CAR_Public/070316.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, March 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 54

                            Headlines


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation
AMERICAN REAL: Faces Litigation in Mich. Over Lear Corp. Deal
AMERICAN REAL: Faces Mich. Suit Over Lear Corp.'s Stock Options
AMERICAN REAL: March Hearing Set on Motion to Block Lear Merger
CIGNA CORP: June Hearing Set for Closing Arguments in Conn. Suit

CIGNA CORP: Pa. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlements
CINCINNATI SMSA: Consumer Suit in Ohio to Enter Discovery Stage
CLEAR CHANNEL: Tex. Suits Over Triple Crown Merger Consolidated
CLEAR CHANNEL: Faces Federal Securities Lawsuits Over Merger
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

DEGUSSA CORP: Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 20
DOBSON COMMS: March Hearing Set for $3.4M Securities Suit Deal
EQUINIX INC: N.Y. Court Stays Proceedings in IPO Lawsuits
FAIR ISAAC: June 4 Fairness Hearing Set in CROA Violations Suit
FRITO-LAY: Recalls Corn Chips for Undeclared Milk, Wheat Content

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit Appealed
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Sales Reps File Overtime Suits in Calif.
HCC INSURANCE: Labaton Sucharow Amends Securities Suit in Tex.
HOUSTON EXPLORATION: Investors Amend Suit Over Forest Oil Merger
IDEARC INC: Sales Reps File Suit Over Alleged Incentive Pay Cuts

INTERPOOL INC: Shareholder Sues Over CEO's Buyout Proposal
JJB SPORTS: Faces Lawsuit for Fixing Prices of Football Shirts
KNIGHT CAPITAL: "Gurfein" Plaintiff Drops Securities Complaints
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Ore. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal
LITHIA MOTORS: No Class Yet in Suit Over Vehicle Data Disclosure

MERCK & CO: Hearing in Third-Party Vioxx Payors Suit Set March
MERCK & CO: Oral Argument in Vioxx Securities Lawsuits Set March
MERCK & CO: Faces Remaining ERISA Violations Claims in N.J.
MICROSOFT CORP: Ia. Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April
MICROSOFT CORP: Robeson County to Get $2.3M in Antitrust Deal

MISSOURI: Residents File Suit Over Alleged Privacy Invasions
NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Plaintiffs Dismiss TCPA Complaint in Ohio
PHILIP SERVICES: March Hearing Set in $79M Securities Suit Deal
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: La. Court Junks Hurricane-Related Suits
TRI-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Stationery Sets with Cutter
TXU CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Tex. Securities Suit
TXU CORP: Settles Tex. ERISA Violations Lawsuit for $7.25M
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fla. Physicians Appeal Dismissal of Claims

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in Minn.
UNITED IMPORTS: Recalls Mood Necklaces Over High Lead Content
UNOCAL CORP: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Reformulated Gasoline
WEST CORP: Class Certified in Suit Over Memberworks Marketing
WEST CORP: Consumer Class Certified; Suit Stayed Pending Appeal

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Appliance Product Defect
WILLIS GROUP: No Class Yet in Kan. Suit Against Subsidiaries


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Ins. Reserves $23.8M for Coverage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Reserves $3.192B at 4Q for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Records 1,391 Open Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Faces Mt. Vernon Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Defends Against 19,388 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Brandon Drying Increase to 9,189
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Financial Reserves $354.1M in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.464B for Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Group Reserves $166.8M for Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Pepco Holdings Drop to 180
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Berkley Reserves $37.5M for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Notes 24 Cases for Trial in '07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Re Reserves $1.9B for Claims in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Re Reserves $3.8B in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Records $5.1B Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Dismissed from 3,827 of 3,866 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. Bowater Inc. Drop to 770
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Bucyrus Drop to 290 in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 9,442 Remaining Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chiquita Faces 6 Seamen's Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Records 106,500 Open Cases in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Records $396.7M Receivable in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Records $479.1M Liability in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Faces Site Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor's Liability Drops to $20.82M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Entergy Rise to 600 in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. CBS Drop to 73,310 in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Faces 1,918 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Still Has Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $586.2M Losses in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, Units Still Face Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit Reaches $15M Deal With Carrier
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Owes $2.66B in Damages, Lawyers Say

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Grants DEQ's Removal Extension Request
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Penalizes 2 Firms for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Australia Has High Disease Rate
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Ruling in Favor of Metalclad
ASBESTOS ALERT: Casella Unit in Talks With N.H. AG Over Hazards


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Express Co. intends to file a motion to strike an
amended complaint filed by plaintiffs in a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Beginning in mid-July 2002, 12 putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company.

In October 2002, these cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re American Express Co. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 02-CV-5533."

These lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws
and the common law in connection with alleged misstatements
regarding certain investments in high-yield bonds and write-
downs in the 2000-2001 timeframe.

The purported class covers the period from July 18, 1999 to July
17, 2001.  The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages as
well as disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and interest.

On March 31, 2004, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  

In August 2006, the Court of Appeals, without expressing any
views whatsoever on the merits of the cases, vacated the
District Court's judgment and remanded all claims to the
District Court for further proceedings.

More particularly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's ruling that two of the plaintiff's claims in an amended
complaint did not "relate back" to the original complaint and
were thus time-barred under the statute of limitations period.

As a result, the Court of Appeals decided that it was prudent to
remand all claims back to the District Court so that plaintiffs
could file a new amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on Jan. 8.  The company
wrote to the District Court on Feb. 5, telling the court that it
intended to file a motion to strike the amended complaint.

The suit is "In re American Express Co. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 02-CV-5533," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge William H. Pauley,
III.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kirk e. Chapman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: (212)-946-9377, Fax: (212)-273-4391, E-mail:
         kchapman@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) Christopher J. Gray of The Law Office of Christopher J.
         Gray, P.C., 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY
         10022, Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-
         mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com.

Representing the company is Robert Emanuel Zimet of Skadden,
Arps,Slate,Meagher & Flom (DC), 1440 New York Avenue NorthWest
Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 212-735-2520m, Fax: 917-777-2520,
E-mail: rzimet@skadden.com.


AMERICAN REAL: Faces Litigation in Mich. Over Lear Corp. Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Real Estate Partners, L.P. was named defendant in
various actions opposing its agreement and plan of merger to
acquire Lear Corp.

These actions have been filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland
County, Michigan, according to the company's March 6 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006:

      -- "Louis Carulli v. Lear Corp et al.; Emilio Valentine v.
         Lear Corp et al.;" and

      -- "Jeanette Ciambella v. Lear Corp. et al."

These actions are also purported class actions on behalf of
stockholders of Lear that assert claims against the company, and
one of its directors who also serves on the board of Lear.  

The allegations in these actions are generally similar to those
asserted in the consolidated class action filed in Delaware
Court of Chancery.

American Real Estate Partners, L.P. on the Net:
http://www.areplp.com/.


AMERICAN REAL: Faces Mich. Suit Over Lear Corp.'s Stock Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Real Estate Partners, L.P. was named defendant in a
purported class action filed in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan in relation to Lear Corp.'s stock
option plans.

On March 1, 2007, the company and two of its directors were
named as defendants in the suit, which was purportedly filed on
behalf of participants in certain of Lear Corp.'s stock option
plans, alleging that members of Lear's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the employees as owners of
shares of the stock of Lear and that the transaction violates
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act.

The suit is "Qualey v. Jackson et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-10910-
GER-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen with referral
to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barry D. Adler of Adler and Assoc. (Farmington Hills),
         30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 304, Farmington
         Hills, MI 48334, Phone: 248-855-5090, E-mail:
         badler@adlerfirm.com;

     (2) Ellen M. Doyle of Malakoff, Doyle, 437 Grant St., Suite
         200, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-281-8400, E-mail:
         edoyle@mdfpc.com; and

     (3) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, 487 Seventh Avenue,
         Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868-3610,
         Fax: 212-918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com.


AMERICAN REAL: March Hearing Set on Motion to Block Lear Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery set a March 27 hearing on a
motion for preliminary injunction that was sought in a
consolidated class action filed against American Real Estate
Partners, L.P. over its agreement and plan of merger to acquire
Lear Corp.

The following actions have been filed in the Court of Chancery
of State of Delaware, New Castle County:

      -- "Market Street Securities, Inc. v. Rossiter, et al.;"

      -- "Harry Massie, Jr. v. Lear Corp., et al.;" and

      -- "Classic Fund Management AG v. Lear Corp., et
         al."

These actions are purported class actions filed on behalf of
stockholders of Lear.  They have been consolidated into a single
action that names as defendants Lear, the company and certain of
its affiliates and one of its directors who serves on the board
of Lear.  They allege generally that the company and its named
affiliates aided and abetted the Lear directors' claimed
breaches of their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Lear.

On Feb. 23, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action filed
a consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin the company's
proposed merger with Lear.  

The Delaware Court of Chancery has stated that it will hear the
parties on March 27 to determine whether a motion for a
preliminary injunction should be scheduled.

American Real Estate Partners, L.P. on the Net:
http://www.areplp.com/.


CIGNA CORP: June Hearing Set for Closing Arguments in Conn. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 4 hearing was scheduled for closing arguments in a
purported class action filed against CIGNA Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut over allegations
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations.

On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the
company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998.  

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that:

      -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning
         certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of
         pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not
         adequately disclosed to plan participants; and

      -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
         older employees.  

The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20,
2002.  They seek equitable relief.

A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11-15, 2006.  Due to the court's
schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was
completed on Jan. 25.

The judge has ordered the parties to submit post-trial briefs in
advance of closing arguments to be held on June 4, according to
the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Amara v. CIGNA Corp, et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-
02361-MRK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Mark R. Kravitz.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Bruce, 805 15th St., NW Suite 210,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-289-1117, Fax: 202-
         371-0121, E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net; and

     (2) Thomas G. Moukawsher of Moukawsher & Walsh - Hartford,
         Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209, Hartford, CT
         06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail:
         tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Bradford S. Babbitt of Robinson & Cole, 280 Trumbull
         St., Hartford, CT 06103-3597, Phone: 860-275-8209, Fax:
         860-275-8299, E-mail: bbabbitt@rc.com; and

    (ii) Jeremy P. Blumenfeld of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
         1701 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921, Phone:
         215-963-5258, Fax: 215-963-5001, E-mail:
         jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com.


CIGNA CORP: Pa. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
gave preliminary approval to settlements of the consolidated
class action, "In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation," and its
related cases.

In late 2002, individuals seeking to represent a class of
purchasers of CIGNA securities from May 2, 2001 to Oct. 24, 2002
filed several purported class actions against CIGNA and certain
of its officers.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by misleading CIGNA shareholders with
respect to the company's performance during the class period.

In 2003, these suits were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as "In re CIGNA
Corp. Securities Litigation."

On Nov. 7, 2002, a purported shareholder derivative complaint
nominally on behalf of CIGNA was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Evelyn Hobbs.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by CIGNA's
directors, including, among other things, their "failure to
monitor, investigate and oversee Cigna's management information
system" and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

A similar complaint, filed on Nov. 19, 2002 in the New Castle
County (Delaware) Chancery Court by Jack Scott was dismissed by
the plaintiff and refiled in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Hobbs and Scott cases are being coordinated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the
same judge handling, "In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation."

In December 2006, the parties agreed to separately settle, "In
re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation" along with the Hobbs and
Scott cases.

The settlements were approved on Jan. 25.  A final fairness
hearing before the court is expected to be held on April 27,
with final approval expected shortly thereafter, according to
the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:02-cv-08088-MMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Michael M. Baylson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick and Barbara A.
         Podell all of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000 or
         215-875-4690, Fax: 215-875-5715 or 215-875-5804 or 215-
         875-4673, E-mail: ssavett@bm.net or bpodell@bm.net;

     (2) Stephanie M. Beige, Michael S. Bigin, Brian S. Cohen,
         Jeffrey M. Haber and Timothy J. Macfall all of
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, E-
         mail: beige@bernlieb.com or bigin@bernlieb.com or
         haber@bernlieb.com; and

     (3) Keith M. Fleischman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
         Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York,
         NY 10119.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) John G. Harkins, Jr. and Eleanor Morris Illoway both of
         Harkins Cunningham, 2800 One Commerce Square, 2005
         Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7042, Phone: 215-
         851-6700, Fax: 215-851-6710, E-mail:
         jharkins@harkinscunningham.com or
         emi@harkinscunningham.com; and

     (2) David M. Morris and Alexander R. Sussman both of Fried
         Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, One New York Plaza,
         New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-859-8204 or 212-859-
         8005, Fax: 212-859-4000, E-mail: sussmal@ffhsj.com.


CINCINNATI SMSA: Consumer Suit in Ohio to Enter Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action filed against Cincinnati SMSA Limited
Partnership in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
is proceeding into the discovery phase of the litigation.

From December 2003 through February 2004, six separate lawsuits
were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
against Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership and other
defendants.

Five of the suits were filed by companies purporting to be
resellers, while the sixth was filed by an individual consumer
purporting to represent a class of damaged consumers.  Each of
the Reseller Cases seeks damages ranging from $1 to $3 plus
treble damages under Ohio law.  The Consumer Case seeks damages
in excess of $60 plus treble damages under Ohio law.

All five of the Reseller Cases were dismissed.  However, during
the fourth quarter of 2005, two of these dismissals were
reversed and reinstated by the Ohio 8th District Court of
Appeals.  Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership sought review of
these two reversals in the Ohio Supreme Court.  Oral argument
was held before the Ohio Supreme Court on Jan. 9, 2007 and the
court has not yet rendered a decision in these matters.

Four claims were also filed at the Public Utilities Commission
of Ohio (PUCO).  Three of the four were filed by plaintiffs who
had also initiated actions in Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
County, and that were either dismissed by the trial court or
voluntarily dismissed.  The PUCO dismissed the complaints and
the cases were appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.  The Ohio
Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals of these four cases.

A motion by Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership to dismiss the
Consumer Case was granted, in part, and overruled, in part, by
the trial court.  Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership sought
review by the Ohio Supreme Court of the part of the trial
court's decision that overruled the motion to dismiss.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the consumer class
action, and the Consumer Case will proceed into the discovery
phase of litigation, according to the company's Feb. 28 form 10-
k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006 by Convergys Corp., a
limited partner of Cincinnati SMSA.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Tex. Suits Over Triple Crown Merger Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class actions related to an agreement and plan of
merger that Clear Channel Communications, Inc. entered with BT
Triple Crown companies have been consolidated for pretrial and
discovery purposes with a derivative action raising similar
issues.

Clear Channel has entered into an agreement and plan of merger
with BT Triple Crown Merger Co., Inc., B Triple Crown Finco,
LLC, and T Triple Crown Finco, LLC.

Initially, several putative class actions were filed in the
408th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, challenging the
merger.  They are:

      -- "Teitelbaum v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et
         al., No. 2006CI17492 (filed Nov. 14, 2006),"

      -- "Manson v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         No. 2006CI17656 (filed Nov. 16, 2006),"

      -- "City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
         System v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         No. 2006CI17660 (filed Nov. 16, 2006),"

      -- "Levy Investments, Ltd. v. Clear Channel
         Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17669 (filed
         Nov. 16, 2006),"

     -- "DD Equity Partners LLC v. Clear Channel Communications,
        Inc., et al., No. 2006CI7914 (filed Nov. 22, 2006)," and

     -- "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH v. L.
        Lowry Mays, et al. (filed Dec. 7, 2006),"

The suits all raise substantially similar allegations on behalf
of a purported class of the company's shareholders against the
defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
approval of the merger.

The above complaints have been consolidated for pretrial and
discovery purposes with the derivative action, "Rauch v. Clear
Channel Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17436," filed
Nov. 22, 2006.

The derivative action challenges the merger, as well as the
terms of employment agreements between Clear Channel and L.
Lowry Mays, Randall T. Mays, and Mark P. Mays.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.clearchannel.com/.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Faces Federal Securities Lawsuits Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. and its officers and
directors were named as defendants in securities fraud class
actions related to an agreement and plan of merger that the
company entered with BT Triple Crown Merger Co., Inc., B Triple
Crown Finco, LLC, and T Triple Crown Finco, LLC.

The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.  They are:

      -- "Alaska Laborers Employees Retirement Fund v. Clear
         Channel Communications, Inc., et al., No. SA07CA0042RF
         (filed Jan. 11);" and

      -- "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v.
          Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.," (filed
          Jan. 30).

Plaintiffs in the federal lawsuits allege that the company's
directors violated federal securities laws in the preparation
and issuance of the proxy statement.  

In addition, the Alaska Fund plaintiff alleges shareholder
derivative claims and class action claims against Clear
Channel's officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties
and gross mismanagement.

The class action pleadings seek certification of a class of all
of the company's stockholders whose stock will be acquired in
connection with the merger, and all of the pleadings seek
injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the completion
of the merger.  

In addition, the pleadings also seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other relief, according to the company's
March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.clearchannel.com/.


COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. and five of the company's subsidiaries remain
defendants in a purported class action, "Knox, et al. vs. First
Southern Cash Advance, et al., No 5 CV 0445," filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina on Feb. 8,
2005.

The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called "payday
lending" business, certain of the company's Retail Micro-Loans
segment subsidiaries violated various laws governing consumer
finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan
brokering.

The plaintiffs further allege that CompuCredit is the alter ego
of the company's subsidiaries and is liable for their actions.  
The plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class
member.

These claims are similar to those that have been asserted
against several other market participants in transactions
involving small balance, short-term loans made to consumers in
North Carolina.  As of Dec. 31, 2006 the company have not
recorded any accruals related to this lawsuit.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 27
form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


DEGUSSA CORP: Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 20
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on March 20, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. for the
proposed $4,000,000 settlement by Degussa Corp., Degussa AG,
Degussa Engineered Carbons LP (collectively, Degussa) in he
matter, "In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket
No. 03-CV-10191-DPW (Lead Case), MDL Docket No. 1543."
    
The hearing will be held in Courtroom 1, before the Judge
Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge of the District of
Massachusetts, One Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210-3002.  

The settlement covers purchasers of carbon black in the U.S.
during the period Jan. 30, 1999 through Jan. 18, 2005 directly
from one or more of the defendant companies (or co-
conspirators).  

                        Case Background

Aside from Degussa other defendants named in the litigation are:
     
      -- Cabot Corp., and
      -- Columbian Chemicals Co.  

The lawsuit claims that beginning in 1992 and continuing through
December 2002, defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of carbon black in
the U.S. in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, Title 15
U.S.C. Section 1.  

Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy was effectuated, among
other things, by a series of coordinated price increase
announcements that began in 1992.  Because of the statute of
limitations, the Damage Period can only extend to Jan. 30, 1999,
or four years prior to the filing of this case.  These
coordinated price increases purportedly continued through
December 2002 and had an effect through February 2003.

Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the alleged conspiracy,
they and other members of the class described below have paid
more for carbon black than they would have absent the alleged
conspiracy.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street,
         Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058,
         Fax: 619-231-7423, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Gold, Bennet, Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595 Market St.,
         Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-777-
         2230, Fax: 415-777-5189, Web site:
         http://www.gbcslaw.com;

     (3) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia,
         PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4604, Web
         site: http://www.bergermontague.com;and

     (4) Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York
         Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600,
         Web site: http://www.cmht.com.


DOBSON COMMS: March Hearing Set for $3.4M Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
will hold on March 20, 2007, 9:00 a.m. an approval hearing in a
$3.4 million settlement of the class action "In Re: Dobson
Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C."

The class consists of all persons and their beneficiaries who
purchased or acquired publicly traded Dobson Communications,
Corp. securities between May 6, 2003 to Aug. 9, 2004.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma in the courtroom of Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection was Feb. 14, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is March 26, 2007.

Beginning on Oct. 22, 2004, securities class actions were filed
against the defendants.  Most of them allege violations of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.  

The suits allege among other things:

      -- that the company concealed significant decreases in
         revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its
         business, including that the company's rate of growth
         in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and
         that the company had experienced negative growth in
         October 2003;

      -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming
         customer, had notified the company that it wanted to
         dispose of its equity interest in the company that it
         had held since the company's initial public offering,
         significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing
         roaming capacity from the company;

      -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         company;

      -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

      -- that the company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits further allege that the company issued various
positive statements concerning its financial prospects and
subscriber information, the speed of the deployment of its GSM
network and the continued growth in its roaming minutes, and
that those statements were false and misleading.

The court consolidated these actions into "In Re: Dobson
Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C."

On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
were filed.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to
dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005.  The company filed its reply briefs on
Oct. 3, 2005.

In November 2006, Dobson reached a settlement agreement for the
consolidated securities class action (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 15, 2006).

The company said the $3.4 million settlement, if approved, would
settle all claims from investors who bought shares between May
6, 2003 and Aug. 9, 2004.  A substantial portion of the
settlement amount is covered by insurance, according to the
company.

The suit is "In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-1394-C," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart W. Emmons, William B. Federman and Jennifer F.
         Sherrill of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave.,
         Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-
         1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com,
         wfederman@aol.com and jfs@federmanlaw.com.

     (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory Castaldo of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         tborum@sbclasslaw.com and gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey A. Berger of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP-
         Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
         312-701-8583, Fax: 312-706-8400, E-mail:
         jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com; and  

    (ii) Warren F Bickford, IV, Fellers Snider Blankenship
         Bailey & Tippens-OKC, 100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820, Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax:
         405-232-9659, E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com.


EQUINIX INC: N.Y. Court Stays Proceedings in IPO Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stayed all proceedings in cases filed against Equinix, Inc. and
underwriters of its initial public offering.

On July 30, 2001 and Aug. 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
actions were filed against the company, certain of the company's
officers and directors, and several investment banks that were
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.  The
cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's stock between Aug. 10, 2000 and Dec. 6,
2000.

In addition, similar lawsuits were filed against approximately
300 other issuers and related parties.  The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company
and the Individual Defendants.

The plaintiffs have since dismissed the Individual Defendants
without prejudice.  The suits allege that the Underwriter
Defendants agreed to allocate stock in the company's initial
public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the company's
initial public offering was false and misleading and in
violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose
these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against the company, but denied the motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claim.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the court certified a class
in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions
(the focus cases) and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.

The Underwriter Defendants appealed the decision and the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's decision granting class
certification in those six cases on Dec. 5, 2006.  Plaintiffs
have not yet moved to certify a class in the Equinix case.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Equinix
Board of Directors approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
company, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the
vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants
and the individual defendants currently or formerly associated
with those companies.

It is unclear what impact the Second Circuit's decision vacating
class certification in the six focus cases will have on the
settlement, which has not yet been finally approved by the
court, the company said.  On Dec. 14, 2006, a hearing was held.

Plaintiffs informed the Court that they planned to file a
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.  The court stayed
all proceedings, including a decision on final approval of the
settlement and any amendments of the complaints, pending the 2nd
Circuit's decision on plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.  
Plaintiffs filed the petition for rehearing and rehearing en
banc on Jan. 5, 2007.

Pursuant to the settlement and related agreements, if the
settlement receives final approval by the court, the settlement
provides for a release of the company and the individual
defendants and the company's agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims the company may have
against the company's underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1.0 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1.0 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1.0 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.  On April 20, 2006, JPMorgan Chase and the
plaintiffs reached a preliminary agreement to settle for $425.0
million.

The JPMorgan Chase preliminary agreement has not yet been
approved by the court.  In an amendment to the issuers'
settlement agreement, the issuers' insurers agreed that the
JPMorgan preliminary agreement, if approved, will only offset
the insurers' obligation to cover the remainder of plaintiffs'
guaranteed $1.0 billion recovery by 50% of the value of the JP
Morgan settlement, or $212.5 million.

Therefore, if the JP Morgan preliminary agreement to settle is
finalized, and then preliminarily and finally approved by the
court, then the maximum amount that the issuers' insurers will
be potentially liable for is $787.5 million.  It is unclear what
impact the Second Circuit's decision vacating class
certification in the focus cases will have on the JP Morgan
Chase preliminary agreement, the company said.


FAIR ISAAC: June 4 Fairness Hearing Set in CROA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
will hold on June 4, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. a fairness hearing on
the settlement of the class actions:

     -- "Hillis v. Equifac Consumer Services Inc. and Fair Isaac
         Corp., No. 1:04-CV-3400-TCB (N.D. Ga), and

     -- "Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. and MyFICO Consumer Services
        Inc., No. 3:05-CV-00257 MHP (N.D. Cal.)."


The meeting will be at the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Georgia, Richard B. Russell Federal Building and
Courthouse, 75 Spring Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 in Courtroom
1708,

Deadline for Exclusion from Class is May 4, 2007.  Deadline to
comment in support of or in opposition to the Settlement is May
4, 2007.

The settlement on the Net: http://www.hillisslacksettlement.com/

The class includes those who purchased, paid for and received a
credit score or credit monitoring Offering from an Equifax Web
site (Equifax.com) or entity, or a Fair Isaac website
(myFICO.com) or a reseller of the Suze Orman FICO Kit between
Nov. 19, 1999 and Feb. 8, 2007.

The suit claims the defendants violated the federal Credit
Repair Organizations Act and similar state laws.  Under the
settlement, defendants deny that they are liable, but have
agreed to make certain changes to the offerings and to the
advertising and marketing of the offerings.

The plaintiffs in this class action assert that the defendants,
Fair Isaac Corp., Equifax Consumer Services, Inc., and MyFICO
Consumer Services, Inc., were credit repair organizations
because they sold services for the purpose of improving a
customer's credit record, credit history, or credit rating.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated certain
sections of the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act in the
course of the marketing and sales of their credit score and
credit repair products.  Certain violations of a California law
similar to CROA were also alleged against some of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs brought two lawsuits against the defendants on
behalf of themselves and all consumers who purchased certain
credit offerings from the defendants.  The defendants deny all
allegations of wrongdoing and contend they have complied with
all applicable laws, but the Defendants have agreed to settle
the case to avoid the time, expense, and distraction of
protracted litigation.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing and does not
indicate a violation of any law.  The defendants have agreed to
settle the lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty, expense, and delay
of continued litigation.

                        Settlement Terms

Under the proposed settlement, the defendants will provide these
benefits to Settlement Class Members:

     * a Class Member who purchased an Offering from only one of
       the defendants will be eligible to receive 3 free months
       of Score Watch from that defendant; or

    * a Class Member who purchased an Offering from both of the
      defendants will be eligible to receive 3 free months of
      Score Watch from each of the defendants making a possible
      total of 6 free months.

The defendants are being represented by:

     (1) Kilpatrick Stockton LLP at 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite  
         2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4536;

     (2) Howrey LLP at 321 North Clark Street, Suite 3400,
         Chicago, IL 60610;

     (3) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP at One Montgomery Street,
         Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104; and

     (4) McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP at 303 Peachtree Street,
         Suite 5300, Atlanta, GA 30308.

The Settlement Class is being represented by:

     (1) Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP at
         The Pinnacle, Suite 925, 3455 Peachtree Road N.E.,
         Atlanta, GA 30326-3243; and

     (2) Battle, Fleenor, Green, Winn, & Clemmer, LLP at 505
         North 20th Street, Suite 1150, Birmingham, AL 35203.


FRITO-LAY: Recalls Corn Chips for Undeclared Milk, Wheat Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frito-Lay is voluntarily recalling 92 cases (5,520 bags) of 2
oz. bags of Fritos Original Corn Chips.  This lot is marked as
Fritos Original Corn Chips but may contain Fritos Chili Cheese
Flavored Corn Chips.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk or wheat run the risk of a serious life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume the Chili Cheese
Flavored product.

This product has been distributed only in Texas and Louisiana.
The affected packages have been distributed to vending machines
and food service operations.

The only affected packages are 2 oz. bags of Fritos Original
Corn Chips that have a freshness date of May 8 located on the
upper right hand side of the package and with a 10 digit code
number of 62730483692, 62730483592 or 62730483992, which appears
immediately beneath the freshness date.

No other code date, package size or flavor is impacted.

Consumers with any product of the lot code and package size
noted above can return product to point of sale or can contact
Frito-Lay Consumer Affairs at 1-800-352-4477.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities fraud class action,
"In re GlaxoSmithkline PLC Securities Litigation, 05 Civ.
3751,"are appeling the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

In September 2005, attorneys representing a purported class of
purchasers of GlaxoSmithKline shares and American Depositary
Shares filed a second amended securities class action complaint
against the group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit is alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
securities laws through failure to disclose unfavourable
clinical data from studies on Paxil, misrepresentation of the
remaining patent protection for Paxil and Augmentin and
violation of the Federal False Claims Act on the basis of the
defendant's recent "Average Wholesale Price" settlement with the
government.

In October 2006, the judge entered an order dismissing the
complaint.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, according to the company's March
2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Glaxo Smithkline Plc Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05 Civ. 3751," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody, Esq., Aaron Brody,
Esq., Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull Stull & Brody (New York); and
Timothy J. Burke of Stull Stull & Brody, (LA).  On the Net:
http://www.secfraud.com/.

Representing the defendants are Andrew J. Levander, Esq., and
Neil A. Steiner, Esq. at Dechert LLP.  On the Net:
http://www.dechert.com/.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Sales Reps File Overtime Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithkline PLC was named defendant in two purported class
actions that were filed on behalf of all its U.S. pharmaceutical
sales representatives.

The suits were filed in December 2006.  Both allege that
representatives are not "exempt" employees under the U.S. Fair
Labor Standards Act and consequently are entitled to overtime
pay.

The suits seek double damages for all overtime allegedly worked
by the group's sales representatives over a three-year period
together with attorneys' fees.

The cases are in their early stages, according to the company's
March 2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

GlaxoSmithkline PLC on the Net: http://www.gsk.com/.


HCC INSURANCE: Labaton Sucharow Amends Securities Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed an amended class action on
March 14, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against:

     -- HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.;
     -- Edward H. Ellis Jr., chief financial officer;
     -- Stephen L. Way, former chief executive;
     -- Chris L. Martin, former general counsel; and
     -- Walter J. Lack, former chairman of the compensation
        committee.

The amended complaint was filed to reflect the fact that Mr.
Ellis is still serving as the company's CFO.  The original
complaint identified him as a former CFO.

Earlier, Labaton Sucharow filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. between May 3, 2005
and Nov. 17, 2006, and shareholders of record on April 3, 2006
(Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2007).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b),
20(a) and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, and Rule 14(a)-1 to 14(a)-9 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) backdated stock option grants, such that the
         description of the company's granting practices
         in the company's financial reports were untrue;

     (2) the company's reported earnings and shareholders'
         equity was artificially inflated in each of its
         financial reports during the Class Period due to
         understated compensation expenses; and,

     (3) the company's financial reports were not presented
         in accordance with GAAP and were artificially inflated
         and did not accurately present the company's
         actual performance.

On Nov. 16, 2006, after the market closed, HCC announced that it
had backdated option grant dates from 1997 through 2006 and that
it would restate financial reports previously filed with the SEC
and disseminated to investors in press releases.

In response to this announcement, the price of HCC stock dropped
materially falling from a close of $31.64 on Nov. 17, 2006, to a
low of $28.81 on Nov. 20, 2006 (the next trading day),
representing a one-day share price decline of 9% on volume of
6.6 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 7, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476.


HOUSTON EXPLORATION: Investors Amend Suit Over Forest Oil Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action opposing a merger of The Houston
Exploration Co. with Forest Oil Corp. filed an amended complaint
with the District Court of Harris County, Texas.

On June 22, 2006, the city of Monroe Employees' Retirement
System filed the suit on behalf of itself and all of the
company's other public shareholders.

Initially, plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care to the class in
connection with the company's response to an unsolicited
proposal by JANA Partners LLC to purchase the company.

Plaintiff subsequently amended the petition as a derivative
claim and requested that the court order the defendants to
comply with their fiduciary duties, respond in good faith to
potential offers, and establish a committee of independent
directors to evaluate strategic alternatives and take decisive
steps to maximize shareholder value.

Plaintiff also seeks to invalidate the company's shareholder
rights plan or require the defendants to rescind or redeem such
plan.  In addition, plaintiff also seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees.  

In October 2006, the judge denied the defendants' motion to
abate or special exceptions.  Although this ruling allows the
plaintiff's claim to survive beyond the pleadings stage, it has
no bearing on the merits of the case.

In January 2007 and following the company's entry into the
merger agreement with Forest Oil, plaintiff further amended its
petition, adding a new class-action claim challenging the
strategic alternatives review process conducted by the company
and the adequacy of the merger consideration agreed upon in the
merger agreement, and naming Forest as a defendant.

The plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the merger, asserting that
the company's directors' decision to enter into the merger with
Forest Oil constitutes a breach of fiduciary duties, according
to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Houston Exploration Co. on the Net:
http://www.houstonexploration.com/.


IDEARC INC: Sales Reps File Suit Over Alleged Incentive Pay Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Idearc, Inc. was named as defendant in two purported class
actions that were filed by its current and former sales
representatives, according to the company's March 8 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The company is subject of a class action that was filed on June
22, 2004, in the California Superior Court, Orange County, and a
purported class action that was filed on April 6, 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Both cases were filed by current and former sales
representatives located in California, New York, Pennsylvania
and New Jersey.

Plaintiffs in these cases claim that the company reduced their
incentive pay through offsets for cancellations, non-renewals
and credits on customer accounts and shifted a general business
risk of loss to the company's sales representatives through the
assignment of accounts which the company allegedly knew would
not renew their purchases, or would renew them at a lower level.

The plaintiffs seek amounts that they allege were unlawfully
deducted from their wages, civil penalties, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.  Some of the plaintiffs also seek amounts for
overtime they allege they worked for which they were not paid.


INTERPOOL INC: Shareholder Sues Over CEO's Buyout Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------
Interpool, Inc., faces several purported class actions in the
Delaware and New Jersey in relation to a proposal by company
chairman and chief executive officer Martin Tuchman to acquire
the company's shares, according to the company's March 9 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In January 2007, two purported class actions were filed against
the company and certain of its directors, along with Fortis
Merchant Banking, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Pomeranz
Action) and the Superior Court of New Jersey (Lipsky Action).

In February 2007, a third purported class action was filed, also
in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Martinez Action), which also
names the company, its directors, and Fortis Merchant Banking as
defendants and which names as additional defendants various
shareholders alleged to support the potential transaction
proposed by Mr. Tuchman in his letter to the company's Board of
Directors dated Jan. 16, pursuant to which the shares owned by
the company's public stockholders, and a portion of the shares
owned by Mr. Tuchman and the other stockholders supporting his
proposal, are proposed to be purchased.

The complaints in the Pomeranz Action and the Lipsky Action
allege breaches of fiduciary duty and conflicts of interest on
the part of the company's directors, among other things, in
connection with the potential transaction proposed by Mr.
Tuchman and the events preceding that proposal.  

The actions seek declaratory, injunctive, and other relief
preventing consummation of the potential transaction proposed in
Mr. Tuchman's Jan. 16 letter, together with an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

The complaint in the Martinez Action contains allegations that
essentially overlap those in the Pomeranz and Lipsky Actions,
but also alleges actual and/or anticipatory breaches by the
company and by Mr. Tuchman of a 2004 letter agreement in which
Mr. Tuchman agreed not to sell or voluntarily transfer shares of
its common stock unless the company's other shareholders are
"concurrently offered the opportunity to sell or otherwise
transfer a comparable percentage of the shares beneficially
owned by them for the same consideration."  

The complaint alleges that the proposal set forth in Mr.
Tuchman's Jan. 16 letter would violate the 2004 letter
agreement, in that the company's other shareholders were not
offered the same opportunity to sell shares and invest in the
private company that would be formed to acquire the company.

The complaint in the Martinez Action further alleges that
various corporate transactions entered into by the company in
late 2005 and 2006 were designed to facilitate the transaction
proposed by Mr. Tuchman in his Jan. 16 letter, including the
purchase by the company of approximately 1.5 million shares of
stock from Mr. Tuchman in November 2006, in accordance with the
company's 1993 Stock Option Plan, as payment of the exercise
price of Mr. Tuchman's stock options, and as a result of which
Mr. Tuchman received approximately 2.2 million shares.

The Martinez Action seeks injunctive relief enjoining the
transaction proposed in the Jan. 16 Letter as well as rescission
of the company's purchase of Mr. Tuchman's shares that were
tendered in connection with his November 2006 option exercise,
as well as an award of an unspecified amount as damages.

Interpool, Inc. on the Net: http://www.interpool.com/.


JJB SPORTS: Faces Lawsuit for Fixing Prices of Football Shirts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer organization Which? decided to proceed with a
multimillion-pound legal claim against JJB Sports on behalf of
people who bought replica England and Manchester United football
shirts between 2000 and 2001, the Times Online reports.

The consumer watchdog lodged the suit at the Competition Appeals
Tribunal.  The company now has until April 8 to file its defense
before a case-management conference in mid-April.

This is the first time that Which? has used its powers under the
Enterprise Act 2002, which allows it to bring a class action
against a company that has been convicted of price fixing or any
other anticompetitive practice, the report said.  It is acting
on a "no-win, no-fee" basis.

In February, JJB Sports was reportedly found by the Office of
Fair Trading to have conspired with Umbro, AllSports in fixing
prices for football shirts between 2000 and 2001 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

Which? had approached Clyde & Co. regarding the suit.  Senior
competition associate Mark Warrington is leading the team.

Which? hopes to win GBP20 for every consumer who bought one of
the replica shirts.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: "Gurfein" Plaintiff Drops Securities Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the suit "Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc., et al.," did
not name Knight Capital Group, Inc. at their second amended
complaint lodged in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Filed in December 2004, the suit alleged that the company,
various specialist firms, broker-dealers and the American Stock
Exchange violated common law and the securities laws by, among
other things, failing to execute limit orders for options at
quoted prices and by executing market orders for options at
prices less favorable than the actual market price.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

The company is seeking indemnification for this matter under
contractual arrangements with a third party, although there is
no guarantee that it will be successful in obtaining such
indemnification.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudice
against the American Stock Exchange and without prejudice
against the remaining defendants.

In March 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
asserts no claim against any Knight defendant, according to the
company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-09526-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Frederick W. Gerkens, III and John Halebian of Lovell
         Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, 58th Flr., New
         York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900, Fax: (212) 719-
         4677, E-mail: fgerkens@lshllp.com and
         jhalebian@lshllp.com; and

     (2) Daniel Robert Lapinski of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32
         East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax: (212) 421-6553, E-mail:
         dan@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Richard John Morvillo of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP
         (DC), 1909 "K" Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006-1101,
         Phone: (202) 263-3000 x3290, Fax: (202) 263-3300, E-
         mail: rmorvillo@mayerbrownrowe.com; and

     (2) John J. Calandra of McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP (NY),
         340 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         547-5489, Fax: (212) 547-5444, E-mail:
         jcalandra@mwe.com.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Ore. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted final
approval to a $3.5 million settlement of a securities fraud suit
filed against Lattice Semiconductor Corp.

In September and October 2004, three putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon against Lattice Semiconductor Corp., the
company's chief executive officer and president Stephen A.
Skaggs, and former chief executive officer Cyrus Y. Tsui.

These complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased the company's stock between April 22,
2003 and April 19, 2004.  

They generally alleged violations of federal securities laws
arising out of the company's previously announced restatement of
financial results for the first, second and third quarters of
2003.

Consistent with the usual procedures for cases of this kind,
these cases were amended and consolidated into a single action.
In an amended and consolidated complaint filed Jan. 27, 2005,
the company's former president and the company's former
controller were added as defendants.  The complaints generally
sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as attorney
fees and costs.  

On March 16, 2006 the company announced it had entered into an
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the consolidated action.

The agreement does not contain any admission of fault or
wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of the individual
defendants in the litigation, and provides that plaintiffs will
receive an aggregate amount of $3.5 million, inclusive of fees
and expenses of counsel, in exchange for a release of the
company and the individual defendants from all claims asserted
in the litigation.

The company's insurance carriers have paid the entire amount, on
behalf of the company, to settle the suit under the terms of the
company's director and officer liability insurance policy.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the court formally approved the settlement and
issued an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, according to the
company's March 9 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Autumn Partners, LLC v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.
et al., case no. 6:04-cv-01255-AA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Ann L. Aiken.  

Representing the company is Lois O. Rosenbaum, Timothy W.
Snyder, Stoel Rives, LLP, 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600,
Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 294-9293, Fax: (503) 294-9113,
E-mail: lorosenbaum@stoel.com or  
twsnider@stoel.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Tamara J. Driscoll, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2260, Seattle, WA
         98101, Phone: (206) 749-5544, Fax: (206) 749-9978, E-
         mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com; and  

     (2) Dennis J. Herman, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLC, 100 Pine Street,
         Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-
         4545, Fax: (415) 288-4534, E-mail:
         dennish@lerachlaw.com.


LITHIA MOTORS: No Class Yet in Suit Over Vehicle Data Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Anchorage has yet
to certify as a class action the lawsuit, "Jackie Lee Neese et
al. v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et al., Case No.
3AN-06-04815CI," which names as defendants several subsidiaries
of Lithia Motors, Inc.

On May 30, 2006, four of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries
located in Alaska were served with a lawsuit alleging that the
dealerships failed to comply with Alaska law relating to various
disclosures required during the sale of a used vehicle.  

The complainant seeks to represent other similarly situated
customers.  The court has not yet certified the suit as a class
action.

The company reported no development in the case at its March 9
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Lithia Motors, Inc. on the Net: http://www.lithia.com/.


MERCK & CO: Hearing in Third-Party Vioxx Payors Suit Set March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument by Merck & Co. Inc. against class certification
order in a suit by nationwide class of third-party payors is
scheduled to take place before the New Jersey Supreme Court in
March 2007.

On July 29, 2005, a New Jersey state trial court certified a
nationwide class of third-party payors (such as unions and
health insurance plans) that paid in whole or in part for the
Vioxx used by their plan members or insureds.

The named plaintiff in that case seeks recovery of certain Vioxx
purchase costs (plus penalties) based on allegations that the
purported class members paid more for Vioxx than they would have
had they known of the product's alleged risks.  

Merck believes that the class was improperly certified.  The
trial court's ruling is procedural only; it does not address the
merits of plaintiffs' allegations, which the company intends to
defend vigorously.

On March 31, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, affirmed the class certification order.  On July 19,
2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to exercise its
discretion to hear the company's appeal of the Appellate
Division's decision.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the Appellate Division ordered a stay of the
proceedings in Superior Court pending a ruling by the Supreme
Court.  Oral argument before the New Jersey Supreme Court is
scheduled to take place in March 2007, according to the
company's Feb. 27 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


MERCK & CO: Oral Argument in Vioxx Securities Lawsuits Set March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on a motion by Merck & Co. Inc. to dismiss Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits pending against it in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey is scheduled to take place
in March 2007.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, the company
and various current and former officers and directors are
defendants in various putative class actions and individual
lawsuits under the federal securities laws and state securities
laws (the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits).

All of the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits pending in federal court
have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in
a nationwide MDL.

Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits for
all purposes.  Plaintiffs request certification of a class of
purchasers of company stock between May 21, 1999 and Oct. 29,
2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.  The complaint also asserts a claim
under Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act against
certain defendants relating to their sales of Merck stock.

In addition, the complaint includes allegations under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 that certain
defendants made incomplete and misleading statements in a
registration statement and certain prospectuses filed in
connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend
reinvestment plan.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  Oral
argument on the motion to dismiss is scheduled to take place in
March 2007, according to Merck's Feb. 27 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.


MERCK & CO: Faces Remaining ERISA Violations Claims in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. continues to face remaining claims in a lawsuit
filed in the District of New Jersey alleging Employee Retirement
Income Security Act violations by the company.

Various putative class actions were filed in federal court under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the company
and certain current and former officers and directors.

The Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits and, together with the Vioxx Securities
Lawsuits and the Vioxx Derivative Lawsuits, is called the Vioxx
Shareholder Lawsuits.  

The Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits have been transferred to the
Shareholder MDL and consolidated for all purposes.  The
consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain of
the company's current and former employees who are participants
in certain of the company's retirement plans for breach of
fiduciary duty.  

The lawsuits make similar allegations to the allegations
contained in the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  On Oct. 7, 2005,
defendants moved to dismiss the ERISA complaint.

On July 11, 2006, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 27
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation is case no. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler.   

Representing the company is Edward Cerasia II, Proskauer Rose  
LLP, One Newark Center, 18th floor, Newark NJ 07102-5211, Phone:  
973 274-3200, E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com; and John N.  
Poulous Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, 101 Hudson St. Suite 3601,  
Jersey City, NJ 07302-3918, Phone: (201) 536-9220, E-mail:  
poulos@hugheshubbard.com.  
    
Representing the plaintiffs is Irma Lois Bradley-Klein,   
Lemmon Law Firm, LLC, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2335, New Orleans,   
LA 70130, Phone: (985) 783-6789, Fax: (985) 783-1333.


MICROSOFT CORP: Ia. Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of the settlement of a multimillion-dollar antitrust
lawsuit filed against Microsoft Corp. in Polk County District
Court will be announced at an April 18 hearing, The Des Moines
Register reports.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg said the date
for the court hearing at which the settlement terms are to be
presented was moved up because of a conflict on the original
April 20 hearing date.

The class action against Microsoft was filed attorney Roxanne
Conlin of Des Moines on behalf of Iowans who purchased Microsoft
software between 1994 and 2006. In it, plaintiffs generally
claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;      

      -- denying class members free choice in software products      
         and the benefits of software innovation; and      

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security      
         breaches.      

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.

Plaintiffs claim Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by
monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade in the markets
for Intel-compatible:

     (i) personal computer operating system software, and

    (ii) applications software, including word processing,
         spreadsheet and office-suite software.  

They also allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.

In February, Microsoft Corp. agreed to settle the suit (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2007).

Microsoft also agreed to pay half of any unclaimed proceeds to
the Iowa Department of Education, to be used for bridging the
digital and technical divide in Iowa schools through the
purchase of computer hardware and software, according to a
statement by Rich Wallis, associate general counsel for
Microsoft.

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,      
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: 515-283-1111,
         Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and               

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN      
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, E-mail:      
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
    
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:
tulchind@sullcrom.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Robeson County to Get $2.3M in Antitrust Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Robeson County school system will get about $2.3 million
from the $40.9 million being distributed in North Carolina under
the settlement of an antitrust class action against Microsoft
Corp., The Robesonian reports.

The state Department of Public Instruction will provide vouchers
to elementary and middle schools where 60 percent or more of the
students are identified as poor.  High schools must have 70
percent of their student body qualify as poor to receive the
vouchers.

Under the guidelines, the only ineligible schools in the county
are Lumberton High, St. Pauls High, the Early College, the
Information Technology High and Tanglewood Elementary.

Schools have until March 2009 to redeem the vouchers.

According to a press release from the N.C. Department of Public
Instruction, the funds gained in the settlement have been
earmarked to purchase technology equipment and software for
lower-wealth schools, whose eligibility is based on the
percentage of its students qualifying for free or reduced-cost
lunch.

In compliance with state requirements, the funds will be split
in half with one portion used for any technological need and the
other strictly to purchase software, said Barry Pace, the school
system's technology director.


MISSOURI: Residents File Suit Over Alleged Privacy Invasions
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain officials of The Missouri Department of Revenue were
named defendants in a purported federal class action for
allegedly selling or giving away motor vehicle records to
private companies that use them to solicit business from private
citizens.

The privacy invasion case was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri on March 6.  In particular,
it claims that the State violated the Drivers Privacy Protection
Act and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.  

Plaintiffs in the suit are Michele Poynter and Jan Bradstreet,
both Missouri residents.  In the complaint, the two are
described as individuals whose protected personal information
was obtained by the Missouri DOR/Department of Motor Vehicles
and was wrongfully disclosed by defendants as executive level
officers employed by the State of Missouri.  

Defendants in the suit include:

      -- Patricia Vincent, director of the Missouri Department
         of Revenue;

      -- Lowell Pearson, deputy director of the Missouri
         Department of Revenue;

      -- James Miluski, director of the Division of Purchasing
         and Materials Management for the State of Missouri; and

      -- Karen Boeger, assistant director of the Division of
         Purchasing and Materials Management for the State of
         Missouri.

Specifically, plaintiffs claiming that along with their vehicle
renewal forms they received unsolicited offers from State Farm,
Home Depot, DirecTV, Discover Card, Sirius Radio and others
because of the state's mass invasion of privacy.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the case on behalf of other
residents whose name, address, driver identification number,
race, date of birth, sex and/or social security number were
contained in motor vehicle records disclosed by defendants as
official actors of the Missouri DOR and Division of Purchasing
and Materials Management, and who received advertisements
enclosed in registration or license renewal correspondence,
without giving prior express consent.  

They are seeking:

      -- a declaration that the case is properly maintainable as
         a class action;
      
      -- compensatory damages;

      -- statutory liquidated damages of $2,500.00 for each
         class representative and class member whose personal
         information was disclosed in violation of the DPPA;

      -- attorneys' fees and costs; and

      -- any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1b69

The suit is "Poynter et al. v. Vincent et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
04047-NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.

For more details, contact Douthit, Frets, Rouse, Gentile &
Rhodes, LLC, 903 East 104th Street, Suite 610, Kansas City, MO
64131, Phone: (816) 941-7600, Fax: (816) 941-6666, Web site:
http://www.dfrglaw.com.


NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Plaintiffs Dismiss TCPA Complaint in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Anthony Vlastaris, et al. v. WebMD Publishing
Services," dismissed their case against National Physicians
Datasource, LLC, a subsidiary of WebMD Health Corp.

On Sept. 25, 2006, Anthony Vlastaris, Brian Kressin, and Richard
Cohen filed a lawsuit individually, and as a class action, under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County.

The lawsuit claims that the defendant sent faxes to the
plaintiffs allegedly in violation of the TCPA.  The defendant in
the suit is named as "WebMD Publishing Services," an entity that
does not exist.  

Because the suit was served on National Physicians at its
location in Connecticut and because the company is the publisher
of The Little Blue Book, National Physicians removed the lawsuit
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of
Ohio on Oct. 24, 2006.

After removal to federal court, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the class-action complaint, according to the WebMD
Health Corp.'s March 2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Plaintiffs later refiled a new suit in state court that was not
a class action.  NPD then settled the suit with the plaintiffs
on Dec. 28, 2006.  The suit has been dismissed.

The suit is "Vlastaris v. National Physicians Datasource LLC,
Case No. 1:06-cv-02573-KMO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District Court of Ohio under Judge Kathleen M.
O'Malley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph R. Compoli, Jr., 612 East 185 Street, Cleveland,
         OH 44119, Phone: 216-481-6700, Fax: 216-481-1047, E-
         mail: jcompoli@en.com; and

     (2) James R. Goodluck, 3517 St. Albans Road, Cleveland
         Heights, OH 44121, Phone: 216-481-6700, Fax: 216-481-
         1047, E-mail: jim311@webtv.net.

Representing the defendants is Thompson Hine, 3900 Key Tower,
127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114-1216, Phone: 216-566-
5578, Fax: 216-566-5800, E-mail: http://www.thompsonhine.com.


PHILIP SERVICES: March Hearing Set in $79M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on March 19, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $79,750,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Philip
Services Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 835 (AKH)."

The hearing will be held in Courtroom 14D of the U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.

Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement was due
March 5.  Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is due
May 18.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Philip Services during
the period Feb. 28, 1996 through May 7, 1998.

                         Case Background

Commencing in February 1998, several purported class actions
were filed in the U.S. against Philip, the individual defendants
(who were certain of its officers and directors), the
underwriter defendants and Deloitte & Touche LLP, Philip's
outside auditors.

Pursuant to an order of this court dated May 19, 2006, as
modified by the order, the consolidated actions pending in the
U.S. were certified as a class action consisting of a class of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Philip Services during the period Feb. 28, 1996
through May 7, 1998, and who are members of one or more of the
following sub-classes:

      -- all persons and entities who, during the class period,
         purchased the common stock of Philip on any U.S. stock
         exchange, and/or (b) purchased the common stock of
         Philip on any Canadian stock exchange and were
         residents or citizens of the U.S. at the time of said
         purchases (Open MarketSub-Class);

      -- all purchasers of Philip common stock issued in the
         secondary public offering by Philip on or about Nov. 6,
         1997 of approximately 23 million shares of stock,
         issued exclusively to U.S. residents (November 1997
         Offering), pursuant to the Form S-1 filed by Philip
         with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on or
         about Nov. 6, 1997 (November 1997 Registration
         Statement) (November 1997 Registration Statement Sub-
         Class);

      -- all persons whose shares of Allwaste Inc. common stock
         were exchanged for Philip common stock (the exchange
         thereby accomplished is hereinafter referred to as the
         "Allwaste Offering"), pursuant to the Form F-4 filed by
         Philip with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
         on or about June 24, 1997 relating to Philip's
         acquisition of Allwaste (Allwaste Registration
         Statement) (Allwaste Sub-Class); and

      -- all persons whose shares of Serv-Tech Inc. common stock
         were exchanged for Philip common stock (the exchange
         thereby accomplished is hereinafter referred to as the
         "Serv-Tech Offering"), pursuant to the Form F-4 filed
         by Philip with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission on or about June 24, 1997 relating to
         Philip's acquisition of Serv-Tech (Serv-Tech
         Registration Statement) (Serv-Tech Sub-Class).

Lead Plaintiffs Gabriel DiRienzo, Robert Gans, Robert Gans IRA,
Gregory Mappus, and Michael and Sophia Isaacs were appointed as
the representatives of the Open Market Sub-Class; Lead
Plaintiffs Gregory Mappus, Charles Fasold, and Lee Pittman were
appointed as the representatives of the November 1997
Registration Statement Sub-Class; Lead Plaintiffs Richard
Hershey, Albert Solkov, and James Collins were appointed as the
representatives of the Allwaste Sub-Class; and Lead Plaintiffs
Michael and Sophia Isaacs and Robert McElroy were appointed as
representatives of the Serv-Tech Sub-Class.

Neil L. Selinger, Esq. of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger
P.C. and Jeffrey C. Block,Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
Burt & Pucillo were appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.

In the consolidated and amended class action complaint,
plaintiffs asserted claims against the various defendants under
some or all of Sections 11,12(a), and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Philip Services Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon
         Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
         11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810,
         Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims;

     (2) Neil L. Selinger, Esq. of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Selinger, P.C., One North Lexington Avenue, White
         Plains, NY 10601, Phone: (914) 997-0500, Fax: (914)
         997-0035, Web site: http://www.ldbs.com/;and

     (3) Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease
         Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 800-516-9926, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com,
         Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Powerwave Technologies Inc. was named defendant in several
purported securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Three purported shareholder class action complaints were filed
in January and February 2007, against the company, its president
and chief executive officer, its executive chairman of the board
of directors and its chief financial officer.

The complaints are:

      -- "Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.,"

      -- "Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.," and

      -- "Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al."

These were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
complaints purport to state claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased Powerwave securities between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9,
2006.

The essence of the allegations is that the defendants made
misleading statements or omissions concerning the company's
projected and actual sales revenues, the integration of certain
acquisitions and the sufficiency of the company's internal
controls.

Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.powerwave.com/.


SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California
dismissed, with prejudice, a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and
certain of its directors and officers.

In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, following the company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2004.

On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions were consolidated
as "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH (N.D. Cal.)."

On May 3, 2005, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed as lead
plaintiff:  

      -- The "Louisiana Funds Group," which consists of:  

         * the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System;
           and  

         * the Louisiana District Attorneys' Retirement System.  

Judge Hamilton also appointed as lead counsel and liason
counsel, respectively, for the class, the law firms of:

      -- Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, and  
      -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on July 15, 2005.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws during
the period from April 21, 2004 to Dec. 20, 2004.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 16, 2005.  
Plaintiff served an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Nov.
4, 2005.  The company's reply in further support of the motion
to dismiss was filed on Dec. 19, 2005.

On Jan. 18, 2006, the court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  On March 10, 2006, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with leave
to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 1, 2006.  The
company responded with a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2006.

On Aug. 17, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On Sept. 29, 2006, defendants
filed further briefing in support of their motion.

The court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss on
Nov. 8, 2006 and ordered further briefing to be filed by the
parties (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2007).  Lead plaintiffs
and defendants filed additional briefs on Nov. 15, 2006 and Nov.
22, 2006, respectively.  

On March 12, 2007, the judge entered judgment in favor of all
defendants.  Plaintiffs have 30 days from entry of judgment to
appeal the dismissal.

A derivative action filed in 2005 with substantially identical
claims remains pending in California Superior Court in the
County of Santa Clara.

The suit is "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of
Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax:
415-433-6382, E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.

Representing the company are Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P.
Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759,
E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.


TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: La. Court Junks Hurricane-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
dismissed three hurricane-related cases that name as defendants
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., the company said at its
March 2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The company was named as a defendant in two class action
petitions for damages filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana in September and October 2005.

The class plaintiffs, purporting to represent persons,
businesses and entities in the State of Louisiana who have
suffered damage as a result of the winds and storm surge from
the hurricanes in 2005, allege that the operating activities of
the two sub-classes of defendants, which include:

     -- all oil and gas pipelines that dredged pipeline canals
        or installed pipelines in the marshes of south Louisiana
        (including the company), and

     -- all oil and gas exploration and production companies
        which drilled for oil and gas or dredged canals in the
        marshes of south Louisiana,

The defendants' actions are said to have altered marshland
ecology and caused marshland destruction, which otherwise would
have averted all or almost all of the destruction and loss of
life caused by the hurricanes.

The suits are:

      -- "Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission  
         Company, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed  
         on Sept. 13, 2005;

      -- "Villa, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., et  
         al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04569-SSV-DEK," filed on October  
         5, 2005.

Plaintiffs request that the court allow the lawsuits to proceed
as class actions and seek legal and equitable relief in an
unspecified amount.  

On April 17, 2006, all defendants, including the company, filed
a joint motion to dismiss the class action petitions on various
grounds.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the court granted the defendants' joint
motion and dismissed the class action petitions against all
defendants, including Transco.

On Nov. 20, 2006, in an additional class action filed in August
2006 containing substantially identical allegations against the
same defendants, including Transco, the court similarly granted
the defendants' joint motion and dismissed the additional class
action.

The "Barasich" plaintiffs' attorneys are Richard Paul Bullock of
Early, Ludwick & Sweeney, One Century Tower, 11th Floor, 265
Church Street, P.O. Box 1866, New Haven, CT 06508, US, Phone:
203-777-7799, E-mail: rbullock829@aol.com.  

The "Villa" plaintiffs attorneys are Mary S. Johnson of Johnson,  
Gray, McNamara, LLC, 69150 Highway 190 East Service Road,  
Covington, LA 70433, Phone: 985-246-6544, E-mail:
msj@jgmclaw.com.

Defendant's attorney is Linda Sarradet Akchin of Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, LL, One American Place,
P.O. Box 3513, 22nd Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone:
225-387-0999, E-mail: linda.akchin@keanmiller.com.


TRI-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Stationery Sets with Cutter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tri-Star International Inc., of Newark, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 360 children's stationery sets.

The company said the children's stationery set contains a razor
blade cutter with a sharp edge, posing a laceration hazard to
young children.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Cooky Stationery Sets, which include a
pencil, various color markers, plastic scissors, erasers and the
razor blade cutter.  The cardboard backing of the set reads,
"Cooky Staitonery (sic) Set." "Cooky Stationery" is written on
the erasers and markers.

These recalled children's stationery sets were manufactured in
China and are being sold at Dollar stores in northern California
from January 2005 through March 2007 for about $1.

Picture of recalled children's stationery sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07126.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the razor blade cutter
away from children and dispose of it.  Consumers can return the
set to the store for a refund.

For additional information, contact CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-
2772 anytime.


TXU CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Tex. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action filed
against TXU Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas are appealing the dismissal of their case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit was filed in against the company and
C. John Wilder.  It asserts claims on behalf of the plaintiffs
and a putative class of owners of certain TXU Corp. securities
who tendered such securities in connection with a tender offer
conducted by TXU Corp. in 2004.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the provisions of
Sections 14(e), 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The allegations relate to a tender offer conducted in September
and October 2004 for certain equity-linked securities in which
it was expressly disclosed that TXU Corp. management was
evaluating whether it should recommend to the board of directors
that the board reevaluate TXU Corp.'s dividend policy.  

After the tender offer was closed, and consistent with the
disclosure, management did make a recommendation to the board to
reevaluate the dividend policy and the board elected to increase
the quarterly dividend.

The plaintiffs contend that such disclosure in connection with
the tender offer was inadequate. TXU Corp. maintains that the
disclosure provided in connection with the tender offer
regarding the evaluation of the dividend policy was complete and
accurate at the time the tender offer was initiated as well as
when it was closed.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the District Court
entered an order granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing
the litigation with prejudice on Aug. 30, 2006.

The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal and the matter is
now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit with
briefing of the appeal completed, according to the company's
March 2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund
Incorporated, et al. v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV-
01784," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael C. Dodge of Dodge & Associates, 3710 Rawlins
         Suite 1600, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: 214-273-3280, Fax:
         214-273-3281, E-mail: miked@texasatty.com;

     (2) Francis J. Balint, Jr. of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
         Balint, 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ
         85012, Phone: 602-274-1100, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com;
         and

     (3) Rosemary J. Shockman of Shockman Law Offices, 8170 N
         86th Place, Suite 102, Scottsdale, AZ 85258-4308,
         Phone: 480-596-1986, E-mail: rshock@aol.com.


Representing the defendants is Richard S Krumholz of Fulbright &
Jaworski, Texas Commerce Bank Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800,
Dallas, TX 75201-2784, Phone: 214-855-8000, Fax: 214-855-8200,
E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com.


TXU CORP: Settles Tex. ERISA Violations Lawsuit for $7.25M
----------------------------------------------------------
TXU Corp. has settled a consolidated class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In November 2002, February 2003 and March 2003, three lawsuits
were filed, asserting claims under ERISA on behalf of a putative
class of participants in and beneficiaries of various employee
benefit plans of TXU Corp.

These ERISA lawsuits were consolidated, and a consolidated
complaint was filed in February 2004 against TXU Corp., the
directors of TXU Corp. serving during the putative class period
as well as certain officers of TXU Corp. who were the members of
the TXU Thrift Plan Committee.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of participants in such
employee benefit plans during the period between April 26, 2001
and Oct. 11, 2002.

The plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification
and, after class certification discovery was completed, the
District Court denied plaintiffs' initial class certification
motion without prejudice and granted plaintiffs' leave to amend
their complaint.

Plaintiffs' second class certification motion, filed on the
basis of their amended complaint, was denied and the case was
ordered dismissed without prejudice on Sept. 29, 2005.  They
filed an appeal of the dismissal to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  

While on appeal, the matter was referred to the 5th Circuit's
alternative dispute resolution program and subsequently to
mediation.

While mediation was unsuccessful, further discussions led to an
agreement in principle to settle this litigation on Dec. 24,
2006 for $7.25 million, before attorney's fees, to be paid by
TXU Corp. to the thrift plan pursuant a court approved
allocation.

A Memorandum of Understanding confirming the agreement in
principle was signed on Jan. 24, 2007 and the settlement is in
the process of being confirmed with final settlement documents
after which the settlement will be submitted to the District
Court for approval, according to the company's March 2 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Hargrave v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-
02573," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary B. Lawson of Godwin Pappas Langley Ronquillo -
         Dallas, 1201 Elm St., Suite 1700, Dallas, TX 75270-
         2084, Phone: 214-939-4870, Fax: 214-760-7332, E-mail:
         glawson@godwinpappas.com; and

     (2) Jeffrey W. Chambers of Ware Jackson Lee & Chambers
         America Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor, Houston,
         TX 77019, Phone: 713-659-6400, Fax: 713-659-6262.

Representing the defendants:

     (i) David P. Poole of TXU Legal Dept., 1601 Bryan St., 21st
         Floor, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214-812-6001, Fax: 214-
         812-6032, E-mail: dpoole@txu.com; and

    (ii) Robert K. Wise of Hunton & Williams - Dallas, 1601
         Bryan St., 30th Floor, Dallas, TX 75201-3402, Phone:
         214-979-3071, Fax: 214-880-0011, E-mail:
         bwise@hunton.com.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fla. Physicians Appeal Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians behind a consolidated class action filed in Florida
against UnitedHealthcare, a unit of Unitedhealth Group, Inc.,
are appealing the dismissal of their claims against the company.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class actions were filed against
both UnitedHealthcare and PacifiCare Health Systems, and
virtually all major entities in the health benefits business.

In December 2000, a multidistrict litigation panel consolidated
several litigation cases involving the company and its
affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
Court of Florida.  

Generally, the health care provider plaintiffs allege violations
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act in connection with alleged
undisclosed policies intended to maximize profits.

Other allegations include breach of state prompt payment laws
and breach of contract claims for failure to timely reimburse
providers for medical services rendered.  

The consolidated suits seek injunctive, compensatory and
equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and
interest payments.

The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for
class certification and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit reviewed that order.  

The 11th Circuit affirmed the class action status of the RICO
claims, but reversed as to the breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and prompt payment claims.  

During the course of the litigation, there have been co-
defendant settlements.  On Jan. 31, 2006, the trial court
dismissed all remaining claims against PacifiCare, and on June
19, 2006, the trial court dismissed all remaining claims against
UnitedHealthcare brought by the lead plaintiff.  The tag-along
lawsuits remain outstanding.

On July 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the dismissal of the
claims against UnitedHealthcare.

Unitedhealth Group reported no development in the matter at its
March 6 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Unitedhealth Group, Inc., on the Net:
http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated amended complaint in a securities fraud class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class actions
alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought
by an individual shareholder against the company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors.

On Dec. 8, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
consolidating the actions into a single action.  The action is
captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation."

Lead plaintiff California Public Employees Retirement System
against brought the action the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants, in
connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified in
the shareholder derivative actions described above, made
misrepresentations and omissions during the period between Jan.
20, 2005 and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings
that artificially inflated the price of the company's common
stock.

The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the
class period, certain defendants sold shares of the company's
common stock while in possession of material, non-public
information concerning the matters set forth in the complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933. The action seeks unspecified money damages and equitable
relief.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on Feb. 6, according to the company's March 6 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "California Public Employees Retirement System v.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02939-JMR-
FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge
Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul,
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com; and

     (2) Travis E. Downs, III of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP - SD, 655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: travisd@lerachlaw.com.


UNITED IMPORTS: Recalls Mood Necklaces Over High Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Imports Inc., of Flushing, New York, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
3,600 children's mood Necklaces.

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

The recalled necklaces are multi-colored pendants shaped as
hearts, crosses, moons, feet, stars, dolphins, shamrocks,
teardrops, spiders, flip-flop sandals and butterflies that hang
from a black cord.  "Mood Necklace" is printed on the front of
the packaging and Item #AP-R428 is printed on a sticker on the
back of the packaging.

These recalled children's mood necklaces were manufactured in
China and are sold exclusively at accessories Palace in Lake
Worth, Fla., and the Accessories Palace Web site:
http://www.accessoriespalace.com,from September 2006 through  
February 2007 for about $1.

Picture of the recalled children's mood necklaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07125.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children.  Consumers should return the recalled
jewelry to the Accessories Palace store for a full refund.  If
unable to return it to the store or if purchased through the Web
site, contact United Imports Inc. for information on how to
receive a full refund.

For additional information, contact United Imports Inc. at (800)
457-3545 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.unitedimports.com


UNOCAL CORP: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Reformulated Gasoline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal Corp., an independent oil and gas exploration and
production company that was acquired by Chevron Corp., faces 14
purported class actions over its reformulated gasoline (RFG)
according to Chevron's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suits were brought by consumers of RFG, who are alleging
that Unocal misled the California Air Resources Board into
adopting standards for composition of RFG that overlapped with
Unocal's undisclosed and pending patents.

Eleven lawsuits are now consolidated in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and three are consolidated in
California State Court.

Unocal is alleged to have monopolized, conspired and engaged in
unfair methods of competition, resulting in injury to consumers
of RFG.

Plaintiffs in both consolidated actions seek unspecified actual
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest on behalf of
an alleged class of consumers who purchased "summertime" RFG in
California from January 1995 through August 2005.
    
Chevron Corp. on the Net: http://www.chevron.com/.


WEST CORP: Class Certified in Suit Over Memberworks Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County, California Superior Court certified a
class in a suit alleging West Corp. engaged in unlawful business
practice when it sent Memberworks, Inc. membership kits to
people who inquired about or purchase another product from the
company.

The suit, "Sanford v. West Corp. et al., No. GIC 805541," was
filed Feb. 13, 2003 in the San Diego County, California Superior
Court.  

The original complaint alleged:

     -- violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
        Act, California Civil Code SS 1750 et seq.;

     -- unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices in
        violation of California Business & Professions Code SS
        17200 et seq.;

     -- untrue or misleading advertising in violation of
        California Business & Professions Code SS 17500 et seq.;
        and

     -- common law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
        fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation, and
        sought monetary damages, including punitive damages, as
        well as restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys
        fees and costs.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class of
persons in California who were sent a Memberworks, Inc.
membership kit in the mail, were charged for an MWI membership
program, and were allegedly either customers of what the
complaint contended was a joint venture between MWI and West
Corp. or West Telemarketing Corp. or wholesale customers of West
Corp. or West Telemarketing.  

West Telemarketing and West Corp. filed a demurrer in the trial
court on July 7, 2004.  The court sustained the demurrer as to
all causes of action in plaintiff's complaint, with leave to
amend.  West Telemarketing and West Corp. received an amended
complaint and filed a renewed demurrer.

On Jan. 24, 2005, the court entered an order sustaining West
Corp. and West Telemarketing's demurrer with respect to five of
the seven causes of action.  On Feb. 14, 2005, West
Telemarketing and West Corp. filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings seeking a judgment as to the remaining claims.

On April 26, 2005 the court granted the motion without leave to
amend.  The court also denied a motion to intervene filed on
behalf of Lisa Blankenship and Vicky Berryman.  The court
entered judgment in West Corp.'s and West Telemarketing's favor
on May 5, 2005.  The plaintiff and proposed intervenors appealed
the judgment and the order denying intervention.

On June 30, 2006, the 4th Appellate District Court of Appeals
affirmed the entry of judgment against the original plaintiff,
Patricia Sanford, but reversed the denial of the motion to
intervene and remanded the case for the trial court to determine
whether Ms. Berryman and Ms. Blankenship should be added as
plaintiffs through intervention or amendment of the complaint.

On Dec. 1, 2006, the trial court permitted Ms. Berryman and Ms.
Blankenship to join the action pursuant to a second amended
complaint which contained the same claims as Sanford's original
complaint.  West Corp. and West Telemarketing filed a demurrer
to the second amended complaint.  The Court overruled that the
demurrer, with one exception, on Dec. 4, 2006.

On Feb. 16, 2007, after receiving briefing and hearing argument
on class certification, the trial court certified a class
consisting of:

      "All persons in California, who, after calling defendants
       West Corp. and West Telemarketing Corp. (collectively
       "West" or "defendants") to inquire about or purchase
       another product between Sept. 1, 1998 through July
       2, 2001, were;

      (a) sent a membership kit in the mail;

      (b) charged for a MemberWorks, Inc. membership program;
          and

      (c) customers of a joint venture between MWI and West or
          were wholesale customers of West.

Not included in the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, employees, agents and/or affiliates."  West and West
Telemarketing intend to seek appellate review of this decision.  
Discovery in the case is ongoing.  The trial court has indicated
that it will schedule a trial in or around February 2008.


WEST CORP: Consumer Class Certified; Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio stayed all
action in the suit, "Brandy L. Ritt, et al. v. Billy Blanks
Enterprises, et al.," pending an appeal against the
certification of a class of Ohio residents in the case.

The original suit was filed in January 2001 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against two of the
company's clients.  The case, a purported class action, was
amended for the third time in July 2001 and West Corp. was added
as a defendant at that time.  

The suit, which seeks statutory, compensatory, and punitive
damages as well as injunctive and other relief, alleges
violations of various provisions of Ohio's consumer protection
laws, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy in connection with the
marketing of certain membership programs offered by the
company's clients.

On Feb. 6, 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  On July 21, 2003, the Ohio Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.

The plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint naming West
Telemarketing Corp. as an additional defendant and a renewed
motion for class certification.

One of the defendants, NCP Marketing Group, filed for bankruptcy
and on July 12, 2004 removed the case to federal court.  
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state
court.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Nevada remanded the case back to the state court in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.  The Bankruptcy Court also approved a settlement
between the named plaintiffs and:

     -- NCP,
     -- Shape The Future International LLP, and
     -- Integrity Global Marketing LLC.

West Corp. and West Telemarketing Corp. have filed motions for
judgment on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment.  On
March 28, 2006, the state court certified a class of Ohio
residents.  West and West Telemarketing have filed a notice of
appeal from that decision, and plaintiffs have cross-appealed.  
West and West Telemarketing filed their opening brief on appeal
on June 23, 2006.

Plaintiffs' filed their opening brief on appeal on Aug. 17,
2006.  West and West Telemarketing filed their reply brief on
Sept. 15, 2006.  Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on Sept. 28,
2006.  The appeal was argued on Feb. 26, 2007.

On April 20, 2006, the trial court denied West and West
Telemarketing 's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  West and
West Telemarketing 's summary judgment motion remains pending.  
The trial court has stayed all further action in the case
pending resolution of the appeal.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Appliance Product Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp. is defendant in eight purported class actions
alleging defects in its appliance products, according to the
company's Feb. 28 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

Each of the pending purported class actions alleges that certain
named appliance products of the company contain a design or
component defect that amounts to a breach of express warranty, a
breach of implied warranty, and/or a violation of consumer fraud
statutes.

There are no allegations of personal injury or property damage
in any of the cases and the complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages in each case.  


Benton, Michigan-based Whirlpool Corp. (NYSE: WHR) --
http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a global manufacturer and  
marketer of home appliances.  It manufactures and markets a full
line of major appliances and related products, primarily for
home use.  Its principal products are laundry appliances,
refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances, dishwashers,
room air-conditioning equipment, and mixers and other small
household appliances.  Whirlpool also produces hermetic
compressors for refrigeration systems.  The company manufactures
in 12 countries under nine brand names and markets products to
distributors and retailers in more than 170 countries.


WILLIS GROUP: No Class Yet in Kan. Suit Against Subsidiaries
------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas state court has yet to rule on a motion to certify a
class in a suit filed against pipeline and gathering companies,
including two of Willis Group Holdings Ltd. Midstream
subsidiaries.

In 2001, 14 of the company's entities were named as defendants
in a nationwide class action in Kansas state court that had been
pending against other defendants, generally pipeline and
gathering companies, since 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted
all of the company's defendant entities except two Midstream
subsidiaries.  All remaining defendants have opposed class
certification and a hearing on plaintiffs' second motion to
certify the class was held on April 1, 2005.  

The company is awaiting a decision from the court, according to
its Feb. 28 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The case is labeled in the regulatory filing as Will Price
(formerly Quinque).


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Ins. Reserves $23.8M for Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's reserve for unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses includes US$23.8 million of gross
reserves and US$23.7 million of net reserves at Dec. 31, 2006.

Alleghany Insurance is a subsidiary of Alleghany Corp.

The reserves are for liability coverage related to asbestos and
environmental impairment claims that arose from reinsurance
assumed by an affiliate, Capitol Indemnity Corp., between 1969
and 1976.

Capitol Indemnity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capitol
Transamerica Corp., exited this business in 1976. CATA, an
Alleghany Insurance subsidiary, assumed Capitol Indemnity's
claims.

Allegheny Insurance's reserve for unpaid losses and LAE includes
US$25.7 million of gross reserves and US$25.6 million of net
reserves at Dec. 31, 2005.

Alleghany Insurance had A&E reserves for unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses that included US$24.9 million of gross
reserves and US$24.9 million of net reserves at Sept. 30, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006)

Based in New York City, Alleghany Corp.'s main operating
subsidiaries include Capitol Transamerica, which spearheads the
Company's insurance arm and provides property/casualty,
fidelity, and surety insurance. The Company has commercial and
residential real estate interests in California.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. continues to face various personal
injury claims, including claims by employees of 3rd-party
contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and benzene.

These employees had worked at refineries (previously owned by
predecessors of acquired companies) in Texas, California and
Oklahoma.

In 2006, the Company spent US$16 million for litigation,
compared with US$64 million in 2005, and US$62 million in 2004,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 28, 2007.

Based in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is an
independent oil and gas exploration and production company, with
3.01 billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as of
Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's major areas of operation are
located onshore in the U.S., the deepwater of the Gulf of
Mexico, and Algeria.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Reserves $3.192B at 4Q for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd., at Dec. 31, 2006, reserved a gross of US$3.192 billion
for asbestos-related loss reserves, compared with US$3.760
billion at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 1, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a net of US$1.478 billion
for asbestos-related loss reserves, compared with US$1.964
billion at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$3.050 billion gross
consolidated loss and allocated loss expense reserves for
asbestos related exposures, excluding the provision for
uncollectible reinsurance. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24,
2006)

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$1.476 billion net
consolidated loss and allocated loss expense reserves for
asbestos exposures, excluding the provision for uncollectible
reinsurance. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd. is incorporated with
limited liability under the Cayman Islands Companies Law. The
Company and its direct and indirect subsidiaries are a global
property and casualty insurance and reinsurance organization,
servicing the insurance needs of commercial and individual
customers in more than 140 countries and jurisdictions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Records 1,391 Open Claims in 4Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 1,391 open asbestos-related
claims, compared with 1,349 claims at Dec. 31, 2005, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 80 newly reported claims
and 38 claims closed or otherwise disposed. At Dec. 31, 2005,
the Company recorded 118 newly reported claims and 109 claims
closed or otherwise disposed.

The Company faces claims relating to policies issued to
manufacturers, distributors, installers and other parties in the
chain of commerce for asbestos and products containing asbestos.

The Company's definition of an asbestos claim count is a
policyholder asbestos cause of action, with claims for bodily
injury and property damage tracked separately.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd. is incorporated with
limited liability under the Cayman Islands Companies Law. The
Company and its direct and indirect subsidiaries are a global
property and casualty insurance and reinsurance organization,
servicing the insurance needs of commercial and individual
customers in more than 140 countries and jurisdictions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Faces Mt. Vernon Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Inc., in several asbestos-related cases, is
named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in
interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2007.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products allegedly sold by Mount Vernon years before the
acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of those products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon before
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims.

On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal
in a number of actions.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes
around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Defends Against 19,388 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., as of Feb. 16, 2007, faced 19,388
asbestos-related claims, compared with 19,416 claims as of Dec.
31, 2006, 19,283 claims as of Oct. 27, 2006, and 24,451 claims
as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2007.

The Company faces lawsuits filed in various courts in the U.S.
by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury
from exposure to asbestos-containing products previously made by
the Company.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Albany.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed from 1967 to 1976 and used in
certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had a useful life
of three to 12 months.

As of Feb. 16, 2007, about 12,709 of the claims pending against
the Company are pending in Mississippi state or federal courts.
As the result of a Mississippi Supreme Court decision rendered
in 2004, many of the cases previously filed against the Company
in Mississippi state courts have already been dismissed. A large
number of the remaining cases had been removed to federal court.

Thus, as of Feb. 16, 2007, about 12,042 of the 12,709 claims
against the Company pending in Mississippi are now in federal
court, at the multidistrict litigation panel, either through
removal or original jurisdiction.

As of Feb. 16, 2007, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 20,921 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,691,000. Of this amount,
US$6,656,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes
around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Brandon Drying Increase to 9,189
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Inc.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics
Inc., as of Feb. 16, 2007, faced 9,189 asbestos-related claims,
compared with 9,114 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, 8,992 claims as
of Oct. 27, 2006, and 9,566 claims as of Dec. 31, 2005,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a Company
subsidiary, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which the Company is named as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corp., in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Geschmay. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney
Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc., which had
sold dryer fabrics with asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It
is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing
fabrics before the 1978 transaction.

As of Feb. 16, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 8,363 claims for a total of US$152,499.
Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2
percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related
to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of
rights. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne
directly by Brandon.

In 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes
around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Financial Reserves $354.1M in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, reserved
US$354.1 million for asbestos-related claims, compared with
US$366 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's gross asbestos and environmental
reserves were US$517.7 million, compared with US$540.4 million
at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's A&E reserves, net of insurance
recoverable, were US$432.3 million, compared with US$461 million
at Dec. 31, 2005.

About one-half of the Company's net asbestos reserves relate to
policies written directly by its subsidiaries. Claims from these
policies are product-oriented claims with a limited amount of
non-product exposures, and are dominated by small to mid-sized
commercial entities that are mostly regional policyholders with
few national target defendants. The remainder is assumed
reinsurance business that includes exposures for 1954 to 1983.

Most of the individual assumed claims have exposures of less
than US$100,000 to the Company. Asbestos losses assumed include
some of the industry known manufacturers, distributors and
installers.

In 2006, the Company recorded 103 policyholders with no
payments, compared with 164 policyholders in 2005.

In 2006, the Company recorded 97 policyholders with payments,
compared with 103 policyholders in 2005.

In 2006, the Company recorded US$24.2 million as amount paid,
net of amounts received from reinsurers, for A&E claims,
including loss adjustment expenses, compared with US$16.6
million in 2005.

Based in Cincinnati, American Financial Group Inc. is engaged
primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on
specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale
of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a
variety of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.464B for Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
US$4.464 billion gross asbestos-related reserve for losses and
loss expenses, compared with US$4.441 billion at Dec. 31, 2005,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's net asbestos-related reserve for
losses and loss expenses was US$1.889 billion, compared with
US$1.840 billion at Dec. 31, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had
US$4.039 billion gross, US$1.696 billion net, reserve for
asbestos-related losses and loss expenses, compared with
US$2.440 billion gross, US$1.002 billion net, for the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1,
2006)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's gross reserve for incurred but
not reported asbestos claims was US$3.212 billion, compared with
US$3.401 billion at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's net reserve for IBNR asbestos
claims was US$1.469 billion, compared with US$1.731 billion at
Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had 6,878 pending asbestos claims,
compared with 7,293 claims at Dec. 31, 2005.

In 2006, the Company reported 643 opened claims, 150 claims
settled, and 908 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved. In
2005, the Company reported 853 opened claims, 67 claims settled,
and 1,069 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's survival ratios for asbestos
were a gross of 11.7 and a net of 12.9, compared with a gross of
15.9 and a net of 19.8 at Dec. 31, 2005.

According to a Company press release dated March 1, 2007, the
Company's General Insurance units, for 2006, net loss
development from prior accident years, excluding accretion of
discount, was favorable by about US$53 million. This includes a
2006-4th quarter increase of about US$198 million in A&E
reserves.

Fourth quarter 2006 net loss development from prior accident
years, excluding accretion of discount and including the
increase in A&E reserves, was adverse by about US$202 million.

Based in New York, American International Group Inc. provides
property-casualty, life, and specialty insurance to commercial,
institutional, and individual customers. Internationally, the
Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement
services, asset management, and financial services in more than
130 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Group Reserves $166.8M for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Group Inc.'s gross asbestos & environmental reserves,
at Dec. 31, 2006, was a gross of US$166.8 million and a net of
US$176.4 million, compared with a gross of US$156.8 million and
a net of US$154.3 million.

For the year ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$164.7
million gross, US$171 million net, loss reserves for A&E claims.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006)

The Company, through its subsidiary Argonaut Insurance Co., is
exposed to asbestos liability at the primary level through
claims filed against its direct insureds, as well as through its
position as a reinsurer of other primary carriers.

Argonaut Insurance has direct liability arising from policies
issued from the 1970s to the 1980s which pre-dated policy
contract wording that excluded asbestos exposure.

Argonaut Insurance also assumed risk as a reinsurer for a
limited period of time, primarily from 1970 to 1975, a portion
of which was assumed from the London market.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos reserves totaled
US$143.3 million, compared with US$141.2 million at Dec. 31,
2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company strengthened loss
reserves for A&E claims by US$12.2 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 6,251 pending A&E claims,
1,540 claims closed, and 592 claims opened. At Dec. 31, 2005,
the Company noted 7,199 pending A&E claims, 1,526 claims closed,
and 667 claims opened.

Based in San Antonio, Tex., Argonaut Group Inc. and its
subsidiaries offer property and casualty insurance products
through 11 wholly owned insurance companies. The insurance units
are admitted to write insurance in all 50 states and in the
District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands and are
authorized to write insurance on a surplus lines basis in all 50
states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Pepco Holdings Drop to 180
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings Inc., as of Jan. 31, 2007, recorded about 180
asbestos-related cases pending against it in the State Courts of
Maryland, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the Company recorded
about 220 asbestos-related cases pending against it in Maryland
state courts. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006)

In 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints filed in
the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore
City and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing,
consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability.

Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that the Company was
negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees
or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on the Company's property. Initially, a total of about
448 individual plaintiffs added the Company to their complaints.

It appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in
compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from
each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have
been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed.

As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and
meetings and one motion for summary judgment, the Company has
had about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with
prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court.

Of the 180 pending cases, about 85 cases were filed after Dec.
19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and
indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale
Agreement between the Company and Mirant relating to the sale of
the Company's generation assets.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant has agreed
to assume this contractual obligation.

Based in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes
electricity to more than 1.8 million customers and natural gas
to nearly 120,000 customers through its utility subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Berkley Reserves $37.5M for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Berkley Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$37,473,000 as
net reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to
asbestos and environmental claims, compared with US$37,453,000
at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment
expenses relating to A&E claims were US$49,937,000 at Dec. 31,
206, and US$53,731,000 at Dec. 31, 2005.

Net incurred losses and loss expenses for reported A&E claims
were about US$3,000,000 in 2006 and US$1,853,000 in 2005.

Net paid losses and loss expenses for reported A&E claims were
about US$2,980,000 in 2006 and US$2,658,000 in 2005.  

Based in Greenwich, Conn., W.R. Berkley Corp. is a holding
company that operates in five divisions offering property-
casualty insurance. Those divisions are: regional commercial
property casualty insurance, alternative markets, reinsurance,
international, and specialty lines of insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Notes 24 Cases for Trial in '07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belden CDT Inc. recorded 24 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits set for trial during 2007, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2007.

At Feb. 8, 2007, the Company was aware of about 151 cases.

Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, and seeking compensatory, special and
punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the claimant alleges
injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of
products that had asbestos, but ceased production of those
products more than 15 years ago.

Through Feb. 8, 2007, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in about 180 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with 11 of these involving any payment
to the claimant.

Based in St. Louis, Belden CDT Inc. designs, manufactures and
markets signal transmission products for data networking and a
wide range of specialty electronics markets. The Company focuses
on segments of the worldwide cable and connectivity market that
require highly differentiated, high-performance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Re Reserves $1.9B for Claims in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s subsidiary, General Re, at Dec. 31,
2006, recorded about US$1.9 billion gross and US$1.2 billion net
of reinsurance, as unpaid asbestos and environmental mass tort
reserves.

Those reserves were about US$1.8 billion gross and US$1.3
billion net of reinsurance as of Dec. 31, 2005. Claims paid
attributable to those losses were about US$97 million in 2006.

In 2006, reserves for mass tort claims were increased in
response to continued reports of losses and the increased
uncertainty of how, when and how much these types of losses will
develop over time. In 2006, incurred but not reported reserve
estimates for A&E claims were increased by US$58 million, which
decreased pre-tax earnings by US$58 million.

General Re considers "survival ratios" based on net claim
payments in recent years versus net unpaid losses as a rough
guide to reserve adequacy. The survival ratio was about 13 years
as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Based in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding
company owning subsidiaries engaged in diverse business
activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses
conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. The
Company also owns and operates other businesses engaged in a
various activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Re Reserves $3.8B in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group, a Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
company, at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$3.8 billion asbestos and
environmental losses, compared with US$4 billion at Dec. 31,
2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

BHRG's liabilities for A&E, latent injury losses, and loss
adjustment expenses are presently concentrated within
retroactive reinsurance contracts.

Losses paid in 2006 were about US$300 million.

BHRG, as a reinsurer, does not regularly receive reliable
information regarding numbers of asbestos, environmental and
latent injury claims from ceding companies on a consistent
basis, particularly with respect to multi-line treaty or
aggregate excess of loss policies.

The maximum losses payable by BHRG under retroactive policies
are not expected to exceed about US$10.8 billion as of Dec. 31,
2006.

Absent significant judicial or legislative changes affecting
asbestos, environmental or latent injury exposures, management
said it believes it unlikely that unpaid losses as of Dec. 31,
2006, US$8.1 billion, will develop upward to the maximum loss
payable or downward by more than 15 percent.

Based in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding
company owning subsidiaries engaged in diverse business
activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses
conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. The
Company also owns and operates other businesses engaged in a
various activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Records $5.1B Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s insurance subsidiaries, at Dec. 31,
2006, recorded US$5.1 billion as liabilities for asbestos,
environmental and latent injury claims and claims expenses net
of reinsurance recoverables, compared with US$5.4 billion at
Dec. 31, 2005.

These liabilities included US$3.8 billion at Dec. 31, 2006 and
US$4 billion at Dec. 31, 2005 of liabilities assumed under
retroactive reinsurance contracts.

Based in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding
company owning subsidiaries engaged in diverse business
activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses
conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. The
Company also owns and operates other businesses engaged in a
various activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Dismissed from 3,827 of 3,866 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co. Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, has been dismissed from
3,827 of 3,866 asbestos claims in Mississippi, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 7, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has also been dismissed from
four of six claims in Illinois.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos cases in Mississippi and a few asbestos cases in
Illinois.

The Company has never made or processed asbestos. The Company's
exposure to asbestos involves products the Company bought from
third parties.

Based in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co. Inc. engineers, produces and
markets high-strength, high-technology forged and cast metal
components for various load-bearing and fatigue-resisting
applications in the jet engine, aerospace and industrial
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. Bowater Inc. Drop to 770
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bowater Inc. recorded about 770 pending asbestos-related claims
filed against it, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2007.

The Company noted that it has about 785 pending asbestos-related
claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2006)

Since 2001, the Company, several other paper companies, and
numerous other companies have been named as defendants in
asbestos personal injury actions. These actions allege
occupational exposure to numerous products.

These suits have been filed by about 1,809 claimants who sought
monetary damages in civil actions pending in state courts in
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New York,
Tennessee, and Texas. About 1,039 of these claims have been
dismissed, either voluntarily or by summary judgment.

Insurers are defending these claims, and the Company has not
settled or paid any of these claims.

Based in Greenville, S.C., Bowater Inc. produces coated and
specialty papers and newsprint. In addition, the Company
produces and sells bleached market pulp and lumber products. The
Company's operations are supported by about 800,000 acres of
timberlands owned or leased in the United States and Canada and
about 27.9 million acres of timber cutting rights on Crown-owned
lands in Canada.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Bucyrus Drop to 290 in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, has been named
a co-defendant in about 290 personal injury liability cases,
involving about 567 plaintiffs, alleging damage due to exposure
to asbestos and other substances, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2007.

The cases are pending in courts in various states. In all of
these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense. These cases are in various pre-trial stages.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has been named a co-defendant
in about 305 personal injury liability cases alleging damages
due to exposure to asbestos and other substances. These 305
liability cases involved about 585 plaintiffs. (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006)

Based in South Milwaukee, Wis., Bucyrus International Inc.
provides replacement parts and services to the surface mining
industry. Bucyrus also makes large excavation machinery used for
surface mining. The Company's products, which include walking
draglines, electric mining shovels, and blast-hole drills, are
used for mining coal, gold, iron ore, and other minerals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 9,442 Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 9,442 open
asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with 16,900
claims at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 8, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 8,866 claims resolved and
paid a gross of US$11,681,000 as settlement and defense.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 11,500 claims resolved
and paid a gross of US$10,305,000 as settlement and defense.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries and
of an inactive Company subsidiary. Those subsidiaries, and in
some cases the Company, face cases filed in various state and
federal courts.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (the "Coverage Arrangement") with insurers
responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance
coverage for Asbestos Liability (the "Paying Insurers"). Under
the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial
responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based
on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation
formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending claims for
Asbestos Liability.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
Buffalo Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability, for claims arising out of the historical
products made or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former Company
subsidiary (the "Products").

The Company has been advised that to date Howden claims have
been resolved at de minimis levels and Howden defense costs are
currently averaging annually at less than 10 percent of those
being incurred by the Company.

Based in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. operating in two
business units, makes various metal products. Its forged steel
rolls unit makes forged hardened-steel rolls for the steel and
aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment makes
centrifugal pumps for refrigeration and power generation,
finned-tube heat-exchange coils, and air-handling systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chiquita Faces 6 Seamen's Injury Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International Inc. continues to face six
asbestos-related cases pending in state courts in various stages
of activity, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2007.

Over the last 19 years, claims, based on allegations of
negligence and unseaworthiness, have been filed against the
Company on behalf of merchant seamen or their personal
representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure to
asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned ships from
the 1940s until the 1970s.

In these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants,
including makers and suppliers of products withy asbestos, as
well as other ship owners.

Over the past eight years, 25 state court cases have been
settled and 36 have been resolved without any payment.

In addition to the state court cases, there are about 5,300
federal court cases that are currently inactive, known as the
"MARDOC" cases. The MARDOC cases are managed under the
supervision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (the "Federal Court").

In 1996, the Federal Court administratively dismissed all then-
pending MARDOC cases without prejudice for failure to provide
evidence of asbestos-related disease or exposure to asbestos.
Under this order, all MARDOC cases subsequently filed against
the Company have also been administratively dismissed.

The MARDOC cases are subject to reinstatement by the Federal
Court upon a showing of some evidence of asbestos-related
disease, exposure to asbestos and service on the Company's
ships.

While six MARDOC cases have been reinstated against the Company,
one of the cases has been dismissed and there has been little
activity in the remaining five reinstated cases to date.

Based in Cincinnati, Chiquita Brands International Inc. and its
subsidiaries markets and distributes bananas and other fresh
produce sold under the "Chiquita" and other brand names in about
80 countries, and packages salads sold under the "Fresh Express"
brand name in the U.S. The Company also distributes and markets
fresh-cut fruit and other branded, value-added fruit-based
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Records 106,500 Open Cases in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 106,500
open asbestos-related cases, compared with 120,500 cases as of
Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8,
2007.

The Company, at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 112,500 open asbestos-
related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

Certain Company subsidiaries, mainly Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., face actions filed
in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers. To date, neither Garlock
nor Anchor has been required to pay any punitive damage awards.

Since the first asbestos-related suits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed about 900,000
asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments, settlements
and dismissals) and, together with their insurers, have paid
about US$1.2 billion in settlements and judgments and almost
US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of the 106,500 open cases at Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was
aware of about 8,100 (7.6 percent) that involve claimants
alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer or some other cancer.

In 2006, the Company recorded 7,700 new claims filed against its
subsidiaries, compared with 15,300 new claims in 2005 and 17,400
new claims in 2004.

In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs.
Garlock received jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.;
Easton, Pa.; and Louisville, Ky. In Pennsylvania, three other
suits involving four plaintiffs settled during trial before the
juries reached verdict. Garlock also settled cases in
Massachusetts, California and Texas during trial.

In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was significantly less
than the US$1.75 million award against Garlock in the previous
trial, which Garlock successfully appealed. Garlock has also
appealed the new verdict.

In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in
Philadelphia after the juries were selected but before the
trials began because there was insufficient evidence of exposure
to Garlock products.

In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals,
in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict
that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial.
The case subsequently settled.

At Dec. 31, 2006, four Garlock appeals are pending from adverse
verdicts totaling US$6.8 million, down from more than US$41
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Records $396.7M Receivable in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s long-term asbestos insurance receivable,
at Dec. 31, 2006, was US$396.7 million, compared with US$388.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 8, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos insurance
receivable totaled US$71.3 million, compared with US$104.7
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, Company subsidiary Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC had available US$468 million of insurance and
trust coverage that. In addition, at Dec. 31, 2006, Garlock
classified US$57 million of otherwise available insurance as
insolvent.

Garlock collected about US$5 million from insolvent carriers in
2006, bringing total collections from insolvent carriers from
2002 through 2006 to about US$38 million.

In the 2006-4th quarter, the Company reached an agreement with a
significant group of related U.S. insurers. These insurers had
withheld payments pending resolution of the matter. This payment
delay accounted for US$56.6 million of the Company's insurance
receivables at Dec. 31, 2006.

The agreement provides for the payment of the full amount of the
insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual payments
to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the agreement, Garlock
is entitled to receive US$22 million in 2007.

In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer
that resolved two suits and an arbitration proceeding. Under the
settlement, Garlock received US$4 million in December 2006 and
will receive another US$17 million in the future. As part of the
agreement, Garlock agreed to forgo US$19 million of nominal
insurance.

In the 2005-1st quarter, the Company reached agreement with two
of Garlock's U.S. insurers. The insurers agreed to pay Garlock a
total of US$21 million in three equal bi-annual payments of US$7
million. The first payment was received in May 2005, the second
payment is due in May 2007, and the third payment is due in May
2009.

In the 2004-2nd quarter, the Company reached agreement with
Equitas, the London-based entity responsible for the pre-1993
Lloyds' of London policies in its insurance block, concerning
settlement of its exposure to its subsidiaries' asbestos claims.
As a result of the settlement, US$88 million was placed in an
independent trust.

In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached agreement with a
group of London market carriers (other than Equitas) and one of
the Company's U.S. carriers that has some policies reinsured
through the London market. As a result of the settlement,
US$55.5 million was placed in an independent trust.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the market value of the funds remaining in the
two trusts was US$65.4 million, which was included in the US$468
million of insurance and trust coverage available to pay future
asbestos-related claims and expenses.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Records $479.1M Liability in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability, as of Dec.
31, 2006, totaled US$479.1 million, compared with US$189.7
million as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 8, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
liability totaled US$88.8 million, compared with US$81.6 million
as of Dec. 31, 2005.

The estimated range of potential liabilities at Dec. 31, 2006
was US$311 million to US$650 million. The Company estimates that
the liability of its subsidiaries for the indemnity cost of
resolving asbestos claims for the next 10 years will be US$561
million.

During the 2006-4th quarter, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge of US$305.1 million to reflect its estimate. The
estimated liability of US$561 million is before any tax benefit
and is not discounted to present value, and it does not include
fees and expenses, which are recorded as incurred.

The Company's liability at Dec. 31, 2006 was US$567.9 million
(the Company's estimate of the liability described above of
US$561 million plus US$6.9 million of accrued legal and other
fees already incurred but not yet paid). This amount includes
US$99.9 million for advanced-stage cases and settled claims and
accrued legal and other fees, and US$468 million for early-stage
and unasserted claims.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had remaining solvent insurance
and trust coverage of US$468.1 million. Included in the
receivable is US$251.2 million in insured claims and expenses
that the Company's subsidiaries have paid out in excess of
amounts recovered from insurance. The remaining US$216.9 million
will be available for pending and future claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Faces Site Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. continues to face claims relating to damages
for personal injuries allegedly from exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas LLC on its
electric generation plants during the 1960s and 1970s.

The Company has third-party insurance to cover losses related to
these asbestos-related injuries and damages above a certain
aggregate deductible. The insurance policy, including the policy
deductible and reserves, provided for coverage to the Company up
to an aggregate of US$1.6 billion when purchased in 2000.

Duke Energy Indiana Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio Inc. have been
named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations. Currently, there
are about 130 pending suits, most of which are Duke Energy
Indiana cases.

Of these suits, one case filed against Duke Energy Indiana has
been tried to verdict. The jury returned a verdict against Duke
Energy Indiana on a negligence claim and a verdict for Duke
Energy Indiana on punitive damages.

Duke Energy Indiana appealed this decision up to the Indiana
Supreme Court. In October 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld
the jury's verdict. Duke Energy Indiana paid the judgment of
about US$630,000 in the 2005-4th quarter. Moreover, Duke Energy
Indiana has settled over 150 other claims.

The Company estimates that the range of reasonably possible
exposure in existing and future suits over the next 50 years
could range from an immaterial amount to about US$60 million.

Duke Energy Ohio has been named in fewer than 10 cases and as a
result has virtually no settlement history for asbestos cases.

In May 2003, Texas Eastern Pipeline Co. LLC was named as a
defendant in a suit styled John R. James, et al. v. J Graves
Insulation Co., et al. as filed in the 1st Judicial District
Court, Caddo Parish, La. Numerous plaintiffs are identified in
the action that are alleged to have suffered damages from
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products and materials.

According to the petition and as a result of a preliminary
investigation, Texas Eastern said it believes that the claim
asserted against it results from one individual from July 1971
through June 1972, who is alleged to have worked on a facility
owned by the Texas Eastern's predecessor.

Discovery is planned and the plaintiffs have not stipulated the
amount of damages that they are seeking in this suit.

The Company is obligated to reimburse Texas Eastern for any
costs it incurs related to this suit.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corp. has 3.9 million
electric customers in the U.S. South and Midwest. In 2006, the
Company bought Cinergy Corp. in a US$9 billion stock swap. The
Company's Commercial Power unit has 8,700 MW of unregulated
generation. Duke Energy International has 4,200 MW of generation
(mostly in Latin America). Crescent Resources (a joint venture
with Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund) manages land holdings and
develops real estate projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor's Liability Drops to $20.82M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, accrued
US$20,828,000 for asbestos-related liabilities, according to a
Company report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 9, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company accrued US$20,903,000 for
asbestos liabilities, compared with US$25,556,000 at Dec. 31,
2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006)

Based in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor Products Inc.
makes engine management and air-conditioning replacement parts
for the automotive aftermarket. Among the Company's customers
are auto parts warehouse distributors like CARQUEST and NAPA and
major auto parts retailers like Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Entergy Rise to 600 in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corp.'s utility units: Entergy Gulf States Inc., Entergy
Louisiana LLC, Entergy Mississippi Inc., and Entergy New Orleans
Inc., face about 600 asbestos-related lawsuits with about 10,000
claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and
Entergy New Orleans, faced about 555 asbestos-related suits
involving about 10,000 claims. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8,
2006)

Suits have been filed in federal and state courts in Texas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi primarily by contractor employees in
the 1950-1980 timeframe against Entergy Gulf States, Entergy
Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans as
premises owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged
exposure to asbestos or other hazardous material.

Reserves have been established that should be enough to cover
any exposure. Moreover, negotiations continue with insurers to
recover more reimbursement.

Based in New Orleans, Entergy Corp.'s subsidiaries distribute
electricity to 2.7 million customers in four southern states
(Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and provide
natural gas to 219,000 customers in Louisiana.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. CBS Drop to 73,310 in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about 73,310 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with about
101,170 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, asbestos-related claims against the
Company decreased to about 81,300, compared with about 101,170
claims as of Dec. 31, 2005 and about 104,000 as of Sept. 30,
2005. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006)

The Company faces lawsuits claiming various personal injuries
related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products made
by Westinghouse, a predecessor, before the 1970s.

In most of the asbestos suits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial
ships.

Of the claims pending as of Dec. 31, 2006, about 49,630 were
pending in state courts, 21,020 in federal courts and,
additionally, about 2,660 were third party claims pending in
state courts.

During 2006, the Company received about 6,470 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket about 34,330 claims.

For 2006, the Company's total costs for settlement and defense
of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax
benefits were about US$5.7 million, compared with US$37.2
million for 2005.

Based in New York, CBS Corp. is a television broadcasting and
production company operating in the U.S. The Company operates
about 40 TV stations around the country and owns 50 percent of
The CW Network.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Faces 1,918 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V., as of Dec. 31, 2006, faces 1,918
pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with
1,934 claims as of Sept. 30, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,549
plaintiffs. Of those claims, 2,631 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos with about 4,541
plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 1,934 claims were pending and
2,607 have been dismissed or settled. (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 1, 2006)

The Company faces lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege exposure
to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at
various locations. The Company has never made, distributed, or
supplied asbestos products.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000.

With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has accrued US$800,000 for
liability and related expenses.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had accrued US$900,000 for
liability and related expenses. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1,
2006)

Headquartered in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge &
Iron Co. N.V. is an engineering, procurement, and construction
company, specializing in projects for customers that produce,
process, store and distribute the world's natural resources. The
Company operates in more than 60 locations and with about 12,000
employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Still Has Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to co-
defend lawsuits filed by individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
28, 2007.

Most claimants in asbestos litigation have been workers who
participated in construction of various industrial facilities,
including power plants.

Some of the claimants have worked at Company-owned locations,
but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned
by Company subsidiaries but currently owned by Texas Genco LLC,
which is now known as NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco
LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
Texas Genco LLC and its successor.

However, the Company has agreed to continue to defend those
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of those
defenses by Texas Genco LLC.

Based in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Inc.'s regulated utilities
distribute natural gas and electricity to about 4.8 million
customers in six states, mainly in the southern U.S. The Company
also operates 8,200 miles of gas pipeline, and it has gas
gathering and storage operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $586.2M Losses in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded US$586.2 million in gross unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expenses, compared with US$617.6 million for the
same period in 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$443.5
million net unpaid losses and ALAE, compared with US$475.1
million for the same period in 2005.

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company
recorded US$422,367,000 in gross unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expenses, compared with US$462,336,000 for the
same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006)

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company
recorded US$341,927,000 net unpaid losses and ALAE, compared
with US$359,691,000 for the same period in 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 400 policyholders with
open asbestos, environmental and other latent claims, compared
with 428 policyholders at Dec. 31, 2005.

In 2006, the Company opened 68 policies and closed 96 policies.

Based in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a
national commercial property and casualty insurance company with
a focused underwriting strategy targeting specialty classes of
business and underserved market opportunities. The Company has
over 1,200 producers located throughout the U.S. These producers
include wholesale brokers, independent regional retail firms and
national brokers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, Units Still Face Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Gorman-Rupp Co. and three of its subsidiaries, particularly
Patterson Pump Co., continue to face asbestos-related injury
lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2007.

Numerous business entities in the pump and fluid-handling
industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other
industries, have been targeted in suits in several jurisdictions
by various individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a
result of the entities' alleged use of asbestos in their
products.

The Company and three of its subsidiaries have been drawn into
this mass-scaled litigation, typically as one of hundreds of co-
defendants in a particular proceeding.

The allegations in the suits involving the Company and its
subsidiaries are vague, general and speculative, and most cases
have not advanced beyond the early stage of discovery.

In certain situations, the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
the Company and its subsidiaries from some of the suits after
the plaintiffs have acknowledged that there is no basis for
their claims.

In other situations, the Company and its subsidiaries have been
dismissed from some of the suits as a result of court rulings in
favor of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.

In less than 10 cases, the Company and its subsidiaries have
entered into nominal economic settlements, coupled with
dismissal of the suits.

Insurers of the Company have engaged legal counsel to represent
the Company and its subsidiaries and to protect their interests.

Based in Mansfield, Ohio, The Gorman-Rupp Co. designs,
manufactures and sells pumps and related equipment (pump and
motor controls) for use in water, wastewater, construction,
industrial, petroleum, original equipment, agriculture, fire
protection, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, military
and other liquid-handling applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corp. continues to face lawsuits that seek to recover
damages for personal injury allegedly from exposure to asbestos-
containing products formerly made and distributed by the
Company, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

All those products were used as self-contained components of
process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that
there was any significant emission of ambient asbestos-
containing fiber during the use of this equipment.

Based in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corp. is a manufacturer and
aftermarket service provider of comprehensive flow control
systems. The Company develops and manufactures precision-
engineered flow control equipment. The Company sells its
products and services to more than 10,000 companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit Reaches $15M Deal With Carrier
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of the Quaker Chemical Corp. entered into
a settlement and release agreement with an insurance carrier,
over asbestos-related claims, for US$15,000,000.

The Company projects that the unnamed subsidiary's total
liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about
US$12,700,000, excluding defense costs.

Acquired in 1978, the subsidiary sold certain asbestos-
containing products and is among the defendants in numerous
lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos exposure.

In 1991, the subsidiary discontinued operations and has no
remaining assets other than its existing insurance policies and
proceeds from an insurance settlement received in late 2005.

To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without
payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the
subsidiary.

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been pursued against the
Company and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.

To date, these cases have been handled by the subsidiary's
primary and excess insurers who agreed to pay all defense costs
and be responsible for all damages assessed against the
subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up
to the aggregate limits of the policies.

A now-insolvent insurer provided a significant portion of this
primary insurance coverage, and the other primary insurers have
asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been
exhausted.

Based in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corp. produces
rolling lubricants used in making aluminum products and hot- and
cold-rolled steel products. The Company makes corrosion
preventives, metal finishing compounds, hydraulic fluids, and
machining, grinding, and forming compounds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Owes $2.66B in Damages, Lawyers Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers say that ASARCO LLC owes its asbestos victims as much as
US$2.66 billion in damages, Bloomberg News reports.

ASARCO, its parent company Asarco Inc., and general creditors
dispute the estimate, contained in a March 5, 2007 court filing.
They submitted papers the same day that valued ASARCO's
potential asbestos debts at between US$180 million and US$490.3
million.

ASARCO and its subsidiaries face 95,000 asbestos claims and
allegations that it owes US$6 billion to the federal government,
16 states and two American Indian tribes for environmental
cleanup costs.

The Company cited the claims as the main reason it sought
bankruptcy protection in Corpus Christi, Tex., in 2005.

In September 2007, the Company will go before U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Richard S. Schmidt for a trial on the value of the
asbestos claims. The Company has asked Judge Schmidt to hold a
separate trial on the environmental claims.

The Colorado School of Mines and the city of El Paso, Tex.,
filed objections to a valuation trial over the environmental
claims. The trials will help determine the Company's value and
how much it owes.

Lawyers for the asbestos victims claim that ASARCO is
responsible for any harm caused by its units, including Cement
Asbestos Products Co. and Lake Asbestos of Quebec Ltd.

Asarco Inc., ASARCO, and the Company's committee of unsecured
creditors said the subsidiaries should pay any asbestos claims.

The unsecured creditors submitted the lowest estimate of
Asarco's asbestos liability - US$180 million. The committee may
wind up competing for payments with two asbestos victims'
committees if ASARCO cannot afford to pay all the claims.

ASARCO estimated its liabilities at between US$242.1 million and
US$446.9 million. Asarco Inc. put the debt at US$490.3 million.

Based in Tucson, Ariz., ASARCO LLC, a subsidiary of diversified
mining firm Grupo Mexico, operates mining and copper smelting
activities. The Company produces around 600 million pounds of
copper, 300 million pounds of zinc, and 20 million ounces of
silver.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Grants DEQ's Removal Extension Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency granted the request of
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for
flexibility in demolition work and asbestos removal in South
Mississippi, Mississippi Business Journal Online reports.

EPA approved the No Action Assurances extension until Sept. 30,
2007, for Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and Pearl River counties.

These NAAs provide flexibility for certain provisions of the
asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants regulation for demolition activities necessitated by
Hurricane Katrina.

After Katrina, the DEQ and EPA developed guidance and procedures
to be followed for the clean up and removal of debris and
structures.

They also trained local governments, the Army Corps of Engineers
and numerous other entities on the provisions of the NAAs and
the other asbestos requirements.

DEQ currently has three asbestos inspectors who have maintained
a consistent field presence since the storm for compliance
assistance, technical guidance, air monitoring and for
responding to citizen complaints.

EPA Region 4 will conduct both independent and monthly joint on-
site visits at demolition sites, observe demolition practices
and procedures, and will review field reports generated from
DEQ's inspection activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Penalizes 2 Firms for Exposing Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive issued a combined GBP25,000 fine
to two companies, which admitted at the Black Magistrates Court
in the United Kingdom that workers were exposed to asbestos
during refurbishment work, The Citizen reports.

Blackpool entreprenuer Basil Newby's company In The Pink Leisure
Ltd., Queen Street, Blackpool, was issued a GBP10,000 fine and
ordered to pay GBP4,753 costs after pleading guilty to a breach
of the Health and Safety at Work Act which requires them to
protect the safety of persons not in their employment.

Their contactor Eclipse Developments Ltd., of Chapel Street,
Poulton-le-Fylde, were issued a GBP15,000 fine and ordered to
pay GBP6,535 costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the same
act which requires them to protect the safety of their own
employees.

The cases arose from a HSE visit, after a complaint in April
2005, to the site of a new nightclub in the upstairs of the
former Odeon Cinema, Dickson Road, Blackpool, above the existing
Funny Girls Nightclub, operated by In The Pink Leisure.

HSE lead construction inspector for Lancashire Mark Cottriall
said, "A substantial amount of asbestos insulating board and
flock asbestos was disturbed while the refurbishment was being
carried out in the upper circle, leading to the construction
site being closed for a number of weeks while a licensed
asbestos contractor was called in to carry out an environmental
clean and the removal of the remaining asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Australia Has High Disease Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new report stated that Australia has one of the highest rates
of asbestos-related diseases in the world, Australian Associated
Press reports.

Published in the Lancet journal, the international analysis
found a clear link between historic asbestos use and recent
asbestos-related disease deaths.

The Japanese researchers analyzed the amount of asbestos
consumption per head of population in 33 countries during the
1960s, the time when asbestos became popular.

The researchers compared consumption with rates of related lung
and chest diseases from 2000 to 2004, and gave Australia one of
the highest rankings worldwide.

The team said their results foreshadowed a "global epidemic" of
asbestos-related disease, which was a cause for "widespread
concern".

Asbestos researcher Alison Reid, from the University of Western
Australia, said the number of Australians dying from the disease
would not peak for another decade.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Ruling in Favor of Metalclad
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 2, California,
upheld the decision of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which ruled in favor of Metalclad Insulation Corp. in an
asbestos action filed by Richard Pollard.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Judge J. Anthony Kline,
Justices James A. Richman and Paul R. Haerle, handed down the
decision of Case No. A112593 on March 12, 2007.

On March 19, 2003, Mr. Pollard filed his damages complaint
against numerous defendants. As early as May 2004, various
defendants were dismissed. By July 2005, Metalclad was the
remaining defendant.

According to Mr. Pollard's opening brief, he sought to recover
damages for "asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and
fear of cancer caused by his exposure to, among other things,
Metalclad-supplied Unibestos insulation."

From 1966 to 1995, Mr. Pollard began work at the Mare Island
Naval Shipyard, where he worked mainly as a welder. He left
MINSY in November 1995, and worked at a steel fabrication
company in Concord, from which he retired in 1997.

Unibestos was an insulation product made by Pittsburgh-Corning
Corp. An order of Unibestos was supplied to MINSY, through
Metalclad. The order was in 1968 and consisted of 542 cartons of
Unibestos.

Mr. Pollard's case against Metalclad proceeded to trial on July
8, 2005. On July 28, 2005, the jury returned its special
verdict, answering "yes" to questions whether Unibestos was a
defective product, whether there was a failure to warn, and
whether Metalclad was negligent.

Following each of those determinations, the jury also found that
none of them was "a cause of injury" to Mr. Pollard. On Aug. 29,
2005, judgment on special verdict was entered.

Mr. Pollard moved for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict. Both motions were denied, and Mr. Pollard filed a
timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, Mr. Pollard asserted that there was substantial
evidence to the contrary and that the Trial Court committed
error in two evidentiary rulings.

The Appeal Court concluded that substantial evidence supports
the special verdict and that neither evidentiary contention has
merit.

The judgment in favor of Metalclad is affirmed.

Nance Becker of Brayton Purcell, Novato, Calif., represented
Richard Pollard.

Lisa L. Oberg of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, San Francisco,
represented Metalclad Insulation Corp.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Casella Unit in Talks With N.H. AG Over Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems Inc.'s subsidiary, North Country
Environmental Services Inc., is cooperating with the Office of
the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire over asbestos
concealment issues, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March
8, 2007.

On July 12, 2005, the AG notified NCES that it has commenced an
official investigation into allegations that asbestos was
concealed in loads of construction and demolition debris from a
hotel renovation, delivered to the NCES landfill by a third
party, and disposed there on several occasions between 1999 and
2002.   

NCES has cooperated fully in the investigation.  

NCES is engaged in discussions with the Office of the Attorney
General over the terms of a possible civil settlement regarding
this matter.  

The Company is not able to estimate the amount of the potential
settlement.


COMPANY PROFILE
Casella Waste Systems Inc.
25 Greens Hill Ln.
Rutland, VT. 05701
Phone: 802-775-0325
Fax: 802-775-6198
Toll Free: 800-227-3552
http://www.casella.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  April
2006 Sales (mil.):                US$525.9
1-Year Sales Growth:             9.1 percent
2006 Net Income (mil.):           US$11.1
1-Year Net Income Growth:         52.7 percent
2006 Employees:                   2,900
1-Year Employee Growth:           11.5 percent

Description:
The Company operates regional waste-hauling businesses, mainly
in the northeastern U.S., that serve commercial, industrial, and
residential customers. The Company owns and operates 39 solid
waste collection businesses, 39 recycling facilities, 33
transfer stations, 11 landfills, and one waste-to-energy power
generation facility.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of NovaStar Financial, Inc.
(NFI) between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2007, inclusive.

The action charges NovaStar and one or more of its officers
and/or directors of violating federal securities laws by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

For more information, contact David Brower and Charles Piven,
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone:
410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP commenced a securities
class action 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 Sept. 30, 2002 to Oct. 26, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Openwave and
the Individual Defendants violated the federal securities laws
by publicly issuing false and misleading statements.

The Complaint further 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.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants Openwave, David C.
Peterschmidt, Harold L. Covert, Donald Listwin, and Alan Black
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
Feb. 26, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Gerald H. Silk or Salvatore J.
Graziano of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Phone:
212-554-1400, E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com or
sgraziano@blbglaw.com.


                            *********


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  * * *