alleges that the explosion and massive fire at the facility
was a result of the company's negligence, which needlessly
endangered the safety of thousands of people, damaged property
and interrupted business activity.

The lawsuit alleges that EQ's negligent actions caused a massive
chemical explosion, resulting in chlorine and other hazardous
materials to enter the air and surrounding community.  Chlorine
gas is highly toxic and was used as a chemical weapon during
World War I.

The suit seeks remedies for claims involving personal injury,
property damage and business interruption.

On Feb. 12, a lawyer for EQ requested that internal documents of
the company be sealed to prevent competitors from getting
information that would reveal how the company conducts its
business, the report said.

The documents include the names of the 13 customers EQ was
storing waste for at the time of the Oct. 5 fire as well as
pricing information, said Richard Keshian, an attorney
representing EQ.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked for the document from the
state Division of Waste Management.

Judge Manning did not say when he would make a decision, but
told lawyers from EQ to prepare redacted information so that it
could be made public pending his decision, the report said.

The suit is Case No. 5:06-cv-00400-D filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under Judge
James C. Dever.

Plaintiffs' counsel:

     (1) Jason Mark, Esq. and Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. both of
         Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone: (800) LAW-INFO or (800)
         529-4636 Toll-free, E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com,
         Website: http://www.yourlawyer.com;and

     (2) Gregory L. Jones of Greg Jones & Associates, PA, Phone:
         910-251-2240, Fax: 251-1520, E-mail:
         greg@gregjoneslaw.com.


FERRO CORP: Ohio Court Approves $4M ERISA Litigation Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio gave
preliminary approval to the $4 million settlement of a purported
class action against Ferro Corp. over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On June 10, 2005, a putative class action was filed against
Ferro Corp., and certain former and current employees alleging
breach of fiduciary duty with respect to ERISA plans.

In October 2006, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that would result in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice
in exchange for the settlement amount of $4.0 million, which
would be paid by the company's liability insurer subject to the
company's satisfaction of the remaining retention amount under
the insurance policy.

The company and the individual defendants expressly deny any and
all liability.  Several contingent events must be satisfied
before the settlement becomes final, including preliminary and
final approval by the U.S. District Court where the matter is
pending.

The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on Nov. 3, 2006, according to the company's Dec. 8,
2006 Form 10-Q Filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Duquette v. Ferro Corp., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01594-JMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio under Judge John M. Manos.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein, 60 South
         Park Place, Painsville, OH 44077, Phone: 440-352-3391,
         Fax: 440-352-3469, E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com;  

     (2) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, Ste. 1005, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868-3610, Fax:
         212-918-7967; and

     (3) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone & Bonner, Ste. 1000, 485
         7th Street, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-239-4340,
         Fax: 239-4310, E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com.  

Representing the defendants is Steven A. Friedman of Squire,
Sanders & Dempsey, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland,
OH 44114, Phone: 216-479-8327, Fax: 216-479-8777, E-mail:
sfriedman@ssd.com.  


FERRO CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

In a July 23, 2004, press release, Ferro announced that its
Polymer Additives business performance in the second quarter of
2004 fell short of expectations and that its Audit Committee
would investigate possible inappropriate accounting entries in
Ferro's Polymer Additives business.

A consolidated putative securities class action arising from and
related to the July 23, 2004, announcement is currently pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against Ferro, its deceased former chief executive officer, its
chief financial officer, and a former operating vice president
of Ferro.

The claim is based on alleged violations of federal securities
laws, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing
with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Greenhouse Partners, LLP, et
al. v. Ferro Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01440-JMM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215-735-5185;

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

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

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
         (Philadelphia), 1845 Walnut St., Suite 945,
         Philadelphia, CA, 19103, Phone: 215.988.9546, Fax:
         215.988.9885, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

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

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

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

     (8) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com; and

     (9) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail:
         howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


FIFTH THIRD: Faces Multiple Suits Over Client Information Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is a defendant in several putative class
action complaints that have been filed in various federal courts
and one state court relating to an alleged intrusion of The TJX
Cos., Inc.'s computer system and the potential theft of their
customers' non-public personal information and alleged
violations of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.

Fifth Third was the transaction processor for the TJX companies,
and therefore responsible for ensuring security of the card
information.

The Bancorp has filed a motion to remove the state court action
to federal court.  Some of the complaints were filed by
consumers and seek unquantified damages on behalf of putative
classes of persons who transacted business at any one of TJX's
stores during the period of May 2006 through December 2006.

Another was filed by a bank and seeks unquantified damages on
behalf of other similarly situated entities that suffered losses
in relation to the alleged intrusion.

Fifth Third Bancorp on the Net: http://www.53.com/.


FIFTH THIRD: Still Faces Payment Card Interchange Fee Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp remains a defendant in the consolidated
antitrust class action, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-
md-01720-JG-JO," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

On April 26, 2006, the company was added as a defendant in the
consolidated lawsuit, which was originally filed against Visa,
MasterCard and several other major financial institutions.

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

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

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral
James Orenstein.

Representing the plaintiffs:

     (1) Darla Jo Boggs of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneappolis,
         MN 55401, US, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981,
         E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com;  

     (2) Christopher M. Burke of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: chrisb@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Jason S. Cowart of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
         Gross, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212-661-1100, Fax: 212-661-8665, E-mail:
         jasoncowart@yahoo.com.

Representing the company is Patrick F. Fischer of Keating
Muething & Klekamp, PLL, One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-
mail: pfischer@kmklaw.com.


GIANT EAGLE: Withdraws Pasta Ribbons Containing Undeclared Eggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Italian Pasta Co., the independent manufacturer of
Giant Eagle brand Egg Free Pasta Ribbons, has notified Giant
Eagle that a recently produced shipment of the product may
inadvertently contain eggs.

Because of this error, Giant Eagle has voluntarily withdrawn all
packages (12 oz., UPC 3003404596) of Giant Eagle Egg Free Pasta
Ribbons from store shelves in its 227 supermarkets in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland.  Customers who
have recently purchased the product may return the item to Giant
Eagle for a full refund.

No other Giant Eagle pasta is affected by this issue, and those
without egg allergies can safely consume the product.  Giant
Eagle has not been made aware of any customer incidents related
to this product.

According to the Nemours Foundation, the effects of egg
consumption by someone who has an egg allergy may vary.  
Allergic reactions typically happen within minutes to hours
after consumption.  Most reactions last less than a day and may
affect the skin, the gastrointestinal tract or the respiratory
tract.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herley Industries, Inc. was named as a defendant in several
purported securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In June and July 2006, the company was served with several class
action complaints against the company and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
according to the company's Dec. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 29, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Kevin Montoya, et al. v.
Herley Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-02596," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Berger & Montague PC, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia,
         PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax: 215.875.4604, E-
         mail: investorprotect@bm.net;

     (2) Charles H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi St.,
         New Brighton, MN, 55112 Phone: (651) 633-5685;

     (3) 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;

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

     (5) Gardy & Notis, LLP, 440 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood
         Cliffs, NJ, 07632, Phone: 201-567-7377, Fax: 201-567-
         7337, E-mail: info@gardylaw.com;

     (6) Howard G. Smith, Attorney at Law, 3070 Bristol Pike,
         Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847,
         Fax: (215) 638-4867;

     (7) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York
         Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.

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

     (9) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY, 10118, E-mail:
         classattorney@pipeline.com;

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

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

    (12) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com.


ILLINOIS: Circuit Court Blocks Intervention in "Ligas" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to deny a petition by representatives of disabled
people to intervene in a proposed disability class action
against the state of Illinois.

The motion to intervene was filed by representatives of a number
of developmentally disabled people who were worried that they
might have been unwilling members of a proposed class in the
lawsuit, "Stanley Ligas, et al. v. Barry S. Maram et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-04331" which was filed under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The purported class action, filed in July 28, 2005, charges the
state of Illinois of violating the civil rights of people with
developmental disabilities by effectively forcing them into
large institutions rather than offering them the choice of
living in smaller community settings.  

It was brought on behalf of the thousands of individuals who are
needlessly institutionalized in large Intermediate Care
Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled when they could be
better served in smaller, community based settings.

On October 2005, fearing that the remedy being sought by the
plaintiffs was contrary to their wishes the Illinois Health Care
Association, residents of Misericordia (a private facility), and
9 residents of private facilities unsuccessfully sought
intervention.

The plaintiffs and defendants opposed the intervention, and the
district court denied the petition.  The intervenors appealed
the decision to the 7th Circuit, which however affirmed the
district court's decision.  

If successful, the proposed ADA class action would hasten the
state of Illinois down the road to community-based care by
requiring it to provide community-based care for class members
who live in institutions or are at risk of living in one,
according to a report by The Courthouse News Service.

The intervenors, representatives of the proposed class who
prefer to stay in institutions, want to prevent the class-action
plaintiffs from absorbing them into the suit that might force
institutionalized members into the community.

In affirming the earlier ruling by the district court, the 7th
Circuit Court found the complaint "replete with language on
choice," citing a law that requires the state to offer "a choice
between institutional and community services."  It also found
the appellants failed to show that the state defendants acted
negligently or in bad faith.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's opinion is available free of
charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1a33.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Barry Charlton Taylor of Equip for
         Equality, 20 North Michigan, Suite 300, Chicago, IL
         60602, Phone: (312) 341-0022; or

     (2) [Defendant] Karen Elaine Konieczny, Illinois Attorney
         General's Office, 160 North LaSalle Street, Suite N-
         1000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 793-2380, E-mail:
         karen.konieczny@illinois.gov.


JARDEN CORP: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jarden Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a securities fraud
complaint filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain company officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 through Jan.
12, 2006.  June 29, 2005 is the date the company announced the
signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc.

Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006.  No class
has been certified in the actions.  The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the
company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and certain officers of the
company.  

The suit is alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs
were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.  

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.  That motion has been fully briefed.  

Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on Feb. 2, but
the court has not yet issued a decision, according to the
company's Feb. 20 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v.
Jarden Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com;

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

     (3) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 60 Park
         Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212.838.3221, E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com;

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

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

     (6) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (7) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com;

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

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

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


KITEC MAKERS: Nev. Suit Now Includes Las Vegas Valley Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against the manufacturers of Kitec brass
plumbing fittings has been expanded to include potentially
35,000 to 50,000 homes throughout the Las Vegas Valley, an
attorney for some of the homeowners said, according to the Las
Vegas Review-Journal.

The suit started last year with about 1,000 homes in Sun City
MacDonald Ranch.  Randall Jones of Harrison Kemp Jones law firm
said the class action now includes all owners of homes in Clark
County with Kitec brass plumbing fittings.

Defendants named in the lawsuit are Kitec maker IPEX, Classic
Plumbing, Sharp Plumbing and Cox & Sons Plumbing.  The case
alleges that extensive corrosion and crystallization caused by
chemical reaction occurs where Kitec is coupled with
polyurethene-based tubing result in plumbing problems such as
leaks, reduced water flow and breaks.

Attorney Francis Lynch of Lynch Hopper Salzano, representing Sun
City MacDonald Ranch homeowners said the MacDonald Ranch case is
continuing and a hearing is scheduled in March.

The suit was already certified as a class action by Clark County
District Court Judge Timothy Williams.

Harrison Kemp Jones on the Net: http://www.hkj-law.com,Phone:  
702-385-6000, Fax: 702-385-6001.


MCKESSON HBOC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold on April 13, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., an approval hearing
for the $72.5 million proposed settlement of the class action
"In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)."

The class consists of all persons or entities who:

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
        securities of HBOC during the period from January 20,
        1997 through and including January 12, 1999;

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired call options or sold put
        options of HBOC during the period from January 20, 1997
        through and including April 27, 1999;

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
        securities or call options, or who sold put options, of
        McKesson Corporation or of McKesson HBOC, Inc. during
        the period from October 18, 1998 through and including
        April 27, 1999; or

     -- held McKesson common stock on November 27, 1998 and
        still held those shares on January 12, 1999, and were
        injured thereby.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in the courtroom of the Honorable Ronald
M. Whyte.

Deadline to file for exclusion is March 27, 2007.  Deadline to
file claims is on May 10, 2007.

The suit was filed in April 1999 against McKesson, HBOC,
McKesson HBOC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Arthur Andersen, LLP,
and certain officers or directors of McKesson or HBOC.

The litigation alleges that HBOC, and after the merger with
McKesson, McKesson HBOC reported fraudulent revenues, income and
assets, which caused members of the class to suffer losses.

Lead Plaintiff, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, has
entered into a proposed settlement of the Litigation with
defendant Arthur Andersen LLP (AALLP).

Lead Plaintiff believes that $72.5 million in cash, plus
interest, confers a substantial benefit to the Settlement Class
after more than seven years of Litigation.

Lead Plaintiff considered, among other factors:

     -- the immediacy of the recovery to the Settlement Class in
        lieu of protracted litigation through trial and appeals;

     -- the defenses asserted in the Litigation; the inherent
        uncertainty and risk associated with a complex action,
        such as this one;

     -- the ability of AALLP to withstand a judgment in a great
        amount; and

     -- the claims against the remaining Non-Settling Defendant.

The AALLP Settlement, however, is only a partial settlement of
the Litigation, and Lead Plaintiff will continue to pursue
claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.

The proposed Settlement Amount is in addition to the $960
million settlement with defendants McKesson HBOC, Inc. and HBO &
Co. previously approved by the Court.

McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation on the net:

           http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com

The suit is "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Class counsel are:

     (1) McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o David
         Stickney and Timothy A. DeLange, 12481 High Bluff
         Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California, 92130; and

     (2) McKesson HBOC Inc Securities Litigation, c/o Leonard
         Barrack and M. Richard Komins, both of Barrack, Rodos &
         Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Lyn Robyn Agre of Topel & Goodman, 832 Sansome St. 4th
         Flr., San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 421-6140,
         Fax: 415-398-5030, E-mail: lra@topelgoodmanc.com;

     (2) Sima Saran Ahuja of Fried Frank Harris Shriver &
         Jacobson, One New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004,
         Phone: (212) 820-8000;

     (3) William F. Alderman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
         405 Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415/773-5944, Fax: 415/773-5700, E-mail:
         walderman@orrick.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: March 6 Hearing Set for Ark. Antitrust Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas will hold a
fairness hearing on March 6, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Peek v. Microsoft Corp., No. CV-06-
2612."

The hearing will be held at the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, Twelfth Division, 401 W. Markham Street, Little Rock,
Arkansas.

Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement was due
Feb. 17 & 20, 2007, respectively.  Proof of claim forms must be
submitted by April 23, 2007.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that the company violated
Arkansas laws pertaining to anti-trust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition and thereby overcharged consumers for some of
its software.

The settlement will provide up to $37.8 million in vouchers,
which people and businesses can use toward the purchase of
computers, computer products, and software.

It applies to consumers and businesses that, while residing in
Arkansas, "indirectly purchased" certain Microsoft software
between Jan. 1, 1998 and Dec. 31, 2004, for use in Arkansas, and
not for resale.

The software included is: Microsoft's "Windows" and "MS-DOS"
operating system software; Microsoft's "Office" productivity
suite software; Microsoft's "Excel" software; Microsoft's "Word"
word processing software, including "Home Essentials" and "Works
Suite."

The deal will resolve private lawsuits about whether the company
violated Arkansas laws pertaining to anti-trust, consumer
protection, and unfair competition.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Microsoft-Arkansas Settlement, P.O. Box 3607, Portland,
         OR 97208, Phone: 1-800-572-0455, Web site:
         http://www.microsoftARsuit.com.

     (2) Mike L. Roberts of Roberts Law Firm, P.A., 20 Rahling
         Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223, Phone: (501) 821-5575.


NEW YORK: Litigation Over Fees for Inmates' Phone Calls Revived
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals in Albany allowed a purported class action
alleging the state had illegally placed exorbitant charges on
collect phone calls made by prison inmates to move forward.

The 4-2 ruling overturns decisions by two lower courts that
dismissed the case captioned, "Walton v. New York State
Department of Correctional Services," on grounds that it was not
filed on time.  It now allows families who've had to pay high
phone rates to talk to relatives in state prison to seek for
refunds.

The court ruling came in the wake of a decision by Gov. Eliot
Spitzer to reverse an old policy of adding state fees that more
than doubled the rates on such collect phone calls.

Families and lawyers of inmates brought the suit back in 2004,
alleging that the State Department of Correctional Services
overstepped its authority by essentially imposing a tax without
legislative approval.  

In their suit, they contended that the fees violated state
constitutional provisions related to taxation, free speech, due
process and equal protection.

In January, plaintiffs argued that the state had illegally
collected millions of dollars through a prison telephone service
contract with Verizon Communications Inc.

The suit sought to prevent similar arrangements from being made
by the state in the future.

With the court's recent ruling, plaintiffs' attorney Rachel
Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that they
would move to seek class-action status for the case.

According to Ms. Meeropol, they will seek certification soon on
behalf of everyone who has received a collect call from a
prisoner in New York state.  

She notes that families across the state could be eligible to
recoup up to $75 million, since the state has collected $20
million to $25 million a year from the fees since the suit was
filed.

Previously, the State Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying
that the statute of limitations had passed on bringing such a
suit against the state.

However, the State Court of Appeals majority rejected that
assertion, stating that the clock did not start running on a
statute of limitations until the Public Service Commission
approved a rate change in late 2003.  The added-fee system began
in the late 1990s.

The appeals court thus said that the case could proceed on all
four of its constitutional claims though it did dismiss three
other claims.  It sent the case back to state Supreme Court in
Albany.

For more details, contact Rachel Meeropol of The Center for
Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY
10012, Phone: (212) 614-6464, Fax: (212) 614-6499, E-Mail:
info@ccr-ny.org, Web site: http://www.ccr-ny.org/.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Amended Securities Suit Over PFA Offer Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
entered an order granting the motion of the defendants,
including the company, to dismiss an amended securities fraud
complaint filed against Parlux Fragrances, Inc.

The motion had argued that the amended complaint failed to meet
the pleading requirements applicable to a case of this nature.  
The amended complaint was filed on Nov. 8, 2006, consolidating
five class action complaints previously filed during August and
September 2006.  The class actions alleged the company made
knowingly false statements about its revenues and profitability
beginning on Feb. 8, 2006.

It also contains allegations regarding the sale of company
shares by certain former company directors while allegedly in
possession of material non-public information.

On June 14, 2006, the company's board of directors received an
unsolicited letter from company chairman and chief executive,
Mr. Ilia Lekach, representing PF Acquisition of Florida LLC,
pertaining to the possible acquisition of all of the outstanding
common stock of the company at a proposed price of $29.00
($14.50 after the Stock Split) per share in cash, representing a
premium of 55% over the closing price of the company's common
stock on June 13, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006).

The proposal was subject to financial and other contingencies,
and was referred to the Special Committee of Independent
Directors of the Parlux board of directors.

The amended complaint included the allegations in the class
actions, as well as new allegations that the company improperly
recognized revenue on sales to related parties during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2005 and failed to comply with certain
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules
surrounding "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations".

As a result of the new allegations in the amended complaint, and
at the request of the company's independent registered public
accountants, the company's Audit Committee, in late November
2006, engaged experienced Special Audit Committee Counsel, who
then simultaneously engaged experienced independent forensic
accountants, to investigate the allegations.  Their
investigation is in progress.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida entered an order granting the motion of the
defendants, including the company, to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The motion had argued that the amended complaint
failed to meet the pleading requirements applicable to a case of
this nature.  The dismissal was without prejudice to the filing
of an amended complaint by March 8, 2007.

The suit is "Haugh v. Parlux Fragrances, et al., Case No. 0:06-
cv-61250-PCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck.

Representing plaintiffs are Maya Susan Saxena and Joseph E.
White, III, both of Saxena White PA, 2424 N Federal Highway,
Suite 257, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-394-3399, Fax: 394-
3382, E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com or jwhite@saxenawhite.com.

Representing defendants is Richard Eugene Brodsky of Squire
Sanders & Dempsey LLP, Wachovia Financial Center, 200 S Biscayne
Boulevard, 40th Floor, Miami, FL 33131-2398, Phone: 305-577-
7000, Fax: 577-7001, E-mail: rbrodsky@ssd.com.


PIONEER NATURAL: Kans. Court OKs Royalty Owners' Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas gave
final approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed
against Pioneer Natural Resources Co. by two classes of royalty
owners -- one for each of the gathering systems connected to its
Satanta gas plant.

The case, first filed in 1993, was relatively inactive for
several years.  In early 2000, the plaintiffs amended their
pleadings and it now contains two material claims.  

First, the plaintiffs assert that they were improperly charged
expenses, primarily field compression, which are a "cost of
production," and for which the plaintiffs, as royalty owners,
are not responsible.  

Second, the plaintiffs claim they are entitled to 50 percent of
the value of the helium extracted at the company's Satanta gas
plant.

During the third quarter of 2006, the company reached an
agreement to settle the claims made in the lawsuit.  Under the
terms of the agreement, the company agreed to make cash payments
to settle the plaintiffs' claims with respect to production
occurring on and before Dec. 31, 2005.

The company's portion of the cash payments is expected to be
$32.7 million, of which approximately $17.0 million was paid
during the third quarter of 2006 and the remaining approximately
$15.7 million will be paid in the third quarter of 2007.

The company also agreed to adjust the manner in which royalty
payments to the class members will be calculated for production
occurring on and after Jan. 1, 2006, which change is not
expected to have a material effect on the company's liquidity,
financial position or future results of operations.

Final approval was received from the court on Feb. 9, 2007, and
the settlement is expected to be final within 60 days of final
approval assuming no appeals are filed, according to the
company's Feb. 20 Form 10-K Filing with U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Pioneer Natural Resources Co. on the Net: http://www.pxd.com/.


PT PRIMA: Faces Possible Suit Related to Senopati Ferry Sinking
---------------------------------------------------------------
The families of the victims of the Senopati Nusantara ferry
sinking in the Java (Indonesia) Sea in December have filed legal
complaints against the owner of the ship on Jan. 24, it emerged
in a report by The Jakarta Post.

In the same article, the owner of the ferry PT Prima Vista is
reported to have increased compensation for the victims'
families in order to forestall a planned class action.

Prima Vista had earlier announced it would give compensation of
only IDR5 million for families of the dead, aside from the
insurance money of IDR10 million.

PT Prima agreed to raise the death compensation from IDR5
million (S$526) to IDR15 million per victim, on top of the IDR10
million to be provided by state insurance company PT Jasa
Raharja.  It also agreed to provide compensation amounting to
IDR2 million for each survivor, as well as reimbursement for
medical services of up to a maximum of IDR5 million.


RHEEM SALES: Recalls Water Heaters Posing CO Poisoning Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The water heating divisions of Rheem Sales Co. Inc., of
Montgomery, Alabama and Paloma Industries Inc., of Oxnard,
California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 42,200 Power Vent tankless water
heaters.

The companies said components inside the water heater may shift
during transit, causing an air filter door switch to operate
improperly.  If the switch fails and the air filter door is out
of place, the water heater could continue to operate and dust
and lint could build up, posing a carbon monoxide poisoning
hazard.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves indoor models of the Power Vent 199,900 BTUH
tankless water heaters.  The brands and model numbers included
in this recall are listed below and are located on the front of
the unit and the rating plate.  The water heaters have a cream
jacket or gray jacket enclosure with the piping on the top and
bottom of the unit.  The rating plate is a silver label located
the front of the unit, in the lower right hand corner.

Brand            Models

Paloma           PTG-74PVN; PTG-74PVP; PTG-74PVN-1; PTG-74PVP-1;
                 PTG-74PVNH; PTG-74PVPH; PTG-74PVNUH; PTG-
                 74PVPUH and PH-28RIFSN; PH-28RIFSP; PH-28RIFSN-
                 1; PH-28RIFSP-1; PH-28CIFSN; PH-28CIFSP; PH-
                 28CIFSN-1; PH-28CIFSP-1

Rheem            RTG-74PVN; RTG-74PVP; RTG-74PVN-1; RTG-74PVP-1

Ruud             RUTG-74PVN; RUTG-74PVP; RUTG-74PVN-1; RUTG-
                 74PVP-1

Rheem-Ruud       GT-199PV-N; GT-199PV-P; GT-199PV-N-1; GT-199PV-
                 P-1

Richmond         RMTG-74PVN; RMTG-74PVP; RMTG-74PVN-1; RMTG-
                 74PVP-1; RMTG-74PVNH; RMTG-74PVPH; RMTG-
                 74PVNUH; RMTG-74PVPUH

These recalled tankless water heaters were manufactured in Japan
and are being sold by retailers nationwide and through plumbing
wholesale distributors to plumbers, contractors and consumers
from May 2004 through December 2006 for between $800 and $1,300.

Consumers with the recalled water heaters should stop using them
immediately, if the air filter door is not in place.  Consumers,
who have not already been contacted by an authorized contractor,
should immediately contact their installer or Rheem
Manufacturing Co. to arrange for a free, on-site repair.  
Consumers are reminded to use the air filter door for these
water heaters to avoid a carbon monoxide hazard.

Pictures of the recalled tankless water heaters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07108a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07108b.jpg

For more information, contact Rheem toll-free at (866) 369-4786
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday and 9 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. CT Saturday and Sunday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.tankless-recall.com.

Note: Regardless of the type of water heater that is used, every
home should have a carbon monoxide alarm outside all sleeping
areas, and consumers should ensure that their carbon monoxide
alarms have working batteries.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Insurer Sues Over Alleged Fraudulent Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. is facing a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
over alleged marketing of its drugs through bribes and kickbacks
to physicians, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action is brought by United American Insurance Co. on
behalf of itself and a nationwide class of similarly situated
insurance companies and other similarly situated entities who
made Medicare co-payments based on Medicare-allowed amounts on
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries from Jan. 1, 1995 through June
2005 with respect to certain of the defendants drugs.

Lead plaintiff United American Insurance Co. claims the drugs
pushed illegally include Intron A, Temodar, PEG-Intron, Rebetol,
Eulexin, Integrilin and Fareston.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants
engaged in the following general types of acts and omissions as
part of their fraudulent marketing, promotion and sales scheme
conspiracy:

     (1) they promoted subject drugs to physicians by offering
         and paying various types of improper bribes, kickbacks
         and other illegal remuneration, whether or not such
         subject drugs were promoted, prescribed and used for
         indicated/approved medical conditions and in doses
         and/or for durations that were indicated/approved;

     (2) they promoted certain of subject drugs at doses and/or
         for durations of use that were not medically safe,
         efficacious, effective or useful, whether or not such
         subject drugs were promoted, prescribed and used for an
         indicated/approved medical condition; and

     (3) they promoted certain of subject drugs for non-
         indicated/unapproved or "off-label" uses.

More specifically, among other things, the complaint details
kickbacks provided by defendants to physicians and other medical
providers to induce them to prescribe certain pharmaceutical
products.

Defendants' practices were part of a highly organized and
orchestrated campaign, which, among other things included:

     (1) offering kickbacks to physicians and healthcare
         providers in the form of samples;
    
     (2) offering kickbacks to physicians in the form of
         "overfilled vials";

     (3) offering kickbacks to physicians and healthcare
         providers in the form of clinical drug trials;

     (4) providing lavish entertainment, etc.;

     (5) providing physicians and healthcare providers with
         phony speaker fees a/k/a "honorariums";

     (6) providing physicians and healthcare providers with
         phony grants;

     (7) providing physicians and healthcare providers with
         phony preceptorships;

     (8) using "investigator meetings" as inducements;

     (9) using "advisory board meetings" as inducements;

    (10) creating phony paperwork programs as a means to provide
         kickbacks to physicians;

    (11) providing remuneration as inducements to physicians and
         healthcare providers through its Commitment to Care
         program;

    (12) providing remuneration to a select handful of
         physicians through its Consultant Care Network; and

    (13) providing free full-time Physician Assistants to
         physician practices.

The suit claims Schering-Plough already has pleaded guilty to
fraudulent marketing and conspiracy, "although they have not
disclosed the full breadth of their criminal conduct."

The insurer says it had to pay "hundreds of millions, if not
billions, of dollars for Subject Drugs," often as Medicare
claims for off-label uses.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in the fraudulent marketing
         and sales scheme and conspiracy alleged;

     (b) whether the conspiracy was implemented;

     (c) whether Intron A, Temodar and combination therapy are
         medically necessary for uses not approved by the FDA;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or
         unfair deceptive scheme of improperly marketing,
         promoting and selling Intron A, Temodar and/or
         combination therapy to treat conditions for which these
         subject drugs were not approved by the FDA;

     (e) whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or
         unfair deceptive scheme of improperly marketing,
         promoting and selling Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron
         Combination Therapy for conditions for which these
         subject drugs were not medically safe, efficacious,
         effective or useful;

     (f) whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or
         unfair deceptive scheme of improperly marketing,
         promoting and selling any of the subject drugs for
         durations of use or in dosages that exceeded or were
         otherwise outside the scope of FDA approval or that
         were not medically safe, efficacious, effective or
         useful;

     (g) whether defendants coached or instructed physicians or
         others on how to conceal the off-label nature of Intron
         A, Temodar and/or combination therapy claim forms
         submitted by or to patients and members of the class or
         the federal government;

     (h) whether defendants prepared, funded and published
         studies and other materials which contained false
         information and misrepresentations regarding off-label
         uses, or the validity of or propriety of or scientific
         and other support for, off-label uses of Intron A,
         Temodar and/or combination therapy;

     (i) whether, and how many occasions, defendants provided
         false information and made false statements to the
         federal government regarding their off-label
         promotional practices pertaining Intron A, Temodar
         and/or combination therapy;

     (j) whether defendants utilized others and/or engaged in
         conspiracies to assist in the publication and
         dissemination of false statements, or fraudulent
         studies, to physicians concerning off-label uses of
         Intron A, Temodar and/or combination therapy;

     (k) whether defendants used kickbacks, bribes and/or other  
         payments or provision of illegal remuneration or
         inducements to induce physicians to prescribe,
         administer, or otherwise treat patients with any of the
         subject drugs, whether or not such prescribing,
         administration or treatment was for medical conditions
         that were FDA-approved;

     (l) whether defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
         with the intent of deceiving and defrauding plaintiff
         and the class and with the intent of suppressing the
         unlawful conduct and conspiracy;

     (m) whether defendants violated state consumer protection
         statutes;

     (n) whether defendants' conduct is actionable as common law
         fraud;

     (o) whether defendants are liable under state conspiracy
         and/or state concert of action laws;

     (p) whether defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the
         expense of plaintiff and members of the class;

     (q) whether defendants engaged in a pattern or practice
         that directly and proximately caused plaintiff and
         members of the class to pay for any of the subject
         drugs for non-medically necessary uses, for uses not
         approved by the FDA, or in doses or for durations of
         use that were not approved by the FDA or that were not
         medically necessary;

     (r) whether defendants' illegal bribes, kickbacks, payments
         of illegal remuneration and/or other illegal
         inducements provided to physicians and other medical
         providers directly and proximately caused plaintiff and
         members of the class to pay for any of the subject
         drugs, or to pay more for the subject drugs than they
         otherwise would have paid either for those specific
         subject drugs or for an alternative drug or treatment,
         whether or not the subject drugs for which plaintiff
         and the members of the class paid were for FDA-approved
         uses;

     (s) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         compensatory damages; and if so, the nature of such
         damages;

     (t) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to punitive damages, treble damages or exemplary
         damages and, if so, the nature of such damages;

     (u) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         equitable relief pursuant to their claim for unjust
         enrichment or otherwise; and

     (v) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgement
         interest, post-judgment interest and costs of suit.

Plaintiff and the class demand judgment against defendants in
each claim for relief, jointly and severally, and as follows:

     -- on the claim under the consumer protection statutes of
        the states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
        compensatory damages, treble damages, and any other
        damages permitted under such statutes, such amounts to
        be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this
        suit and reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- on the common law fraud claim, compensatory damages and
        punitive damages, such amounts to be determined at
        trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this suit and
        reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- on the conspiracy/concert of action claim, compensatory
        damages, treble damages and punitive damages, such
        amounts to be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's
        costs in this suit and all reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- on the claim for unjust enrichment, recovery in the
        amount of plaintiff's and the class'

             (i) payments for these subject drugs to treat
                 conditions for which these drugs were not
                 approved by the FDA;

            (ii) over-payments for these subject drugs resulting
                 from defendant-promoted treatment with
                 excessive dosages or over excessive durations
                 that were not FDA-approved, even if the
                 underlying medical conditions for use were FDA-
                 approved; and

           (iii) payments or over-payments for these subject
                 drugs where plaintiff's and the class'
                 purchases arose from bribes, kickbacks, illegal
                 remuneration or other illegal inducements paid
                 or provided to their physicians by the
                 defendants, such amounts to be determined at
                 trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this suit and
                 reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- on the claims based on violations of Federal Statutes,
        compensatory damages and punitive damages, such amounts
        to be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in
        this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class other appropriate
        equitable relief, including, but not limited to,
        disgorgement of all profits obtained from their wrongful
        conduct and declaratory relief;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their costs and
        expenses in this litigation, including expert fees, and
        reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class such other and further
        relief as may be just and proper under the
        circumstances.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a2f

The suit is "United American Insurance Co. v. Schering-Plough
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00702-MK," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Marvin Katz.

Representing plaintiffs is Donald E. Haviland, Jr., The Haviland
law Firm, LLC, 740 South Third St., 3rd Flr., Philadelphia, PA
19147, Phone: 215-609-4661, Fax: 215-392-4400, E-mail:
haviland@havilandlaw.com.


SINGAPORE: Appeals Court Hears Gov't Employees' Suit Over CFP
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals in Singapore has reserved judgment in a class
action filed by 103 government employees seeking state pension
payback, Today Online reports.

The plaintiffs are among 12,000 public officers given the option
by the then-Permanent Secretary of Finance of converting to the
Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme in May 1973.  About 7,500
transferred to the scheme.  Currently, 1 percent of civil
servants are on the pension scheme, according to the report.

Central to the case is whether the then-Permanent Secretary had
the power to make their decision to join the CPF scheme
"irrevocable."  The government employees wanted to return to the
government's Central Provident Fund contributions that would
have granted them a monthly stipend, life-long free medical
treatment and heavily subsidized ward charges.

The group's lawyer, Mr. V. Ramayah, said the plaintiffs were
only told the advantage of using the CPF to buy HDB flats, but
were not informed that they would lose their medical benefits.

In August, Justice Tan Lee Meng dismissed plaintiffs' arguments.  
At a hearing on Feb. 20, Mr. Ramayah argued that under Section
9(d) of the Pensions Act and Article 112 of the Singapore
Constitution, civil servants' rights to a pension could not be
"contracted out by private treaty".

In answer, Second Solicitor-General Walter Woon, representing
the state's Attorney-General Chambers, countered that the
pension scheme was not an "entitlement" for civil servants.


TAP MACHINE: Recalls Sake Warmers Posing Serious Burn Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tap Machine Inc., of New Rochelle, New York, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,000 sake warmers.

The company said these sake warmers can unexpectedly spray hot
sake on consumers during use, posing a risk of serious burns.

Tap Machine has received one report of a consumer sustaining
first and second degree burns when using the sake warmer.

The recalled product is used to warm sake at restaurants, bars
or for home use.  The counter-sized unit is about 11-inches wide
by 11-inches deep by 19-inches high.  The unit warms sake to
between 115 and 145 degrees Fahrenheit.  It has a front-mounted
spicket to control the flow of sake and uses an external 18-
liter bag in the box reservoir or an external three-liter
refillable plastic reservoir, both of which contain sake and are
placed on top of the unit.

The recalled units have model number SM05 followed by serial
numbers: 1001 through 3074, which is written on the left side of
the units.

These sake warmers were manufactured in Taiwan ROC and are being
sold at Tap Machine's Web site, by telephone order, and at
various wine and spirit distributors from November 2005 through
January 2007 for about $150.

Picture of the recalled sake warmers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07109.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using these sake warmers and
return them to Tap Machine for a full refund.

For more information, contact Tap Machine Inc. at (888) 556-0703
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit:
http://www.sakewarmer.com.


TYSON FOODS: Workers to Ask "Chavez" Settlement Process Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc. worker Manuel Cuevas of Kennewick, Washington
plans to ask U.S. District Judge Robert Whaley to appoint an
auditor to look closely on the process of settling a class
action filed by workers against the company, Tri-City Herald
(Kennewick, Wash.) reports.

Mr. Cuevas disclosed the plan at meeting of more than 70 current
and former IBP/Tyson Fresh Meats employees inside the
International Plaza in Pasco.  He and his fellow workers
involved in an $8.7 million settlement are complaining that the
agreement is inequitable.  

Hue Nguyen who worked at the company cutting meat for 24 years
received only $67, while co-worker Boun Om Phanekham, who never
cut meat for the company during his 26 years on the job, was
awarded $6,000, according to the report.

The suit, "Chavez v. IBP Inc. et al," was filed in 2002 by
workers complaining they were not paid for time spent on putting
on safety gear, cleaning up and storing tools and walking to the
production line during the time they worked for the company from
1998 to 2006.

The settlement was awarded to production line workers in March
2006.  

Tyson Foods acquired IBP in Sept. 2001 and renamed it Tyson  
Fresh Meats.

The suit is "Chavez, et al. v. IBP Inc, et al., Case No. 2:01-
cv-05093-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Washington under Judge Robert H. Whaley.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Joel M. Cohn, Michael J. Mueller and Nicole M. Mueller,  
         all of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP - DC, 1333  
         New Hampshire Ave NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,  
         Phone: 202-887-4000 or 202-887-4136, Fax: 12029557644  
         or 12029557787 or 202-887-4288, E-mail:  
         jcohn@akingump.com or mmueller@akingump.com or  
         nmueller@akingump.com; and  

     (2) Robert C. Tenney of Meyer Fluegge & Tenney, 230 S  
         Second Street, P O Box 22680, Yakima, WA 98907, Phone:  
         509-575-8500, Fax: 15095754676, E-mail:  
         tenney@mftlaw.com.

Representing plaintiffs are David N. Mark of the Law Office of  
David N Mark, 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104,  
Phone: 206-340-1840, Fax: 12063401846, E-mail:  
david@marklawoffice.com; and Kathryn Goater and William Rutzick,  
both of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500  
Seattle, WA 98104-1614, Phone: 206-622-8000, Fax: 12066822305,  
E-mail: goater@sgb-law.com or rutzick@sgb-law.com.


UNITED LIFE: Ordered to Reveal Info on Policies Sold Since 1991
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Dave Hylla granted a motion by a
Lakin Law firm to compel answers from United Life Insurance
regarding policies it sold in Illinois from 1991 to 2000,
according to The Madison County Record.

Th suit was filed in 2001 by Christopher Booher, who claims the
company cheated him when he bought credit insurance on an auto
loan at Four Flags Motors.  According to him, the firm secretly
paid a portion of the insurance payment to Four Flags, which
sells General Motors vehicles.  General Motors and Four Flags
were named in the complaint, but Four Flags was eventually
dismissed.  

In April 2003, then Judge Phil Kardis certified Mr. Booher as
representative of plaintiffs in Illinois and 17 other states.   
On March 24, 2006, Illinois Circuit Judge Don Weber amended the
certification of the class action.  He decided that the case,
filed in Madison County, should be a purely-Illinois case.  The
decision was based on an Illinois Supreme Court ruling
decertifying a nationwide class in the "Avery v. State Farm"
case.  

Mr. Booher's counsel, Daniel Cohen, moved on Sept. 20 to compel
answers contending that Judge Kardis expressly allowed discovery
"on all issues for the period of 1991 through to the present."

On Jan. 23, 2006, Judge Hylla ordered United Life to answer the
Lakin firm's questions on policies it sold in Illinois from 1991
to 2000.  He also ordered United Life to produce documents on
marketing and advertising in Illinois from 1991 to the present.

Representing Mr. Booher is Daniel Cohen of The Lakin Law Firm,   
P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois   
62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-  
254-0193.  

Representing United Life is James Garrison, Associate at  
Gundlach, Lee, Eggmann, Boyle & Roessler LLC, 5000 West Main  
Street, P.O. Box 23560, Belleville, Illinois 62223-0560
(St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-277-9000; East St. Louis: 271-8000
Telecopier: 618-277-4594.


UTAH: Exit Agreement Filed in Suit Over Child-Welfare System
------------------------------------------------------------
An exit agreement for a lawsuit over Utah's child-welfare system
was formally presented to the U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell
on Feb. 20, according to Deseret Morning News.

The suit was filed in 1993, two years after a child advocate
reported to the National Center for Youth Law that Utah's foster
youth were being mistreated.  The case was filed on behalf of a
young boy David C., who, along with his two brothers, were taken
into the state's Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS)
custody.  Nine months after placement, the boy's older brother
was killed in the boys' foster home.

DCFS was placed under federal court monitor to improve services
for children in custody.

According to the report, under the terms of the agreement, the
case will be dismissed without prejudice this June.  Active
court monitoring will end at that time, though DCFS will still
have to provide the monitor and the plaintiffs with agency data.

In July 2008, the court monitor will analyze the agency's
operations to see if DCFS has fulfilled its obligations.  The
case could ultimately be dismissed in December 2008 if the
agency is found to have completely rehabilitated its services.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Suits Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two consolidated class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,
continue to remain stayed pending the conclusion of the
company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against the company and certain present and former executive
officers alleging claims under the federal securities laws.

In March and April 2004, three other putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company and certain present and former
executive officers and employees of the company alleging claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended relating to the company's Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.

By separate court orders, both the securities laws claims and
the ERISA claims have been consolidated and will proceed as
separate, single actions.  The consolidated complaint has not
yet been filed in either action.

On Feb. 21, 2005, the company and 23 of its subsidiaries
(debtors) filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption, "In
re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-03817."

As a result of the company's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic
stay prevents the plaintiffs in the class actions mentioned
above from proceeding against the company.

Any such claims against the company are subordinated under the
Plan pursuant to the provision of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b), and
will be treated in the same manner as the company's existing
shares, which will be cancelled without any distribution.  

As to the individual co-defendants, on May 10, 2005, the court
entered an order staying both lawsuits as to all parties and all
issues in light of the company's Chapter 11 filing.  

The court also denied the ERISA plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
the company as a defendant so that the case could continue
against the individual defendants

Both lawsuits and the claims asserted against the individual co-
defendants remain pending, according to the company's Feb. 20
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Jan. 10.

The consolidated securities suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00071-HES-MCR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364;

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;

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

     (5) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655;

     (6) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

     (8) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road., Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com;

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

    (10) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com;
         and

    (11) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.

The ERISA suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
Harvey E. Schlesinger.

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., Suite
         801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/682-1818;

    (ii) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501/907-2555;

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

    (iv) David B. Ferebee, P.A., 503 E. Monroe St.,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/358-7001, fax:
         904/353-2756, E-mail: ferebeeatlaw@bellsouth.net.

Representing the defendants in both litigation are:

     (a) King & Spalding LLP, 191 Peachtree St., Suite 4900,
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404/572-4600; and

     (b) Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy, 225 Water St., Suite
         1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/634-1100, Fax:
         904/634-1234.


WILD KITTY: Recalls Cat Foods Due to Salmonella Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Kitty Cat Food, Inc. of Arundel, Maine, is voluntarily
recalling Wild Kitty:

     -- Cat Food All Natural, Frozen Cat Food - Raw Chicken with
        Clam Recipe, Net Wt. 3.5 oz (100g) and Net Wt. 16 oz
        (453.6g);

     -- Raw Duck with Clam Recipe, Net Wt. 3.5 oz (100g) and Net
        Wt. 16 oz (453.6g); and

     -- Raw Tuna with Conch Recipe 3.5 oz (100g) all lot codes,

because they may be contaminated with Salmonella.  People
handling these pet foods can become infected with salmonella,
especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after
having contact with any of these pet foods or any surfaces
exposed to these products.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious infections in
small children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.  Healthy people may only suffer short-
term symptoms, such as high fever, severe headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
can include arthritis.

The firm has received no reports of illness associated with the
product.

The firm and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are
investigating this matter to determine the source of this
problem, and will take any additional steps necessary to protect
the public health.

Consumers who have these pet foods should not feed them to their
pets, but should instead dispose of them in a safe manner (e.g.,
in a securely covered trash receptacle).

Anyone who is experiencing the symptoms of Salmonella infection
after having handled one of these pet products should seek
medical attention, and report their use of the product and
illness to the nearest FDA office.

People should thoroughly wash their hands after handling any of
these pet foods - especially those made from raw animal protein
such as meat or fish -- to help prevent infection.

People may risk bacterial infection not only by handling pet
foods, but by contact with pets or surfaces exposed to these
foods, so it is important that they thoroughly wash their hands
with hot water and soap.

Since elderly people, young children, and people with weakened
immune systems are particularly at risk from exposure they
should avoid handling these products.


WILLBROS GROUP: $10.5M Stock Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
issued a final order approving a proposed $10.5 million
settlement in the matter, "In Re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-1778," the Houston Business Journal
reports.

The order dismissed with prejudice all claims against all
defendants.  No members of the settlement class exercised their
right to be excluded from or object to the final settlement,
which was funded by Willbros' insurance carrier.

On May 18, 2005 a securities class action, "Legion Partners, LLP
v. Willbros Group, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against the company and
certain of its present and former officers and directors.

Thereafter, three nearly identical lawsuits were filed.  
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class composed of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Willbros Group, Inc. common
stock and/or other securities between May 6, 2002 and May 16,
2005, inclusive.

These complaints generally allege violations by the defendants
of Section 10(b) of U.S. the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and allege,
among other things, that defendants made false or misleading
statements of material fact about the company's financial
statements.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

On Oct. 17, 2005, the court ordered these actions consolidated
and appointed ADAR Investments, LLC as lead plaintiff and
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz of New York as lead plaintiff's
counsel.  As ordered by the court, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 9, 2006.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Re Willbros
Group and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, including Michael Curran, Warren Williams, and J.
Kenneth Tillery, violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 through a series of false and misleading statements and a
"scheme to defraud."

The alleged misrepresentations and scheme to defraud relate to
the activities of Mr. Tillery in Nigeria and Bolivia, certain
alleged accounting errors, the restatement of past financial
results, and alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Re Willbros Group common stock during the
purported class period.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

At a Feb. 15 fairness hearing, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas issued an order approving final
settlement of a securities class action.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The
         Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, PO Box
         9000 #6476, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1(866) 533-
         0151, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;and      

     (2) Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard &
         Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY  
         10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Web site:
         http://www.bernlieb.com.


WR GRACE: Anderson Memorial's Motion for Discovery Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the
District of Delaware has allowed a discovery sought by the
Anderson Memorial Hospital.

Judge Fitzgerald finds that discovery is subject to all
objections and privileges and that the discovery sought by the
Anderson Memorial Hospital may be calculated to lead to relevant
and admissible evidence as to commonality, typicality,
numerosity and superiority.

Thus, Judge Fitzgerald rules that discovery is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Court directs W.R. Grace & Co. and its debtor-
affiliates to produce their records custodians pursuant to
Anderson's Notice of Deposition, dated Oct. 30, 2006, at the
offices of Anderson's Delaware counsel on or before Feb. 20,
2007 (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 124; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).

James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones &
Weintraub LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that on Oct. 30,
2006, Speights & Runyan served, on Anderson Memorial Hospital's  
behalf, "extremely broad, non-tailored requests that once again  
seek all documents in the Debtors' files on a host of issues  
that have no bearing" on whether certification will advance the  
interests of the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases or whether the  
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  
can be met (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).

Mr. O'Neill notes that as of Nov. 6, 2006, there are
637 total pending asbestos property damage claims, including 166
U.S. Speights claims, 97 Canadian Speights claims, and only  
three South Carolina claims -- even fewer claims than in January  
2006, when the Bankruptcy Court initially recognized that the
numerosity requirement for class certification cannot be met.

Mr. O'Neill tells Judge Fitzgerald that Speights & Runyan has  
requested deposition testimony and "all documents" regarding:

   (i) Anderson's South Carolina lawsuit, Anderson's request to
       certify in South Carolina, the certification hearing, any
       purported efforts to delay the same, and circumstances
       surrounding the South Carolina Circuit Court's
       certification of a statewide class as to W.R. Grace &
       Co.;

  (ii) members or potential members of the putative Anderson
       class;

(iii) damage estimates of Anderson's individual and class
       claims;

  (iv) any position the Debtors took with respect to Anderson's
       request to be included on the Official Committee of
       Asbestos Property Damage Claimants;

   (v) any evaluation of Anderson's individual or class claims
       before the Debtors' Petition Date; and

  (vi) the Debtors' knowledge before Sept. 1, 2005, of
       Anderson's individual and class proofs of claim.

Speights & Runyan also requested "all documents" relating to:

   -- the identity of any asbestos-containing surface treatment
      in any building owned or operated by Anderson and
      potential membership of Anderson's putative class,
      including buildings located in South Carolina and outside
      of South Carolina;

   -- communications with witnesses involving any issues in
      Anderson's efforts to obtain class certification;

   -- the Debtors' knowledge concerning the facts or factual
      assertions relating to Anderson's putative class action;

   -- any amount that could or should be set aside for the
      resolution of Anderson's claim, including any insurance
      reserve;

   -- communications between the Debtors and insurers relating
      to Anderson's claims; and

   -- communications with any building owners regarding the
      Anderson proofs of claim.

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica   
products, especially construction chemicals and building  
materials, and container products globally.  The company and its  
debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on April 2,  
2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).  


ZIMMER INC: B.C. Man Sues Over "Defective" Hip Replacement Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
A man who had his hips surgically replaced by a medical implant
manufactured by Indiana-based Zimmer Inc. asked the British
Columbia Supreme Court to certify his suit as a class action
against the company, according to CBC News.

William Iley, 71, had both hips replaced in two separate
operations in 1996 and 1997.  He complained of pain afterwards
and had to undergo another operation in 2005 to rectify the
problem.

He claims that the company was negligent in the manufacture and
packaging of the liner inside the hip replacements.  He alleges
that the system used to sterilize the liner weakened it and made
it susceptible to breakage.

He also claims that thousands of other patients who were given
the same hip replacement are also suffering pain and bouts of
falling.  None of Iley's claims have been proven in court,
according to the report.


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allen v. Uniroyal Suit Remanded for Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed a
summary judgment ruling, which was granted in favor of Uniroyal
Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Gary D. Allen. The
matter has been remanded for trial.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Schindler, Baker, and Coleman,
handed down the decision of Case No. 57723-9-I on Feb. 12, 2007.

Mr. Allen sued Uniroyal, alleging that his lung cancer was
caused by asbestos from Asbeston, a product made by Uniroyal
predecessor United States Rubber Co., that his father brought
home from work on his clothes.

Mr. Allen said that his father worked at Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard for 25 years as an insulator. He submitted sales
records showing that the shipyard bought Uniroyal products
with asbestos while his father was employed there.

Uniroyal moved to strike many of Mr. Allen's exhibits, and
the Trial Court granted the motion in part.

Uniroyal also moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Allen
had not raised a genuine issue of material fact because he had
not submitted sufficient evidence that his father had ever been
exposed to Uniroyal products.

The Trial Court granted summary judgment, and Mr. Allen appealed
both the summary judgment order and the order granting in part
Uniroyal's motion to strike.

Mr. Allen claimed that the Trial Court erred in granting summary
judgment because he raised an issue of material fact and the
Trial Court should have admitted certain pieces of evidence that
would have precluded summary judgment.

The Appeals Court agreed that Mr. Allen presented sufficient
evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Mr. Allen's father was exposed to Uniroyal products.

The Appeals Court reversed and remanded for trial.

Janet L. Rice and William Joel Rutzick of Schroeter, Goldmark
& Bender in Seattle represented Gary D. Allen.

Chris Robert Youtz of Sirianni Youtz Meier & Spoonemore in
Seattle represented Uniroyal Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcoa, Units Still Face "Premises" Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiaries, as premises owners, face
several active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging
injury from occupational exposure to asbestos at various Company
facilities, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2007.

Moreover, a Company subsidiary has been named with a common
group of industrial companies, in a pattern complaint where the
Company's involvement is not evident. Since 1999 several
thousand of those complaints have been filed.

To date, the subsidiary has been dismissed from almost every
case that was actually placed in line for trial.

The Company, its subsidiaries, and acquired companies have had
numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage
for asbestos based claims.

Based in New York, Alcoa Inc. produces primary aluminum,
fabricated aluminum, and alumina. The Company is active in all
major aspects of the industry: technology, mining, refining,
smelting, fabricating, and recycling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Corp. Records 11,116 Open Claims in '06
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp., for the year ended Dec. 29, 2006, recorded 11,116
open asbestos-related claims, compared with 10,639 claims for
the year ended Dec. 30, 2005, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 15, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 29, 2006, the Company noted 1,504 new
claims filed, 767 settled claims, and 260 dismissed claims. For
the year ended Dec. 30, 2005, the Company noted 765 new claims
filed, 1,206 settled claims, and 381 dismissed claims.

About 6,000 of the open claims at Dec. 29, 2006 were asbestos
claims against the Company's previously owned international
container-shipping business.

The Company had about US$9 million at Dec. 29, 2006 and US$11
million at Dec. 30, 2005 reserved for those shipping business
claims. The remaining open claims were asserted against
subsidiary CSX Transportation Inc.

In 2006, the Company received 766 asbestos claims in West
Virginia in which the claimants were neither exposed in West
Virginia nor residents of the state.

The Company faces occupational claims by employees alleging
exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The heaviest possible
exposure for employees was due to work conducted in and around
steam locomotive engines that were largely phased out beginning
around the 1950s.

At Dec. 29, 2006, the Company's liability for incurred but not
reported claims was US$52 million, compared with US$54 million
at Dec. 30, 2005. At Dec. 29, 2006, the Company's liability for
asserted claims was US$69 million, compared with US$87 million
at Dec. 30, 2005.

At Dec. 29, 2006, the Company's asbestos related liability
totaled US$121 million, compared with US$141 million at Dec. 30,
2005. At Dec. 29, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
liability was US$30 million, compared with US$37 million at Dec.
30, 2005.

Based in Jacksonville, Fla., CSX Corp.'s main subsidiary, CSX
Transportation Inc., operates the largest rail system (about
21,000 route miles) in the eastern United States. The freight
carrier links 23 states, the District of Columbia, and two
Canadian provinces. Subsidiary CSX Intermodal arranges the
transportation of freight by combinations of road and rail
carriers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Records $305M Charge in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc., in the 2006-4th quarter, recorded a total
asbestos-related charge of about US$305 million, according to a
Company press release reported to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company increased its estimated asbestos
liability to US$568 million.

Although the Company reported record sales and segment income
for both the quarter and year ended Dec. 31, 2006, it reported
net losses for both periods, reflecting a charge associated with
an increase in the estimated asbestos liability of its
subsidiaries.

The company previously recorded the liability at the low end of
a broad, 10-year range of possible liabilities provided by an
outside expert.

However, in the 2006-4th quarter, based on its experience over
the past two years and a review of its own model that estimates
the liability, the Company said that it now believes that its
model produces the best estimate within the range.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries Inc. makes engines,
engineered products, and sealing systems. The Company's Sealing
Products offers sheet and metallic gaskets, metal seals,
compression packing, rotary lip seals, elastomeric seals,
hydraulic components, expansion joints, and PTFE products. The
Company's Engineered Products makes bearing products, air
compressors, vacuum pumps, diesel and natural gas engines, and
industrial tooling systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Co. Accrues $1.2M for Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Co., as of Dec. 2, 2006, accrued US$1.2 million for
probable asbestos-related liabilities, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2007.

As of Dec. 2, 2006, the Company accrued US$600,000 for insurance
recoveries related to asbestos claims.

As of Sept. 2, 2006, the Company had accrued US$992,000 for
probable asbestos-related liabilities and US$504,000 for
insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006)

The Company and its subsidiaries face suits in which plaintiffs
have alleged injury due to products with asbestos made by the
Company more than 20 years ago. The plaintiffs filed these suits
against multiple defendants and seek damages, both actual and
punitive, in large amounts.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries
suffered were from exposure to products made by the Company or
its subsidiaries. The Company is dismissed as a defendant in
these cases without payment.

The rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos suits against
various companies, including the Company, increased in 2001,
2002 and the first half of 2003. Since the second half of 2003,
the rate of these filings has declined.

In 2004, the Company and a group of defendants entered into
negotiations with a group of plaintiffs to settle certain
asbestos-related suits. As previously reported and accounted for
during the 2004-4th quarter, the Company agreed to contribute
about US$3.5 million towards the settlement to be paid in these
cases in exchange for a full release of claims by the
plaintiffs. Of this amount, the Company's insurers have paid
US$1.2 million.

The Company and its insurers have transferred the required
amounts into a trust established to disburse payments related to
settlements. As of Dec. 2, 2006, the amount the Company and its
insurers have remaining to pay out of trust is up to US$400,000
million. The Company's remaining portion of this is up to
US$300,000 and is recorded as restricted cash.

During the year ended Dec. 2, 2006, the Company settled five
suits, compared with 12 during the year ended Dec. 3, 2005 and
10 during the year ended Nov. 27, 2004.

During the year ended Dec. 2, 2006, the Company settled cases
for US$600,000, compared with US$700,000 for the year ended Dec.
3, 2005 and US$400,000 for the year ended Nov. 27, 2004.

The Company's insurers have paid or are expected to pay
US$400,000 of the settlement amount in the year ended Dec. 2,
2006, US$500,000 in the year ended Dec. 3, 2005, and US$200,000
in the year ended Nov. 27, 2004.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., H.B. Fuller Co. makes adhesives,
sealants, powder coatings for metals, and liquid paints. The
Company's industrial and performance adhesives customers include
companies in the packaging, graphic arts, automotive, footwear,
woodworking, and non-woven textiles industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Contractor Charged for CAA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Attorney Patrick L. Meehan, on Feb. 13, 2007, announced the
filing of a one-count information charging Randall G. Cone with
violating the Clean Air Act in connection with the
transportation of asbestos waste in 2000 and the discovery in
2005 that the asbestos waste had been abandoned in a trailer in
Camden, N.J., according to a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency press release dated Feb. 13, 2007.

According to the information, Mr. Cone was the owner and
operator of R. Cone Environmental Services Inc., an asbestos
abatement firm.

Mr. Cone, from Philadelphia, was hired in spring 2000 to remove
and dispose of asbestos-containing material from a building at
800 North Broad Street in Philadelphia that was being converted
into a charter school.

Mr. Cone hired an individual to transport the removed asbestos
material for disposal, but asbestos-containing material was
eventually abandoned in a semi-trailer at a parking lot on Ferry
Avenue in Camden.

Mr. Cone did not complete the required asbestos waste shipment
record at the time of transport, as required by CAA asbestos
regulations issued by the U.S. EPA.

A company redeveloping the Ferry Avenue property discovered the
trailer and its contents in 2005, and paid about US$18,000 to
dispose of the asbestos waste and trailer.

If convicted, Mr. Cone faces a maximum sentence of two years
imprisonment, a fine of US$250,000, two years supervised
release, and a special assessment of US$100.

The U.S. EPA's Criminal Investigation Division investigated the
case. The case has been assigned to Special Assistant U.S.
Attorney Martin Harrell of the EPA regional office in
Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 100 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Brekke of Minnesota sued 100 defendant corporations in
Madison St. Clair County Court in Illinois, alleging he was
exposed to asbestos from 1938 to 1982 while working as a
steelworker, laborer, and boiler operator at various sites, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

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

According to the complaint filed Feb. 13, 2007, Mr. Brekke was
diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 1, 2006.

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

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

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

From the alleged negligence, Mr. Brekke claimed he was exposed
to fibers with asbestos. He developed a disease caused only by
asbestos, which has disabled and disfigured him, the complaint
stated.

Mr. Brekke also claimed that he has sought, but been unable to
obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

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

Mr. Brekke seeks at least US$650,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence.

Nicholas Angelides, John Barnerd, Perry Browder, Tim Thompson,
and Richard Saville of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represent Mr. Brekke.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Geographic Study Launched in New Caledonia
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related investigation is underway in New Caledonia
to find out where the mineral occurs in the environment, ABC
Radio Australia reports.

Asbestos is blamed for a high rate of lung cancer in the French
Pacific island territory.

The study was launched on the recommendation of a French
parliamentary committee investigating the effects of asbestos
exposure.

The study aims to resolve the uncertainty of the situation in
New Caledonia, where a study by France's main biomedical
research agency, Inserm, found rates of a particular form of
lung cancer were 10 times higher than in France.

Asbestos occurs naturally in the island's nickel mines.

However, the head of the Association for the Defense of Asbestos
Victims in New Caledonia has accused the mining industry of
operating a code of silence on the issue.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge to Rule on Objections to Grace Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald rules that certain specific objections
to W.R. Grace & Co.'s Asbestos Property Damage Claims regarding
product identification, limitations periods, and objections
alleging that the Libby, Mont. properties have already been or
will be remediated will be adjudicated on April 23, 24, and 25,
2007.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 124; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Objects to BNSF Proofs of Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. filed several proofs of claim
for unspecified amounts, including Claim Nos. 8250, 8251 and
8252, for alleged cleanup cost it incurred or will incur,
pursuant to transporting and handling of the W.R. Grace & Co.'s
vermiculite and vermiculite-related products in real properties
located in Denver; Libby, Mont.; and Minot, N.D.

The Debtors objected to the BNSF Claims on several grounds.

The Debtors, BNSF and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
are involved in discussions and actions being taken or to be
taken with respect to the environmental cleanup that has been or
will be done on the Properties related to the BNSF Claims.

The Debtors are currently negotiating a settlement agreement
with the EPA with respect to the allowance of several
environmental claims. The draft EPA Agreement provides, among
other things, for the allowance of two general unsecured claims:

The EPA Negotiations are not yet complete and once completed,
will still be subject to EPA approval, public comment, approval
of any interested parties in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases and
the Court's approval.

In November 2006, BNSF served requests for documents and
interrogatories to the Debtors with respect to their Claims.

Accordingly, in a Court-approved stipulation, the parties agree
that the BNSF Claims will be held in abeyance pending the
completion of the EPA Agreement and the discussions regarding
Claim No. 8251.

The parties also agreed to exclude the BNSF Claims from the PD
Case Management Order and all related deadlines.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 124; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Electrolux Rise to 1,688 in 4Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
AB Electrolux, as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced 1,688 pending
asbestos-related cases, representing about 7,700 plaintiffs,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company faced a total of 1,802 pending
asbestos-related cases, representing about 8,400 plaintiffs.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company faced about 1,505 pending
asbestos-related cases with 8,350 plaintiffs, up from 1,162
pending cases with 8,050 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 3, 2006)

Litigation and claims related to asbestos are pending against
the Company in the United States. Most of the cases refer to
externally supplied components used in industrial products made
by discontinued operations before the 1970s.

Many of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs who have made
identical allegations against many other defendants who are not
part of the Electrolux Group.

In 2006, 986 new cases with about 1,300 plaintiffs were filed
and 380 pending cases with about 2,000 plaintiffs were resolved.
About 5,650 of the plaintiffs relate to cases pending in
Mississippi.

Based in Stockholm, Sweden, AB Electrolux makes washing
machines, stoves, refrigerators, and freezers under the AEG,
Electrolux, Eureka, Frigidaire, and Zanussi names. The Company
also makes vacuum cleaners under Electrolux and Eureka brands.
The Company's products are sold in about 90 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Northern Has 1,975 Claims in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, faced
1,975 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed against
subsidiary BNSF Railway Co., compared with 2,121 claims at Dec.
31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

In 2006, the Company recorded 530 claims filed, compared with
835 claims filed in 2005. In 2006, the Company recorded 676
claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, compared with
640 such claims in 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 2,138 asbestos-related
claims, compared with 2,204 claims at Sept. 30, 2005. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 27, 2006)

The Company faces personal injury claims filed by employees and
non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The
heaviest exposure for BNSF employees was due to work conducted
in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were
phased out between 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967, until they were eliminated at BNSF by 1985.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's accrued obligations for both
asserted and unasserted asbestos matters were US$306 million,
compared with US$326 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Of the obligations at Dec. 31, 2006, US$251 million related to
unasserted claims and US$55 million related to asserted claims.
At Dec. 31, 2006, US$22 million were included in current
liabilities, and US$21 million were included in current
liabilities at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company said it is reasonably possible that future costs to
settle asbestos claims may range from about US$200 million to
US$400 million.

However, the Company said that it believes that the US$306
million recorded at Dec. 31, 2006, is the best estimate of the
Company's future obligation for the settlement of asbestos
claims.

Based in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the freight
rail transportation business. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
and its subsidiaries had about 41,000 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Inc. Drop to 45T in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced about 45,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 34,000
are pending in three jurisdictions where significant tort reform
activities are underway, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 16, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company faced about 50,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 40,000
of the claims are pending in three jurisdictions where
significant tort reform activities are underway. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006)

The Company, or parties that it is obligated to indemnify, face
asbestos-related personal injury actions. The Company said its
involvement is limited because these claims relate to a few
types of automotive friction products that were made many years
ago and had encapsulated asbestos.

In 2006, of about 27,000 claims resolved, 169 (0.6 percent)
resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf
of the Company. In 2005, of about 38,000 claims resolved, 295
(0.8 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant
by or on behalf of the Company.

Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-
related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a
funding arrangement.

To date, the Company has paid US$16.2 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received
US$4.5 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance of
US$11.7 million is to be fully recovered.

Timing of the recovery is dependent on final resolution of a
declaratory judgment action filed by Continental Casualty Co. At
Dec. 31, 2005, insurers owed US$3.9 million related to these
claims.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$39.9 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$39.9 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in the CNA declaratory judgment case.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the comparable value of the insurance
receivable and accrued liability was US$41 million.

Based in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. makes power train
products for the world's major automakers. The Company's largest
customers include Ford Motor Co., Volkswagen AG, DaimlerChrysler
AG, and General Motors Corp. The Company has 43 manufacturing
facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Faces CNA Coverage Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers continue to face an asbestos-related
declaratory judgment action filed by Continental Casualty Co.
and related companies (CNA), according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 16, 2007.

The suit was filed on January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill.

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The suit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding
the apportionment matter. Appeals of the interim order were
denied. However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at
the end of the action.

Based in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. makes power train
products for the world's major automakers. The Company's largest
customers include Ford Motor Co., Volkswagen AG, DaimlerChrysler
AG, and General Motors Corp. The Company has 43 manufacturing
facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Continues to Face G-I Holdings Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corp. of America continues to face asbestos-
related liabilities of its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc.,
which filed for bankruptcy in January 2001.

In connection with its formation in 1994, the Company assumed
and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of liabilities for
asbestos bodily injury claims on the inhalation of asbestos of
G-I Holdings.

As of March 30, 1997, the Company had paid all of its assumed
asbestos-related liabilities.

Claimants in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy might seek to satisfy
their claims by asking the Bankruptcy Court to require the sale
of G-I Holdings' assets, including its holdings of BMCA Holdings
Corp.'s common stock and its indirect holdings of the Company's
common stock.

In addition, those creditors may attempt to assert Asbestos
Claims against the Company. About 1,900 Asbestos Claims were
filed against the Company before Feb. 2, 2001.

On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
Asbestos Claim against the Company.

By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered Feb.
22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the temporary
restraints into a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
bringing or prosecution of any Asbestos Claim against the
Company.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that BMCA has no successor liability for
Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (the BMCA Action).

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants, subsequently counterclaimed against the
Company seeking a declaration that BMCA has successor liability
for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is the
alter ego of G-I Holdings.

On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and
this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court.

In terms of scheduling, the District Court judge presiding over
this matter has not set a trial date.  

Based in Wayne, N.J., Building Materials Corp. of America makes
and markets asphalt and polymer based roofing products and
accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets.
The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMCA Holdings Corp.,
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Still Faces "Property" Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corp. of America's indirect parent, G-I
Holdings Inc., continues to face asbestos-in-building cases for
economic and property damage or other injuries.

These Building Claims are based on an alleged present or future
need to remove asbestos-containing materials from public and
private buildings.

Most Building Claims do not seek to recover an amount of
specific damages.

Since these actions were first initiated about 20 years ago, G-I
Holdings has not only successfully disposed of about 145 of
these cases, but is a co-defendant in three remaining suits, one
of which has been dormant.

These actions have been stayed as to G-I Holdings under the G-I
Holdings' bankruptcy case. No new Building Claims were filed in
2006.

The Company has not assumed any liabilities with respect to
Building Claims.

Based in Wayne, N.J., Building Materials Corp. of America makes
and markets asphalt and polymer based roofing products and
accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets.
The Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BMCA Holdings Corp.,
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Spends $2.9M for Cleanup in 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., in 2006, recorded capital
expenditures of about US$2.9 million for a remediation plan,
including any necessary remediation of asbestos-containing
materials in Company sites.

In 2005, the Company spent about US$3.3 million for the
remediation of asbestos-containing materials and other wastes of
underground fuel storage tanks at its bottlers in North America.
(Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006)

The Company has adopted a plan for the testing, repair, and
removal, if necessary, of underground fuel storage tanks at its
bottlers in North America.

This plan includes any necessary remediation of tank sites and
the abatement of any pollutants discharged. The plan extends to
the upgrade of wastewater handling facilities.

The Company estimates that its capital expenditures will be
about US$2.8 million in 2007 and US$2.7 million in 2008 under
this plan.

Based in Atlanta, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. markets and
distributes Coca-Cola beverages. The Company accounts for 21
percent of worldwide sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 124,000 in 4Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded 124,000 pending asbestos-related claims, compared with
125,500 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
124,300 pending asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 1, 2006)

During 2006, the Company noted 3,900 new claims filed, 5,400
claims settled or dismissed, and asbestos-related payments of
US$19 million. During 2005, the Company noted 6,200 new claims
filed, 8,000 claims settled or dismissed, and asbestos-related
payments of US$22 million.

The Company faces lawsuits alleging asbestos-related personal
injuries from exposure to asbestos in certain rubber
encapsulated products or aircraft braking systems made by the
Company or to asbestos in certain of its facilities.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 40,100 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal or by entering into a
settlement. To date, the sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments, including legal costs,
totaled about US$272 million through Dec. 31, 2006 and US$233
million through Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$125
million at Dec. 31, 2006 and US$104 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was US$63 million at Dec. 31,
2006 and US$31 million at Dec. 31, 2005. At Dec. 31, 2006, the
Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and related
defense costs was US$62 million, compared with US$73 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded an asbestos-related
receivable of US$66 million (US$9 million current), compared
with US$53 million (US$9 million) at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company said, at Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had at least
about US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level
policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for
asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available
primary insurance policies.

The Company reached an agreement effective April 13, 2005, to
settle its claims for insurance coverage for asbestos and
pollution related liabilities with respect to pre-1993 insurance
policies issued by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and
reinsured by Equitas Ltd.

Under the agreement, Equitas paid the Company US$22 million and
placed US$39 million into a trust. As federal asbestos reform
legislation was not enacted into law on or before Jan. 3, 2007,
the remaining US$20 million of funds in the trust was disbursed
to the Company without restriction.

The Company also reached an agreement effective July 27, 2005,
to settle its claims for insurance coverage for asbestos and
pollution related liabilities with respect to insurance policies
issued by certain other non-Equitas excess insurance carriers,
which participated in policies issued in the London Market.

The settlement agreement generally provided for the payment of
US$25 million to the Company in exchange for the release by the
Company of past, present and future claims under those policies
and the cancellation of those policies, and agreement by the
Company to indemnify the underwriters from claims asserted under
those policies.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. engages in
manufacturing tires. Other products are automotive hoses and
belts and industrial chemicals. The Company operates about 95
plants worldwide, and has nearly 1,800 retail tire and auto
centers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Have $1.819B Liability in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded a total of US$1.819 billion in asbestos-related
liabilities for its Bendix friction materials business and its
former unit North American Refractories Co., according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

Of the US$1.819 billion liabilities, US$528 million related to
Bendix and US$1.291 related to NARCO.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$1.940 billion asbestos liabilities, of which US$313 million
related to Bendix and US$1.627 billion related to NARCO. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 27, 2006)

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had US$2.069
billion asbestos-related liabilities, of which US$287 million
related to Bendix and US$1.782 billion related to NARCO.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$1.257
billion insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities,
of which US$302 million related to Bendix and US$955 million
related to NARCO.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded US$1.473
billion insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities,
of which US$377 million related to Bendix and US$1.096 billion
related to NARCO.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Records 57,108 Pending Claims in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials
business, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 57,108
unresolved asbestos-related claims, compared with 79,502 claims
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, Bendix noted 4,391 claims
filed and 26,785 claims resolved. For the year ended Dec. 31,
2005, Bendix noted 7,520 claims filed and 4,366 claims resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, Bendix had 60,253
unresolved asbestos-related claims. In the same period, Bendix
had 3,366 claims filed and 22,615 claims resolved. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 27, 2006)

From 1981 through Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has resolved about
105,000 Bendix asbestos claims including trials covering 124
plaintiffs, which resulted in 116 favorable verdicts. Trials
covering eight individuals resulted in adverse verdicts.
However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, three
are or will be on appeal, and the remaining three claims were
settled.

About 45 percent of about 57,000 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2006
are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in
some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no
impairment. The 57,000 pending claims also include claims filed
in jurisdictions like Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi that
historically allowed for consolidated filings.

Accordingly during the 2006-4th quarter, the Company recorded a
reserve of $335 million reserve for the estimated cost of future
Bendix related asbestos claims.

The Company has US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage remaining
with respect to pending and potential future Bendix related
asbestos claims, of which US$302 million was reflected as
receivables in its consolidated balance sheet at Dec. 31, 2006,
compared with US$377 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Estimates $1.3B for NARCO Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, estimated
US$1.3 billion as settlement liability on pending and future
asbestos-related claims of former unit North American
Refractories Co., compared with US$1.8 million as of Dec. 31,
2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company estimated US$1.6 billion as
settlement liability on pending and future NARCO asbestos
claims. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 27, 2006)

From 1979 to 1986, the Company owned NARCO, which produced
refractory products that were sold to the steel industry in the
East and Midwest. Less than two percent of NARCO's products had
asbestos.

When it sold NARCO in 1986, the Company agreed to indemnify
NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that
had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO retained all
liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing. The Company also agreed
to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing
of a plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company.

The Company also agreed to pay NARCO's parent company US$40
million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness to
the Company, upon the effective date of the plan of
reorganization.

Most asbestos claimants have voted in favor of NARCO's Third
Amended Plan of Reorganization. The court conducted its
evidentiary hearing on confirmation issues on June 5, 2006 and
June 6, 2006. All objections to the NARCO Plan have either been
resolved or dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$955 million
insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO claims, compared with
US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Co.
sued the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme
Court of New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for
NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance
coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers.

About US$370 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
Dec. 31, 2006.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Accrues $557M Liabilities in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, accrued
US$557 million asbestos-related liabilities, compared with
US$520 million as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

The Company faces personal injury actions related to asbestos
containing products like refractory products and friction
products.

In 2006, the Company recognized asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, of US$126 million, compared with
US$10 million in 2005.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's consolidated asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.262 billion, compared with US$1.549
billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's consolidated insurance
recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.1 billion,
compared with US$1.302 as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith Faces Suits with 72T Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
A.O. Smith Corp. and its subsidiaries face asbestos-related
lawsuits involving claims by about 72,310 plaintiffs, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

The company or its subsidiaries have been named as a defendant
in suits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of the Company's or its subsidiaries'
products or premises. The Company and its subsidiaries have
never made asbestos.

Typically these suits name from 50 to 100 other companies as
defendants along with the Company or its subsidiaries. The
complaints do not identify any Company products, or specify the
amount of damages claimed.

In addition, the complaints do not allege which claimants were
exposed to asbestos attributed to the Company's or its
subsidiaries' products or premises, nor the extent to which
those claimants have been harmed.

To date, the Company and its subsidiaries have made no payment
in most of the cases closed. The rest of the resolved cases have
settled for amounts that are not material to the company, and
the costs of defense and settlements have been supported in part
by insurance.

Based in Milwaukee, A.O. Smith Corp. makes electric motors and
water heaters. The Company's Electrical Products segment makes
pump motors, fan motors, and hermetic motors. Its Water Products
segment makes residential gas and electrical water heaters and
commercial water-heating systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zenith National Records 500 Workers' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith National Insurance Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, had about 500
open asbestos-related workers' compensation claims, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2007.

These claims have loss reserves of US$4.1 million, compared with
the Company's total workers' compensation net loss reserves of
US$1.2 billion.

The Company has exposure to asbestos losses in its workers'
compensation segment. In its history, the Company has paid and
closed about 4,000 of those asbestos-related workers'
compensation claims for a total of US$10.8 million.

The Company also has potential exposure to environmental and
asbestos losses and loss adjustment expenses beginning in 1985
through its reinsurance segment, but the business the Company
reinsured in this segment has exclusion clauses for those
losses.

Based in Woodland Hills, Calif., Zenith National Insurance Corp.
is the holding company for Zenith Insurance and ZNAT Insurance,
which underwrites workers' compensation policies in more than 40
states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Makes $4.07B Payment for Claims in '06
---------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corp., in 2006, made total payments of about US$4.07 billion
for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 16, 2007.

The US$4.07 billion included the payments to fund the Asbestos
Trust and the payments for settlements of asbestos property
damage claims and other asbestos-related claims.

When the Company filed for reorganization in June 2001,
subsidiary United States Gypsum Co. faced more than 100,000
pending asbestos personal injury claims. Moreover, subsidiaries
L&W Supply Corp. and Beadex Manufacturing LLC had been named as
defendants in a small number of asbestos personal injury claims.

As part of its plan of reorganization, the Company created and
funded a trust under the Bankruptcy Code for the payment of all
of the present and future asbestos personal injury liabilities
of the debtors.

The Trust will pay qualifying asbestos personal injury and
related claims against the debtors under trust distribution
procedures that are part of the confirmed plan. As of the end of
the 2006-4th quarter, the Company's obligations to fund the
Trust have been met.

In the Company's reorganization proceedings, the Court entered
an order requiring that asbestos property damage claims against
the debtors be filed by Jan. 15, 2003. In response to that
deadline, about 1,400 asbestos property damage claims were
timely filed in the debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings with an
additional 70 more claims being filed after the deadline.

In the Company's reorganization proceedings, more than 950
claims were disallowed or withdrawn, leaving about 520 claims
pending.

In the 2005-4th quarter, the Company recorded a pretax charge of
US$3.1 billion for all asbestos-related claims. This pretax
charge increased U.S. Gypsum's reserve for all asbestos-related
claims, both personal injury and property damage, to US$4.161
billion.

In 2006, the Company made payments totaling US$3.95 billion to
the Trust. These payments included the US$890 million payment to
the Trust on June 20, 2006, a US$10 million payment in December
2006 on the interest-bearing note the Company issued to the
Trust on June 20, 2006 and a US$3.05 billion payment in December
2006.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company also paid US$19 million for
the settlement of other asbestos-related claims included within
the asbestos reserve.

With regard to asbestos property damage claims, the Company has
reached agreements to resolve all of the asbestos property
damage claims filed in its reorganization proceedings that have
not been disallowed or withdrawn. Based on its evaluation of
these settlements, the Company reversed US$44 million of its
reserve for asbestos-related claims in 2006.

In the 2006-4th quarter 06, the Company made total payments of
about US$99 million for asbestos property damage settlements.
The Company's estimate of the cost of asbestos property damage
settlements that have not been paid, and associated legal fees,
is about US$48 million and is included in accrued expenses.

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: Kansai Electric Pays Compensation to Kin
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc. has provided compensation to
families of employees who died from asbestos inhalation even if
a five-year statute of limitations ran out for workers'
compensation payments, Mainichi Daily News reports.

The Company has not disclosed the amounts, but the bereaved
family of one of the victims said they received nearly JPY60
million.

The Company said it provides additional condolence money to the
bereaved families of employees who have received benefits under
the Japanese Govt.-backed workers' accident compensation
program.

Surviving victims of work-related accidents and the bereaved
families of deceased victims are ineligible for benefits under
the program if five years or more have passed since the time of
the incident.

However, a special law was enacted in March 2006 to provide
compensation to asbestos victims even though the five-year
statute of limitations had run out.

In response, the Company decided in September 2006 to provide
more special condolence money to those who had received
compensation under the new law.

The Company has paid condolence money to the bereaved families
of four former workers who died from illnesses like cancer as a
result of inhalation of asbestos at its power stations and other
facilities it runs.

The Company has not proven the causal relationship between
asbestos and the deaths of the four workers.


COMPANY PROFILE
The Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.
6-16 Nakanoshima 3-chome, Kita-ku
Osaka, 530-8270, Japan
Phone: +81-6-6441-8821
Fax: +81-6-6447-7174
http://www.kepco.co.jp

Fiscal Year-End:                  March
2006 Sales (mil.):            US$21,932.3
1-Year Sales Growth:              (9.7%)
2006 Net Income (mil.):           US$1,369.6
1-Year Net Income Growth:         111.2%
2006 Employees:                   30,674
1-Year Employee Growth:           (7.8%)

Description:
The Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc. provides electricity to 13.2
million customers in Japan's Kansai region. The utility has a
generating capacity of more than 35,760 MW, which is produced at
164 hydroelectric, fossil-fueled, and nuclear power plants. The
company was established in 1951.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GBP150T Claim Filed for Caretaker's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Harris has launched a landmark case, for up to GBP150,000,
against Norfolk County Council in the United Kingdom, claiming
it failed to protect her husband, Derek, from exposure to
asbestos while he worked as a school caretaker, EDP24 reports.

Mrs. Harris claims between GBP100,000 and GBP150,000 from the
Council after Mr. Harris's from mesothelioma at the age of 59 in
April 2006.

Richard Clegg, a solicitor with Norwich firm Godfrey Morgan,
said Mrs. Harris's case could lead to dozens more sufferers or
relatives of victims coming forward with claims.

Mrs. Harris claims damages in the High Court after the death of
Mr. Harris, who was exposed to asbestos dust while working as a
caretaker at Norwich's Angel Road First and Middle schools in
the 1980s.

Education bosses have previously admitted that every school in
Norfolk, except those built since 2000, has some form of
asbestos and it could be decades before it is cleared.

Mrs. Harris said, "When my husband worked as a caretaker he was
not told of the danger of working with asbestos, and he was
never given any protective clothing." She claims the Council's
negligence in failing to protect Mr. Harris cut short his life
by 14 years.

Mrs. Harris said that while Mr. Harris worked at Angel Road the
pipes and boilers in the boiler houses were insulated with
asbestos, which was crumbling.

During term times, Mr. Harris swept up asbestos from the floors
of the boiler houses into piles and shoveled the piles into
black bags. During holidays, after the engineers serviced the
boilers, he would again sweep up the waste asbestos.

County Council spokesman Steve Reilly said, "We have received
the writ on behalf of Mrs. Harris and are currently
investigating the case. Once our investigations are complete we
will respond to Mrs. Harris's legal team."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Yokohama Deaths Linked to Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to sources in the city of Yokohama, Japan, two
residents near a site in Tsurumi Ward died of mesothelioma in
1989 and 2003, The Daily Yomiuri reports.

An A&A Material Corp. plant in Tsurumi Ward had processed
asbestos until 1975.

The two cases were the first among residents near the plant to
be confirmed as resulting from the disease, which is caused by
asbestos.

Neither of the deceased, Sawako Harada, who died in 1989 at the
age of 72, and Tadashi Takahashi, a former city government
employee who died in 2003 at the age of 61, are said to have had
jobs related to asbestos processing.

The A&A Material plant made construction materials with
asbestos, and the Yokohama city government said it will ask the
Environment Ministry to conduct research into details of the
cases.

According to Kanagawa Rosai Shokugyobyo Center, a medical
service organization for work-related diseases, Ms. Harada had
lived in a house about 100 meters from the plant since the end
of World War II. She died six months after developing
mesothelioma.

Mr. Takahashi had worked in the Tsurumi Ward Office, which was
about 500 meters from the plant, and lived in a nearby dormitory
between 1960 and 1973.

Bereaved family members of the two applied for government
compensation under a new law offering relief for asbestos
victims not covered by public insurance for work-related
illness.

Ms. Harada's death was recognized as asbestos-related in January
2007 and Mr. Takahashi's death was recognized in December 2006.

A&A Material had paid its own compensation to bereaved families
of employees who were found to have died from mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Electric to Record $115M for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co. spokesman Gary Sheffer said the Company
expects to take a US$115 million charge, roughly one percent a
share, in the 2007-1st quarter, related to a court ruling on its
asbestos liability, Reuters reports.

Mr. Sheffer said, "This is a one-time, nonrecurring event with
an after-tax effect of approximately US$115 million and does not
change our earnings guidance for the first quarter or for 2007.
We are disappointed in the decision."

Analysts, on average, expect the Company to report 2007-1st
quarter profit of US$0.44 cents a share, according to Reuters
Estimates.

Mr. Sheffer said that while the Company did not manufacture
asbestos, in some cases it was used to insulate its steam
turbines.

According to Court papers, the Company faced numerous claims
from people who between 1966 and 1986 were exposed to asbestos
through the turbines.

In a Feb. 15, 2007 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals
upheld a lower court's decision the claims could not be treated
as single incident.

Mr. Sheffer said the ruling covered all of the Company'
outstanding asbestos-related claims.

Based in Fairfield, Conn., General Electric Co. produces
aircraft engines, locomotives and other transportation
equipment, kitchen and laundry appliances, lighting, electric
distribution and control equipment, generators and turbines,
nuclear reactors, medical imaging equipment, and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe Lobbies for Mining of Chrysotile
--------------------------------------------------------------
The country of Zimbabwe has increased efforts in lobbying for
the continued mining and use of chrysotile asbestos, which has
been scientifically proven to be harmless, The Herald reports.

Lancaster Museka, the Secretary for Public Service, Labour and
Social Welfare, said Zimbabwe took the opportunity to sensitize
the region and spearhead the continued use of white chrysotile
asbestos during a meeting held in Zambia.

This development comes against the backdrop of heightened
advocacy by the private sector in South Africa to ban the use of
white chrysotile asbestos, which they claim is harmful.

Zimbabwean experts in the fiber toxicology field also explained
to ministers and representatives and International Labour
Organization officials for the proponents of the ban to drive
their commercial interests, ignoring scientific evidence that
proves that white chrysotile is different from blue (amorsite)
and brown (termolite) types.

Mr. Museka said, "Most countries were not aware that the white
chrysotile was not harmful and it was being confused with the
brown and blue type, which is harmful and kills people. This
type was banned for proven negative health effects."

Mr. Museka said Zimbabwe also took the opportunity to invite
member countries to visit the country and witness for themselves
how mining of white asbestos is done.

White asbestos is the only type that remains on the market today
and is mined in Russia, Brazil, China, Zimbabwe and Canada,
which exports over 90 percent of it to the United States and are
also not keen to ban its use.

Several European Union countries subsequently banned white
asbestos for unsustainable health reasons while South Africa is
pushing for efforts for the enactment of legislation to prohibit
the production, import and export of the mineral.

Efforts to ban asbestos trade in South Africa are also premised
on the huge investments that have been made by the Southern
African country in alternatives.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands "Grant v. Eagle" Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit, reversed a
summary judgment ruling, which had favored Eagle Asbestos &
Packing Co. (n/k/a Eagle Inc.), in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Thelonius Grant.

The matter has been remanded to the Civil District Court,
Orleans Parish, for further proceedings.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Michael E. Kirby, Max N. Tobias,
Jr., and Judge Roland L. Belsome, handed down the decision of
Case No. 2006-CA-1180 on Jan. 31, 2007.

Mr. Grant, 47 years old, sued Eagle for his contraction of
malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Eagle allegedly sold,
installed, and removed asbestos-containing insulation products
at the Domino Sugar Refinery in Arabi, La.

Mr. Grant alleged that he contracted malignant mesothelioma from
exposure to asbestos brought home on the work clothes of his
father, William Grant, who worked at the Domino Sugar Refinery
from about 1979 until 1983.

Mr. Grant alleged he was exposed to asbestos when he washed his
father's work clothes.

On Dec. 23, 2004, Mr. Grant sued for personal injury damages.
The original petition named six defendants. The defendants were
William Grant's employer, other premises owners and other
manufacturers, producers, and suppliers of asbestos-containing
products, as well as the insurer of one of these parties.

On April 29, 2005, the Trial Court granted Mr. Grant's motion
for expedited trial setting and set the trial on the merits for
Nov. 7, 2005. The trial date was lost due to Hurricane Katrina.
After Civil District Court reopened, trial on the merits was re-
set for May 3, 2006.

On April 21, 2006, the Trial Court heard Eagle's motion for
summary judgment. Eagle alleged that Mr. Grant could not produce
evidence that Eagle supplied or used any asbestos containing
products at the Domino Sugar Refinery at the time of William
Grant's employment from 1978 to 1982, and Mr. Grant's second-
hand exposure to Eagle's asbestos was not a substantial factor
in causing his mesothelioma.

In response, Mr. Grant filed an opposition to summary judgment,
and submitted evidence of specific facts he contended
established a genuine issue of material fact so that Eagle is
not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  

On April 26, 2006, the Trial Court granted Eagle's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Mr. Grant's claims
against Eagle.

The Appeal Court found that the Trial Court erred in finding
that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to exposure
and that it misapplied the standard for the admission of expert
witness testimony in a summary judgment proceeding.

Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, and David R. Cannella, of
Landry & Swarr, L.L.C., in New Orleans represented Thelonius
Grant.

Lawrence G. Pugh III and Edward R. McGowan, of Montgomery
Barnett Brown Read Hammond & Mintz, in New Orleans represented
Eagle Asbestos & Packing Co., n/k/a Eagle Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Supply Has 25T Claims in 6 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
A CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary, industrial supplies distributor
Fairmont Supply Co., faces about 25,000 asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2007.

These cases are filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, and New Jersey.

Fairmont faced about 24,801 asbestos-related claims in state
courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland,
Mississippi, and New Jersey. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10,
2006)

Since a small percentage of products made by third parties and
supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and
many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by
hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it
has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the
cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were
actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by
Fairmont.

Moreover, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time and, in recent years, some
of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have
sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases.  

Based in Pittsburgh, CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining firm
with some 4.5 billion tons of proved and probable reserves,
mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois
Basin, and it produces about 70 million tons of coal annually.
The Company also engages in natural gas exploration and
production.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Records 111,887 Claims in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 111,887
asbestos-related claims filed against subsidiary Union Carbide
Corp. and former Union Carbide unit Amchem Products Inc.,
compared with 146,325 claims at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2007.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, Union Carbide recorded
113,707 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed against it and
Amchem, compared with 179,203 claims for the same period in
2005. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 16,386 claims filed,
50,824 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, 38,529
claimants with claims against both Union Carbide and Amchem, and
73,358 individual claimants.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 34,394 claims filed,
91,485 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, 48,647
claimants with claims against both Union Carbide and Amchem, and
97,678 individual claimants.

Union Carbide has been involved in asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These
suits allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.

The alleged claims relate to products that Union Carbide sold in
the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against Amchem.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union
Carbide's products.

There are no personal injury cases in which only Union Carbide
and Amchem are the sole named defendants.

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Co. is a chemical
company that offers a broad range of innovative chemical,
plastic and agricultural products and services to customers,
helping them to provide everything from fresh water, food and
pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care. In 2006,
the Company had annual sales of US$49 billion and employed about
42,600 people worldwide. The Company has 150 manufacturing sites
in 37 countries and produces more than 3,100 products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $62M Defense Costs in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$62
million in defense costs for the asbestos-related liabilities of
subsidiary Union Carbide Corp. and former Union Carbide unit
Amchem Products Inc., according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
20, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded US$75 million.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, Union Carbide recorded
US$45 million defense costs, compared with US$55 million for the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
10, 2006)

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$117 million
resolution costs, compared with US$139 million as of Dec. 31,
2005.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$481 million as
aggregate costs to date, compared with US$1.182 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

A study by the Analysis, Research & Planning Corp., in December
2006, stated that the undiscounted cost of resolving pending and
future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, through 2021,
was estimated to be between about US$1.2 billion and US$1.5
billion.

Union Carbide decreased its asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims to US$1.2 billion at Dec. 31, 2006,
which will now cover the 15-year period ending in 2021. The
reduction was US$177 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, about 25 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and about 75 percent related to future
claims. At Dec. 31, 2005, about 39 percent of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and about 61 percent related
to future claims.

The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of
insurance, was US$45 million in 2006 and US$75 million in 2005.

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Co. is a chemical
company that offers a broad range of innovative chemical,
plastic and agricultural products and services to customers,
helping them to provide everything from fresh water, food and
pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care. In 2006,
the Company had annual sales of US$49 billion and employed about
42,600 people worldwide. The Company has 150 manufacturing sites
in 37 countries and produces more than 3,100 products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $300M Receivables in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a total of
US$300 million receivables for asbestos-related defense and
resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers for
reimbursement, compared with a total of US$400 million at Dec.
31, 2005.

Union Carbide is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co.

At Dec. 31, 2006, Union Carbide recorded US$34 million
receivable for defense costs and US$266 million receivable for
resolution costs. At Dec. 31, 2005, Union Carbide recorded US$73
million for defense costs and US$327 million for resolution
costs.

Union Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was US$495 million at Dec. 31, 2006 and
US$535 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Co. is a chemical
company that offers a broad range of innovative chemical,
plastic and agricultural products and services to customers,
helping them to provide everything from fresh water, food and
pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care. In 2006,
the Company had annual sales of US$49 billion and employed about
42,600 people worldwide. The Company has 150 manufacturing sites
in 37 countries and produces more than 3,100 products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Suit in N.Y. Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive insurance coverage case filed by Union Carbide
Corp. in New York against insurers, who are not signatories to
the 1985 Wellington Agreement, is ongoing.

Union Carbide Corp. is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co.

The suit was filed in September 2003 and is proceeding in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

The suit seeks to confirm its rights to insurance for various
asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely
collection of insurance proceeds.

This lawsuit was filed against insurers that do not otherwise
have agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an
orderly resolution and collection of insurance policies and to
resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

While the suit is continuing, through the end of 2006, Union
Carbide reached settlements with several of the carriers
involved in this litigation.

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Co. is a chemical
company that offers a broad range of innovative chemical,
plastic and agricultural products and services to customers,
helping them to provide everything from fresh water, food and
pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care. In 2006,
the Company had annual sales of US$49 billion and employed about
42,600 people worldwide. The Company has 150 manufacturing sites
in 37 countries and produces more than 3,100 products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Electronics Has 4,370 Pending Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
4,370 pending asbestos-related cases with 9,020 claimants,
compared with 3,984 pending cases with 8,082 claimants at Dec.
31, 2005, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2007.

Judicial proceedings have been brought in the United States,
relating mainly to the activities of an undisclosed subsidiary
before 1981, involving allegations of personal injury from
alleged asbestos exposure.

The claims generally relate to asbestos used in the making of
unrelated companies' products in the United States and
frequently involve claims for substantial compensatory and
punitive damages.

In 2006, 1,140 cases, representing 2,930 claimants, were served
against the Company's subsidiaries, compared with 2,952 cases
representing 3,283 claimants in 2005.

In 2006, 754 cases, representing 1,992 claimants, were settled
or dismissed, compared with 977 cases representing 1,229
claimants in 2005.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips N.V.
makes consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD players,
phones, and fax machines. The Company also makes light bulbs,
electric shavers and other personal care appliances, picture
tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Subsidiary Has Active Cases in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An undisclosed subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips Elctronics N.V.
faces asbestos-related actions in various jurisdictions in
Texas, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2007.

The subsidiary was one of about 160 defendants initially named
in a case filed in August 1995 in Morris County, Tex.

Since the time the case was filed in 1995, the subsidiary had
not been involved in any substantive activity in the case other
than filing an answer to the complaint and had no information
concerning the types of alleged diseases or injuries involved.

In the 2005-4th quarter of 2005, plaintiffs' counsel in this
matter filed information concerning the alleged diseases and
injuries with the Court.

The claims have been severed into four cases: one case with 281
malignant disease claims; two cases with an aggregate of 222
nonmalignant disease claims with alleged impairment; and one
case with 3,167 claims that has no impairment at this time.

The cases with the malignant disease claims and nonmalignant
disease claims with alleged impairment are currently pending in
Morris County. The case containing the claims that have no
impairment at this time has been transferred to Harris County,
Tex.

In the 2006-3rd quarter, a third party expert reviewed the
subsidiary's history of claims and diseases alleged, and claims
settled or dismissed in order to provide the subsidiary with an
estimate of the volume, timing and cost of both current and
future asbestos-related personal injury claims.

According to the study prepared by the Third Party Expert, as of
Sept. 25, 2006, the estimated cost of disposing of pending and
estimated future asbestos-related claims filed through 2016,
excluding future defense and processing costs, totaled US$507
million or EUR396 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the subsidiary's recorded accrual for loss
contingencies for asbestos product liability amounted to EUR378
million. In 2006, the subsidiary incurred asbestos litigation
and claim administration costs totaling EUR12 million.

Under these settlements, insurers paid EUR34 million in 2006 for
asbestos-related defense and indemnity costs. At Dec. 31, 2006,
the subsidiary recorded a receivable from insurance carriers,
for which settlement agreements have been reached, in the amount
of EUR80 million for the reimbursement of incurred defense and
indemnity costs as well as for probable recoveries of accrued
projected settlement costs with respect to pending and future
claims.

Insurance recoveries included in pre-tax earnings amounted to
EUR78 million in 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2006, an additional EUR23 million, for which a
receivable has not been recorded, is payable to the subsidiary
over the next two years, provided asbestos legislation in a
certain form is not passed by the U.S. Congress by certain
dates.  

The subsidiary plans to pursue its litigation against non-
settling insurance carriers and continue settlement discussions
with various insurance carriers in 2007.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips N.V.
makes consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD players,
phones, and fax machines. The Company also makes light bulbs,
electric shavers and other personal care appliances, picture
tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Still Faces Claims as "Successor"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corp. continues to face a number of asbestos-related
claims asserted against it, as "successor" to Coltec Industries
Inc. or one of its subsidiaries.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Products segment, which at the time of the spin-off
included EnPro Industries Inc. and Coltec.

At that time, two Coltec subsidiaries faced personal injury
claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing products sold by
those subsidiaries.

It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted
against the Company on the theory that it has some
responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro,
Coltec or its subsidiaries, although the activities that led to
those claims occurred before its ownership of any of those
subsidiaries.

Also, it is possible that a claim might be asserted against the
Company that Coltec's dividend of its aerospace business to the
Company before the spin-off was made at a time when Coltec was
insolvent or caused Coltec to become insolvent.

In addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that
was used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corp.'s Engine Systems unit
makes aero-structures, engine and fuel controls, fuel systems,
pumps, and turbine components. The Company's Airframe Systems
makes aircraft wheels, brakes, landing gear, and flight control
and actuation systems. Electronic Systems makes interior
products, de-icing and specialty systems, monitoring systems,
lighting products, avionics systems, telemetry systems, sensors,
and recon systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Records $18.7M Liability in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp.'s non-current asbestos-related insurance
liabilities, as of Dec. 31, 2006, totaled US$18,694,000,
compared with US$30,867,000 as of Jan. 1, 2006, according to a
Company press release dated Feb. 21, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
insurance liabilities were US$4,244,000, compared with
US$7,023,000 as of Jan. 1, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
insurance receivables were US$18,503,000, compared with
US$30,581,000 as of Jan. 1, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
insurance receivables were US$4,244,000, compared with
US$7,023,000 as of Jan. 1, 2006.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty materials are
used in electronic and consumer products. Its products include
printed circuit board laminates and polyester-based industrial
laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications,
mobile radios, and direct broadcast TV.


                            *********


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, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *