CAR_Public/070302.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, March 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 44

                            Headlines


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: El Pasoans to Get Refunds in "DeHoyos" Deal
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Pa. Court Transfers Securities Suit to Ariz.
ARKANSAS: Lawsuit to Restore $4M Fort Smith Funds Continues
ARKANSAS: Split Verdict Reached in Suit Against Van Buren School
CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Suit Certification Hearing Set June

CANADA: Montreal Airport Continues to Face Noise Pollution Suit
CASH AMERICA: Insists on Arbitration in Ga. Payday Loans Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Illegal VAT Charges
CERUS CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Proceedings Schedule in Mich. ERISA Suit in Place

FORD MOTOR: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over 6.0-Liter Diesel Engine
FUJITEC CANADA: People Injured in Elevator Crash File Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Wash. Over Faulty Speedometers
GENERAL MOTORS: Several Dex-Cool Lawsuits Denied Certification
HOME DEPOT: Venue for Missouri Shopper's Lawsuit in Contention

ILLINOIS: Settles Nursing Home Residents' Discrimination Lawsuit
INSURERS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Reimbursement Rates
LEAR CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Planned $2.31B Sale to Mr. Icahn
MCDONALD'S CORP: Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit Under Appeal
MCDONALD'S CORP: Suit Claiming Products Cause Obesity Continues

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of "Williams"
PELAGIC PRESSURE: Recalls Dive Computers to Upgrade Software
QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Accused of Misrepresenting Mich. Contracts
SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Focus Cases Decertification Under Appeal
SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Status Possible in Suit Against Georgetown

ST PAUL: Motion to Dismiss Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
TELLABS INC: Renews Bid to Dismiss Suit by Savings Plan Members
TELLABS INC: High Court to Hear Securities Suit Appeal March 28
THAILAND: Investors Group Pushes for Reforms to Protect Rights
UNITED STATES: CAFA's Effectiveness Still Vague, Experts Say

* Lakin Firm Partner Sues for Breach of Business Agreement
* Lord, Bissell Names Partner-in-Charge for Los Angeles Office


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aqua-Chem's $10M Claim v. Coca-Cola Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Con Edison Records $10M Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Records 31.3T Abex Claims in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Records $21M Claims Provision
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Industries Drop to 114T in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.38B for Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases With 6T Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $4.1M Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 31,417 Claims in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mittal Steel Co. to Spend $108M for Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard Ind. Faces 10T Suits from Vapor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Temple-Inland Inc.'s Settlements Total $1M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 647 Pending Cases in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suit in Miss.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.452B for Claims in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Guarding CNA from Future Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Deals with Keasbey Action in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Still Faces Burns & Roe Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Face Actions in Tex. Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Claims v. Continental Casualty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Has Suit Filed by 8 Grace Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.391B Liability in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faces Claims v. Fel-Pro
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $699M Recoverable for T&N

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Have $213.6M Liability in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Faces BCT Action in Conn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Reserves $2.25B for Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.13M for Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group in Arbitration v. Equitas

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Inc. in Arbitration v. Ace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premises, Product Claims v. FMC Drop to 32T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Woman Sues 79 Defendants in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Caledonia Gov't to Ban Use of Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Sues 46 Companies for Husband's Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Salvation Army to Pay $77T for CAA Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $181M for Liabilities in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Has Respirator Coverage Action in Minn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E, Workers Charged for Breaching Safety
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Continue to Face Exposure Claims

  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suits Filing
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Ademi Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Federman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: El Pasoans to Get Refunds in "DeHoyos" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
African American and Hispanic customers of Allstate Insurance
Co. in El Paso could qualify for refunds of $50 to $150 as part
of a settlement in the insurance scoring lawsuit filed against
the insurer, the El Paso Times (Texas) reports.

Judge Fred Biery of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas recently granted final approval to the
settlement (Class Action Report, Feb. 19, 2007).

The American Community Survey shows El Paso County is 84.2
percent Hispanic and/or black and the company carries about
80,000 policies here, according to Joseph McCormick, senior
corporate relations manager of Allstate's Texas region.

Mr. McCormick also emphasized that not all black and Hispanic
policyholders will qualify for the refund.

The case, filed in 2001 in U.S. District Court, Western District
of Texas San Antonio division, was brought by seven individual
Allstate customers seeking to represent a nationwide class of
African-American and Hispanic individuals who were issued
automobile and/or homeowners insurance policies by Allstate-
affiliated companies.

The plaintiffs claim that they were discriminated against in
violation of federal civil rights laws, including the Fair
Housing Act, by allegedly being charged higher premiums based on
Allstate's use of information from their credit reports.

In June 2006, Judge Biery preliminarily approved a settlement
agreement (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2006).

Under the terms of the settlement, Allstate will take these
actions:

     -- Allstate will roll out a new insurance scoring  
        algorithm;

     -- in states where Allstate uses information from credit  
        reports to rate policies, Allstate will provide its  
        customers with the opportunity to have an insurance  
        policy priced using its new insurance scoring algorithm;

     -- Allstate will make its new insurance scoring algorithm  
        publicly available;

     -- Allstate will deliver a comprehensive credit education  
        program to class members, which provides valuable  
        information, including the many different types of  
        business transactions where information from credit  
        reports is used today and how class members can improve  
        their credit position;

     -- Allstate will adopt an appeals program under which all  
        customers who experience extraordinary events that  
        negatively impact their credit history information can  
        potentially obtain premium reductions;

     -- Allstate will increase the substantial percentage of its  
        national media spend devoted to targeted multicultural  
        marketing in its continued efforts to make the widest  
        range of consumers aware of its insurance products; and

     -- Class members will be entitled to apply for a one-time  
        monetary payment.  Eligibility for this payment will be  
        determined based on a comparison of the insurance  
        scoring group assigned to his or her Allstate policy and  
        the insurance scoring group assigned under the insurance  
        scoring algorithm that will be implemented pursuant to  
        this Settlement.

Judge Biery said that settlement was "powerful" and cited that
it allowed "individuals as private litigants to challenge and
ultimately change corporate practices they regard as
discriminatory and as a result to bring about important social
change."

Judge Biery also approved fees and expenses of $11.72 million
for plaintiffs' lawyers.

The company denied that it discriminates against the groups, but
agreed to refund customers and modify its pricing model.

"The scoring model does not know the race or ethnicity of the
policyholder," said Allstate spokesman Michael Trevino.  "It's
not relevant to us."

He said Allstate settled the lawsuit to put the litigation to
rest and move forward.

In addition to refunding customers, Allstate will launch an
advertising campaign aimed at people of color and make its
pricing model public, Corinna Spencer-Scheurich, a consumer
rights lawyer with the Civil Rights Project in McAllen, said.

The company will also create a process by which customers can
appeal rate increases when changes in their lives could cause
financial strain, she said.  Such changes would include but are
not limited to divorce, domestic violence and unemployment.

The suit is "Jose DeHoyos, et al. v. Allstate Corp., et al.,
Case No. 5:01-cv-01010-FB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas under Judge Fred Biery.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Richard Fenton and Jeffrey Lennard of Sonnenshein, Nath  
         & Rosenthal, 8000 Sears Tower, 233 South Wacker,  
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, Fax: (312)  
         876-7934;

     (2) Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East  
         Randolph Drive, Suite 6048, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:  
         (312) 861-2391, Fax: 312/660-0194;  

     (3) Roger D. Higgins of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, 700  
         N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201-2832,  
         Phone: (214) 871-8200, Fax: 214/871-8209;

     (4) Maryanne Lyons of Baker & Botts, LLP, 3000 One Shell  
         Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713)  
         229-1255, Fax: 713/229-1522;

     (5) Rod Phelan of Baker & Botts, 800 Trammell Crow Center,  
         2001 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75201-8001, Fax: 214/661-
         4609, E-mail: rod.phelan@bakerbotts.com;

     (6) Tony P. Rosenstein of Baker & Botts, 3000 One Shell  
         Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713)  
         229-1582, Fax: 713/229-7782, E-mail:  
         tony.rosenstein@bakerbotts.com; and

     (7) Kevin M. Sadler of Baker Botts, LLP, 98 San Jacinto  
         Blvd. Suite 1500, Austin, TX 78701-4039, Phone:(512)  
         322-2500, Fax: 512/322-2501, E-mail:  
         kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com.
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Beusse, Brownlee, Bowdoin & Wolter,  
         390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 2500, Orlando, FL 32801, \
         Phone: (407) 926-7713, Fax: 407/926-7720;  

     (2) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &  
         Balint, P.C., 4041 N. Central, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ  
         85012-3311, Phone: (602)274-1100, Fax: 602/274-1199, E-
         mail: afriedman@bffb.com;
  
     (3) W. Christian Hoyer of James, Hoyer, Newcomer, &  
         Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban Centre, Suite 550, 4830   
         West Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609, Fax: 813/286-4174;

     (4) Robert Q. Keith of Keith & Weber, P.C., 1450 Cypress  
         Valley Ranch, Cypress Mill, TX 78663-8619, Fax:  
         830/825-3457;

     (5) John J. Stoia, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,  
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax:  
         619/231-7423;

     (6) Ron Parry of Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, PSC, 441  
         Garrard Street, Covington, KY 41011, Phone: (859)291-
         9000, Fax: (859)291-9300;

     (7) Daniel J.T. Sciano of Tinsman & Houser, 700 N. St.  
         Mary's St., 1400 One Riverwalk Place, San Antonio, TX  
         78205, Phone: (210) 225-3121, Fax: 210/225-6235, E-
         mail: dsciano@tsslawyers.com; and
  
      (8) Joe R. Whatley of Whatley Drake LLC, 2323 2nd Avene  
          North Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)328-9576, Fax:  
          205/328-9669.


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Pa. Court Transfers Securities Suit to Ariz.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
transferred a securities fraud class action filed against Amkor
Technology, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action, "Nathan
Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al.," was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.  Subsequently, other law firms have filed related
cases, which will likely be consolidated with the initial
complaint.  

In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs
amended the complaint.  Plaintiffs added additional officer,
director and former director defendants and allege improprieties
in certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that defendants improperly
recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles and made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in
violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from
July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, compensatory
damages, costs and expenses, and such other further relief as
the court deems just and proper.

On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to motion by defendants, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
transferred this action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

The suit is "In Re: Amkor Technology Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00610-LP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Louis H. Pollak
with referral to Judge M. Faith Angell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, P.O. Box
         30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235, E-
         mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com; and

     (2) Evan J. Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
         Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-6200,
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Patrick Loftus of Duane Morris, LLP, 30 South 17th
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396, Phone: 215-979-
         1367, E-mail: loftus@duanemorris.com; and

    (ii) Karen T. Stefano of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, US, Phone:
         650-849-3405, E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com.


ARKANSAS: Lawsuit to Restore $4M Fort Smith Funds Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------
The state Supreme Court heard arguments by plaintiffs' lawyer in
a suit against the city of Fort Smith over alleged illegal
transfer of funds, the Arkansas News Bureau reports.

The suit originally accuses the city of improperly using its
share of countywide sales tax.  The suit was dismissed in
circuit court in October, but was revived by the high court.  
The portion of the suit alleging illegal fund transfers was
remanded to the circuit court.  Judge James Marschewski
dismissed that claim in December 2005.  The plaintiffs are
appealing that ruling and are seeking an order for the city to
restore $4 million to utility funds.

The suit accuses the city of violating state law in 1996 when it
took $2 million from both the sanitation department and the
water and sewer department and put the money into the general
fund to help pay for a new police station.

Fayetteville lawyer Marshall Dale Evans, who represents the
plaintiffs, told the court the city did not have a surplus in
its utility funds to allow it to transfer money for other
purposes.  As a result, he said, Fort Smith residents' utility
rates were raised to pay for a police station, not utilities.

The court has not made any ruling.

Fort Smith board member Bill Maddox is the first of several
named plaintiffs in the suit.  He was not on the board when the
suit was filed in 2000.


ARKANSAS: Split Verdict Reached in Suit Against Van Buren School
----------------------------------------------------------------
A split verdict on six issues was handed down in a jury trial of
a 2003 breach of contract suit filed by a former teacher against
the Van Buren School District.

The six questions that Crawford County Circuit Circuit Judge
Mike Medlock posed before the jurors in the case were:

     -- whether the district's school day was 7:45 a.m. to 3:15
        p.m.;

     -- whether teachers were denied the 30-minute, duty-free
        lunch period that state law mandates for three separate
        time periods:
  
        * 1998-2001,
        * 2001-05, and
        * 2005-07

     -- whether teachers at Butterfield School are limited to a
        25-minute lunch period; and

     -- whether the passing period -- the five minutes between
        classes during a school day -- should be considered
        noninstructional duty time.

The jury sided with the plaintiff in answering no on the
question of whether the district's school day was 7:45 a.m. to
3:15 p.m.  It agreed that teachers were denied the 30-minute,
duty-free lunch period that state law mandates for 1998-2001 and
2001-05.

But the jurors said the teachers were not denied the 30-minute,
duty-free lunch period that state law mandates for 2005-07.  
They affirmed that teachers at Butterfield School are limited to
a 25-minute lunch period and should be compensated for the five
minutes lost rather than the entire 30-minute period.  They also
said that the passing period is not considered noninstructional
duty time.

The split verdict left both sides claiming victory in the case,
according to The Springdale Morning News.

Former Coleman Junior High civics teacher Steve Jones filed the
case against the school district on Aug. 22, 2003.  He filed it
along with another teacher, Allen Wolfe, asking for payment to
teachers who had worked uncompensated duty time.  Mr. Wolfe
settled his claim and was dismissed from the lawsuit (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006).

The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school
district between August 1998 and present who has performed
"uncompensated non-instructional duties."

Judge Mike Medlock granted class-action status to that case back
in 2005, allowing about 500 Van Buren teachers to join the
lawsuit.

Attorneys Brian Meadors and Mark Burnette, who both represent
Mr. Jones, claim that Mr. Jones was unfairly dismissed from his
position for making critical statements about the school
district in violation of his civil rights.

In April 2006, two claims were added to the lawsuit:

      -- an appeal of Mr. Jones' termination under the Teacher
         Fair Dismissal Act; and

      -- an allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil
         Rights Act.

Attempts at negotiating a settlement for the case ended in Feb.
13, when the school board voted 6-0 against accepting an offer
that would have involved a $400,000 payment by the district.  
Thus, the case was tried on Feb. 22 (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
16, 2006).

Mr. Meadors said the value of the judgment secured by his
clients would exceed that of the proposed $400,000 settlement
that was rejected by the Van Buren School Board.

Mr. Jones is asking for compensation for the duty time, pre- and
post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
other relief to which he and the class are entitled.  He is also
asking for compensatory and punitive damages.

For more details, contact:

     (1) C. Brian Meadors of Pryor, Robertson & Barry, PLLC, 315
         North 7th Street, P.O. Drawer 848, Fort Smith, Arkansas
         72902-0848, Phone: 479-782-8813 and 479-782-7911, Fax:
         479-785-0254, Web Site: http://www.prblaw.com;and  

     (2) Mark T. Burnette of Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes,
         Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street,
         Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1510, (Pulaski Co.), Phone:
         501-378-7870, Fax: 501-375-1940, Web site:
         http://www.mbbwi.com.


CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Suit Certification Hearing Set June
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the certification of a suit over the occupation of
the Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia is set for June before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, it emerged in a letter by
John Findlay, Findlay McCarthy LLP, to The Hamilton Spectator.

The letter clarified that Caledonia resident David Hartless is
not a plaintiff in the suit as stated in an article, and that
Mr. Hartless is not a member of the Caledonia Class Action
Committee.  According to the letter, he was only mentioned in
the claim as a victim of an assault by occupants.

In June, Mr. Findlay represented two unnamed businesses in
Caledonia that filed a class action complaining of financial
losses arising from a road closure after native protesters
barricaded roads to the Douglas Creek Estates property in 2006
(Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2006).

The suit was filed on June 12 against the Corporation of
Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner
Gwen Boniface and the Cayuga Detachment Commander of the OPP.  
The Government of Ontario was put on notice as additional
defendant.

The suit is based on the alleged failure of the parties to keep
roads open and follow court injunctions issued in March to
remove the protesters from Douglas Creek Estates.  


CANADA: Montreal Airport Continues to Face Noise Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Non-profit group Citizens for a Quality of Life is waiting for a
ruling in an appeal concerning a class action they filed in 2001
against Aeroports de Montreal for excessive noise and nuisance,
The Suburban reports.

The suit was denied certification in 2004.  The group filed an
appeal in 2005.

Aeroports de Montreal last fall modified flight plans to improve
noise for people living in St. Laurent, according to the report.


CASH AMERICA: Insists on Arbitration in Ga. Payday Loans Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International Inc. filed a motion to stay and
compel arbitration in a class action over payday loans that was
filed against the company in the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International,
Inc., Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors,
owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America.  

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Community State Bank
is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia
borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere
subterfuge."

Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the
"de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

The parties are currently in dispute over the scope of the
discovery requests made by the plaintiffs, and Cash America has
appealed a recent State Court discovery ruling on this issue.

Cash America is also seeking enforcement of the arbitration
provisions and has filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration
with the state court, according to its Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Cash America International, Inc., on the Net:
http://www.cashamerica.com.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Illegal VAT Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. was served with a lawsuit filed in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv by a plaintiff who claims to be a
subscriber of the company.  The plaintiff requests certification
of the lawsuit as a class action.

The plaintiff claims that the company unlawfully collected Value
Added Tax from its subscribers who are residents of the city of
Eilat in Israel and that the company misled and failed to
disclose the same.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately $7.8
million, calculated by multiplying an alleged damage of about
$1,566 per subscriber by the number of the subscribers allegedly
damaged, estimated by the plaintiff to be at least 5,000.

The plaintiff is maintaining the right to increase the sum after
receiving further information.

At this preliminary stage, the company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

It is noted that on May 2001 a lawsuit and a request for
certification of the lawsuit as a class action, alleging, inter
alia, that the company unlawfully collected Value Added Taxes
from its subscribers who were residents of or while staying at
the city of Eilat in Israel, were denied with the consent of the
plaintiffs therein.

For more information, contact Shiri Israeli, Cellcom Israel Ltd
Investor Relations Coordinator, Phone: +972-52-998-9755, E-mail:
investors@cellcom.co.il; or Ehud Helft and Ed Job, CCGK Investor
Relations Investor Relations Contacts, Phone: (US)+1-866-704-
6710/1 or +1-646-213-1914, E-mail: ehud@gkir.com or
ed.job@ccgir.com, Website: http://www.cellcom.co.il/Cultures/en-
US/InvestorRelations.


CERUS CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted final approval to a settlement of a securities fraud
class action filed against Cerus Corp. and its current and
former directors and officers.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle the class action, pending since 2003.  The
amended and consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants
had violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly
false and misleading predictions regarding the initiation and
completion of clinical trials, submission of regulatory filings,
receipt of regulatory approval and other milestones in the
development of the platelet, plasma and red blood cell systems.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities during the
period from Dec. 9, 2000, through Jan. 30, 2003.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the plaintiffs in the
class action will release defendants from all known and unknown
claims related to such litigation, without any admission of
wrongdoing or liability by any party.

Under the settlement agreement, the total cash settlements will
be funded entirely by insurance carriers under the company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance policy and will
have no financial impact on the company itself.

On Feb. 16, the court granted final approval to the class action
settlement, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Cerus Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:03-cv-05517-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel.   

Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J. Coughlin and William  
S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine
Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-
4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com or  
billl@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Terri Garland and Raymond M.  
Hasu of Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco,  
CA 94105-2482, Phone: 415-268-7000, E-mail: rhasu@mofo.com or  
tgarland@mofo.com.


FORD MOTOR: Proceedings Schedule in Mich. ERISA Suit in Place
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class
action filed against Ford Motor Co. submitted to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan a status
report for the case "Nowak et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al, Case
No. 4:06-cv-11718-PVG-SDP."

Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe's Dec. 22, 2006
order appointing interim lead plaintiffs and co-lead and liaison
counsel, the parties have met and conferred on numerous
occasions regarding a proposed schedule of pretrial proceedings.

Agreement among the parties has been reached on most issues,
including a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint
and any opposition thereto.

The parties are still negotiating the production of certain
information and documentation related to the pension plans at
issue in order to focus properly plaintiffs' claims in any
consolidated complaint.

It is the intention of the parties to complete
discussions/negotiations in the very near future and present a
proposed schedule to the court for consideration and entry.

On April 7, 2006, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan naming as
defendants Ford Motor and several of the company's current or
former employees and officers.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by
failing to prudently and loyally manage funds held in employee
savings plans sponsored by Ford.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege among other claims that the
defendants violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants
by continuing to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option
in the savings plans.

On Dec. 22, 2006, Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
interim co-lead counsel for the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act class action brought on behalf of the participants
and beneficiaries in the Ford Salaried Plan and the Ford Hourly
Plan who held and/or purchased Ford Motor Co. stock in their
Plan accounts between April 15, 2000 to the present (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2007).

Magistrate Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P., together
with the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, as Interim Co-
Lead Counsel.  The firm of Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC was
appointed as Interim Liaison Counsel.

The defendants deny the plaintiffs' allegations, and intend to
defend this matter vigorously.

The suit is "Nowak et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al., Case No.
4:06-cv-11718-PVG-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Paul V. Gadola with
referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Leland, Derek W. Loeser and Lynn L. Sarko,
         all of Keller Rohrback (Seattle), 1201 Third Avenue,
         Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900,
         Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail: bleland@kellerrohrback.com
         or dloeser@kellerrohrback.com or
         lsarko@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (2) Joseph H. Meltzer and Gerald D. Wells, III, both of
         Schiffrin, Barroway, (Radnor), 280 King of Prussia
         Road, Radnor, PA 19087-5108, Phone: 610-667-7056.

Representing defendants are Michelle Thurber Czapski of
Dickinson Wright (Detroit), 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000,
Detroit, MI 48226-3425, Phone: 313-223-3500, E-mail:
mczapski@dickinsonwright.com; and Gary S. Tell of O'Melveny &
Myers (Washington), 1625 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20006-4001,
Phone: 202-383-5315, Fax: 202-383-5414.


FORD MOTOR: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over 6.0-Liter Diesel Engine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. reached a settlement with Cox House Moving Inc.
of Spartanburg, South Carolina, regarding a complaint that Ford
sold a potentially defective heavy-duty, 6.0-liter diesel engine
installed in more than 350,000 trucks across the country,
Upstate.com reports.

U.S. District Judge Henry M. Herlong has dismissed the lawsuit
with prejudice on the condition that the settlement is executed.  
The settlement is confidential, said attorney Pat Knie, who
represented Cox House Moving.

The suit alleges claims for breach of express warranty and
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.  It was filed
last year.

The plaintiff had purchased a 2004 Ford F-550 Super Duty Truck
equipped with a 6.0-liter Power Stroke diesel engine.  Soon
after the plaintiff purchased the truck, it began to experience
problems with engine performance, including rough running,
vehicle shuddering, reduction and loss of power, engine shut-
down, leaking oil, and smoking.  Ford rebuilt the engine in the
truck and ultimately replaced the engine in January 2006.

However, the plaintiff alleges that the engine continues to have
problems.  Due to the engine problems, the plaintiff has been
unable to use the truck for a total of four months.

The plaintiff alleges that the engine is defective.  An express
warranty was provided with the purchase of the truck "which
warranted that Ford would repair, replace or adjust all parts on
vehicles that are defective in factory-supplied materials or
workmanship."  However, the plaintiff alleges that the problems
associated with the engine "are of an inherent and permanent
nature" and "cannot be satisfactorily corrected by repairs or
replacement of parts to the engine."

The plaintiff argues that these engine problems are not unique
to the plaintiff.  

In addition to the problems with the plaintiff's engine, the
plaintiff submits that other individuals have experienced
problems with the engine including problems with "the fuel
system, fuel injectors, oil leaks, broken turbochargers, wiring
harness troubles, faulty sensors, defective exhaust gas
recirculation valves, and faulty computers."  

Moreover, the plaintiff asserts that the engine problems will
require the plaintiff and other putative class members to incur
substantial repair costs in the future and will significantly
lower the vehicle's resale value.

The plaintiff alleges that this "proposed class action seeks
damages against Defendant, Ford, for breach of express and
implied warranty arising from the production of a defective 6.0
liter PowerStroke diesel engine."

On Nov. 6, 2006, the court denied certification to the suit.  
The court said the plaintiff has failed to allege a specific,
common defect in the engine that causes the problems that
allegedly plague the engine.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence and injunctive
relief claims in a written order dated August 8, 2006.

The suit, C.A. No. 7:06-1218-HMH, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division.


FUJITEC CANADA: People Injured in Elevator Crash File Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
People who suffered injuries when an elevator made by Fujitec
Canada Inc. fell five floors in the Canada Life Tower in January
have launched a class action to seek damages for their pain,
CityNews reports in January.

Five people were in the elevator when it fell due to a major
loss of its hydraulic fluid after its single bulkhead failed,
preventing its safety mechanism from working.

The Technical Standards and Safety Authority, which looks after
the regulation of elevators, claims the machine didn't meet
safety requirements.  It has charged the company with five
counts of violating safety requirements, including failing to
replace worn or defective parts.  It allegedly failed to inspect
and examine the elevator at regular intervals, failing to repair
or replace worn or defective components and failing to maintain
a proper logbook.

Fujitec Canada on the Net: http://ww.fujiteccanada.com/home.htm.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Wash. Over Faulty Speedometers
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. was named as a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington over faulty speedometers in some of its
vehicles.

Kevin Zwicker filed the suit on Feb. 27 on behalf of all persons
who purchased or leased defective trucks or sport utility
vehicles designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
warranted, distributed, sold or leased by General Motors.

Generally, the complaint states that at the time of sale or
lease, the vehicles contained a defect that causes the
speedometers to register and display inaccurate speeds both when
the vehicles are at a standstill or are on the move.  It adds
that many of the speedometers fail to register the vehicles
speed at all.

The suit contends that the defect is unreasonable dangerous, as
it can lead to accidents and cause drivers of Trucks to
unwittingly exceed posted speed limits.

In addition, Mr. Zwicker, represented by attorney Kim Stephens,
states in his complaint that the company actively has concealed
and has failed to disclose the existence and nature of the
speedometer problem.

The vehicles -- model years 2003-2007 -- that are involved in
the suit include:

      -- Chevy Avalanche,
      -- Silverado,
      -- Suburban,
      -- Tahoe,
      -- Trailblazer,
      -- GMC Denali,
      -- Envoy,
      -- Sierra,
      -- Trailblazer, and,
      -- Cadillac Escalade.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1aa5

The suit is "Zwicker v. General Motors Corp.," Case No. 2:07-cv-
00291-JCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge John C. Coughenour.

Representing the plaintiff is Kim D. Stephens of Tousley Brain
Stephens, 1700 Seventh Ave., Ste. 2200, Seattle, WA 98101-1332,
Phone: 206-682-5600, E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Several Dex-Cool Lawsuits Denied Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge G. Patrick Murphy denied certification
to a national class action filed against General Motors Corp.
over a variety of engine problems linked to Dex-Cool, the
Detroit Free Press reports.

In his ruling, Judge Murphy said the sheer breadth of a possible
class action, combined with the passel of state laws that would
control each individual claim, made it impossible to tie all the
claims into one lawsuit, according to the report.

While the judge's ruling can be appealed, GM vehicle owners
unsatisfied with GM's response to the problems may be forced to
pursue cases in each state, and perhaps file individual claims.

The suits stem from General Motor's use of Dex-Cool, a coolant
it first introduced in its vehicles in 1995 and sold in more
than 35 million cars and trucks between 1995 and 2004 (Class
Action Reporter, May 25, 2006).  Customers have complained of
problems ranging from small coolant leaks to complete radiator
and engine failure.  

The suit sought to represent owners of more than 35 million cars
and trucks built by GM between 1995 and 2004 in 47 states.  
Those vehicles use orange-colored Dex-Cool coolant, which the
plaintiffs said was responsible for numerous engine problems,
especially radiator sludge and failed head gaskets.

When General Motors introduced the orange-colored Dex-Cool, it
said in owners' manuals that Dex-Cool could last up to five
years or 100,000 miles without being replaced, and later
extended Dex-Cool's life to 150,000 miles.  Dex-Cool uses a
different set of chemicals to protect engine parts than
traditional green-colored coolant, which requires more frequent
replacement, and General Motors was the first U.S. automaker to
use it.

Attorneys for the owners say that clause means General Motors
should repair any Dex-Cool-related problems, even if they crop
up outside the engine's typical 3-year or 36,000-mile engine
warranty.

For its part, the automaker insists that the recommend service
interval in the owner's manual is a recommendation, and not a
warranty guarantee.

Court documents showed that General Motors has received tens of
thousands of repair requests related to Dex-Cool and engine
gaskets in the affected models and considered recalls for some
models.

GM has faced 14 federal and state lawsuits seeking class-action
status over Dex-Cool complaints, with one scheduled for trial in
Missouri in November.  State courts in Michigan and California
already have rejected statewide class actions.

The suit is "In Re: GM Corp Dex-Cool Litigation, Case No. 3:03-
cv-01562-GPM-CJP" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy,
with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew H. Armstrong of Schlichter, Bogard et al., 100  
         South Fourth Street, Suite 900, St. Louis, MO 63102,  
         Phone: 314-621-6115, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-mail:  
         marmstrong@uselaws.com;

     (2) Eric H. Gibbs of Girard Gibbs LLP, 601 California   
         Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone:  
         415-981-4800, Fax: 415-981-4846, E-mail:  
         ehg@girardgibbs.com;

     (3) Richard M. Paul of Shughart, Thomson et al., 120 West  
         12th Street, Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, Kansas City, MO  
         64105-1929, Phone: 816-421-3355, E-mail:  
         rpaul@stklaw.com;

     (4) Norman E. Siegel of Stueve, Siegel et al., 330 West  
         47th Street, Suite #250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone:  
         816-714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101, E-mail:  
         siegel@sshwlaw.com;

     (5) James B. Brown of Herum, Crabtree et al., 2291 West  
         March Lane, Suite B100, Modesto, CA 95354, Phone: 209-
         472-7700 127, Fax: 209-472-7986;

     (6) Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff, Cabraser et al., 275  
         Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111,  
         Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail:  
         klaw@lchb.com; and

     (7) Richard T. Dorman of Cunningham, Bounds et al., 1601  
         Dauphin Street, Mobile, AL 36604, Phone: 251-471-6191,  
         Fax: 251-479-1031, E-mail: rtd@cbcbb.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Peter H. Burke of Whatley Drake, LLC, 2323 Second  
         Avenue North, P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-
         0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, E-mail:  
         pburke@whatleydrake.com;

     (2) Richard M. Paul of Shughart, Thomson et al., 120 West  
         12th Street, Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, Kansas City, MO  
         64105-1929, Phone: 816-421-3355, E-mail:  
         rpaul@stklaw.com;

     (3) Joe R. Whatley, Jr. of Whatley Drake, 2323 Second  
         Avenue North, P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-
         0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, E-mail:  
         jwhatley@whatleydrake.com;

     (4) Lawrence S. Buonomo of General Motors Corporation, 400  
         Renaissance Center, P.O. Box 400, MC 482-026-601,  
         Detroit, MI 48265-4000  

     (5) Robert B. Ellis, Scott F. Hessell and Brandi L. Chudoba  
         of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite  
         5800, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000 and 312-
         861-3284, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail:  
         rellis@kirkland.com, shessell@kirkland.com and  
         bchudoba@kirkland.com;

     (6) Martin K. Morrissey of Reed, Armstrong et al., 115  
         North Buchanan, P.O. Box 368 Edwardsville, IL 62025,  
         Phone: 618-656-0257, E-mail:  
         mmorrissey@reedarmstrong.com; and

     (7) John J. O'Donnell of Lavin, O'Neil et al., 190 North  
         Independence Mall West, 6th & Race Streets, Suite 500  
         Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: 215-627-0303.


HOME DEPOT: Venue for Missouri Shopper's Lawsuit in Contention
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot Inc. attorney Dwight Davis of Atlanta argued before
the 5th District appellate court that a suit by a customer who
shopped in Missouri belonged in Missouri court, according to the
Madison County Record.

The Lakin firm filed the suit in 2002 for Madison County
(Illinois) resident Janet Chochorowski, who rented a tiller for
$25 at Home Depot in Brentwood, Missouri.  She claimed the store
improperly charged a 10 percent damage waiver fee of $2.50, and
proposed a class action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and similar laws of other states.

In light of a 2005 Illinois Supreme Court decision that threw
out a Williamson County verdict in "Avery v. State Farm," and
declared that the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act applied only to
transactions in Illinois, the Lakin firm amended Ms.
Chochorowski's complaint.  It dropped her claim under Illinois
law and initiated a claim under Missouri law.

Home Depot moved to dismiss on the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, arguing that Ms. Chochorowski should sue in
Missouri.  Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack denied Home
Depot's motion.

Michael Nester of Belleville appealed for Home Depot in June.  
Phillip Bock of Chicago, an associate in many Lakin suits,
answered in October that Illinois venue rules applied.

At a Feb. 8 oral argument before the appellate court, Mr. Davis
said the Missouri Merchandising Act specifies that consumers
with fraud claims can sue in Missouri circuit courts.

The plaintiff's attorney is Gail Renshaw, associate at 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.


ILLINOIS: Settles Nursing Home Residents' Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered a consent decree resolving a discrimination class action
brought by four individuals with disabilities against the
Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family
Services.  

The decree, "Jackson v. Maram No. 04-C-0174," mandates that all
Medicaid-eligible nursing facility residents in Illinois be
provided with, when medically appropriate, a motorized
wheelchair.

The named plaintiffs, who all live in Medicaid-funded nursing
homes, filed the original complaint for themselves and other
nursing home residents who were denied or not provided medically
necessary motorized wheelchairs.  Without power wheelchairs,
they were not able to get around independently or access the
services they would need to leave the nursing home and live in
the community.  Unable to use public transportation, go to a
movie, or visit friends and family, these residents spent many
days confined to their beds.

Roel Villareal, one of the original plaintiffs, who, since the
complaint was filed in 2004, has been approved for a power
wheelchair, said, "Everyone who needs a wheelchair should have
one.  Without a wheelchair, I spent most of my days in bed,
unable to do anything on my own.  The motorized wheelchair gives
me the choice to visit family and friends as I please and live
more independently."  Mr. Villareal's situation is similar to
thousands of other nursing home residents in Illinois.

The complaint alleged that denying the applications for power
wheelchairs was in violation of the Social Security Act, the
Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"The Department of Healthcare and Family Services has
responsibility to assure that nursing homes [that] participate
in Medicaid help people with disabilities become as independent
as possible," said Max Lapertosa, an attorney from Access Living
who represented the plaintiffs.  "We are pleased that the State
settled with the plaintiffs on this important issue," Mr.
Lapertosa added.  "We look forward to working with the
Department of Healthcare and Family Services to implement the
consent decree."

                      Terms of the Decree

Under terms of the decree, among other actions, the Department
is required to: notify nursing home residents of their right to
a motorized wheelchair when medically necessary; notify nursing
facilities of their responsibility to assess residents for
motorized wheelchairs, using qualified and trained
professionals; and, ensure that residents receive motorized
wheelchairs if recommended as medically necessary.

In addition, the Department of Healthcare and Family Services is
required to take disciplinary action against nursing homes that
fail to ensure that eligible recipients receive power
wheelchairs.

One of Access Living's core goals is to end the unnecessary
segregation of people with disabilities in nursing homes and
institutions.  In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court made this goal
the law of the land in its landmark decision, "Olmstead v.
L.C.," which declared that unnecessary institutionalization of
people with disabilities violates their civil rights.  "Access
Living and the disability community have been working hard to
encourage Illinois to fulfill its responsibility under
Olmstead," said Marca Bristo, Access Living's president and
chief executive.

"Without the ability to move around, it is impossible for
thousands of people with disabilities to live outside of nursing
homes.  [The] decision will give people with disabilities the
ability to move around independently, which will empower them to
make their own choices about where to live.  Power wheelchairs
for people who need them are like freedom machines."

According to Stephen Gold, a Philadelphia civil rights attorney
who co-represented the plaintiffs, "When a person cannot leave
his or her bed due to his or her inability to secure a motorized
wheelchair, it encourages unnecessary segregation in nursing
homes.  [The] settlement will give thousands of people living in
nursing homes the ability to secure a motorized wheelchair and
empower them to live independently."

Governed and staffed by a majority of people with disabilities,
Access Living is Chicago's only center for independent living
and works toward the full equality, inclusion and empowerment of
all people with disabilities.

For more information, contact Gary Arnold, Access Living, at
312.640.2199 (voice) or 312.640.2102 (tty).


INSURERS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Reimbursement Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corp., United Services Automobile Association,
Progressive Auto Insurance, and the California State Automobile
Association Inter-Insurance Bureau are each facing a class
action over the survey methods they employ to determine
prevailing rates for collision repairs.

The class actions are being pursued by policyholders in
California.  At press time, the four legal challenges against
the companies have reached the courts, while four more were
reportedly in the preparatory stages, according to a report by
The Automotive Body Repair Network.

According to plaintiff lawyer John N. Quisenberry, certain
insurer surveys -- apparently designed to determine how much
body shops are paid for collision repairs -- are either non-
existent or rife with faulty methodologies.

Mr. Quisenberry, who is seeking class-action status for each
case, alleges that the methodologies and oversight by the
state's Department of Insurance regarding the prevailing-rate
surveys is seriously flawed and prone to insurer abuse.

He alleges further that some insurers have included direct
repair program participants in the data or otherwise fudged the
numbers to obtain artificially low body shop reimbursement
rates.  

With regards to the other four purported class actions that
targeted other insurers, Mr. Quisenberry declined to discuss the
matter, pointing out that those actions remain in the due
diligence stage of the legal proceedings, according to the
report.

Sam Sorich, president of the Association of California Insurance
Companies said that the lawsuits are totally without merit and
expects the insurers to prevail.  He said that the contract does
not require the insurance company to pay whatever a body shop
might charge.  

Body shops are not an official party to the filings.

Each lawsuit consists of complainants who were policyholders
with the particular company being sued.  They were involved in a
crash and then told that the full amount of their claim would
not be paid, according to Mr. Quisenberry.  Vehicle owners had
to pay the difference between a repairer's stated fees and the
settlement amounts paid by insurers.

Currently, the four lawsuits are pending in state court as
lawyers for the defendants argue that the cases should be heard
in federal court.

The suit is John N. Quisenberry of The Quisenberry Law Firm,
2049 Century Park East, Suite #2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: (310) 785-7966, Fax: (310) 785-0254, Web site:
http://www.quislaw.com.


LEAR CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Planned $2.31B Sale to Mr. Icahn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southfield, Michigan-based Lear Corp. is facing six purported
class actions filed by certain shareholders seeking to block the
automotive parts supplier's acquisition by billionaire investor
Carl Icahn, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Earlier this month, the company agreed to a $2.31 billion buyout
offer from Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP.  
The transaction involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the
shares he does not already own, according to reports.

Under the terms of the agreement, Lear was allowed to solicit
alternate proposals for 45 days.

Between Feb. 9, 2007 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders
filed six purported class actions against the company, certain
members of the board of directors and American Real Estate
Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates (AREP).

Three of the lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and have since been consolidated into a single action.   
Another three were filed in Michigan Circuit Court.

The class action complaints, which are substantially similar,
generally allege that the Agreement and Plan of Merger unfairly
limits the process of selling Lear and that certain members of
the company's board of directors have breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger Agreement and have acted
with conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement.

The lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger, to invalidate the Merger
Agreement and to enjoin the operation of certain provisions of
the Merger Agreement, a declaration that certain members of the
company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the Merger Agreement and an award of unspecified
damages or rescission in the event that the proposed merger with
AREP is completed.

On February 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the consolidated
Delaware action filed a consolidated amended complaint, a motion
for expedited proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin
the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

The company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against McDonald's Corp. and certain of its officers and
directors are appealing the dismissal of a third amended
complaint.

The suit is "Allan Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., Jack M.
Greenberg, Matthew H. Paull and Michael J. Roberts."  It was
filed on April 2, 2004.  Two nearly identical actions were
subsequently filed in the same court.  

On Oct. 19, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its amended and
consolidated class action complaint, alleging, among other
things, that the company and individual defendants misled
investors by issuing false and misleading financial reports and
earnings projections in a series of press releases and other
public statements between Dec. 14, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2003,
thereby overstating the company's current and anticipated
earnings.

The amended complaint seeks class action certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 21, 2005, the court denied this
motion.  The lead plaintiff then filed its First Amended
Complaint on Oct. 7, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30,
2005).

On May 17, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, giving the
plaintiffs another chance to state a claim.

On June 16, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.  On July 17, 2006, the defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the complaint.

On Dec. 15, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice.  On Jan. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal from the court's order of dismissal,
according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-02422," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning.

Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100.

Representing the company is Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland &
Ellis LLP (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100,
Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
rkopecky@kirkland.com.  


MCDONALD'S CORP: Suit Claiming Products Cause Obesity Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corp. remains a defendant in a suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by minors
who became obese or developed other adverse health conditions
allegedly from eating the company's products, according to the
company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed in behalf of Ashley Pelman, a child under the
age of 18 years, by her mother and natural guardian, Roberta
Pelman and in behalf of Jazlen Bradley, a child under the age of
18 years, by her father and natural guardian, Israel Bradley.

On or about Feb. 17, 2003, two minors, by their parents and
guardians, filed an amended complaint against the company.  The
suit is seeking class-action status on behalf of individuals in
New York under the age of 18 (and their parents and/or
guardians), who became obese or developed other adverse health
conditions allegedly from eating the company's products.  

On Sept. 3, 2003, the court dismissed all counts of the
complaint with prejudice.  On Jan. 25, 2005, following an appeal
by the plaintiffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
Court vacated the court's decision to dismiss alleged violations
of Section 349 of the New York Consumer Protection Act as set
forth in Counts I-III of the amended complaint.  

On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint.  In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the
company:

      -- engaged in a deceptive advertising campaign to be
         perceived to be less nutritionally detrimental-than-in-
         fact;

      -- failed adequately to disclose its use of certain
         additives and ingredients; and

      -- failed to provide nutritional information about its
         products.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages; an order
directing defendants to label their individual products
specifying the fat, salt, sugar, cholesterol and dietary
content, an order prohibiting marketing to certain individuals'
funding of an educational program to inform children and adults
of the dangers of eating certain foods' sold by defendants; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Ashley Pelman, et al., v. McDonald's Corp., et al.,
02 Civ. 7821," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Hirsch, 350 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 2418 New York, NY 10118, Phone: (212) 947-3800.

Representing the company are:

     (1) Bruce Roger Braun, Bradley E. Lerman, Thomas E.
         Quigley, Winston & Strawn LLP (IL), 35 West Wacker
         Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-5600, Fax:
         (312)-558-5700, E-mail: bbraun@winston.com,
         blerman@winston.com, tquigley@winston.com; and

     (2) Anne Kimball, 225 West Wacker Drive #2800, Chicago, IL
         60606, Phone: (312) 201-2000.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of "Williams"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries Inc. has filed a motion requesting review by
the U.S. Supreme Court of a decision in the purported class
action, "Shirley Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc."

The suit was filed by four plaintiffs in January 2004 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  It
purports that plaintiffs are former and current employees of the
company and that the actions and conduct of the company,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the
purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly
employees in Georgia.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its
employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia.

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages.  Another was to reduce the number and
expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal
employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the court in April 2004.  The
company then sought and obtained permission to file an immediate
appeal of the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit.  

In June 2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in
part the lower court's decision (Williams v. Mohawk Industries,
Inc., 411 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2005)).  

In June 2005, the company filed a motion requesting review by
the full 11th Circuit, which was denied in August 2005.

In October 2005, the company filed a petition for certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court, which petition was granted in
December of 2005.  The case was argued before the Supreme Court
on April 26, 2006.

The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is titled,
"Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465."  Previously
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit,
the suit was titled, "Williams v. Mohawk, No. 04-13740," (Class
Action Reporter, April 25, 2006).

On June 5, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated the 11th Circuit
ruling and ordered the 11th Circuit to reconsider its vacated
ruling.  

On Sept. 27, 2006, the 11th Circuit issued a second decision
reversing in part and affirming in part the lower court's
decision.  

On Oct. 18, 2006, the company filed a motion requesting review
of the decision by the full 11th Circuit, which was denied in
November 2006.

In December 2006, the company filed a second petition for
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the
company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The original suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries,  
Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of North Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, P.O. Box 370,  
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370, Phone: 706-857-3421, E-  
         mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net;      

     (2) Ronan P. Doherty, John Earl Floyd, Nicole G. Iannarone   
         and Joshua F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201   
         West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center,  
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, E-mail:  
         doherty@bmelaw.com, floyd@bmelaw.com,     
         iannarone@bmelaw.com and thorpe@bmelaw.com;      

     (3) Howard Foster of Johnson & Bell, 55 East Monroe St.,   
         Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-372-0770, E-  
         mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and  

     (4) Matthew Daniel Thames of Goddard Thames Hammontree &   
         Bolding, Suite 209, P.O. Box 399, 101 N. Thornton Ave.,  
         Dalton, GA 30722-0399, Phone: 706-278-0464, E-mail:   
         mattatty@alltel.net.      

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven Thomas Cottreau, Juan P. Morillo and Virginia A.
         Seitz of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, E-mail:
         scottreau@sidley.com; and

    (ii) R. Carl Cannon and Rosemary C. Lumpkins of Constangy
         Brooks & Smith, 230 Peachtree St., N.W., 2400 Peachtree
         Center Tower, Atlanta, GA 30303-1557, Phone: 404-525-
         8622, E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com.


PELAGIC PRESSURE: Recalls Dive Computers to Upgrade Software
------------------------------------------------------------
Pelagic Pressure Systems, of San Leandro, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 2,800 Oceanic and AERIS digital dive computers.

The company said when performing a switch from one gas to
another during a dive, the dive computer's display will lock up
and not return to the main dive screen that displays dive times.  
This can cause divers to enter decompression unknowingly or the
diver could ascend prematurely, resulting in decompression
sickness.

Pelagic has received a report of two dive computers
malfunctioning.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Oceanic-brand ATOM 2.0 dive computers with
serial numbers 1 through 2,079 (Revisions 2E, 3A, and 3B) and
AERIS-brand EPIC dive computers with serial numbers 1 through
712 (Revision 1A), which can be accessed and viewed on the
computer's display.

Also, the serial number and date of manufacture are printed on
the bottom of the unit (Oceanic ATOM 2.0 from August 23 to
November 23, 2006, and AERIS EPIC from October 18 to November
14, 2006).  This recall does not include any other Oceanic or
AERIS brand dive computers.

These recalled digital dive computers were manufactured in the
U.S. and are being sold at authorized Oceanic and AERIS dealers.

Authorized Oceanic dealers sold ATOM 2.0 dive computers
nationwide from August 2006 through February 2007, while
authorized AERIS dealers sold EPIC dive computers nationwide
from October 2006 through February 2007.  Both computers sold
for between $670 and $950.

Pictures of recalled digital dive computers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07117a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07117b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled dive computers
and take them to an authorized Oceanic or AERIS dealer to get a
free software upgrade.

For more information contact, Pelagic toll-free at (888) 854-
4960 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, send an
E:mail: service@oceanicusa.com, or write to: Pelagic Pressure
Systems, 2002 Davis Street, San Leandro, CA 94577.  Information
is also posted on the Oceanic and AERIS Web sites:
http://www.OceanicWorldwide.comand http://www.diveaeris.com.


QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Accused of Misrepresenting Mich. Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Quiznos Franchise Co., LLC franchisees in Michigan
has filed a proposed class action against the Denver-based
sandwich chain, the Denver Post reports.

The group claims the chain oversaturates the market with
franchises and requires owners to pay excessive prices for food
and supplies.

It alleges that the company misrepresents the nature of its
contractual relationship with franchisees as well as the
prospects for franchisee success.

The suit is similar to a case filed on Nov. 20, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin by Quiznos
franchisees in the state.  Together with the Toasted Subs
Franchisees Association, Inc., the plaintiffs allege that the
company systematically defrauded its franchisees in a scheme
designed to build the brand at the expense of its operators in
the field.

It generally contends that the company forces franchisees to buy
food and supplies from Quiznos or its affiliates at inflated
prices while concurrently setting artificially low retail prices
for its products, making the stores unprofitable for the
franchisees (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2006).

In addition, franchisees allege that Quiznos unlawfully
participates in a scheme to sell the franchises by omitting or
otherwise misrepresenting key facts about Quiznos' business
operations in an effort to induce potential franchisees to buy a
franchise.

Specifically, the suit, which is seeking damages for lost
investments as well as injunctive relief, alleges:

      -- statutory and common law fraud,

      -- violations of federal and state antitrust laws,

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations (RICO) Act,

      -- breach of contract, and

      -- violations of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law.

Quiznos declined to comment on the lawsuit, adding that it would
be "inappropriate" to comment on pending litigation.


SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Focus Cases Decertification Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to deny class-action status to
certain IPO "Focus Cases" that names SoundView Technology Group,
Inc. as a defendant, according to the The Charles Schwab Corp.'s
Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

SoundView and certain of its subsidiaries are among the numerous
financial institutions named as defendants in multiple purported
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (IPO Allocation Litigation)
between June and December 2001.

The IPO Allocation Litigation was brought on behalf of persons
who either directly or in the aftermarket purchased IPO
securities between March 1997 and December 2000.

Plaintiffs allege that SoundView entities and the other
underwriters named as defendants required customers receiving
allocations of IPO shares to pay excessive and undisclosed
commissions on unrelated trades and to purchase shares in the
aftermarket at prices higher than the IPO price, in violation of
the federal securities laws.

SoundView entities have been named in 31 of the actions, each
involving a different company's IPO, and had underwriting
commitments in approximately 90 other IPOs that are the subject
of lawsuits.

SoundView entities have not been named as defendants in these
cases, although the lead underwriters in those IPOs have
asserted that depending on the outcome of the cases, SoundView
entities may have indemnification or contribution obligations
based on underwriting commitments in the IPOs.

The parties, with the assent of the court, selected 17 cases as
focus cases for the purpose of case-specific discovery, and in
October 2004, the court allowed 6 of the focus cases to proceed
as class actions.

Defendants appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, which issued an order on Dec. 5, 2006
reversing the court and rejecting the consideration of these
cases as class actions.  Plaintiffs are now appealing that
decision.

As part of the sale of SoundView to UBS Securities LLC and UBS
Americas Inc., The Charles Schwab Corp. agreed to indemnify UBS
for certain litigation, including the claims described below.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Status Possible in Suit Against Georgetown
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina Supreme Court determined that the Georgetown
County taxpayers should be allowed to file for class-action
status in a suit challenging the legality of the taxes the
county collected to operate district schools, the Georgetown
Times reports.

The ruling came in a Supreme Court decision to send a lawsuit
filed by Georgetown County property owners against the school
district to the Administrative Law Court.  It said under the
S.C. Revenue Procedures Act, the Administrative Law Court in
Columbia was a more appropriate venue for the case.

The property owners allege that the Georgetown County School
District overcharged taxpayers by more than $28 million over a
ten-year period.  The lawsuit was originally filed in circuit
court in Georgetown in November 2001.

Attorney Gene Connell, who filed the original lawsuit, is
representing the property owners, who are county residents and
business owners.  The plaintiffs believe the district and
Georgetown County unlawfully imposed excessive taxes.  The
plaintiffs contend that the county levied a higher millage rate
than was needed to operate district schools, creating a more
than $28 million surplus between 1991 and 2001, according to the
Supreme Court opinion.

Thus, the lawsuit could be refiled on behalf of any residents
who were Georgetown County taxpayers at the time in question.  
Mr. Connell told The Times on Tuesday that he plans to file for
class-action status.


ST PAUL: Motion to Dismiss Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A renewed motion to dismiss and a motion for class certification
remain pending in an insurance brokerage antitrust litigation
filed against St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Four putative class actions are pending against a number of
insurance brokers and insurers, including the company and/or
certain of its affiliates, by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased
insurance products through one or more of the defendant brokers.

Plaintiffs allege that various insurance brokers conspired with
each other and with various insurers, including the company
and/or certain of its affiliates, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for
insurance products offered to those customers.

The complaints are captioned:

      -- "Redwood Oil Company v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2005),"

      -- "Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
         (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2005),"

      -- "Mulcahy v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al. (D.N.J.
         Feb. 23, 2005), and

      -- "Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation
         District v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
         (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2005)."

To the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal
class actions were transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and have been consolidated with other
class actions under the caption, "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation," a multidistrict litigation proceeding in
that court.

On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the above-referenced class actions, filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint naming various
brokers and insurers, including the company and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.

The complaint includes causes of action under the Sherman Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
state common law and the laws of the various states prohibiting
antitrust violations.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages and
trebled damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution,
including disgorgement of profits, interest and costs, including
attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 29, 2005, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim.  

On Feb. 13, 2006, the named plaintiffs moved to certify a
nationwide class consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26,
1994 and the date of class certification engaged the services of
a broker defendant (or related entity) in connection with the
procurement or renewal of insurance and who entered into or
renewed a contract of insurance with one or more of the insurer
defendants, including the company.  

Oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss were heard
on July 26, 2006.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled that the complaint failed to
plead actionable claims under the Sherman Act or RICO, provided
plaintiffs an opportunity to replead those claims and reserved
decision with respect to remaining state law claims.

On Nov. 30, 2006, defendants renewed their motions to dismiss.
The renewed motion to dismiss and class certification motion
remains pending.

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


TELLABS INC: Renews Bid to Dismiss Suit by Savings Plan Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs Inc. is asking permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeal for the 7th Circuit the denial of its motion to dismiss a
purported class action filed by members of its savings plan.

On April 5, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the
court against:

     -- Tellabs;

     -- Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert, the company's former
        chief executive, president and director; and

     -- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the
        alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000 to July 1,
        2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and
        Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit
        Sharing and Savings Plan.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  Thereafter, two similar complaints were
filed in the same court.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things,
continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as a Plan investment
option when it was imprudent to do so and allegedly
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information
necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions
concerning the Plan.

Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor
the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and
certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of
loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective
action on behalf of Plan participants.  The complaints seek
restitution, damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions and
on Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  

On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in
the Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class action
complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion.  Based on
the court's decision, the defendants have requested that the
court certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit.

The suit is "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing defendant Tellabs Operations, Inc. is Charles Clark
Jackson at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive
5th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 324- 1000, E-mail:
charles.jackson@morganlewis.com.

Representing plaintiff Don Brieger is Norman Rifkind at Lasky &
Rifkind, Ltd., 350 N LaSalle Street, Suite 1320, Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: (312) 634-0057, Fax: (312) 634-0059, E-mail:
rifkind@laskyrifkind.com.


TELLABS INC: High Court to Hear Securities Suit Appeal March 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear on March 28 an appeal by
Tellabs, Inc., regarding a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 7th Circuit in a class action against the company.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.  
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against  
Tellabs Inc., Michael Birck, and Richard Notebaert, the
company's former chief executive, president and director.  

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All nine
of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
the company's current or former officers and/or directors.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period -- Dec. 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001 -- the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products,
and reporting overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in
the company's financial statements.  

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about the company pertaining to these
matters.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the court granted
the company's motion and dismissed all counts of the
consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead.  

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  

The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.  On Feb.
19, 2004, the court issued an order granting that motion and
dismissed the action with prejudice.   

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Federal Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit.  The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on Jan. 21,
2005.  On Jan. 25, 2006, the 7th Circuit issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanding for further proceedings.  

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the 7th Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.    
On April 19, 2006, the 7th Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an
answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the
plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  

On July 10, 2006, the 7th Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion.  On Sept.
22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to
dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims.  

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme  
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
7th Circuit's decision.

On January 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted.  The
U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 28.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., Case No.  
1:02-cv-04356," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.

Representing defendant Tellabs, Inc. is David F. Graham at  
Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street. Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 853-7000, E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com.  

Representing plaintiff Thomas Johnson is Steven G. Schulman at  
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)594-5300.


THAILAND: Investors Group Pushes for Reforms to Protect Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Thai Investors Association is urging the government to step
up efforts to pass a new class action law to help strengthen the
rights of retail investors, according to Bangkok Post.

"Right now, investors have only partial protection for their
rights.  We hope that the government will pay greater attention
to this issue to help rebuild long-term confidence in the
markets," said Wichai Poolworaluk, the TIA president.

Mr. Wichai said that few retail investors pursue legal action
against corporate executives due to high cost of litigations.  
In addition, the legal system often fails to impose penalties on
guilty parties despite clear evidence of losses.  A class action
on behalf of an entire class of investors will help reduce
expenses, he said.  

He mentioned the case of Picnic Corp. whose top executives had
been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of
embezzlement and accounting fraud.  

He also suggested an amended to the Public Companies Act, which
applies to companies listed on the local exchange.  He wants it
changed to help increase the rights of shareholders.  

"At the very least, our laws should offer similar protection as
given to investors abroad," Mr. Wichai said, according to the
report.


UNITED STATES: CAFA's Effectiveness Still Vague, Experts Say
------------------------------------------------------------
Though new class actions are no longer clogging state courts to
the extent they once did due to the Class Action Fairness Act,
it is still hard to know if the law has been effective,
according to a report by The Madison County Record.

On a Feb. 15 Forbes Magazine article, attorney Ted Frank, a
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.,
cautions against judging the effectiveness of CAFA purely by the
numbers.  

Mr. Frank's comments came two years after the passage of CAFA,
which was designed to end forum shopping in plaintiff-friendly
venues.  

With CAFA, which was signed into law by President George Bush
back in February 2005, most new class actions, especially those
seeking more than $5 million, are now concentrated in federal
courts.

Specifically, Mr. Franks explains that its hard to know whether
the level of class actions has gone up or down, since different
kinds of class actions are being filed right.  He did point out
though, "I think you're seeing fewer attempts to get a
nationwide class."

According to the Forbes article, legal experts who gathered for
a forum sponsored by the Federalist Society say the shift of
class actions to federal courts has placed "unforeseen strains
on the federal court system because the law was drafted so
poorly."

The article pointed out that more class actions have been filed
in federal courts in the last two years, while the number of
federal judges has not risen in proportion.

Forbes quoted John Stoia, a member of the panel, and insurance
policyholder attorney, as saying, "This is taxing the federal
courts, as we predicted."  Mr. Stoia said that in some cases
decisions could get backed up as much as four or five years.

In addition, the Forbes article stated that the most obvious
effect of the law, all sides agree almost unanimously, is the
diminishing importance of so-called "magnet jurisdictions" such
as Madison County, Illinois, which became famous in the legal
community for granting class-action certifications.

It also states that there has been a dramatic decline in the
number of 'coupon settlements,' where the defendant individually
awards plaintiffs with payment coupons.  

The panel also tackled the issue of whether it costs more for
plaintiffs to litigate class action claims in federal court,
"and on this issue, the jury still seems to be out," according
to the article.

They explained that since "parallel claims can now be
consolidated into one case at the federal level, there is an
argument that the cases should be less expensive for plaintiffs.  
However, if litigation gets backed up at the federal level,
plaintiffs could incur legal fees that wouldn't otherwise have
burdened them."

                      Background on CAFA

The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, expanded federal jurisdiction over
many large class actions and mass actions.

The bill was the first major legislation in the second term for
the Bush Administration.  Business groups and [tort reform]
supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was
needed to prevent class action abuse.  President George W. Bush
had vowed to support this legislation.

The Act accomplished two key goals of tort reform advocates:

      -- Reduce "forum-shopping" by plaintiffs in friendly state
         courts by expanding federal diversity jurisdiction to
         class actions where there is not "complete diversity"
         giving federal jurisdiction over class actions against
         out-of-state defendants.  Proponents argued that
         "magnet jurisdictions" such as Madison County, Illinois
         were rife with abuse of the class action procedure.

      -- Requires greater federal scrutiny procedures for the
         review of class action settlements and changes the
         rules for evaluating coupon settlements, often reducing
         attorney's fees that are deemed excessive relative to
         the benefits actually afforded class members.  For
         example, in an infamous Alabama class action involving
         Bank of Boston, the attorneys' fees exceeded the relief
         to the class members, and class members lost money,
         paying attorneys for the "victory."

The Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to certain class
actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,
and in which any of the members of a class of plaintiffs is a
citizen of a state different from any defendant, unless at least
two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens
of the state in which the action was originally filed.


* Lakin Firm Partner Sues for Breach of Business Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago firm Freed & Weiss LLC filed a complaint against the
Lakin law firm and some other attorneys claiming breach of
partnership agreement, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

Karen Levine of the Chicago firm Novack and Macey, which
represents Freed & Weiss, said she believed the partnership was
a contractual agreement.

Freed & Weiss claims that Brad Lakin, son of the Lakin law firm
founder, along with a few former Freed & Weiss attorneys, tried
to secretly steer transactions toward the Lakin firm in an
effort to secure its business after controversies involving Mr.
Lakin's father emerged.

Freid and Weiss attorneys say that after allegations of drugs
and child sex abuse involving Tom Lakin came to light in the
spring of 2006, they raised concerns that negative publicity
could hurt ongoing class actions in Madison and St. Clair
counties, according to the report.  The Lakins are strongly
denying the allegations.

Specifically, the suit claims that Lakin made clients choose
between the two firms.  It also said the company used state Rep.
Jay Hoffman, D-Collinsville, who works for the firm in an "of
counsel" status, to help persuade some plaintiffs to avoid Freed
& Weiss.  Mr. Hoffnam is not a defendant in the case.  He said
the allegations were not true.

In addition, it said that Lakin has collected fees and settled
cases without alerting Freed & Weiss, and tried to secretly take
documents vital to ongoing litigation.  Freed & Weiss claim they
are owed money but was refused access to the Lakin firm's
financial records.  

The action was allegedly spurred by the younger Lakin's fear
that Freed & Weiss would dissolve the partnership between the
two firms.  According to the lawsuit, Lakin formally claimed to
have dissolved the two firms' agreement in early January.  The
partners have more than 50 uncertified class actions pending.

The new lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of money that Freed
& Weiss claims it is owed, along with attorneys fees and
punitive damages.


* Lord, Bissell Names Partner-in-Charge for Los Angeles Office
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP named Mitchell J.
Popham partner-in-charge of the firm's Los Angeles office.

A partner with Lord, Bissell & Brook since 1996, Mr. Popham
joined the firm directly out of law school in 1986.

Over the past 20 years, Mr. Popham has been lead counsel to
clients from large corporations to smaller business entities and
individuals.

He focuses his practice on complex business litigation, unfair
business practices and competition, class action defense,
aviation, insurance coverage and bad faith, commercial disputes,
products liability, marine and admiralty, energy and toxic
torts.

Mr. Popham's professional memberships include the Association of
Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles County Bar Association,
State Bar of California, and State Bar of California Litigation
Section.

"Mitch's successful career at Lord, Bissell & Brook and his
knowledge of the California legal community makes him an
excellent choice for this position.  Our Los Angeles office has
experienced significant growth in the last few years and we
expect that to continue under Mitch's leadership," stated Thomas
W. Jenkins, partner and chairman of Lord, Bissell & Brook's
Executive Committee.

Founded in 1914, Lord, Bissell & Brook --
http://www.lordbissell.com/-- is a full service law firm  
serving national and international clients from offices in
Atlanta, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento and
Washington, D.C.

For additional information about Lord, Bissell & Brook please
contact the firm at 312.443.0700.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aqua-Chem's $10M Claim v. Coca-Cola Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua-Chem Inc., a former subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Co., is
still pursuing its demand from the Company for about US$10
million for out-of-pocket asbestos litigation-related expenses.

From 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem, n/k/a Cleaver-
Brooks Inc. A division of Aqua-Chem made certain boilers that
had gaskets that Aqua-Chem bought from outside suppliers.

After the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its first
suit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the gaskets.

In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it was
obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with its
asbestos litigation.  

Aside from the US$10 million demand, Aqua-Chem also demanded
that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-
Chem for future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from
coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no
insurance.

The parties entered into litigation to resolve this dispute,
which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome
of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-
Chem.

In that case, five plaintiff insurance firms filed a declaratory
judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant
insurance companies seeking a determination of the parties'
rights and liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and
reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their
obligations. That litigation remains pending.

Aqua-Chem and the Company subsequently reached a settlement
agreement with six of the insurers in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation, and those insurers will pay funds into an
escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos
claims against Aqua-Chem.

Aqua-Chem has also reached a settlement agreement with another
insurer regarding payment of that insurer's policy proceeds for
Aqua-Chem's asbestos claims.

Aqua-Chem and the Company would still negotiate with the
remaining insurers that are parties to the Wisconsin insurance
coverage case and will contest their claims against those
insurers to the extent negotiations do not result in
settlements.

The Company said that it believes Aqua-Chem has substantial
insurance coverage to pay Aqua-Chem's asbestos claimants.

Based in Atlanta, The Coca-Cola Co. makes, distributes, and
markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups
worldwide. Along with Coca-Cola, the Company markets other
sparkling brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Con Edison Records $10M Accrued Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Inc.'s accrued liability for asbestos
lawsuits, at Dec. 31, 2006, totaled US$10 million, compared with
US$25 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 21, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's regulatory assets for asbestos
suits were US$10 million, compared with US$25 million at Dec.
31, 2005.

Suits have been filed in New York State and federal courts
against Company utilities Consolidated Edison Company of New
York Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc., and many other
defendants. In these suits, plaintiffs sought compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the utilities.

Resolved suits have been resolved without any payment by the
utilities, or for amounts that were not material to them. The
amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total
billions of dollars.  

In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and more suits
that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million.

In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.

Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is
permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery
through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos suits and
workers' compensation claims.

The accrued liability for asbestos suits and workers'
compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos
exposure) and the amounts deferred as regulatory assets for the
Companies at December 31, 2006 and 2005 were as follows:

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$117 million accrued
liability for workers' compensation, compared with US$118
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's regulatory
assets for workers' claims were US$42 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, Con Edison of New York recorded US$112 million
accrued liability for workers' compensation, compared with
US$113 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, Con Edison of New York's
regulatory assets for workers' claims were US$42 million.

Based in New York, Consolidated Edison Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., distributes
electricity to more than 3.1 million residential and business
customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to more
than one million customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Records 31.3T Abex Claims in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 31,300 Pneumo
Abex Corp. asbestos-related claims that are the responsibility
of Federal-Mogul Corp., according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 21, 2007.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2006, a total of 141,529
Abex Claims were filed, of which 110,229 claims have been
resolved.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 31,488 Abex asbestos-
related claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul. These discontinued businesses,
including the Abex product line obtained from Pneumo-Abex Corp.
in 1994, were operated through subsidiary companies, and the
stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998.

Federal-Mogul indemnified Cooper for certain liabilities of
these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the
Abex product line and any potential liability that the Company
may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement
between the Company and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that
Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to
Cooper.

As of Feb. 21, 2007, Federal-Mogul had not rejected the 1998
Agreement, which includes the indemnification to the Company. If
Federal-Mogul rejects the 1998 Agreement, the Company will be
relieved of its future obligations under the 1998 Agreement,
including specific indemnities relating to payment of taxes and
certain obligations regarding insurance for its former
Automotive Products businesses.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, 3,806 claims were filed and
10,941 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average
indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$1,960 before
insurance. A total of US$107.4 million was spent on defense
costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2006.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware approved the adequacy of Federal-Mogul's Supplemental
Disclosure Statement describing the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization. The Court also approved the Voting Procedures
and ordered that the voting period shall expire on April 6,
2007.

In addition, any objections to the Fourth Amended Plan must be
filed with the Court by April 6, 2007 and the Court set the
dates for a hearing on confirmation of the Plan on May 8, 2007
and May 9, 2007. If the Plan is confirmed, Federal-Mogul could
emerge from bankruptcy by mid-2007.

The accrual for potential liabilities related to the Automotive
Products sale and the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy was US$529.6
million at Dec. 31, 2006 and US$526.3 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Houston, Cooper Industries Ltd. makes electrical
products, tools, hardware, and metal support products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Records $21M Claims Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning, for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
US$21 million as provision for asbestos litigation claims,
according to a Company press release filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2007.

For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006 and the 10 months ended
Oct. 31, 2006, the Company paid US$1.250 billion to its asbestos
trust.

For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a
US$13 million credit for asbestos litigation claims.

Dave Brown, president and CEO said, "2006 was a year of
accomplishments. Owens Corning emerged from asbestos-related
Chapter 11 with a strong balance sheet that positions the
company to succeed through a challenging cyclical downturn of
housing starts."

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning provides building materials
systems and composite solutions. Products and services include
insulation, roofing, siding and stone, glass composite materials
used in transportation, electronics, telecommunications and
other high-performance applications. The Company has sales of
US$6.5 billion in 2006 and 19,000 employees in 26 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Industries Drop to 114T in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced asbestos-related
lawsuits involving about 114,000 open claims served on it,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the Company faced
116,000 asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
10, 2006)

For over 30 years, the Company has faced suits involving claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most of the
Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that it should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products made and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

The Company and Corning Inc. are each 50 percent shareholders of
PC. The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended,
all claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

On Apr. 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in
Pittsburgh.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying
confirmation of PC's second amended plan of reorganization.
Several parties in interest, including the Company, filed
motions for reconsideration or to alter or amend the Dec. 21,
2006 ruling.

Final written submissions were due on Jan. 26, 2007. Oral
argument on the motions is scheduled for March 5, 2007. Upon
reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its Dec. 21,
2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the plan or
may amend the decision in a manner that may provide further
guidance on how the plan could be modified and become
confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court's view.

In addition, and in response to additional motions to lift the
stay filed on behalf of other premises claimants, the Bankruptcy
Court issued a series of orders in December 2006 lifting the
stay, effective Jan. 31, 2007, with respect to 496 premises
claims.

Because the filing of asbestos claims against the Company has
been enjoined since April 2000, a significant number of
additional claims may be filed against the Company if the
Bankruptcy Court stay were to expire.

Before 2000, the Company had never been found liable for any of
those claims, in numerous cases the Company had been dismissed
on motions before trial, and aggregate settlements by the
Company to date have been immaterial.

In January 2000, in a trial in a state court in Texas involving
six plaintiffs, the jury found the Company not liable. However,
a week later in a separate trial also in Texas state court,
another jury found the Company partly responsible for injuries
to five plaintiffs alleged to be caused by PC products.

Based in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries Inc. is comprised of five
business segments: Industrial Coatings, Performance and Applied
Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals
and Glass. The Company operates nearly 110 manufacturing
facilities in more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates
more than 350 paint retail centers in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.38B for Claims in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp.'s reserves for asbestos-related claims, at
Dec. 31, 2006, totaled US$1.38 billion, net of reinsurance
recoverables of US$823 million, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 22, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's reserves for asbestos claims
were US$1.37 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$831
million.

About 67 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 were for incurred but not reported
estimated losses, compared with 68 percent at Dec. 31, 2005.

The total commutations, policy buy-backs, and settlement
agreements for A&E claims in 2006 were US$61 million gross or
US$30 million net, compared with US$322 million gross or US$176
million net in 2005.

In 2006, the US$139 million underwriting loss primarily related
to a US$86 million re-estimated of asbestos reserves.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 1,220 new
claims for A&E exposures, 851 total closed claims, 9,175 pending
at the end of the year, and 596 closed without payment.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 1,635 new
claims for A&E exposures, 1,459 total closed claims, 8,806
pending at the end of the year, and 829 closed without payment.

The Company recorded 387 active policyholders at Dec. 31, 2006,
compared with 379 active policyholders at Dec. 31, 2005.

In the last three years, 132 direct primary and excess
policyholders reported new claims, and 83 policyholders were
closed, increasing the number of active policyholders by 49
during the period.

The 49 increase comprised 8 from 2006, 5 from 2005 and 36 from
2004. The increase of 8 from 2006 included 31 new policyholders
reporting new claims and the closing of 23 policyholders'
claims.

Reinsurance recoverables included US$271 million from Lloyd's of
London at Dec. 31, 2006, compared with US$247 million at Dec.
31, 2005.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corp. provides insurance
products to more than 17 million households through a
distribution network that utilizes a total of about 14,800
agencies and financial specialists in the U.S. and Canada.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases With 6T Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc.'s subsidiaries, Leslie, Spence, and
Hoke, collectively have been named as defendants or third-party
defendants in open asbestos-related cases filed on behalf of
about 6,000 claimants, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
22, 2007.

In some instances, the Company has also been named individually
or as successor-in-interest to one or more of these
subsidiaries.

Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, faced, as defendants or third-party
defendants, pending asbestos-related cases filed on behalf of
about 7,000 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006)

The Company continues to face product liability actions brought
on behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers.

These cases have from 25 to 400 defendants and generally seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against all
defendants in the aggregate. However, the complaints filed on
behalf of claimants who do seek specified compensatory and
punitive damages seek millions or tens of millions of dollars in
damages against the aggregate of defendants.

Of about 6,000 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but
about 750 have brought their claims in Mississippi. Over the
past two years, the Mississippi courts have rendered decisions
and the state legislature has passed legislation aimed at
curbing certain abusive practices by plaintiff attorneys under
which large numbers of unrelated plaintiffs would be grouped in
the same case against hundreds of defendants.

As a result of these changes, many of these "mass filings" have
been dismissed and the number of Mississippi claimants against
the Company's subsidiaries is now about 5,200 from as high as
21,000.  

The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of
about 25 different states with California, Texas, New York,
Massachusetts and Connecticut having the most significant
percentage of the claims.

To date, the Company's insurers have been paying most of the
costs associated with the defense and settlement of these
actions, particular with respect to Spence and Hoke for which
insurance has paid all defense and settlement costs to date.

With regard to Leslie, the Company's current cost sharing
understanding with Leslie's insurers results in Leslie being
responsible for 29 percent of its defense and settlement costs.

Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International Inc. designs,
manufactures and distributes valves and related fluid control
products and services to end-markets for use in applications to
optimize the efficiency and ensure the safety of fluid-control
systems. The Company operates 18 significant manufacturing
facilities in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and the
People's Republic of China.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $4.1M Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners LP, as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
US$4.1 million in current liabilities to address remediation of
asbestos containing materials, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 22, 2007.

The US$4.1 million was also to address management of hazardous
waste material disposal and outstanding air quality measures for
some of the Company's liquids and natural gas assets.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded US$4 million in
current liabilities for remediation.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had recorded US$3.3 million in
long-term liabilities for remediation, compared with US$4.8
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$3 million in
current liabilities and US$4.2 million in long-term liabilities
for remediation. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006)

Based in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners LP, f/k/a Lakehead
Pipe Line Partners, owns the 1,900-mile portion of the world's
longest liquid petroleum pipeline. Enbridge Energy Management
LLC owns an 18 percent stake in the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Inc. and certain current and former
subsidiaries continue to face three multi-party asbestos-related
lawsuits in Mississippi, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 22, 2007.

In August 2004, the Company and its subsidiaries were named as
defendants, along with numerous other third party companies as
co-defendants, in the suits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones
County (Second Judicial District) and Jasper County (First
Judicial District), Miss.

The suits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death,
primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities from 1965
through 1986.

At present, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos suits have
been set for trial.

Based in Dallas, ENSCO International Inc. is an offshore
contract drilling company. As of Feb. 15, 2007, the Company's
offshore rig fleet included 43 jackup rigs, one ultra-deepwater
semisubmersible rig and one barge rig. The Company's operations
are concentrated in the Asia Pacific region, Europe/Africa, and
North and South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 31,417 Claims in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 31,417 plaintiffs, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 22, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had cases alleging asbestos
induced illness involving claims by about 33,591 plaintiffs,
down from 33,604 plaintiffs at June 30, 2006. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006)

In the asbestos cases, the claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop
adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other
lung cancers.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 23,635 of
those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense verdicts,
four were tried to plaintiff verdicts, and 391 were decided in
favor of the Company after summary judgment motions.

Asbestos use in welding consumables in the United States ceased
in 1981.

Based in Cleveland, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. is a full-
line manufacturer and reseller of welding and cutting products.
Welding products include arc welding power sources, wire feeding
systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction equipment,
consumable electrodes and fluxes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mittal Steel Co. to Spend $108M for Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mittal Steel Co. N.V. anticipates spending about US$108 million
over the next 40 years to address removal and disposal of
asbestos material and Printed Circuit Board equipment
encountered during the operation of its facilities.

The US$108 million included US$9 million over the next 12
months, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2007.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Mittal Steel Co. N.V.  
Hofplein 20, 15th Fl.
3032 Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Description:
Mittal Steel Co. N.V. manufactures flat rolled and long steel
products using direct-reduced iron, which is cheaper than using
iron ore or scrap iron. Customers include Ford Motor, General
Motors, and Whirlpool.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard Ind. Faces 10T Suits from Vapor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Corp.'s subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial Corp.,
faces more than 10,000 lawsuits involving claims of asbestos
exposure from products manufactured by Vapor Corp., a former
subsidiary that the Company divested in 1990.

Virtually all of the asbestos suits involve numerous other
defendants. The claims generally allege that the Company sold
products that had components, like gaskets, which included
asbestos, and seek monetary damages. Neither Brunswick nor Vapor
is alleged to have manufactured asbestos.

The Company's insurers have settled seven of these asbestos
claims in the past eight years for nominal amounts. Several
thousand claims have been dismissed with no payment.

No claim has gone to jury verdict.

In a few cases, claims have been filed against other Company
entities, with most of these suits being either dismissed or
settled for nominal amounts.

Based in Lake Forest, Ill., Brunswick Corp. is a global maker
and marketer of boats, boating accessories, and bowling
products. The Company also owns and operates Brunswick bowling
centers in the U.S. and other countries, and retail billiards
stores in the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Temple-Inland Inc.'s Settlements Total $1M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc.'s aggregate annual settlements related to
asbestos claims have been about US$1 million, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

The Company faces lawsuits involving alleged workplace exposure
to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in
premises owned or operated by the Company.

The Company does not manufacture any products that contain
asbestos and all its cases in this area are limited to workplace
exposure claims.

The Company has experienced an increase in the number of
asbestos claims asserted against the Company, and these claims
are on the rise in the United States against owners or operators
of premises allegedly containing asbestos.

Based in Austin, Tex., Temple-Inland Inc. is a packaging,
banking, and forest products company with three business
segments. The United States accounts for almost all of the
Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 647 Pending Cases in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Holdings LLC's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA
Holdings Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, face about 647 asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23,
2007.

The Company is a subsidiary of Celanese Corp.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings faced about
640 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10,
2006)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, 90 new cases were filed
against the Company and 79 cases were resolved. Since many of
these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject
to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases.

The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims
arising from these matters.

Based in Dallas, Celanese Holdings LLC is an integrated global
hybrid producer of value-added industrial chemicals. The Company
produces acetyl products, including acetic acid and vinyl
acetate monomer, polyacetal products. The Company also produces
high-performance engineered polymers used in consumer and
industrial products and designed to meet highly technical
customer requirements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suit in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. continues to face an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

The suit alleged that defendants made, distributed or utilized
drilling mud with asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed
the mud to have been utilized aboard Company offshore rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Co. under the terms of the
Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

To date, the Company is unable to estimate its potential
exposure to these suits.

Headquartered in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. is an
offshore drilling contractor capable of descending depths of
7,500 feet. Loews Corp. owns about 54 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.452B for Claims in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, carried about US$1.452
billion of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-
related claims, compared with US$1.554 billion as of Dec. 31,
2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company carried about US$1.480 billion
of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$102 million as net
paid (recovered) losses. For the same period, the Company
recorded 1,356 policyholders.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded US$142 million as net
paid (recovered) losses. For the same period, the Company
recorded 1,324 policyholders.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Guarding CNA from Future Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court has held a confirmation hearing on a
bankruptcy plan with an injunction to protect CNA Financial
Corp. from any future asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

The parties are awaiting a ruling on confirmation.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company said it had resolved asbestos
related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow - Liptak Corp.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$74
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization.

The settlement resolves the Company's liabilities for all
pending and future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, Bigelow - Liptak Corp. and related
subsidiaries, including alleged "non-products" exposures.

The settlement received initial bankruptcy court approval on
Aug. 18, 2003.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Deals with Keasbey Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp., since 2003, is engaged in insurance
coverage litigation in New York State Court with a defendant
class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury
claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey Co.

The suit, pending in N.Y. County, is styled Continental Casualty
Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wassau et al., No. 601037/03.

Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, sold and installed
asbestos-containing insulation products in New York and New
Jersey.

Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims against
Keasbey. However, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work
sites is a highly contested issue. Therefore, the defense
disputes the percentage of valid claims against Keasbey.

The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1972-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.

Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits, an allegation the Company contests in the suit. In the
litigation, the Company and the claimants seek declaratory
relief as to the interpretation of various policy provisions.

On March 21, 2004, the Court dismissed a claim alleging bad
faith and seeking unspecified damages. On March 31, 2005, the
Appellate Division, 1st Department, affirmed that ruling.

The trial in the Keasbey coverage action commenced on July 13,
2005. Closing arguments concluded on Oct. 28, 2005.

The Court reopened the record in January 2006 for additional
evidentiary submissions and briefing, and additional closing
arguments were held March 27, 2006.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Still Faces Burns & Roe Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. is still involved in insurance coverage
disputes on asbestos bodily injury claims against a bankrupt
insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation, stayed
in view of the bankruptcy, and an adversary proceeding In re:
Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects.

At the time of its bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns &
Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily
injury from exposure to asbestos as a result of construction
projects in which Burns & Roe was involved.

CNA allegedly provided primary liability coverage to Burns & Roe
from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain project-
specific policies from 1964-1970.

The litigation involves disputes over the confirmation of the
Plan of Reorganization in bankruptcy, the scope and extent of
coverage, if any, afforded to Burns & Roe for its asbestos
liabilities.

On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization. A confirmation hearing relating to that Plan is
anticipated in 2007. Coverage issues will be determined in a
later proceeding.  

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Face Actions in Tex. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two CNA Financial Corp. subsidiaries, since 2002, have been
facing asbestos-related lawsuits with other insurers and non-
insurer corporate defendants, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 23, 2007.

The suits asserted liability for failing to warn of the dangers
of asbestos e.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp., pending in Nueces
County, Tex.

In 2003, many of the Texas suits were dismissed as time-barred
by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

In other suits, the carriers argued that they did not owe any
duty to the plaintiffs or the general public to advise the world
generally or the plaintiffs particularly of the effects of
asbestos and that Texas statutes precluded liability for those
claims. Two Texas courts dismissed these suits.

Certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, but
plaintiffs later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas
court denied similar motions seeking dismissal at the pleading
stage, allowing limited discovery to proceed.

After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the
insurers transferred those cases to a state multi-district
litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos
cases, and the cases remain in that court.

The insurers have petitioned the appellate court in Houston for
an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district litigation
court to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional and substantive
grounds.  

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Claims v. Continental Casualty
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va., on Nov. 15, 2006,
has dismissed claims against CNA Financial Corp. subsidiary,
Continental Casualty Corp., in a case styled Adams v. Aetna Inc.
et al., according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

CCC was named in Case Nos. 0-2C-1708 to -1719, filed on June 28,
2002, a purported class action against CCC and other insurers,
alleging that the defendants violated West Virginia's Unfair
Trade Practices Act in handling and resolving asbestos claims
against their insureds.

In September 2006, CCC entered into a settlement with
plaintiffs.

While no party filed an opposition to the settlement, the time
for seeking leave to appeal that dismissal order to the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has not yet expired.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Has Suit Filed by 8 Grace Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. continues to face an asbestos-related action
filed on March 22, 2002 by 8 individual plaintiffs, who are
employees of W.R. Grace & Co., according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 23, 2007.

The suit, styled Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al.,
was filed in the 1st Judicial District Court of Lewis & Clark
County, Mont.

The plaintiffs filed the suit against the Company, the State of
Montana, and Maryland Casualty.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos
at a Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont.

The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of Grace's
pending bankruptcy.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.391B Liability in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp.'s asbestos-related liabilities, as of Dec.
31, 2006, totaled US$1.3917 billion, compared with US$1.532
billion as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 23, 2007.

Of the US$1.391 billion liability, US$1.175 billion related to
claims of subsidiary T&N Ltd. and two other subsidiaries,
US$129.5 million related to Abex claims, US$84.1 million related
to Wagner claims, and US$2.7 million related to other claims.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related assets were
US$859 million. Of this amount, US$698.8 million related to
claims of the T&N companies, US$112.6 million related to Abex
claims, and US$47.6 million related to Wagner claims.

Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies
vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in
the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad,
aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in
34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive
sales from both domestic and international markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faces Claims v. Fel-Pro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. continues to face asbestos-related claims
regarding its Fel-Pro subsidiary, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

Before Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in its
own name as a defendant in multiple lawsuits filed by claimants
alleging injury from exposure to asbestos due to its ownership
of certain assets involved in gasket making.

As of its Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, the Company faced about
61,500 pre-petition pending claims. Over 40,000 of these claims
were transferred to a federal court, where, before the
Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending.

Before the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company's Fel-Pro
subsidiary also was named as a defendant in product liability
cases involving asbestos, primarily involving gasket or packing
products. Fel-Pro faced about 34,000 pending claims as of the
Petition Date.

Over 32,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court,
where, before the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending.

All claims alleging exposure to the products of the Company and
of Fel-Pro have been stayed as a result of the Restructuring
Proceedings.

Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies
vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in
the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad,
aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in
34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive
sales from both domestic and international markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $699M Recoverable for T&N
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a US$699
million asbestos-related insurance recoverable for its U.K.
subsidiary T&N Ltd. and two U.S. subsidiaries (T&N Companies),
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

T&N faces court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. T&N
Ltd. is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation in the U.K.
and France.

As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, T&N Ltd. faced
about 115,000 pending personal injury claims. The two U.S.
subsidiaries faced about 199,000 pending personal injury claims.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, the Company increased its
estimate of asbestos-related liability for the T&N Companies by
US$751 million and recorded a related insurance recoverable
asset of US$577 million.

T&N Ltd., f/k/a T&N plc, during the year ended Dec. 31, 1996,
bought for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a
GBP500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should
the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30,
1996, where the exposure occurred before that date, exceed
GBP690 million.

The Company, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, concluded that
the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would
exceed the trigger point and recorded an insurance recoverable
asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million.

One of the three reinsurers, European International Reinsurance
Company Ltd., in December 2001, filed suit in a London, England
court to challenge the validity of its insurance contract with
the T&N Companies.

As a result of this suit, a claim was made against the broker
(Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for breach of
its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in October 2003.
The parties were able to reach a settlement before the
conclusion of the trial.

Under the terms of the settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5
percent of its one-third share of the reinsurance policy. By
separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an extra
17.25 percent of the EIR share of the reinsurance policy.

T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums paid
under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N Ltd. for
which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or
Sedgwick.

The settlement agreements are held in escrow pending approval by
the Bankruptcy Court and the Administrators of T&N Ltd. of those
portions of the above-described settlement agreements that
affect the Debtors. A motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court's
approval of the settlement was filed on March 1, 2004.

After the motion, the other two reinsurers, Munchener
Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG and Centre Reinsurance
International Co., a subsidiary of the Zurich Financial Services
Group, notified the Company of their belief that the settlements
with EIR and Sedgwick may breach one or more provisions of the
reinsurance agreement.

The parties were unable to resolve the issues raised by the two
reinsurers and this prompted the U.K. Administrators to file an
action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the
settlements with EIR and Sedgwick do not breach provisions of
the reinsurance agreement.

A hearing was conducted during July 2005 and judgment was handed
down on Dec. 21, 2005. The High Court held that the settlements
did not breach the reinsurance agreement. Munich Re and CRIC
have not appealed the judgment.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the US$699 million insurance recoverable
asset includes an exchange rate premium of about US$85 million.

Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies
vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in
the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad,
aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in
34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive
sales from both domestic and international markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Have $213.6M Liability in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded an asbestos-
related liability of US$213.6 million, of which US$129.5 related
to Abex liabilities and US$84.1 million related to Wagner
liabilities, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

The US$213.6 million liability represented the Company's
estimate before Restructuring Proceedings for claims currently
pending and those, which were estimated to be asserted and paid
through 2012.

Two Company businesses formerly owned by Cooper Industries LLC,
historically known as Abex and Wagner, face court actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products. These claims mainly involve
vehicle safety and performance products.

For the periods ending Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the
Company recorded a combined US$213.6 million asbestos liability
for Abex and Wagner, of which US$129.5 million related to Abex
and US$84.1 million related to Wagner. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 3, 2006)

As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Abex faced about
66,000 claims and Wagner faced 33,000 claims.

The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging
exposure to Wagner products arises from the 1998 stock purchase
from Cooper of the corporate successor by merger to Wagner
Electric Co. The purchased entity is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company and one of the Debtors in the
Restructuring Proceedings.

The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging
exposure to Abex products arises from a contractual liability
entered into in 1994 by the predecessor to the Company whose
stock the Company purchased in 1998.

Under that contract and before the Restructuring Proceedings,
the Company, through the relevant subsidiary, was liable for
certain indemnity and defense payments incurred on behalf of an
entity known as Pneumo Abex Corp., the successor in interest to
Abex Corp.

Effective as of the Petition Date, the Company has ceased making
such payments and is currently considering whether to accept or
reject the 1994 contractual liability.

As of the Petition Date, pending asbestos litigation of Abex and
Wagner is stayed, and no party may take action to pursue or
collect on such asbestos claims absent specific authorization of
the Bankruptcy Court.

Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies
vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in
the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad,
aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in
34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive
sales from both domestic and international markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Faces BCT Action in Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. continues to be
engaged in pending litigation in Connecticut Superior Court
against certain of its upper-layer reinsurer under its Blanket
Casualty Treaty, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23,
2007.

The BCT is a multi-layered reinsurance program providing excess-
of-loss coverage from the 1930s through the 1980s. The upper
layers were first placed in 1950, with London Market reinsurers,
including Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas.

The action seeks damages for the reinsurer defendants' failure
to pay certain billings for asbestos and pollution claims.

In December 2003, the Company entered into a global settlement
with MacArthur Co., an asbestos insulation distributor and
installer then in bankruptcy, for US$1.15 billion. The Company
then billed the reinsurer defendants under the BCT for US$117
million of the settlement amount.

After the reinsurers refused to pay the MacArthur billing, the
Company amended its complaint to add claims related to that
billing. Most of the reinsurer defendants counterclaimed,
seeking a declaration that they did not owe reinsurance for the
MacArthur settlement.

In April 2005, the Superior Court phased the proceedings,
providing for a trial of the MacArthur billing first, in April
2006, with other billings to follow in subsequent trial
settings.

In September 2005, the London Market reinsurer defendants moved
for summary judgment on the MacArthur-related claims. After
briefing and oral argument, the Superior Court issued a decision
on Dec. 13, 2005, granting the defendants' motion.

The Company noticed an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate
Court. The appeal has since been transferred to the Connecticut
Supreme Court.

On June 15, 2006, the Company announced an agreement with
Equitas and all Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas
(collectively, Equitas) that resolved all of the Company's ceded
and assumed domestic reinsurance exposures with Equitas,
including the Company's reinsurance recoveries from Equitas
under the BCT.

Those recoveries consist predominantly of asbestos and pollution
losses, including the billing for the MacArthur settlement. The
pending litigation and appeal continue with other upper-layer
reinsurers under the BCT.

Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Services Group Inc.
provides investment products, individual life, group life and
group disability insurance products, and property and casualty
insurance products in the U.S. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's
total assets were US$326.7 billion and its total stockholders'
equity was US$18.9 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Reserves $2.25B for Claims in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded asbestos-related net reserves of US$2.25 billion,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related gross
reserves were US$3.242 billion. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
paid a total of US$5.401 billion for claims.

Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Services Group Inc.
provides investment products, individual life, group life and
group disability insurance products, and property and casualty
insurance products in the U.S. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's
total assets were US$326.7 billion and its total stockholders'
equity was US$18.9 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.13M for Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
reserved US$37,131,000, gross of reinsurance, for asbestos-
related liability, compared with US$56,838,000 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.
23, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved
US$21,381,000, net of reinsurance, for asbestos liability,
compared with US$30,372,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company reserved
US$37,179,000, gross of reinsurance, for asbestos liability.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006)

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company reserved
US$21,387,000, net of reinsurance, for asbestos liability.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006)

The Company's exposure to asbestos liability stems from marine
liability insurance written on an occurrence basis in the mid-
1980s. The Company's participation on those risks is in the
excess layers, which requires the underlying coverage to be
exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in the Company's
layer.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at Dec. 31, 2006 are for:

-- The 2005-4th quarter settlements of two large claims
aggregating about US$28 million for excess insurance policy
limits exposed to class action suits against two insureds
involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos
products, each settlement is being paid over two years starting
in 2006;

-- The 2004 settlement of a large claim about US$25 million
exposed to a class action suit which settlement is being paid
over seven years starting in June 2005;

-- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
products that contained asbestos; and

-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
over time.

Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves
are included in its marine loss reserves.

Based in New York City, The Navigators Group Inc.'s main
insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write
ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy, liability,
and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore
energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty liability and
professional liability insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group in Arbitration v. Equitas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc., on Nov. 22, 2006, filed a demand for
arbitration against Equitas with respect to unsatisfied loss
payment recovery demands that the Company has previously
presented to Equitas.

Equitas is a reinsurer participating in excess of loss
reinsurance agreements.

The recovery demands are for the 2005 settlement of two class
action lawsuits involving large asbestos claims (together, the
2005 Settled Claims), which 2005 Settled Claims are being paid
through 2007.

Equitas has not indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries
on related pro rata reinsurance agreements for those 2005
Settled Claims or with respect to excess of loss or pro rata
reinsurance for a 2004 Settled Claim.

The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from
Equitas for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the 2005 Settled
Claims is about US$2.7 million.

Based in New York City, The Navigators Group Inc.'s main
insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write
ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy, liability,
and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore
energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty liability and
professional liability insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Inc. in Arbitration v. Ace
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc., on Nov. 20, 2006, filed a demand for
arbitration in New York against INA International Insurance Co.,
n/k/a Ace International, with respect to unsatisfied loss
payment recovery demands that the Company has previously
presented to Ace International.

Ace International is a reinsurer participating in pro rata
reinsurance agreements.

The recovery demands are for the 2005 Settled Claims and for the
2004 settlement of another class action lawsuit involving a
large asbestos claim (the 2004 Settled Claim and, together with
the 2005 Settled Claims, the Settled Claims), which 2004 Settled
Claim is being paid over seven years beginning in 2005.

The aggregate amount of pro rata recoveries due from Ace
International for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the Settled
Claims is about US$1.6 million.

Based in New York City, The Navigators Group Inc.'s main
insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write
ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy, liability,
and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore
energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty liability and
professional liability insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premises, Product Claims v. FMC Drop to 32T
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about 32,000 premises
and product asbestos claims pending against it in several
jurisdictions, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26,
2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company faced about 34,000 premises and
product asbestos claims in several U.S. jurisdictions. (Class
Action Reporter, March 17, 2006)

To date, the Company has discharged about 71,000 asbestos claims
filed against it, most of which have been dismissed without any
payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by the Company with
claimants to date have totaled about US$12 million.

The Company has been named as a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. These cases (most cases involve
between 25 and 200 defendants) allege personal injury or death
resulting from exposure to asbestos in Company premises or to
asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or
equipment made or sold by discontinued operations.

The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or
operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component
parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these
components.

Further, the asbestos-containing materials were housed inside
machinery and equipment and accessible only at the time of
infrequent repair and maintenance.

To date, the bulk of the claims against the Company have been
dismissed without payment.

Based in Philadelphia, FMC Corp. focuses on industrial,
specialty, and agricultural chemicals. The Company's industrial
chemicals include soda ash, hydrogen peroxide, and phosphorus
chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Woman Sues 79 Defendants in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Jost of Wisconsin, on Feb. 21, 2007, sued 79 defendants in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., alleging that she was
exposed to airborne asbestos fibers from her and her former
husband's clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The suit claimed that Ms. Jost was diagnosed with mesothelioma
on Sept. 11, 2006, and subsequently became aware that her
illness was wrongfully caused.

Ms. Jost seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$400,000,
plus punitive damages.

Ms. Jost claims she was employed from 1969-1991 as a laborer,
machine operator and assembly line worker at various locations
across the country. Her former husband was employed as a
mechanic.

Ms. Jost claims her former husband would carry the asbestos dust
on his clothing home with him where it would again become
airborne. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos during
non-occupational work projects including home and automotive
repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

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

As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Jost claims she was
exposed to fibers with asbestos, and developed a disease caused
only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her.

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

The suit claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its
duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and
information, Ms. Jost has been prejudiced and impaired in
proving claims against all potential parties.

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

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Caledonia Gov't to Ban Use of Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Caledonia Government would ban the production, import,
and sale of asbestos starting April 1, 2007, Radio New Zealand
International reports.

A Govt. statement said that there will be exemptions until the
end of 2011 for asbestos still to be found in cars and
machinery.

A company dealing with the removal of asbestos said regulation
is about 10 years behind that in place in France.

The statement said the problems are substantial as huge
quantities have been used in the territory in construction and
industry.

New Caledonia also has naturally found asbestos, with studies
trying to identify the areas where it is found.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Sues 46 Companies for Husband's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce M. Tolman, whose husband died of a disease caused by
asbestos exposure, on Feb. 9, 2007, sued 46 companies, including
16 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., claiming that they were
responsible for his death, The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Tolman filed the suit on behalf of her late husband, Terry
Warren Tolman.

The West Virginia companies named as defendants are: Allied
Chemical Corp., American Optical Corp., Chevron U.S.A.,
Durametallic Corp., Foseco Inc., General Electric Co.,
Industrial Holdings LLC f/k/a Carborundum Co., Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Co., Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Co.
Inc., Vimasco Corp., Honeywell International, Graybar Electric
Co., McJunkin Corp., Nitro Industrial Coverings Inc., Ohio
Valley Insulating Co., and Union Boiler Co.

The suit claims Mr. Tolman worked around asbestos and asbestos
containing-products, like insulation, and as a result developed
a severe asbestos-related disease.

The suit claims the defendants were negligent because they knew
the products and materials contained asbestos, which would cause
serious lung diseases and cancer, yet did not warn Mr. Tolman of
the safety precautions he should have taken.

Because of the negligence, Mr. Tolman developed a severe
asbestos-related disease and suffered great medical and
pharmaceutical expenses, pain and loss of enjoyment of life.

In the 12-count suit, Mrs. Tolman claims wrongful death and
deliberate intent.

Cindy Kiblinger represents Mrs. Tolman, who seeks compensation
for the damages her husband suffered, as well as punitive
damages.

A visiting judge has been assigned Case No. 07-C-277.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Salvation Army to Pay $77T for CAA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Anchorage, Alaska Salvation Army thrift store has agreed to
pay a US$76,906 penalty to settle with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for alleged violations of the asbestos
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under
the Clean Air Act, according to an EPA release dated Feb. 21,
2007.

In response to customer complaints, EPA inspected a thrift store
operated by the Salvation Army in Anchorage in September 2005,
and found untrained workers removing over 7,500 square feet of
asbestos-containing floor tile during business hours.

EPA's inspector determined the floor tile was in a deteriorated
state and easily crumbled with hand pressure. The store had
already disposed of much of the broken floor tile before the
inspection. Samples collected by EPA's inspector showed the
floor tile had asbestos.

Upon learning of the asbestos concern, the Salvation Army
immediately closed the store, located on Northern Lights
Boulevard, and kept it closed until an abatement company was
able to clean up the remaining asbestos waste materials and
dispose of them properly.

The Salvation Army also disposed of its inventory rather than
risk exposing the public further to asbestos fibers.

Marcia Combes, EPA's Director of Alaska Operations, said,
"Exposure to asbestos dust can have serious health consequences.
In this case, the Salvation Army was very responsive upon
learning of the problem. This dangerous situation could have
been avoided if the store had followed the Salvation Army's
established asbestos management program."

EPA regulations require building owners and contractors to
survey buildings prior to renovation or demolition projects and
to submit advance notice to EPA.

To protect public health and the environment, trained workers
may handle asbestos materials and must be supervised by a person
familiar with the regulations. Workers must keep asbestos wet to
prevent dust from leaving the work area and dispose of asbestos
waste in designated landfills.

EPA has regulated asbestos under the CAA since the early 1970s.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $181M for Liabilities in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$181 million for asbestos
or respirator mask liabilities, compared with US$210 million at
Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23,
2007.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$194 million for
asbestos or respirator mask liabilities. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 3, 2006)

For more than 25 years the Company has defended and resolved the
claims of hundreds of thousands of individual claimants alleging
injuries from occupational dust exposures. As of Dec. 31, 2006,
the Company faced suits in various courts that purport to
represent about 17,700 individual claimants, a decrease from the
about 48,600 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec.
31, 2005.

Most of the suits and claims resolved by and currently pending
against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and
respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures
to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts found in
products made by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

The remaining claimants allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously made by the
Company and by other defendants or occasionally at Company
premises.

In many of these suits and claims, the Company is named as a
defendant with multiple co-defendants where no product the
Company manufactured is identified or where the Company is
ultimately determined not to have made the products identified
by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in
about 64 percent of the 6,108 suits that were pending against
the Company at the end of 2006 in all jurisdictions.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation
was US$380 million. The Company collected US$17 million in the
2006-4th quarter and US$75 million in 2006 from several of its
insurers, reducing this receivable by that amount.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. has six operating segments:
display and graphics; health care; safety, security, and
protection; electro and communications; transportation and
industrial; and consumer and office. Well-known brands include
Scotchgard fabric protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite
scouring products, and Scotch tapes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Has Respirator Coverage Action in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co., on Jan. 5, 2007, was served with a declaratory judgment
action filed on behalf of two of its insurers disclaiming
coverage for respirator/mask asbestos claims, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007.

Two of the Company's insurers are Continental Casualty and
Continental Insurance Co.

The action was filed in Hennepin County, Minn. and names, in
addition to the Company, more than 60 of its insurers.

This action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with
respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in
the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in
the Company's favor.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. has six operating segments:
display and graphics; health care; safety, security, and
protection; electro and communications; transportation and
industrial; and consumer and office. Well-known brands include
Scotchgard fabric protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite
scouring products, and Scotch tapes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E, Workers Charged for Breaching Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's subsidiary, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., and
three workers have been indicted again on charges of violating
safety standards while removing asbestos from pipes at a Lemon
Grove site, City Wire reports.

The new indictment, handed down on Feb. 27, 2007, essentially
mirrors a previous one. It charges SDG&E, along with employees
Jacquelyn McHugh, a supervisor in the environmental department,
and David Williamson, an environmental specialist. The
indictment also charged Kyle Rhuebottom, the project
superintendent for contractor IT Corp.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that SDG&E faces up to a
US$2.5 million fine if found guilty. The workers face a maximum
sentence of five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine for each
charge. The paper added that the utility and workers are
expected to be arraigned March 9, 2007.

The County of San Diego filed and then withdrew litigation
against the Company and SDG&E that sought unspecified civil
penalties for alleged violations of environmental standards
applicable to the abatement, handling and disposal of asbestos-
containing materials during the 2001 demolition of a natural gas
storage facility in Lemon Grove.

In November 2006, a federal court dismissed all charges against
SDG&E, Ms. McHugh, and Mr. Williamson in a federal criminal
indictment charging them with having violated these standards
and for related charges of conspiracy and having made false
statements to governmental authorities.

On Feb. 12, 2007, the court granted the federal government's
motion for reconsideration with respect to the false statement
count.  

Based in San Diego, Sempra Energy distributes natural gas to
about 6.2 million customers and electricity to 1.3 million
customers through its Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) and San
Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Continue to Face Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. subsidiaries continue to
face asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 23, 2007.

These claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted
from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the
Company's subsidiaries.

The Company said it believes that most of the claimants were
assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers.
Most of these claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers
and suppliers of products allegedly containing asbestos.

According to the Company, to the extent any of the products sold
by its subsidiaries and at issue in these cases contained
asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in
the past. Many of these cases have been dismissed without any
payment whatsoever. Moreover, there is significant insurance
coverage with solvent carriers with respect to these claims.

Based in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplied
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers and related aftermarkets. The
Company operates its business along three segments: Chassis
Systems, Occupant Safety Systems, and Automotive Components.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Celestica, Inc. between July 27, 2006 and December 12, 2006,
inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 12, 2006, in contrast to its prior statements, the
company announced that it was drastically lowering its financial
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006. In reaction to this
news, Celestica shares fell $1.14 per share, or 12% to close on
December 12, 2006 at $8.23 per share.

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

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


NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suits Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven announces that class actions have been commenced in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of New Century
Financial Corp. (NYSE: NEW) between April 7, 2006 and February
7, 2007, inclusive.

The complaints allege that New Century and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities law.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results and concealed the following material adverse facts from
the investing public:

     (a) the company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts;

     (b) the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its allowance for loan repurchase losses;

     (c) the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its residual interests in securitizations by failing to
         timely write down the impaired asset;

     (d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
         the sub-prime market, the company would be forced to
         tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a
         direct material negative impact on its loan productions
         going forward; and

     (e) given the increased volatility in the sub-prime market,
         the company had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its ability to maintain its current mortgage loan
         production levels for 2007.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of these false
statements, New Century stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $51.22 per
share on April 28, 2006 and that Defendants took advantage of
this inflation, selling 665,334 shares of their New Century
stock for proceeds of over $26.6 million.

On February 7, 2007, after the market closed, New Century
announced that it will have to restate its consolidated
financial results for the first three quarters of 2006 to
correct errors the company discovered in its application of
generally accepted accounting principles regarding the company's
allowance for loan repurchase losses.

On this news, New Century's stock fell $10.92 per share to close
at $19.24 per share on February 8, 2007, a one-day decline of
approximately 36%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

New Century is a real estate investment trust that through its
subsidiaries operates mortgage finance companies.

For more information, contact Charles Piven and David Brower
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410-
332-0030, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class action
has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of NovaStar
Financial, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period May
4, 2006 through February 20, 2007.

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

Specifically, defendants concealed the following facts from the
investing public:

     (i) NovaStar lacked requisite internal controls, and
         therefore its projections and reported results were
         based upon defective assumptions about loan
         delinquencies;

    (ii) NovaStar's financial statements were materially
         misstated as the company failed to properly account for
         its allowance for loan losses;

   (iii) due to the increased volatility in the sub prime
         market, NovaStar would be forced to tighten its
         underwriting guidelines which would have a material
         impact on its loan production going forward; and

    (iv) given the increased volatility in the lending market,
         NovaStar had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its ability to maintain its Real Estate
         Investment Trust ("REIT") taxable income.

As a result, the projections NovaStar issued during the Class
Period about its REIT taxable income and dividends were at a
minimum reckless.

On February 20, 2007, after the market closed, NovaStar
announced disappointing fourth quarter and year-end 2006 results
and warned that it expected to earn little, if any, taxable
income in the next five years.

On this news, NovaStar's sock fell 42% to close at $10.10 per
share on February 21, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 24,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles
H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton,
MN  55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Ademi Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP announces that a class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and
other securities of Openwave Systems Inc. from September 30,
2002 to October 26, 2006, inclusive.

Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were
improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to
correct its previously reported finances by taking additional
charges of $182 million.

For more information, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP, Phone: 866/264-3995 (toll-free), E-mail:
gademi@ademilaw.com.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Federman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that a class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who purchased Openwave Systems, Inc.
securities from September 30, 2002 through October 26, 2006.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 27,
2007, for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or acquired the common stock of Openwave Systems Inc. during the
period between September 30, 2002 to October 26, 2006.

The Complaint charges Openwave and several of its officers and
directors as defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws that during the Class Period, the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by publicly issuing false
and misleading statements.

The Complaint alleges that the company improperly accounted for
grants of stock options which were backdated to provide the
company's executives with unreported benefits.

Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were
improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to
correct its previously reported finances by taking additional
charges of $182 million.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 27,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs
& Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail:
jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com, Website:
http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. between September 30, 2002 and
October 26, 2006, inclusive.  

Also included are those who purchased Openwave in a Secondary
Offering on December 7, 2005 and those who received Openwave
shares in the acquisitions of Magic4, Ellipsus, Musicwave and
Cilys.

The Complaint alleges that Openwave and certain of its officers
and directors violated Federal Securities laws by issuing false
and misleading statements.

The Complaint alleges that the company improperly accounted for
grants of stock options which were backdated to provide the
company's executives with unreported benefits.

Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were
improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to
correct its previously reported finances by taking additional
charges of $182 million.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 27,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


                            *********


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  * * *