CAR_Public/070323.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, March 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 59

                            Headlines


AIRLINES: Face $228M Lawsuit Over Inflated Freight Charges
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: No Ruling Yet in Lawsuit Over Suredeposit
AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Suit Over UPM-MACtac Merger
AVERY DENNISON: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
AVERY DENNISON: ERISA Violations Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.

BASF CORP: Fairness Hearing for $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Set June
BOYNTON WATERWAYS: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Zlotnick"
CANADA: CA$1.9B Residential School Suit Settlement Now Final
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Drivers File Suit in Calif. Over Work Status
DOW CHEMICAL: Oral Arguments in Mich. Dioxin Lawsuit Set May 7

EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
EXPEDIA INC: N.Mex. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit Dismissed in Part
EXPEDIA INC: Fla. County to Withdraw Suit Against Travel Firms
EXPEDIA INC: Transfer of Ohio Accommodation Taxes Suit Ordered
EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit

FLORIDA: School Bus Drivers Sue School Board Over Unpaid Wages
LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Ohio Cities Sue Paint Manufacturers
MENU FOODS: Recalls Pet Foods that May Cause Kidney Problems
MENU FOODS: Ill. Cat Owner Files Suit Over Pet Food Recall Delay
MENU FOODS: Calif. Woman to Join Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food

METLIFE INC: Still Faces N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
METLIFE INC: Subsidiaries Still Face Property, Casualty Lawsuits
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Hears Pensioners' Arguments
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Okla. Suit Over Proprietary Products
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suits Over Reorganization Plan

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Copper Tube Antitrust Litigation
MUELLER INDUSTRIS: Still Faces ACR Copper Tubes Antitrust Suit
NASH FINCH: Seeks Nixing of Minn. Consolidated Securities Suit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Seeks Dismissal of Revenue-Sharing Payment Suit

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Summary Judgment Sought in Ohio Insurance Case
NEW YORK: Brokerage Firm Challenges Planned NASD-NYSE Merger
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 24
PMI MORTGAGE: April 4 Final Hearing Set in FCRA Suit Settlement
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Stronger Warning on Ambien Side Effects Ordered

SOCIETE GENERALE: Faces Suit in Toronto Over Portus' Bankruptcy
TRAVELERS LIFE: Summary Judgment Sought in Suit Over Annuities
UNITED STATES: Education Dept. Faces Suit Over Student Loans
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Continues in N.Y. Securities Suit
WINSTAR COMMS: N.Y. Court Issues Final Order in Securities Suit

* Conn. Man Admits Receiving $6.4M Payment from Milberg Weiss
* Cornerstone Reports Surge in '06 Securities Suit Settlements


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Reserves $1.44B at 4Q for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Still Incurs $1M of Unindemnified Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Int'l. Faces La. Site Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Suits v. Mine Safety Remain at 250
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transatlantic Holdings Reserves $124M in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Uses $31.6M in 4Q for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star Tech Settles 23 of 47 Suits in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Corp. Has 40,400 Suits in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Accrues $7M Product Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Ins. Reserves $24.7M for A&E in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX Corp., Units Face Claims in 27 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Cases v. Huntsman Drop to 1,367
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Reserves $272.1M for Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 32 Pending Injury Cases in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Water Faces 104 Cases in Miss., N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Estimates Mont. Liability at $255.2M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Faces 625 Property Damage Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Liability Remains at $1.7B in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Notes $917M Coverage from 55 Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Insurance Recovery Remains at $500M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Drop to 158
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Corp. Has 122 Pending Suits at 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $308.7M Losses, Expenses

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Faces 324 Claims in 10 Ala. Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K&F Incurs Administrative Costs for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Co. Mulls Adjusting Plan Provisions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Optical Has 110,200 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Teledyne Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Continues to Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TODCO Continues to Face Aaron Suit in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Remain at 350 in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Dana Corp. Drop to 73,000 in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japanese Gov't Aid Benefits 20% of Victims

ASBESTOS ALERT: Minerals Technologies Records 26 Pending Suits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDITED HOME: Federman Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Berger & Montague Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
RADIOSHACK CORP: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
WORLDSPACE INC: Labaton Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


                          *********


AIRLINES: Face $228M Lawsuit Over Inflated Freight Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Australian law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman is serving seven
large international airlines a $228 million cartel class action,
the New Zealand Herald reported on March 21.

The airlines named in the suit are:

     -- Qantas Airways Ltd.,
     -- Lufthansa,
     -- Singapore Airlines,
     -- Cathay Pacific,
     -- Air New Zealand,
     -- Japan Airlines (JAL) and
     -- British Airways.

In February, Maurice Blackburn Cashman, in a writ lodged in
Australian Federal Court, alleged that seven large international
airlines secretly agreed to use the rise in fuel prices and
security costs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Iraq
war, as an excuse to over-inflate freight charges (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 1, 2007).

The case involves various surcharges the airlines imposed over
that time.

These include fuel surcharges attributed to higher fuel costs,
security charges attributed to extra security measures after the
Sept. 11 attacks and war-risk surcharges attributed to higher
insurance costs linked to the Iraq war.

Businesses and individuals who have bought more than AU$20,000
of air freight services over the last seven years are affected
by the alleged cartel, according to Maurice Blackburn Cashman
principal Kim Parker.

It is claimed the surcharges were used in a bid to lift prices
by secret arrangement between the airlines, and that they were
not linked to higher operations costs as represented by the
airlines.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman on the net:
http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: No Ruling Yet in Lawsuit Over Suredeposit  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas has yet to rule  
on a motion for summary judgment filed by Associated Estates  
Realty Corp. in a suit over its Suredeposit program.

On or about April 14, 2002, Melanie and Kyle Kopp commenced an  
action against the company in the Franklin County, Ohio Court of  
Common Pleas seeking undetermined damages, injunctive relief and  
class action certification.  This case arose out of the  
company's Suredeposit program.  

The Suredeposit program allows cash short prospective residents  
to purchase a bond in lieu of paying a security deposit.  The  
bond serves as a fund to pay those resident obligations that  
would otherwise have been funded by the security deposit.  

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for the  
bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise  
required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-
Tenant Act.   

They further allege that certain pet deposits and other  
nonrefundable deposits required by the company are similarly  
security deposits that must be refundable in accordance with  
Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.  

On or about Jan. 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for  
class certification.  The company subsequently filed a motion  
for summary judgment.   

Both motions are pending before the court, according to the  
company's Feb. 28 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.


AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Suit Over UPM-MACtac Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The suit is in relation to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene
(UPM) and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co.,
Inc.  

On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed the
purported class action against the company, UPM, Bemis and
certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and other
relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices.  Ten similar
complaints were filed in various federal district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On Jan. 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily
dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of 10 named plaintiffs.  
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004,
which the company answered on March 31, 2004.

On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to
class certification and merits discovery, and limited the
initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness
of class certification.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On Jan.
20, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint.

Avery Dennison reported no development in the case at its Feb.
22, 2007 Form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is styled "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery
Dennison Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Stewart M. Weltman of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 39 South LaSalle Street, Suite
1100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-357-0370, E-mail:
sweltman@cmht.com.  

Representing the company are Joshua N. Holian and J. Thomas
Rosch, of Latham & Watkins LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite
1900, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-646-8343, Fax: 415-
395-8095, E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com or Tom.Rosch@lw.com.  


AVERY DENNISON: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has dismissed a securities fraud class action filed against
Avery Dennison Corp., Chief Executive Officer Philip M. Neal,
Chief Financial Officer D. R. O'Bryant and controller, Michael
A. Skovran.

On May 6, 2003, Sekuk Global Enterprises filed a purported
stockholder class action seeking damages and other relief for
alleged disclosure violations pertaining to alleged unlawful
competitive practices.  Subsequently, another similar action was
filed in the same court.  

On Sept. 24, 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel and ordered the two actions
consolidated as, "In Re Avery Dennison Corp. Securities
Litigation."

Pursuant to court order and the parties' stipulation, the
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004.  
The court approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing
date in June 2004.  

In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the consolidated
action, including the proposed briefing schedule, pending the
outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the company.

The court has approved the parties' stipulation to stay the
consolidated actions.  

On Jan. 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntarily
dismissal of the case without prejudice.  On Jan. 17, 2007, the
court entered an order dismissing the case.

The suit is "Sekuk Global Ent., et al. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-03175-NM-FMO," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Nora M. Manella.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter A. Binkow, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael M. Goldberg,
         Glancy & Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150;

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706; and

     (3) David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller
         Bowman Coates & Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Rd, Ste 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7263, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com or srudman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the company is William J. Meeske of Latham &
Watkins, 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071-
2007, Phone: 213-891-8108, E-mail: bill.meeske@lw.com.


AVERY DENNISON: ERISA Violations Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against Avery Dennison Corp. alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
remains stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The suit also names as defendants the company's chief executive
officer, Philip M. Neal; vice president and treasurer, Karyn
Rodriguez; and vice president, compensation and benefits, James  
Bochinski.

Ronald E. Dancer filed the suit on May 18, 2005, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA to the company's Employee
Savings Plan and Plan participants.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that permitting
investment in and retention of company common stock under the
plan was imprudent because of alleged anticompetitive activities
by the company, and that failure to disclose such activities to
the plan and participants was unlawful.  

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to compensate the
plan for any losses and other relief.   

Parties have stipulated to transfer the case to the judge in the
consolidated case, "In Re Avery Dennison Corp. Securities  
Litigation."   

The court approved the parties' stipulation to stay the matter
pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the company.   

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 22,
2007 Form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Ronald Dancer v. Avery Dennison Corp. et al.,  
Case No. 2:05-cv-03708-NM-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Nora M.  
Manella.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Wayne T. Boulton, Robert A. Izard, Andrew M. Schatz,  
         Schatz and Nobel, 20 Church Street, 17th Floor,  
         Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292, E-mail:  
         wboulton@snlaw.net or firm@snlaw.net;
  
     (2) Michael D. Braun, Marc L. Godino, Braun Law Group,  
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA  
         90025, Phone: 310-442-7755, E-mail:  
         service@braunlawgroup.com; and   

     (3) Joseph Gentile, Ronnen Sarraf, Sarraf Gentile, 485  
         Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868-
         3610, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com.


BASF CORP: Fairness Hearing for $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Set June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold
a Final Approval Hearing on June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for a
$62.5 million nationwide settlement of a suit filed by farmers
who purchased BASF Corp.'s herbicide POAST(R).

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 in Norman County District Court,
Ada, Minnesota by 11 farmers who accused New Jersey-based BASF
Corp. of fraudulently marketing the same herbicide as different
products -- POAST and POAST Plus -- at different prices.

The lawsuit claimed that this marketing was intended to obtain
inflated prices for the same herbicide from minor crop farmers.
Minor crop farmers are growers of sugarbeets, sunflowers,
potatoes, field beans, fruits and vegetables, and flowers.  

After a trial and numerous appeals, the farmers prevailed.

On Nov. 17, 2006, BASF paid $62.5 million into the Farmers'
Common Fund, an interest-bearing bank account approved by the
court, to hold farmers' money until distribution.

The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same,
but that BASF charged more for Poast (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 15, 2006).

Farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are
eligible to share in the judgment.  Plaintiffs' attorney Douglas  
Nill estimated that several thousand farmers are eligible.  The
distribution will be pro rata.

Deadline to file objections is May 9, 2007.  Deadline to file
claims is May 16, 2007.

The class action on the Net: http://www.poastclassaction.com/.

The suit is "Peterson v. BASF Corp., Case No. C2-97-295," filed
in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota.

Class Counsel is Douglas J. Nill, P.A., 1100 One Financial
Plaza, 120 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801,
Phone: 1-866-573-3669 (Toll-free), Website:
http://www.FarmLaw.com.


BOYNTON WATERWAYS: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Zlotnick"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a
dismissal of a federal complaint filed by condominium buyer
Philip Zlotnick against Premier Sales Group, Inc., Boynton
Waterways Investment Associates, LLC, and Panther Real Estate
Partners, Inc.

Mr. Zlotnick had accused the defendants of using reservation
deposits to finance a planned condominium complex, then
canceling the agreements to reap the benefits of a rising real
estate market.

Originally, the case, "Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Inc., et al.,"
was filed as a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).

According to the complaint, on Feb. 23, 2005, Mr. Zlotnick, a
citizen of Maryland, signed a reservation agreement with Boynton
Waterways, for a unit in a condominium complex to be built in
Boynton Beach, Florida.  

The reservation agreement called for the payment of a $15,000
reservation deposit, which would allegedly assure Mr. Zlotnick a
purchase price of $310,000 for a condo unit.

However, on Dec. 22, 2005, Boynton Waterways canceled the
agreement and returned Mr. Zlotnick's deposit.  In canceling it,
Boynton Waterways stated that with the "meteoric increases in
construction costs...in tandem with worsening labor and material
shortages resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma," it
could not build the condominium development at the original
reservation prices.   

As a result, Boynton Waterways canceled all reservation
agreements, including Mr. Zlotnick's, and returned all deposits.

On Jan. 6, 2006, Boynton Waterways sent a letter to Mr.
Zlotnick, informing him of the reopening of the condominium
sales center.  

The letter indicated that Mr. Zlotnick had an exclusive ten-day
window to purchase the same unit he had previously reserved at
the price of $370,000, a $60,000 price increase over the amount
set in the 2005 reservation agreement.  

It was alleged that Boynton Waterways sent similar letters to
all previous reservation holders for the 318 units at the
condominium complex.

On Jan. 27, 2006, Mr. Zlotnick filed a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging violations under the FDUTPA on behalf of the previous
reservation holders at the condominium complex.  

The complaint alleges that Boynton Waterways, Panther, a
Florida-based real estate development company affiliated with
Boynton Waterways, and Premier, a Florida-based company that
marketed the condominium complex, solicited deceptive
reservation agreements to secure financing and then terminated
the reservation agreements with the sole purpose of reaping the
benefits of a rising real estate market.

Defendants timely filed motions to dismiss the case, citing a
failure to state a claim.  After hearing oral arguments on the
motions, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted the motions to dismiss on May 10, 2006.

Mr. Zlotnick then appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which would in turn affirm the
dismissal of the case.

In affirming the dismissal, the 11th Circuit concluded that Mr.
Zlotnick failed to state a claim under FDUTPA, because the
cancellation of the reservation agreement eliminated any
possibility that a reasonable buyer would be misled.

A copy of the court's opinion is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1bf3

The suit is "Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Inc., et al., Case No.
9:06-cv-80091-KLR," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Alan Blankman of Kopelman & Blankman, 350 E Las
         Olas Boulevard, Suite 980, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301,
         Phone: 954-462-6855, Fax: 462-6899, E-mail:
         dab@kopelblank.com;

     (2) Eric Allan Lee of Lee & Amtzis, 5550 Glades Road, Suite
         401, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-981-9988, Fax:
         981-9980, E-mail: lee@leeamlaw.com; and

     (3) Jeffrey Miles Ostrow of Hodkin Kopelowitz & Ostrow
         Firm, PA, 350 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 980, Fort
         Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216, Phone: 954-525-4100, Fax:
         525-4300, E-mail: ostrow@thkolaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert Kent Burlington of Burlington Schwiep Kaplan &
         Blonsky, 2699 S Bayshore Drive, Penthouse A, Miami, FL
         33133, Phone: 305-858-2900, Fax: 858-5261, E-mail:
         rburlington@bskblaw.com;

    (ii) Susan Fleischner Kornspan of Greenberg Traurig,
         Phillips Point - East Tower, 777 S Flagler Drive, Suite
         300E, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-650-7900,
         Fax: 655-6222, E-mail: kornspans@gtlaw.com; and

   (iii) Paul Joseph Schwiep of Coffey Burlington, 2699 S.
         Bayshore Drive, Penthouse A, Miami, FL 33133, 305-858-
         2900, Fax: 305-858-5261, E-mail:
         pschwiep@coffeyburlington.com.


CANADA: CA$1.9B Residential School Suit Settlement Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------
All nine provincial and territorial judges approved on March 8
the revised Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that
will see at least CA$1.9 billion being distributed to
plaintiffs.

A class action brought by the former students of the Mohawk
Institute Residential School, a native residential school in
Brantford, Ontario, and their families, was settled in November
2005 by way of a national Agreement in Principle between the
Government of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, legal
counsel for Indian Residential School survivors and various
religious entities.

Amongst other things, the Agreement provides for a compensatory
Common Experience Payment, for loss of language and culture, to
every former Mohawk student who attended a residential school in
Canada alive as of Oct. 5, 1996, consisting of a CA$10,000.00
lump sum and CA$3,000.00 extra for each school year or part
thereof after their first year of attendance.

At least CA$1.9 billion will be paid out under this part of the
settlement.

Russell Raikes, the lawyer who commenced the class action on
behalf of former Mohawk students, said, "This marks the end of
an almost decade long battle to secure justice for survivors and
their families."

As stated by Kirk Baert, co-counsel with Mr. Raikes, "This
settlement means that survivors and their families will no
longer have to struggle through complicated, lengthy and
expensive court proceedings in order to obtain redress of this
historical wrong."

                        Case Background

Former Mohawk students commenced a claim in October 1998 against
the Government of Canada, the Diocese of Huron and the New
England Co.  The students sought to recover damages for the harm
inflicted on them as a result of them attending the School.

The School was located in Brantford, Ontario, near the Six
Nations Reserve.  The School was opened in 1828 as a residential
school for First Nations' children.  It was founded by the New
England Company, a charitable organization, with the mission of
teaching the Christian religion and the English language to the
native peoples of North America.

The New England Company ran the School until 1922, when it
leased the School to the Federal Government.  Under the lease,
Canada agreed to continue the School as an educational
institution for native children and agreed to continue to train
them in the teachings and doctrines of the Church of England.
The School closed in 1969.

The Mohawk class action covers the years of 1922 to 1969.  
During that time, there were 150 to 180 students at the School
each year, ranging in age from 4 to 18 and split roughly equally
between boys and girls.  All were native children, that is,
Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act.  In all,
approximately 1,500 native children attended the Mohawk School
during those years.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Mohawk School was run in a way
that was designed to create an atmosphere of fear, intimidation
and brutality.  Physical discipline was frequent and excessive.  
Food, housing and clothing were inadequate.  Staff members were
unskilled and improperly supervised.  Students were cut off from
their families.  They were forbidden to speak their native
languages or to practice their native cultures.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court of
Ontario both refused to allow the case to proceed as a class
action.  In December 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal,
Ontario's highest court, decided that the courts below erred in
refusing to allow the case to proceed, and ordered that it
should be certified as a class action and permitted to proceed
to trial.  The court certified claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence and breach of aboriginal rights.

The court found that dealing with all of the facts and issues
raised in the case should be dealt with in one trial because it
would result in a substantial saving of time and expense.  The
court also found that access to justice would be greatly
enhanced by a class action.  The evidence before the court was
that many of the former students are aging, very poor, and in
some cases, still extremely emotionally troubled by their
experiences at the Mohawk School.

The Supreme Court of Canada denied the defendants' request for
leave to appeal to the nation's highest court in May 2005.  On
May 30, 2005, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, former justice of
the Supreme Court of Canada, was appointed lead negotiator on
behalf of the Government of Canada.

As a result of negotiations between the Government of Canada,
the Assembly of First Nations, legal counsel for the survivors
and various religious entities, the Agreement was reached on
Nov. 20, 2005.  In addition to providing for the lump sum
Payment, the Agreement also establishes an Individual Assessment
Process (IAP) whereby survivors of residential schools may apply
for additional compensation, over and above the lump sum Payment
to compensate individuals for sexual and physical assaults
perpetrated upon them during their time at a residential school.

The IAP will improve the current Dispute Resolution System
instituted by the Government of Canada in 2004 which has been
the subject of much criticism.  It is estimated that another $1
billion will be paid out under this part of the settlement.

A final settlement agreement was reached on May 8, 2006.  The
federal cabinet approved the deal on May 10, 2006.  Nine courts
heard motions in the fall of 2006 regarding approval of the
settlement.  All nine courts approved the settlement and
released in December 2006 and January 2007.

The Agreement also dedicates $60 million to a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission designed to complete a historical
record of the Indian residential school legacy and promote
awareness and public education of Canadians concerning the
residential schools system and its lasting impact on survivors
and their families.  The parties sought approval of the
Agreement from the provincial Superior Courts across Canada in
the fall of 2006.

The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Cohen Highley
LLP and Koskie Minsky LLP.  Both firms are widely acknowledged
as leading Canadian class action law firms.

For further information: Russell M. Raikes, Cohen Highley LLP,
(519) 672-9330, email: rraikes@cohenhighley.com; or Kirk M.
Baert, Koskie Minsky LLP, (416) 595-2117, email:
kbaert@kmlaw.ca.


CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Drivers File Suit in Calif. Over Work Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Logistics Management Corp. faces a purported class
action in Alameda County Superior Court for misclassifying
delivery truck drivers as independent contactors instead of
employees.

The suit charges that hundreds of delivery truck drivers in
California are being unlawfully forced to pay thousands of
dollars apiece in annual expenses due to the allegedly
deliberate misclassification.

Attorneys Kim E. Card of Chavez & Gertler, LLP, and Jennifer
Whipple of Herum Crabtree Brown, are representing the drivers.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the company, which manages
delivery services for Home Depot Inc. and other Fortune 500
companies, controls the work performed by its delivery drivers,
but calls them independent contractors to evade worker
protections under the state's labor laws.

According to the suit, drivers are forced to pay various
expenses, including what the company charges them to lease the
delivery truck they drive, the costs of maintaining and
repairing the truck, the cost of gas, two-way radio charges and
the cost of uniforms.

It also charges that as a condition of employment, the drivers
are required to establish their own corporations or limited
liability companies, which "serve no purpose other that to
perpetuate and shield Cardinal's scheme."

In addition, the suit charged that drivers have no unemployment
insurance and are forced to pay for their own workers'
compensation insurance even though California law prohibits
employers from passing those costs on to their employees.

Plaintiffs are seeking class certification, unspecified damages
and restitution, and an injunction requiring the company to
change its business practices in California.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jennifer Doherty Whipple of Herum Crabtree Brown, Inc.,
         2291 West March Lane, Suite B100, Stockton, California
         95207 (San Joaquin Co.), Phone: 209-472-7700, Fax: 209-
         472-7986, Web Site: http://www.herumcrabtree.com;and  

     (2) Kim E. Card of Chavez & Gertler, LLP, 42 Miller Ave.,
         Mill Valley, CA - 94941, Phone: 415-381-5599, Fax: 415-
         381-5572, E-mail: kim@chavezgertler.com, Web site:
         http://www.chavezgertler.com/.


DOW CHEMICAL: Oral Arguments in Mich. Dioxin Lawsuit Set May 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals will hear on May 7 at 10 a.m. oral
arguments in a class action against Dow Chemical Co. over dioxin
contamination in the Tittabawassee River basin, OurMidland.com
reports.

Freeland couple Gary and Kathy Henry filed the suit in Saginaw
County Circuit Court seeking recovery of the value of their home
and property, which they believe has been made worthless by
dioxin contamination.  The couple soon was joined by hundreds of
others who signed the suit.

In October 2005, Saginaw Circuit Judge Leopold Borrello
certified the class.  He said that without joining all residents
in one class in one suit, courts would be clogged by individual
lawsuits.

"To deny a class action in this case and allow the plaintiffs to
pursue individual claims would result in up to 2,000 individual
claims being filed in this court. Such a result would impede the
convenient administration of justice," he wrote in his order.

But Dow asked the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse the
ruling of Judge Borrello saying that residents claiming property
damage because of historic dioxin releases from Dow Chemical Co.
should be handled separately -- that each has its own issues
with which to contend (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2005).  

Dow spokesman Scot Wheeler said there are numerous differences
in the types of properties involved in this case as well as the
fact that the experience of the property owners -- in terms of
property use and frequency of flooding -- is very different and
quite varied.

The company was to turn in a final reply April 24, but despite
parties submitting written arguments to the Appellate, the class
action proceedings were further delayed (Class Action Reporter,
Apr. 28, 2006).

Dow argues that each plaintiff should present and prove his or
her case separately because each is contaminated with varied
levels of dioxin, if at all, and therefore the impact on
property value and the impact on property owners' use varies.

The issues about the levels of contamination and property
values, however, are not part of arguments to be presented at
the hearing scheduled for May.

The Court of Appeals will only decide whether Judge Borrello's
ruling allowing class-action status should remain intact.

Headquartered in Midland, Michigan, Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW) is
a leader in the production of plastics, chemicals, hydrocarbons,
and herbicides and pesticides.


EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit alleging improper charging and/or failing
to pay hotel occupancy taxes by Expedia Inc. companies are
seeking to dismiss a suit filed in Los Angeles court.

On Dec. 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com LP, Expedia
Washington (a Washington corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary
of Expedia Inc.) and Hotwire.  The case is numbered BC326693,
filed in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly
charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes.  The
complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of all
California cities and counties that have enacted uniform
transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after Dec.
30, 1990.

The complaint alleges violation of those ordinances, violation
of section 17200 of the California Business and Professions
Code, and common-law conversion.  The complaint seeks a
declaratory judgment that the defendants are subject to hotel
occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers and
imposition of a constructive trust on all monies owed by the
defendants to the government, as well as disgorgement,
restitution, interest and penalties.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the court sustained a demurrer on the basis
of misjoinder and granted plaintiff leave to amend its
complaint.  On Feb. 8, 2006, the city of Los Angeles filed a
second amended complaint.

On July 12, 2006, the lawsuit filed by the city of San Diego was
coordinated with this lawsuit.  A demurrer seeking to dismiss
the second amended complaint was set for hearing on March 1,
2007.  On Jan. 17, 2007, the defendants filed additional
demurrers and a motion to strike class allegations.


EXPEDIA INC: N.Mex. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit Dismissed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Mexico court granted in part and denied in part a motion
to dismiss a suit filed against Expedia Inc. companies over
hotel occupancy taxes.

On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico filed a putative
statewide class action, "City of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06-0549 JC/RLP," in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Mexico against a number of
internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia Washington, a Washington corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Expedia Inc.

The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the
city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of those
ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment.  The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and
disgorgement.  On July 31, 2006, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss.  On Jan. 30, 2007, the Court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  

Certification discovery is underway, according to Expedia's Feb.
26 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


EXPEDIA INC: Fla. County to Withdraw Suit Against Travel Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leon County (Florida) is planning to voluntarily dismiss a suit
it filed against Expedia Inc. companies over alleged non-payment
of municipal hotel accommodation taxes.

On July 27, 2006, Leon County, Florida filed a putative
statewide class action, "Leon County, et al. v. Hotels.com, et
al., 06-CV-21878," in the U.S. District Court, Southern District
of Florida against a number of internet travel companies,
including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington, a
Washington corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Expedia
Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the municipalities' hotel accommodation taxes as required by
municipal ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert claims
for violation of those ordinances.  The complaint seeks damages
in an unspecified amount.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the court held a hearing on defendants' motion
to dismiss.  On Feb. 20, 2007, the county informed the
defendants that it will be filing a notice to voluntarily
dismiss the lawsuit, according to Expedia's Feb. 26 form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


EXPEDIA INC: Transfer of Ohio Accommodation Taxes Suit Ordered
--------------------------------------------------------------
A magistrate judge has ordered the transfer of a suit filed
against Expedia Inc. companies over hotel accommodation taxes
from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio to the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the city of Columbus, Ohio and the city of
Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action, "City of
Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 2:06-cv-00677," in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio against a
number of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Hotwire and Expedia Washington, a Washington corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Expedia Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
counties and cities in Ohio hotel accommodation taxes as
required by local ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert
claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment,
violation of the doctrine of money had and received, conversion,
declaratory judgment, and seeks imposition of a constructive
trust.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 25, 2006 and a
motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio on
Sept. 27, 2006.  The motion to dismiss is pending.  On Jan. 8,
2007, the magistrate judge recommended that the case be
transferred to the Northern District of Ohio.

The suit is before Judge John D. Holschuh with referral to Judge
Mark R. Abe.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael P. Foley at Rendigs, Fry,
Kiely & Dennis, One West Fourth Street, Suite 900, Cincinnati,
OH 45202, Phone: 513/381-9200, Fax: 513-381-9206, E-mail:
mfoley@rendigs.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael R. Gladman, Jones Day, P.O. Box 165017, Suite
         600, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469-3939, Fax:
         614-461-4198, E-mail: mrgladman@jonesday.com; and

     (2) Tammy G. Lavalette at Connelly, Jackson & Collier, 405
         Madison Avenue, Suite 1600, Toledo, OH 43604, Phone:
         419/243-2100, Fax: 419/243-7119, E-mail:
         tlavalette@cjc-law.com.


EXPEDIA INC: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit filed against Expedia Inc. companies in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York over hotel
occupancy taxes are seeking the dismissal of the case.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the County of Nassau, New York filed a
putative statewide class action, "Nassau County, New York, et
al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of New York against a number of internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia
Washington, a Washington corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary
of Expedia Inc.

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

The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of those
ordinances, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
and imposition of a constructive trust.  The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on Jan. 31, 2007.  The County's deadline to
respond to the motion is April 2, 2007.

The suit is "County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05724-ADS-WDW," under Judge Arthur D.
Spatt with referral to William D. Wall.

Representing plaintiff is Michael P. Foley at Rendigs, Fry,
Kiely & Dennis, One West Fourth Street, Suite 900, Cincinnati,
OH 45202, Phone: 513/381-9200, Fax: 513-381-9206, E-mail:
mfoley@rendigs.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael R. Gladman at Jones Day, P.O. Box 165017
         Suite 600, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469-
         3939, Fax: 614-461-4198, E-mail:
         mrgladman@jonesday.com; and

     (2) Tammy G. Lavalette at Connelly, Jackson & Collier, 405
         Madison Avenue, Suite 1600, Toledo, OH 43604, Phone:
         419/243-2100, Fax: 419/243-7119, E-mail:
         tlavalette@cjc-law.com.


FLORIDA: School Bus Drivers Sue School Board Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Palm Beach County School Board is facing a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
over allegations it violated labor laws in failing to compensate
bus drivers for overtime work, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
reports.

The lawsuit cited the School Board's "willful violation" of the
federal labor law.

Boca Raton lawyer Stacey H. Cohen filed the lawsuit on behalf of
Palm Beach County school bus driver Evangeline Patterson and on
behalf of other bus drivers and attendants who allegedly worked
more than 40 hours in any week since July 2003 but were not paid
time-and-a-half wages.

Plaintiffs want a federal jury to force the School Board to pay
unspecified overtime and damages racked up since July 2003.

The suit follows recent protests by bus drivers complaining of
low pay, insufficient raises and little respect.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of bus driver protests and
grievances over overtime and pay issues since last summer, when
the Palm Beach County School District switched to a new payroll
system and encountered problems implementing it.

Joseph Moore, the district's chief operating officer, told the
South Florida Sun-Sentinel he had not seen the lawsuit and could
not discuss it.

The suit is "Patterson v. Palm Beach County School Board, Case
No. 9:07-cv-80240-DMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

Representing plaintiffs is Stacey Hope Cohen of Shavitz Law
Group, 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404, Boca Raton, FL 33432,
Phone: 561-447-8888, Fax: 447-8831, E-mail:
cohen@shavitzlaw.com.


LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Ohio Cities Sue Paint Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------
Seven Ohio cities are suing former makers of lead-based paint in
the country, BusinessWeek.com reports.

Canton, Toledo, East Cleveland, Cincinnati, Lancaster and
Columbus, are suing the companies.  In February, majority of
Massillon city council voted to join the class action, according
to The Canton Repository.

Cleveland-based Sherwin-Williams Co. and eight other paint-
makers or their successors have been named in the lawsuit.

The Massillon council decided to join in the suit knowing that
about 82 percent of homes in Massillon were built before 1979,
so lead paint could be in them, putting children at risk.

In addition, since 2002, 14 Massillon children have tested
positive for high blood levels associated with lead exposures,
the city's Health Department reports.


MENU FOODS: Recalls Pet Foods that May Cause Kidney Problems
------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario, Canada-based pet food manufacturer Menu Foods Inc., in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is
recalling all its "cuts and gravy" style dog and cat food
produced at its facility in Emporia, Kansas between Dec. 3, 2006
and March 6, 2007.

The products are sold in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

The recall was prompted by consumer complaints received by the
manufacturer and by tasting trials conducted by the
manufacturer.  There have been a small number of reported
instances of cats and dogs in the U.S. that developed kidney
failure after eating the affected product.

Ten deaths, one dog and nine cats, have reported at this time.
The firm has undertaken extensive testing of the pet food
products in question, but to date has been unable to find the
source of the problem.

The products are packaged in cans and pouches under numerous
brand names and are marketed nationwide by many pet food
retailers including Ahold USA Inc., Kroger Co., Safeway, Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., PetSmart, Inc., and Pet Valu, Inc.

Menu Foods, Inc. has identified the potentially contaminated
products on the Internet at http://www.menufoods.com/recall.

Consumers who have any of these products should immediately stop
feeding them to their pets.  Dogs or cats who have consumed the
suspect feed and show signs of kidney failure (such as loss of
appetite, lethargy and vomiting) should consult with their
veterinarian.  Menu Foods, Inc. is notifying retailers by
telephone and mail and is arranging for the return of all
recalled products.

FDA is conducting an investigation and working with Menu Foods,
Inc. to ensure the effectiveness of the recall.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-866-895-2708.

Consumers who wish to report adverse actions or other problems
can go to http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html
to contact the FDA complaint coordinator in their state.


MENU FOODS: Ill. Cat Owner Files Suit Over Pet Food Recall Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago attorney Jay Edelson, filed a lawsuit seeking class-
action status against Menu Foods, Inc. alleging the pet food
manufacturer delayed announcing a recall of 60 million
containers of dog and cat food despite knowing that its products
were contaminated and potentially deadly, the Associated Press
reports.

Dawn Majerczyk, a Chicago cat-owner, claims her orange tabby,
Phoenix, fell ill just two days after he ate a single package of
Special Kitty, which is one of 95 cat and dog food brands
recalled by Menu Foods of Canada.

Ms. Majerczyk is seeking payment for her vet bills and
compensation for the company's negligence, among others.

The company had not seen the suit and had no comment, according
to the report.

Earlier, Menu Foods -- a private-label pet food manufacturer
based in Streetsville, Ontario, Canada -- recalled all its "cuts
and gravy" style dog and cat food produced at its facility in
Emporia, Kansas between Dec. 3, 2006 and March 6, 2007.

The recall came two weeks after nine cats died during routine
company taste tests of its products, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration said.

The FDA had no comment on the company's delay in announcing the
recall.

Jay Edelson is with Blim & Edelson, LLC, The Monadnock Building,
Suite 1642, 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:
(312) 913-9400, Fax: (312) 913-9401.


MENU FOODS: Calif. Woman to Join Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
---------------------------------------------------------------
Long Beach, California resident, Lisa Romero, has spoken to a
lawyer about the possibility of joining a class action against
Menu Foods, Inc., an Ontario-based supplier of private-label wet
pet food, CBS 2 reports.

Ms. Romero claims her two Welsh corgis died March 11 after
eating the recalled pet food because of contamination.  She said
her vet told her the dogs were poisoned and suggested she keep
the medical paperwork.  The dogs were given a clean bill of
health in December.  Both died due to kidney failure, the Press-
Telegram reported.

Attorney Jay Edelson, on behalf of a Chicago woman, filed a
lawsuit seeking class-action status against Menu Foods, Inc.
alleging the pet food manufacturer delayed announcing a recall
of 60 million containers of dog and cat food despite knowing
that its products were contaminated and potentially deadly, the
Associated Press reports.

Earlier, Menu Foods -- a private-label pet food manufacturer
based in Streetsville, Ontario, Canada -- recalled all its "cuts
and gravy" style dog and cat food produced at its facility in
Emporia, Kansas between Dec. 3, 2006 and March 6, 2007.

The recall came two weeks after nine cats died during routine
company taste tests of its products, the Food and Drug
Administration said.

Jay Edelson is with Blim & Edelson, LLC, The Monadnock Building,
Suite 1642, 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:
(312) 913-9400, Fax: (312) 913-9401.


METLIFE INC: Still Faces N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated class
action, "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, according to MetLife's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In the multi-district proceeding, filed on Feb. 24, 2005,
plaintiffs have filed an amended class action complaint
consolidating the claims from separate actions that had been
filed in or transferred to the District of New Jersey in 2004
and 2005.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the MetLife,
Metropolitan Life, several non-affiliated insurance companies
and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed other
misconduct in the context of providing insurance to employee
benefit plans and to persons who participate in such plans.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of employers that
established employee benefit plans and persons who participated
in such employee benefit plans.  

A motion for class certification has been filed.  A motion to
dismiss has not been fully decided.  Plaintiffs in several other
actions have voluntarily dismissed their claims.

MetLife, Inc. on the Net: http://www.metlife.com/.


METLIFE INC: Subsidiaries Still Face Property, Casualty Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of MetLife, Inc. remain defendants in
various property and casualty lawsuits in Louisiana, Florida,
and Illinois, according to MetLife, Inc.'s March 1 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

               Hurricane Katrina-Related Litigation

There are a number of lawsuits, including a few putative class
actions, pending in Louisiana and Mississippi against
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co. relating to
Hurricane Katrina.

The lawsuits include claims by policyholders for coverage for
damages stemming from Hurricane Katrina, including for damages
resulting from flooding or storm surge.  

                         Stern Litigation

The case, "Stern v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co." was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Oct. 18, 1999.  

It is a putative class action, seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief has been filed against Metropolitan Property's
subsidiary, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co., in Florida
alleging breach of contract and unfair trade practices with
respect to allowing the use of parts not made by the original
manufacturer to repair damaged automobiles.

Discovery is ongoing and a motion for class certification is
pending.  

                       Shipley Litigation

Two similarly named cases, "Shipley v. St. Paul Fire and Marine
Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co.," were
filed in the Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County on Feb. 26
and July 2, 2003.  

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  A motion for
class certification has been filed and briefed.

The second suit originally alleged breach of contract and fraud
arising from the alleged use of preferred provider organizations
to reduce medical provider fees covered by the medical claims
portion of the insurance policy.

The court granted Metropolitan Property's motion to dismiss the
fraud claim in the second suit.  A motion for class
certification has been filed and briefed.

MetLife, Inc. on the Net: http://www.metlife.com/.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Hears Pensioners' Arguments
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
heard on March 15 oral arguments in a class action filed by
former employees of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

A putative class action, which commenced in October 2000,
accuses the company of denying certain ad hoc pension increases
awarded to retirees under the Metropolitan Life retirement plan.  

The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees
(i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement
benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available
to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose
spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible
for an immediate retirement benefit.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of former
Metropolitan Life employees, or their surviving spouses, who are
receiving deferred vested annuity payments under the retirement
plan and who were allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc
pension increases.  

In September 2005, Metropolitan Life's motion for summary
judgment was granted.  Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied.  Plaintiffs
have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

The parties are currently briefing the appeal and oral argument
was held on March 15, according to tMetLife, Inc.'s March 1 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Brubaker, et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., case
no. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Tas Coroneos, 5801 Highland  
Drive, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531, Phone: (301) 656-1124, Fax:  
(301) 656-1460.   

Representing the company are Emmett Boaz Lewis, Mark J. Rochon
and Anthony F. Shelley of Miller & Chevalier, 655 Fifteenth  
Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626-
6090, Fax: (202) 628-0858, E-mail: elewis@milchev.com,
mrochon@milchev.com, and ashelley@milchev.com.   


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Okla. Suit Over Proprietary Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. was named as a defendant in a
purported class action with regards to the sale of certain
proprietary products by its distributors.

The suit, "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et
al.," was filed Jan. 31 against Metropolitan Life, MetLife
Securities, Inc. and MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.

Plaintiff asserts legal theories of violations of the federal
securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the
sale of certain proprietary products (as opposed to non-
proprietary products) by the company's agency distribution
group.  

They seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and expenses, according to MetLife,
Inc.'s March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Thomas et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00121-F," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P.
Friot.

Representing the plaintiffs is William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73120,
Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are Emiline T. Ebrite and David L.
Kearney of Gable & Gotwals, 211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Fl.,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-5500, Fax: 405-235-2875,
E-mail: tebrite@gablelaw.com and dkearney@gablelaw.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suits Over Reorganization Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. remains a defendant in several
lawsuits challenging the fairness of the company's plan of
reorganization, as amended and the adequacy and accuracy of its
disclosure to policyholders regarding the plan, according to
MetLife, Inc.'s March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

These actions discussed below named as defendants some or all of
Metropolitan Life, MetLife, Inc., the individual directors, the
superintendent and the underwriters for MetLife, Inc.'s initial
public offering, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Credit Suisse First
Boston.

                         Fiala Litigation

The suit, "Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al.,"
was filed in Superior Court, N.Y. County, on March 17, 2000.  
Another putative class action filed in New York State court in
Kings County has been consolidated with the action.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class actions seek
compensatory relief and punitive damages.  In 2003, the trial
court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss these two
putative class actions.  

In 2004, the appellate court modified the trial court's order by
reinstating certain claims against Metropolitan Life, MetLife
and the individual directors.  Plaintiffs in these actions have
filed a consolidated amended complaint.  

On Jan. 30, the trial court signed an order certifying a
litigation class for plaintiffs' claim that the defendants
violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law, but denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify a litigation class with respect to
a common law fraud claim.

The Jan. 30 order implemented the trial court's May 2, 2006
memorandum deciding plaintiffs' class certification motion.  The
defendants have filed a notice of appeal from this decision.

                        Meloy Litigation

The suit, "Meloy, et al. v. Superintendent of Ins., et al.," was
filed in Superior Court, N.Y. County, on April 14, 2000.  Five
persons brought a proceeding under Article 78 of New York's
Civil Practice Law and Rules challenging the Opinion and
Decision of the Superintendent who approved the plan.

In this proceeding, petitioners sought to vacate the
Superintendent's Opinion and Decision and enjoin him from
granting final approval of the Plan.  

On Nov. 10, 2005, the trial court granted respondents' motions
to dismiss this proceeding.  Petitioners have filed a notice of
appeal.

               MetLife Demutualization Litigation

The suit, "In re MetLife Demutualization Litigation," was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
which was filed on April 18, 2000.  

In this class action against Metropolitan Life and the MetLife,
plaintiffs served a second consolidated amended complaint in
2004.  

Plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
plan, claiming that the Policyholder Information Booklets failed
to disclose certain material facts and contained certain
material misstatements.  They seek rescission and compensatory
damages.

On June 22, 2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim of violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The court had previously denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the claim for violation of the Securities Act of 1933.  In 2004,
the court reaffirmed its earlier decision denying defendants'
motion for summary judgment as premature.

On July 19, 2005, this federal trial court certified this
lawsuit as a class action against Metropolitan Life and the
MetLife.

                        Fotia Litigation

The suit, "Fotia, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al.," was filed in
the Ontario Superior Court on April 3, 2001.  The suit was filed
on behalf of a proposed class of certain former Canadian
policyholders against the MetLife, Metropolitan Life, and
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of Canada.

Plaintiffs' allegations concern the way that their policies were
treated in connection with the demutualization of Metropolitan
Life; they seek damages, declarations, and other non-pecuniary
relief.

MetLife, Inc. on the Net: http://www.metlife.com/.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Copper Tube Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries Inc. continues to face a consolidated lawsuit
over alleged anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale
of copper tubes in the U.S.

Beginning in September 2004, the company has been named as a
defendant in several purported class action complaints brought
by direct and indirect purchasers alleging anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper tubes in the U.S.  
Two such purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee.  The remaining
Copper Tube Actions were filed in state courts in Tennessee,
California and Massachusetts.

Certain of the Copper Tube Actions purport to address the sale
of copper plumbing tube in particular.  Plaintiffs' motions to
consolidate the federal actions and the actions pending in
California state court, respectively, have been granted.  All of
the Copper Tube Actions, which are similar, seek monetary and
other relief.  

Wholly owned company subsidiaries, WTC Holding Co., Inc., Deno
Holding Co., Inc., and Mueller Europe Ltd., are named in all of
the Copper Tube Actions, and Deno Acquisition Eurl is currently
named in two of the Copper Tube Actions but has not been served
with the complaints in those actions.  The claims against WTC
Holding Co., Inc. and Deno Holding Co. Inc. have been dismissed
without prejudice in the Copper Tube Actions pending in
California and Massachusetts state courts.

In September 2006, the federal actions were dismissed as to
Mueller Europe for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In October
2006, the federal actions were dismissed in their entirety for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to all defendants.  

Although plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal of Mueller Europe, the court has held that such motion
was mooted by its dismissal of the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to alter or
amend the judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, which remains pending.

The company's demurrer to the complaint and the company's motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim have been filed in the
state court actions filed in California and Tennessee,
respectively.  The company has not yet been required to respond
to the complaint in the action pending in Massachusetts state
court.

Mueller Europe has not yet been required to respond to the
complaints in any of the state court actions pending in
Tennessee, California or Massachusetts.  The courts overseeing
the California and Massachusetts state court actions have stayed
those actions conditioned upon the parties' submitting periodic
status reports on the Federal Actions.


MUELLER INDUSTRIS: Still Faces ACR Copper Tubes Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action alleging anticompetitive activities with respect to the
sale of copper tubes in the U.S.

In March 2006, the company and Mueller Europe were named in a
complaint brought by Carrier Corp., Carrier S.A., and Carrier
Italia S.p.A. alleging anticompetitive activities with respect
to the sale of copper tubes used in the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes) in the
U.S. and elsewhere (the Carrier Action).  The Carrier Action was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.

In addition, beginning in April 2006, the company has been named
as a defendant in several purported class actions brought by
direct and indirect purchasers alleging anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of ACR copper tubes in the
U.S. and elsewhere (the ACR Class Actions, and with the Carrier
Action, the ACR Actions).

Two of the ACR Class Actions were filed by indirect purchasers
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, one of which alleges anticompetitive activities with
respect to plumbing tubes as well as ACR copper tubes.  Five of
the ACR Class Actions (two of which have been consolidated to
become the "Indirect ACR Class Actions" and three of which have
been consolidated to become the "Direct ACR Class Actions") were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.

Mueller Europe and the company are named in all of the ACR
Actions.  WTC Holding Co., Inc., Deno Holding Co., Inc., and
Deno Acquisition Eurl are named in one of the ACR Class Actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Motions to dismiss by the company and by Mueller
Europe are pending in the Carrier Action.

The company and Mueller Europe have been served, but have not
yet been required to respond, in the Direct ACR Class Actions
and the Indirect ACR Class Actions.  The company, Mueller
Europe, WTC Holding Co., Inc., and Deno Holding Co., Inc. have
been served, but have not yet been required to respond, in one
of the ACR Class Actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  

Plaintiffs in the second of the ACR Class Actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(which addressed only ACR copper tubes) have voluntarily
dismissed that action without prejudice.


NASH FINCH: Seeks Nixing of Minn. Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nash Finch Co. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Dec. 19, 2005, and Jan. 4, 2006, two purported class actions
were filed against the company and certain of the company's
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period:

     * from Feb. 24, 2005, the date the company announced an
       agreement to acquire two distribution divisions from
       Roundy's

     * through Oct. 20, 2005, the date the company announced a
       downward revision to its earnings outlook for fiscal
       2005.

One of the complaints was voluntarily dismissed on March 3, 2006
and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 30, 2006.  The
consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false statements
regarding, among other things, the integration of the
distribution divisions acquired from Roundy's, the performance
of the company's core businesses, its internal controls, and its
financial projections, so as to artificially inflate the price
of the company's common stock.  

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, which the court has taken under advisement, 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. 30, 2006.  

The suit is "In Re: Nash Finch Co. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:02-cv-04736-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;

     (2) Connie M. Cheung of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins LLP - SF, 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax:
         14152884534, E-mail: conniec@lcsr.com; and

     (3) Vernon J Vander Weide of Head Seifert & Vander Weide,
         333 S. 7th St., Ste. 1140, Mpls, MN 55402-2421, Phone:
         612-339-1601, Fax: 612-339-3372, E-mail:
         vvanderweide@hsvwlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael J. Bleck of Oppenheimer
Wolff & Donnelly, LLP, 45 S. 7th St., Ste 3300, Minneapolis, MN
55402, Phone: 612-607-7000, Fax: 612-607-7100, E-mail:
mbleck@oppenheimer.com.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on a motion by Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and
its Nationwide Life Insurance Co. subsidiary to dismiss a fifth
amended complaint alleging Employee Retirement Income Security
Act violations against the company.

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named as defendants in the
lawsuit, "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Inc.  
Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial  
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Co."

The fifth amended complaint, filed March 21, 2006, purports to
represent a class of qualified retirement plans under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
that purchased variable annuities from NLIC.  

Plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their
variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached ERISA
fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from
certain mutual funds.  

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

The district court has rejected the plaintiffs' request for
certification of the alleged class.  NLIC and NFS' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint is currently
pending before the court.

The company reported no development in the case its March 1 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.  
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill with
referral to Judge William I. Garfinkel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard A. Bieder of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.,  
         350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604, 203-336-4421,  
         Fax: 203-368-3244, E-mail: rbieder@koskoff.com;   

     (2) Gregory G. Jones, 603 S. Main, Suite 200, Grapevine, TX  
         76051, Phone: 871-424-9001, Fax: 817-424-1665, E-mail:
         greg@gjoneslaw.com; and

     (3) Roger L. Mandel of Stanley, Mandel & Iola, 3100  
         Monticello Ave., Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone:  
         214-443-4300, Fax: 214-443-0358, E-mail:  
         rmandel@smi-law.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jessica A. Ballou of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
         Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103,  
         Phone: 860-293-3535, Fax: 860-293-3555, E-mail:
         jballou@llgm.com; and  

    (ii) Sam Broderick-Sokol of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &  
         Dorr-LLP-DC, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC  
         20006, Phone: 202-663-6000, Fax: 202-663-6363, E-mail:
         sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com.  


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Seeks Dismissal of Revenue-Sharing Payment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Co. and two of its affiliates are
seeking the dismissal of a purported class action that accuses
them of allegedly taking kickbacks on mutual funds offered in
retirement plans, which cover police officers, firefighters,
teachers, and other government employees across the country.

On Nov. 15, 2006, Nationwide Financial Services, NLIC and
Nationwide Retirement Solutions were named in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
captioned, "Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, In
His Official Capacity, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc. and Nationwide Financial Services,
Inc."

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all sponsors of
457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable
annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during the
class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b)
deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity
contracts with the defendants during the class period, which is
from Jan. 1, 1996 until the class notice is provided.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by arranging for and retaining service payments from
certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a
permanent injunction and disgorgement or restitution of the
service fee payments allegedly received by the defendants,
including interest.

On Jan. 25, the company filed a motion to dismiss, according to
its March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A.
Sargus with referral to Judge Norah McCann King.

Representing the plaintiffs is Scott E. Smith of Smith Phillips
& Associates, 1225 Dublin Road, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-
846-1700, Fax: 614-486-4987, E-mail: ses@smithphillipslaw.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Summary Judgment Sought in Ohio Insurance Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. that is pending in Common Pleas Court, Franklin
County, Ohio have filed a motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC was named in a class action filed in
Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co."  

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.  

The complaint also seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
disgorgement of all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum
premium and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims.  

The court certified a class consisting of all residents of the
U.S. and the Virgin Islands who, during the class period, paid
premiums on a modal basis to NLIC for term life insurance
policies issued by NLIC during the class period that provide for
guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding certain specified
products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of
NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of
Ohio who may hear the case.  

The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990 through Feb. 2, 2006,
which was the date the class was certified.  The parties are
currently engaged in discovery.

On Jan. 26, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment,
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.

Nationwide Life Insurance Co. on the Net:
http://www.nationwide.com/.


NEW YORK: Brokerage Firm Challenges Planned NASD-NYSE Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Investment Chartered, Inc., a California-based
brokerage firm, filed a purported federal class action that
seeks to stop a proposed merger of oversight functions between
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., and the New
York Stock Exchange.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on March 8.  It alleged that that the terms
of the planned consolidation "represents a massively unfair
disenfranchisement of NASD members."  The plan was announced in
November 2006 and is to be finalized on April 2.

The two entities promised that the merger would benefit all
brokerage firms by eliminating a number of repetitive services
and provide a more streamlined form of regulation.

In January, the NASD said that 64 percent of the more than 5,000
NASD member firms voting on the matter backed changes to bylaws
that would allow the deal to go forward.

However, the lawsuit contends that NASD members gave their
consent to the deal "only through a 'bum's rush' campaign that
included millions of dollars in public relations ballyhoo."

Named, as defendants are several NASD executives, including NASD
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mary Schapiro.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, named several persons
or entities as defendants, including:

       -- National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.;
       -- NYSE Group, Inc.;
       -- Mary L. Schapiro, NASD chairman and chief executive;
       -- Richard F. Brueckner; and
       -- Barbara Z. Sweeney.

Generally, the suit seeks an injunction to stop the deal, and
unspecified monetary damages.

The combined entity, which still does not have a name, will have
Ms. Schapiro, as CEO, and Richard G. Ketchum, CEO of NYSE
Regulation, as the non-executive chairman of the new
organization's Board of Governors during a three-year transition
period.

The suit is "Standard Investment Chartered, Inc. v. National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-02014-SWK-DCF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram with
referral to Judge Debra C. Freeman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jonathan Watson Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,
         507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002, Phone: (202)
         789-3960, Fax: 202-789-1813, E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com;
         and

     (2) Richard David Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman, LLC,
         7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: (410) 745-
         4149, Fax: (410) 745-4158, E-mail:
         whitehatrdg@earthlink.net.

Representing the defendants is Douglas Randall Cox of Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher (DC), 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20008, Phone: (202)-955-8500, Fax: (202)-530-9539, E-mail:
dcox@gibsondunn.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces an April 24, 2007,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of NovaStar Financial, Inc. between May 4, 2006 and Feb.
20, 2007.

In February, the law firm filed the suit alleging defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the company's
business and financial performance, thereby artificially
inflating the price of NovaStar securities (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 28, 2007).

For more information, contact Howard G. Smith of the Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, Bensalem, PA, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Website:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


PMI MORTGAGE: April 4 Final Hearing Set in FCRA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the Northern District of California will
hold a final fairness hearing on April 4 for the proposed
settlement in class action, "Hogan, et al. v. PMI Mortgage
Insurance Co."

Filed on Sept. 23, 2005, the suit action sought certification of
a nationwide class of consumers.  Plaintiffs alleged that they
were required to pay for private mortgage insurance written by
PMI and that their loans allegedly were insured at greater than
PMI's "best available rate."  

Plaintiffs also alleged that PMI had an obligation to notify
them of an adverse action based upon their credit information
and failed to do so in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The action sought, among other relief, actual and statutory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional claims under state law and FCRA, alleging that PMI
did not have a permissible purpose to access the plaintiffs'
credit information.

PMI has entered into a class action settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs' counsel, which was preliminarily approved by the
court on Dec. 22, 2006.  

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for April
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 "Hogan et al. v. PMI Mortgage Insurance Co., Case
No. 3:05-cv-03851-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen Meagher of The Law
Offices of Stephen Meagher, 1 Embarcadero Center, Suite 523, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 773-2824, Fax: 415-773-2825,
E-mail: slm@meagherlawoffices.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael J. Agoglia of Morrison &
Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482,
Phone: (415) 268-7000, Fax: (415) 268-7522, E-mail:
magoglia@mofo.com.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Stronger Warning on Ambien Side Effects Ordered
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has directed Sanofi-
Aventis U.S. LLC to strengthen warnings on labels about the two
rare but serious side effects of sleeping medication Ambien that
are alleged in the lawsuit "Makinen et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01762-LLS."

The FDA directed the manufacturer to write letters to doctors to
notify them of the new warnings, and all prescription sleeping
pills now will come with special brochures called "Medication
Guides" that spell out the risks for patients in easy-to-
understand language.  

On March 6, 2006, New York City Attorney Susan Chana Lask filed
the class action on behalf a proposed class of plaintiffs
consisting of and including all persons in the U.S. who have
ingested the drug Ambien from 2000 to date and experienced the
side effects of amnestic nocturnal eating behavior (excessive
eating while asleep) and somnambulism (sleepwalking) in which
they were injured or damaged as a result of these side effects
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28, 2006).

The case is before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Defendants were accused that:

     -- they designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, marketed  
        and/or placed into the stream of commerce Ambien knowing  
        that it had side effects of amnestic nocturnal eating  
        behavior and somnambulism;
  
     -- they suppressed, concealed, misrepresented and/or  
        obscured data regarding the adverse side effects of  
        Ambien;

     -- they were aware or should have been aware of studies and  
        data linking Ambien and its side effects of sleep  
        walking and sleep eating, but nevertheless continued to  
        design, produce, manufacture, market, distribute and/or  
        sell it without any warnings as to potential detrimental  
        side effects associated with it;

     -- despite their actual knowledge of the detrimental side  
        effects, defendants failed to warn or adequately and   
        sufficiently warn the Plaintiffs and other class  
        members, the public, governmental bodies and the Medical  
        community of the harmful and detrimental side effects;

     -- they failed to test or adequately test Ambien  
        prior to manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or  
        selling it; and
  
     -- they published false and/or misleading information about  
        the safety and potential adverse side effects of Ambien.

Plaintiffs allege theories of evidence for negligence, strict
liability, breach of implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade
practices, express warranty, and consumer fraud violations.

They are seeking, among others:

     * an order certifying the cause of action number three of  
       this complaint as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of  
       the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with plaintiffs as  
       class Representatives;

     * a judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally,  
       awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiffs and each  
       member of the proposed class in an amount to be  
       determined by a jury and/or the court on both an  
       individual and a class wide basis;

     * a judgment against defendants for punitive damages in an  
       amount to be determined at trial; and

     * a monetary award for attorney's fees and the costs of  
       this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Civil  
       Procedure.

According to a Stipulated Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan of
the suit, from Feb. 19, 2007 to April 20, 2007, plaintiffs may
depose Sanofi-aventis' class certification experts.  Class
certification discovery is to close April 20.

The suit is "Makinen et al. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo et al. (1:06-
cv-01762-LLS)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.  

Plaintiffs are Janet Makinen, Judith Lasswell, Christina
Brothers and Kathleen Callahan.  Representing plaintiffs is
Susan Chana Lask, 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369, New York, NY
10001, U.S. Phone: 212-358-5762.

Representing the defendants are Harvey L. Kaplan and John F.
Kuckelman at Shook, Hardy& Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613, Phone: (816) 474-6550, Fax:
(816) 421 5547.


SOCIETE GENERALE: Faces Suit in Toronto Over Portus' Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manulife Securities International Ltd. is proceeding with a
proposed class action against Societe Generale, Societe Generale
(Canada), Lyxor Asset Management and Societe Generale Securities
Inc.

This action concerns the role played by Societe Generale in
relation to Portus Alternative Asset Management Inc.  Portus has
been the subject of receivership and bankruptcy proceedings in
the Ontario Superior Court since February 2005.

These proceedings were initially brought by the Ontario
Securities Commission in an effort to secure the remaining
assets of Portus for the benefit of those members of the public
who invested in Portus.

KPMG Inc., the Trustee in Bankruptcy, anticipates that investors
will not receive full recovery of their investments in Portus
through the bankruptcy proceedings.

In the proposed class proceeding, various claims are made
against Societe Generale on behalf of all Portus Investors as
set out in the Statement of Claim.  In commencing and
prosecuting this action, Manulife Securities is continuing to
fulfill its commitment to pursue aggressively all available
avenues to maximize recovery for the benefit of all Portus
Investors.

This proceeding seeks damages from Societe Generale based on the
loss of invested capital as well as losses resulting from Portus
Investors' inability to achieve a return on their investment due
to the collapse of Portus.  Any award of damages in the proposed
class proceeding will go to benefit all Portus Investors.

To the extent that the Estate of Portus makes distributions, the
damages claimed through the proposed class proceeding will be
reduced but not eliminated.  Recovery of remaining damages will
continue to be sought from Societe Generale.

In mid-2005, Manulife Securities acted quickly to repay all of
its own clients who were referred to Portus by Manulife
Securities.  These clients were repaid 100% of the principal
they invested with Portus by Manulife Securities.

"From the outset, [Manulife Securities] has committed to do the
right thing for its clients and to do what it can to assist all
Portus Investors in minimizing their losses from the unfortunate
situation surrounding the collapse of Portus.  No one other than
Portus Investors should profit.  Manulife Securities will not
profit from this action.  

To the extent that there is an ultimate net realization by
Manulife Securities greater than the principal amount invested
by its clients, Manulife Securities will credit its clients with
this excess", said J-P. Bisnaire, senior executive vice
president, business development and general counsel of Manulife
Financial.

The action will be dealt with on the Commercial List of the
Ontario Superior Court in Toronto.  The next steps include a
preliminary motion and ultimately a motion to certify the action
as a class proceeding.

For further information: J-P. Bisnaire, Senior Executive Vice
President, Business Development and General Counsel of Manulife
Financial at (416) 852-7777 or at jp_bisnaire@manulife.com.


TRAVELERS LIFE: Summary Judgment Sought in Suit Over Annuities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Life and Annuity Corp. have filed a motion for summary
judgment in the class action, "Lisa Macomber, et al. v.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al," which was filed in
the Connecticut Superior Court.

The suit, filed in August 1999, also names as defendants
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., Travelers Equity Sales, Inc.
and certain former affiliates.

The amended complaint alleges that Travelers Property purchased
structured settlement annuities from the company and spent less
on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities than
agreed with claimants; and that commissions paid to brokers of
structured settlement annuities, were paid, in part, to the
Travelers Property.

The amended complaint was dismissed and, following an appeal by
the plaintiff in September 2002, the Connecticut Supreme Court
reversed the dismissal of several of the plaintiff's claims.

On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a
nationwide class action involving the following claims,
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Statute,
unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

On June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the Connecticut
Superior Court's May 26, 2004 class certification order.

In March 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial
court's certification of a class.  Plaintiff may seek to file
another motion for class certification.  

Defendants have moved for summary judgment, according to
MetLife, Inc.'s March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.


UNITED STATES: Education Dept. Faces Suit Over Student Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
Sprenger & Lang, PLLC filed a breach of contract class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the
U.S. Department of Education on behalf of all individuals who
have been obligated to repay consolidated education loans at any
time since March 2001 pursuant to a Federal Direct Consolidation
Loan Promissory Note.

The lawsuit alleges that the Department systematically and
unlawfully capitalizes interest that accrues on consolidated
student loans between the borrower's June payment date and June
30.  There are more than three million consolidated student loan
borrowers with aggregate debt obligations in excess of $72
billion.  The government's practice allegedly directly
contravenes the student loan documents and costs the borrowers,
in the aggregate, millions of dollars each year.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and a return of all
monies owed as a result of the Department of Education's
actions.

The plaintiff, Dr. Brenda Kay Pfeiffer, is a Minnesota resident
who had taken out multiple Stafford, Supplemental Loan for
Students and Perkins loans from the Department of Education
prior to her graduation from chiropractic school in 1994.

In 1997, Dr. Pfeiffer consolidated her loans under the William
D. Ford Program and executed a form Federal Direct Consolidation
Loan Promissory Note in favor of the Department of Education.
The note provided for a variable rate of interest and stated:

     "Except for interest, the Department of Education does not
     charge me during an in-school, grace or deferment period,
     I agree to pay interest on the principal amount of my
     Direct Consolidation Loan from the date of disbursement
     until the loan is paid in full or discharged.  The
     Department of Education may add interest that accrues but
     is not paid when due to the unpaid principal balance of
     this loan, as provided under the (Higher Education Act of
     1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., and applicable
     Department of Education regulations).  This is called
     capitalization."

According to the complaint, on several occasions between 1998
and 2005, in violation of the terms of the consolidated loan,
the Department of Education capitalized interest to Dr.
Pfeiffer's account for the period between her June payment and
the close of the month -- money that was not due until her July
payment date.

Dr. Pfeiffer complained to the Department for the first time in
early 2003 and no interest capitalization charge was added for
that year.

In 2004 and 2005, however, the Department again capitalized
interest that was not due, and Dr. Pfeiffer once again
complained.  Several Department of Education personnel advised
Dr. Pfeiffer that the interest capitalizations should not have
been posted to her account, but that the Department of
Education's computer is programmed to capitalize accrued
interest as of June 30 of each calendar year, even if the
interest is not due and payable on that date.

After repeated complaints subsequent to additional improper
interest capitalization charges, a supervisor in the Department
of Education's Direct Loan Servicing Center admitted that a June
30, 2005 interest capitalization should not have been added to
Dr. Pfeiffer's balance.

The supervisor stated that she could not reverse the improper
interest capitalizations in previous years; however, she would
insure that there was no interest capitalization charged to Dr.
Pfeiffer's loan in 2006.

"The Department of Education's improper addition of interest
capitalization takes money out of the pockets of the people they
are supposed to be helping," said Steven Sprenger, lead counsel
for the plaintiff.  "It's very unfortunate that officials within
the Department allegedly knew about the problem and were
unwilling to correct the situation."

The suit is "Pfeiffer v. Spellings et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00522-EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Representing plaintiffs is Steven M. Sprenger of Sprenger &
Lang, PLLC, 1400 I Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005,
Phone: (202) 265-8010, Fax: (202) 332-6652, E-mail:
ssprenger@sprengerlang.com.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Continues in N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a consolidated securities class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Veeco Instruments Inc. and certain of its
officers.

The suit arises out of the restatement in March 2005 of Veeco's
financial statements for the quarterly periods and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2004 as a result of the company's discovery of
certain improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc
business unit.  

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and
assert claims against all defendants for violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims
against the individual defendants for violations of Section
20(b) of the Exchange Act.   

In March 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit at the pleading stage, and certified a plaintiff
class for the lawsuit consisting of all persons who acquired the
company's securities from Apr. 26, 2004 through Feb. 10, 2005.   
The parties are currently involved in the discovery process,
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: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge  
Colleen McMahon.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Phyllis Maza Parker of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622  
         Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, US, Phone:  
         (215) 875-4647, Fax: (215) 875-4674, E-mail:  
         pparker@bm.net;

     (2) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275  
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:  
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; and

     (3) Sherrie Raiken Savett of Berg & Androphy (Houston),  
         3704 Travis Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (215)  
         875-3071, Fax: (215)-875-5715.

Representing the company is Robert F. Serio of Gibson, Dunn &  
Crutcher, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY  
10166, Phone: 212-351-3917, Fax: 212-351-5246, E-mail:  
rserio@gibsondunn.com.


WINSTAR COMMS: N.Y. Court Issues Final Order in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an "amended final judgment order" with regards to the
class action, "In Re Winstar Communications Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 01 Civ. 3014 (GBD)."

The District Court held a fairness hearing on March 19, 2007 for
a proposed $18,125,000 settlement of the suit.  A March 20 entry
in the court's Electronic Case Filing stated that Judge George
B. Daniels entered an "amended final judgment order" settling
the action.  

In addition, on March 21, according to the ECF System, Judge
Daniels entered an amended stipulation and order of dismissal by
and between the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.
  
The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly issued common stock or notes of
Winstar Communications, Inc. from March 10, 2000 through and
including April 2, 2001.
  
                        Case Background
  
Beginning in April of 2001, investors commenced a number of
putative class actions against Winstar, certain of its former
officers and directors and Winstar's former auditing firm, Grant
Thornton.
  
In an order dated July 30, 2001, the court consolidated those
actions.  In addition, the court named: three of the class
plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs for the class; the law firm of
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP as lead counsel for the Class; and the
firms of Berger & Montague, P.C., Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and
Stull, Stull & Brody to an Executive Committee of firms
representing the Class.
  
The lead plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended
complaint and, thereafter, a second amended complaint.  In the
second amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs alleged claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act against the
individual defendants, defendant Grant Thornton, and Lucent
Technologies, Inc.
  
Additionally, the lead plaintiffs alleged claims for violations
of the "control person" provisions of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
  
Among other things, the lead plaintiffs alleged that the
individual defendants artificially inflated the financial
results reported by Winstar during the class period.
  
For more details, contact Lee S. Shalov, Esq., or Thomas G.
Ciarlone, Esq. of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue,
Suite 1000, New York, New York 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Web
site: http://www.lawssb.com/.


* Conn. Man Admits Receiving $6.4M Payment from Milberg Weiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Connecticut man admitted he agreed to become paid plaintiff in
shareholder lawsuits filed by Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
against publicly traded companies, BestWire Services reports
citing a statement by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.

Steven G. Cooperman, 64, of Fairfield, Conn. pled guilty of
accepting more than $6.4 million in secret kickback payments
from Milberg Weiss for his part in the conspiracy.

Mr. Cooperman and some of his relatives and associates served as
named plaintiffs in about 70 class actions and shareholder-
derivative actions filed by Milberg Weiss from 1988 until 2003,
the prosecutors said.  

Milberg Weiss, and partners David J. Bershad and Steven G.
Schulman were indicted in May 2006 by a federal grand jury for
allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 class
actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits.  

The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200
million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20
years.  The first superseding indictments against them were for
alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money
laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false
tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and
causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture.  

The trial of Milberg Weiss and its top partners is set Jan. 8,
2008 in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.


* Cornerstone Reports Surge in '06 Securities Suit Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Research reports that the securities class action
settlements in 2006 have exceeded, by a landslide, all totals
from previous years.

The $6.6 billion partial settlement in the Enron Corp. matter
approved in 2006 brought the total Enron settlement fund to $7.1
billion, making it the largest securities case settlement fund
to date, surpassing the previous record-holder, the 2005
WorldCom settlement fund of $6.2 billion.

Excluding these two cases, the total value of settled cases in
2006 grew to $10.6 billion, topping the 2005 $3.5 billion total
by more than 300 percent.

"Although average settlement sizes have been increasing in the
last few years, 2006 stands out from prior years by the sheer
magnitude of the increase that occurred," said Dr. Laura
Simmons, a principal in Cornerstone Research's Washington, DC
office and an author of the study.

"The 2006 record settlement data are a peak, and 2007 is
virtually certain to generate a far smaller aggregate settlement
amount," noted Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest,
Director of the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (sponsored
by Cornerstone), co-Director of the Rock Center on Corporate
Governance, and former Commissioner of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

"With the largest part of the WorldCom and Enron settlements now
wrapped up, and with fewer huge pieces of litigation in the
pipeline waiting to be resolved, aggregate settlement amounts
have only one way to move, and that's down."

"In fact, because a smaller number of cases are now being filed
and because those cases involve smaller market losses, I
wouldn't be surprised if the aggregate annual settlement
statistics fall dramatically over a period of several years,"
Mr. Grundfest added.

The 300 percent increase from 2005 in the total value of cases
settled in 2006 was due to an increase in the average settlement
size, rather than an increase in the number of cases settled.

The five-fold increase in the average settlement size is driven
in part by the number of 2006 "mega-settlements" -- 14 cases
that settled for amounts of $100 million or more (five of which
were in excess of $1 billion) -- which far exceeded the 2004 and
2005 records for mega-settlements -- seven and nine,
respectively.

The average market capitalization decline associated with these
settlements was in excess of $40 billion.  In contrast, the
median settlement increased only slightly from $6.7 million for
previous post-Reform Act years (1996-2005) to $7.0 million in
2006.  The median represents the point at which half the data
points are greater and half are smaller (i.e., the midpoint).

"In addition to the lower market losses observed for new cases
filed in 2006 (see Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action
Case Filings, 2006: A Year in Review), the April 2005 Dura
Pharmaceuticals Supreme Court case, which constrains the amount
of recoverable damages, may also contribute to lower average
settlement values going forward, observed Simmons.

The study also finds that institutions served as a lead
plaintiff in over 50% of all cases settled in 2006, up from 35
percent and 20 percent in 2005 and 2004, respectively.

In addition, the study shows that the law firms of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and Milberg Weiss Bershad
& Schulman continue to hold the lead in securing the largest
percentage of settlements; however, their involvement as lead
plaintiff counsel is no longer associated with a significant
increase in settlement amounts, an obvious change from prior
years.

The number of cases involving accounting allegations continued
to be high, and those cases generated 55% of all settlements.
The data also indicate that settlements in these lawsuits
represent a significantly higher percentage of "estimated
damages" than settlements in lawsuits that contain no accounting
allegations.

Other findings in the study include that, derivative actions,
mainly lawsuits brought by shareholders of the corporation
against officers and/or directors, accompanied over 45 percent
of the cases settled in 2006, an increase over 2005.

Additionally, class action settlements that are accompanied by
monetary settlements with the SEC for related actions -- a trend
that began in earnest in 2004 -- continued to increase in 2006.

Finally, the 9th Circuit (comprising California and other
western states) was again the most active federal circuit in
terms of number of settlements, with 26 settlements approved in
2006.  The 2nd Circuit (which includes New York) followed close
behind with 20 settlements.

A full copy of Cornerstone Research's "Securities Class Action
Settlements: 2006 Review and Analysis" is available at:
http://securities.cornerstone.com.

Cornerstone Research provides financial and economic analysis in
civil litigation and regulatory proceedings, and concentrates in
securities, antitrust, intellectual property, energy,
accounting, and financial institutions litigation.

Cornerstone Research cosponsors the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, the leading source of
data and analytical information regarding the financial and
economic characteristics of securities class action litigation.

For more information, contact John Hellerman or Dr. Laura
Simmons, both of Cornerstone Research, Phone: 202-274-4762 or
757-546-5117, E-mail: jhellerman@hellermanbaretz.com or
lsimmons@cornerstone.com.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Reserves $1.44B at 4Q for Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a
gross of US$1.4429 billion, US$756.2 million net, as its total
provision for asbestos claims and allocated loss adjustment
expenses, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded a gross of US$1.5591
billion, US$794.4 million, as its total provision for asbestos
claims and ALAE.

For its run-off companies, the Company, at Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded a gross of US$729.8 million, US$218.9 million, as
provision for asbestos claims and ALAE.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded a gross of US$856.8
million, US$248.4 million, as provision for asbestos claims and
ALAE for its run-off companies.

For its operating companies, the Company, at Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded a gross of US$713.1 million, US$537.3 million net, as
provision for asbestos claims and ALAE.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded a gross of US$702.3
million, US$546 million net, as provision for asbestos claims
and ALAE for its operating companies.

Based in Toronto, Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. provides
insurance, reinsurance, and other financial services. The
Company's subsidiaries focus on property-casualty coverage like
trucking, oil, and gas insurance. The Company also provides
investment management, claims adjusting, and risk management
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Still Incurs $1M of Unindemnified Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
M&F Worldwide Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, incurred or expected
to incur about US$1 million of unindemnified asbestos-related
costs, as to which it either has received or expects to receive
about US$800,000 in insurance reimbursements.

In 1995, the Company, two subsidiaries, and a subsidiary of
Mafco Consolidated Group Inc. entered into a transfer agreement.

Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex Corp., with its
successor in interest Pneumo Abex LLC, then a Company unit,
retained the assets and liabilities relating to the Company's
former Abex NWL Aerospace Division. Pneumo Abex transferred
substantially all of its other assets and liabilities to a MCG
subsidiary.

The Transfer Agreement required the MCG subsidiary to undertake
certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to
certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other
liabilities retained by Pneumo Abex.

Before 1988, a former Company subsidiary made certain asbestos-
containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, along
with 10 to as many as 100 or more other firms, as a defendant in
personal injury lawsuits claiming asbestos exposure-related
damages.

Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc., formerly
known as Whitman Corp., has ultimate responsibility for all the
remaining asbestos claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through
August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted.

In connection with the sale by Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries
Inc. assumed responsibility for substantially all asbestos-
related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998
and not indemnified by Whitman. In October 1998, Federal-Mogul
Corp. bought the Cooper subsidiary.

In October 2001, the Cooper subsidiary filed a petition under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing
its indemnity obligations to the Company. Cooper guarantees
performance of its subsidiary's indemnity obligation.

Since the bankruptcy filing of its subsidiary, Cooper has been
fulfilling its subsidiary's indemnity obligations to the extent
that they are no longer being performed by the subsidiary.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a series of
agreements with the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries LLC and
others that proposed a settlement of the Company's claims
against the Cooper subsidiary relating to its indemnity as part
of the bankruptcy reorganization of the Cooper subsidiary.

Based in New York City, M&F Worldwide Corp., operates as a
flavorings maker. It makes licorice extract used for candy and
as a tobacco additive. The Company has expanded into the
security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke
American Checks from Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Int'l. Faces La. Site Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co.'s subsidiary, Morton International Inc., faces
pending lawsuits on employee exposure to asbestos at a
manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La.

The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed
because they are barred under workers' compensation laws.
However, cases involving asbestos-caused malignancies may not be
barred under Louisiana law.

After its acquisition of Morton in 1999, the Company
commissioned medical studies to estimate possible future claims
and recorded accruals based on the results.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related
matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol
Corp., which merged with Morton in 1982.

Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have
closed with no payment.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the
Company, which had asbestos on its premises.

Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or
settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of
exposure at Company facilities.

The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases
that are probable and estimable.

Based in Philadelphia, Rohm & Haas Co.'s operations are divided
among six segments: paints and coatings materials group,
performance materials unit, electronics materials division,
acrylates, salt group, and packaging and building materials
unit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Suits v. Mine Safety Remain at 250
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 10 percent of the 2,500 product liability lawsuits filed
against Mine Safety Appliances Co. is asbestos-related,
according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products
allegedly made and sold by the Company. Collectively, these
suits represent a total of about 16,750 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging they
suffer from silicosis.

The Company said that about 10 percent of the 2,500 lawsuits
filed against it are linked to asbestosis and other combined
injuries. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006)

These suits allege that these conditions resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or made by the
Company.

Based in Pittsburgh, Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective
equipment for workers in the military, as well as the fire
service, construction, and homeland security industries, and
miners. The Company produces air-purifying respiratory
equipment, gas masks, and head protection gear.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transatlantic Holdings Reserves $124M in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, reserved US$124
million for risks related to asbestos illnesses and
environmental impairment, compared with US$99 million at Dec.
31, 2005, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The reserves included US$30 million, at Dec. 31, 2006, that were
related to A&E losses occurring in 1985 and prior, compared with
US$27 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

As Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., the Company's major operating
subsidiary, commenced operations in 1978, most of the Company's
environmental and asbestos-related liabilities arose from
contracts entered into after 1985 that were underwritten
specifically as environmental or asbestos-related coverages
rather than as standard general liability coverages.

The reserves carried for these claims, including incurred but
not reported, are based upon known facts and current law.
However, significant uncertainty exists in determining the
amount of ultimate liability for environmental impairment and
asbestos-related losses, particularly for those occurring in
1985 and prior.

Based in New York, Transatlantic Holdings Inc. operates through
its principal subsidiary, Transatlantic Reinsurance, and its
main operating units, Putnam Reinsurance and Trans Re Zurich.
The Company offers reinsurance for property-casualty products,
including general liability, medical malpractice, architects'
and engineers' liability, automobile liability, and surety
lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Uses $31.6M in 4Q for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
utilized a total of US$31.6 million as costs for settlement and
defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of
tax, compared with US$16.8 million for the year ended Dec. 31,
2005.

For the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company
utilized about US$23.3 million for settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries and net of
tax. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006)

Certain wholly owned Company subsidiaries are named defendants
in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In
virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies
have also been named as defendants.

Most of those claims have been filed against Ingersoll-Rand Co.
(IR-New Jersey) and generally allege injury caused by exposure
to asbestos in certain of IR-New Jersey's products.

While IR-New Jersey neither produced nor made asbestos, some of
its formerly made products used asbestos-containing components,
like gaskets purchased from third-party suppliers.

To date, all asbestos-related claims resolved have been
dismissed or settled.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd. provides
climate control, compact vehicle, construction, industrial and
security products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star Tech Settles 23 of 47 Suits in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Star Technologies Inc.'s subsidiary, Lone Star Steel Co.,
has settled 23 out of 47 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

In the last eight years, Steel has been named a defendant in 47
suits alleging that certain individuals were exposed to asbestos
on the defendants' premises. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages.  

Of those 47 suits, 23 have been settled or are pending
settlement for about US$400,000 in the aggregate and 15 have
been dismissed or are pending dismissal. Steel did not make or
distribute any products containing asbestos.

Beginning in 2003, subsidiary Zinklahoma Inc., inactive since
1989, has been named a defendant in seven suits alleging that
the plaintiffs had contracted mesothelioma from exposure to
asbestos in products made by the defendants and John Zink Co.
Five of these suits have been dismissed and one was settled for
less than US$100,000.  

The Company acquired the stock of Zink in 1987 and, in 1989,
sold the assets of the former Zink to Koch Industries Inc. and
renamed the now inactive subsidiary "Zinklahoma Inc." The
Company retained, and agreed to indemnify Koch against, certain
preclosing Zink liabilities.  

Koch continues to operate the business as John Zink Co. LLC.

In addition, Zink LLC has been named in 12 suits in which the
plaintiffs, six of whom have mesothelioma, allege exposure to
asbestos in Zink's products. Six of these suits have been
dismissed. Koch seeks indemnification from the Company with
respect to the six remaining suits alleging asbestos exposure.  

The costs of defending and settling the suits alleging exposure
to asbestos in Zink's products have been borne by Zink's
insurance carrier.

Based in Dallas, Lone Star Technologies Inc. operates
subsidiaries Lone Star Steel (oil field products), Fintube
Technologies (specialty tubing products for heat-recovery
applications), Bellville Tube (oil field products), Delta
Tubular Processing (thermal treating services), and Wheeling
Machine Products (couplings supplier).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Inc., due to the bankruptcies of several asbestos
manufacturers and other defendants, faces a number of asbestos-
related injury lawsuits, according to the Company's 2006 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants. To date, most of the plaintiffs have not
suffered an injury for which the Company bears responsibility.

Company predecessors sometimes made, distributed, or sold
products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos litigation
suits. However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever
mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos
fiber.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for
asbestos suits. The Company said it believes some of the
potential liabilities regarding these suits are covered by
indemnity agreements with other parties. The Company's uninsured
settlement payments for past asbestos suits have been
immaterial.

Based in Quincy, Ill., Gardner Denver Inc. designs, manufactures
and markets compressor and vacuum products and fluid transfer
products. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's
revenues were about US$1.7 billion, of which 79 percent were
derived from sales of compressor and vacuum products while 21
percent were from sales of fluid transfer products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Corp. Has 40,400 Suits in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about 40,400
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

As of Sept. 29, 2006, the Company was faced with about 40,432
outstanding asbestos-related claims, in which about 7,142 were
non-maritime claims and 33,290 were maritime claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

About 33,300 of these suits have been brought on behalf of
plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm (MARDOC) and seek
unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases allege that
they worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-
related injuries from products that the Company ceased making in
the 1970s.

The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

The Company also faces about 7,100 cases in various U.S.
jurisdictions. About 5,700 of these cases have been brought in
federal court in Mississippi or other federal courts and then
been transferred to the MDL, but are on a different docket from
the MARDOC cases. Most of the cases on this MDL docket have been
inactive for over five years.

To date, in cases which the Company is a defendant, no plaintiff
has requested return of any action to the originating district
court for trial. With regard to about 1,400 remaining cases, the
Company has defended these cases based upon either lack of
product identification.

The Company has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the
cases, the Company was dismissed as a defendant before trial for
lack of product identification.

To date, the Company resolved the claims of about 11,228
plaintiffs. The cumulative average settlement for these matters
is less than US$235 per case.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has accrued a liability of
US$5.2 million for asbestos claims and has recorded insurance
recoveries of about US$500,000.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company has accrued a liability of
US$5.6 million for asbestos-related claims and has recorded
insurance recoveries of about US$3.1 million.

The net amount of US$4.7 million, as of Dec. 31, 2006,
represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover
resolution of future asbestos-related claims.

In January 1994, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for
the costs of defense, judgments and settlements in all of the
asbestos litigation.

In 2006, the Company reached a settlement of about US$300,000 in
cash for the resolution of one of these insurers' obligations
that effectively exhausted the limits of the insurance company's
policies that were included in the 1994 settlement agreement.

Based in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable Corp. makes
aluminum, copper, and fiber-optic wire and cable, including
industrial and specialty products, energy products, and
communications products. The Company also produces power cables,
automotive wire, mining cables, and custom-designed cables for
medical equipment and other products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Accrues $7M Product Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas Inc., at the end of fiscal year 2006, had accrued
a US$7 million asbestos-related product liability, compared with
US$5.5 million at the end of fiscal year 2005, according to the
Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

These accruals primarily related to probable asbestos claim
settlements and legal defense costs.

The Company also has extra amounts accrued for legal and other
costs associated with obtaining insurance recoveries for
previously resolved and currently open claims and their related
costs. These amounts are included in the total liabilities of
US$60.3 million accrued at the end of fiscal year 2006.

The Company also has certain indemnification obligations related
to product liability and toxic tort claims that might arise out
of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex Corp.

In fiscal year 2004, the Company noted that three mass-filed
suits accounted for thousands of claims for which Pneumo Abex
claimed indemnification. In the fiscal 2005-4th quarter, these
and other related claims were resolved for an amount the Company
viewed reasonable.

At the end of fiscal year 2006, there are less than 7,500 claims
for which indemnification is claimed. Of these claims, about
5,200 are filed in federal court and are subject to orders
issued by the Multi-District Litigation panel.

The remaining cases are in state court and some are in "pleural
registries" or other similar classifications. Over 50 percent of
the state court claims were filed before or in 1998.

Before 1980, sales ceased for the asbestos-containing product
claimed to have generated the largest subset of the open cases,
and, therefore, the Company expects a decreasing rate of
individual claims for that subset of cases.

On May 31, 2005, Cooper Industries LLC filed and later served a
suit against the Company, Pneumo Abex LLC, and the Trustee of a
Trust, captioned Cooper Industries LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et
al., Case No. 05 CH 09214 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.).

In the 2002-2nd quarter, the Company bought insurance coverage
related to sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex
and its units. The trust, which was established in 2000 with the
proceeds from an insurance settlement, bought insurance coverage
and funded coverage for remedial and other costs related to the
sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its
units.

Cooper asserted that it was entitled to access US$34 million
that was in the Trust and that was used to purchase the
insurance policy. Cooper claimed that Trust funds should have
been distributed for underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims
indemnified by Cooper.

Cooper asserted that it was deprived of access to money in the
Trust because of the Trustee's decision to use the Trust funds
to purchase the insurance policy. Pneumo Abex LLC, the corporate
successor to the Company's prior subsidiary, has been dismissed
from the suit.

Based in Minneapolis, PepsiAmericas Inc. makes, distributes, and
markets beverage products in the U.S., Central Europe and the
Caribbean. The Company sells various brands that it bottles
under licenses from PepsiCo Inc. or PepsiCo joint ventures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Ins. Reserves $24.7M for A&E in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
US$24.7 million ending loss and loss adjustment expense reserves
related to asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort
liability, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$23.9 million in
ending loss and loss adjustment expense reserves related to
asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort liability,
compared with US$24.4 million at Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006)

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$13.6
million asbestos reserves, net of reinsurance and excluding
pools, compared with US$11.6 million for the year ended Dec. 31,
2005.

Moreover, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves for
assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos, environmental
damage and toxic tort liability of US$57 million in 2006 and
US$55.9 million in 2005.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group Inc.,
f/k/a Allmerica Financial Corp., is an all-around property-
casualty insurance holding company. The Company sells its
products through a network of independent agents in the Midwest,
Northeast, and Southeast U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX Corp., Units Face Claims in 27 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corp. and five of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related
personal injuries, according to the Company's 2006 annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Claims have been filed in 27 states including: Alabama,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

The suits alleged injuries as a result of exposure to products
made with components that contained asbestos. Those components
were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not made by
any of the Company's subsidiaries.

To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
by insurance.

To date, most of the claims resolved have been dismissed without
payment. The balance has been settled for reasonable amounts.
One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., IDEX Corp. is an applied solutions
company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health
and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety
and other diversified products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Cases v. Huntsman Drop to 1,367
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 1,367
unresolved asbestos-related "premises" claims filed against it,
compared with 576 unresolved claims for the year ended Dec. 31,
2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 998
asbestos-related cases tendered and 207 cases resolved. For the
year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 284 cases tendered
and 106 cases resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
1,396 unresolved "premises" claims, compared with 438 for the
same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2006)

The Company has been named as a "premises defendant" in a number
of asbestos exposure cases, typically a claim by a non-employee
of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. These cases have
involved multiple plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple
defendants, and the complaint has not indicated which plaintiffs
were making claims against which defendants, where or how the
alleged injuries occurred, or what injuries each plaintiff
claimed.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had an accrued liability of
US$12.5 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$12.5 million relating to its indemnity
protection with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. Of
those cases, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
recorded 42 unresolved cases, compared with 34 unresolved cases
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

Of those cases, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
noted 19 cases filed and 11 cases resolved. For the year ended
Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 55 claims filed and 56 cases
resolved.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of about US$10,000
during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006 and US$100,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The cases for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005 include cases filed
against Rubicon LLC, which became the Company's subsidiary on
Jan. 1, 2005, as follows: one case filed during the period, one
case resolved during the period and six cases unresolved at the
end of the period. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company accrued
about US$600,000 relating to these cases.

Based in Salt Lake City, Huntsman Corp. makes chemicals with
products including MDI, amines, surfactants, and epoxy-based
polymers. The Company's chemicals are sold in more than 100
countries to customers in the adhesives, construction products,
electronics, medical, and packaging industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Reserves $272.1M for Claims in 4Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, reserved a gross US$272.1
million and a net of US$148.2 million for asbestos-related
claims, 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 US$123.2 million for
reported claims, US$91.2 million for net incurred but not
reported claims, as reserves for asbestos & environmental
exposures.

Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses
for A&E related exposures totaled US$314.8 million at Dec. 31,
2006, which includes US$48.4 million of litigation-related
expense.

In 2006, the Company recognized US$16.7 million of adverse
development on prior years' loss reserves on asbestos and
environmental exposures and related reinsurance bad debt.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded its asbestos-related
reserves at US$305.3 million, gross, and US$146.6 million, net.
(Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006)

Based in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corp. markets and underwrite
specialty insurance products and programs to various niche
markets. The Company operates in three segments of the specialty
insurance marketplace: the Excess and Surplus Lines, the
Specialty Admitted and the London markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 32 Pending Injury Cases in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary Dalmine S.p.A., as of Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded 32 pending asbestos-related injury claims, of which
three are covered by insurance, according to a Company report,
on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2007.

Italy-based Dalmine S.p.A. is currently subject to 13 civil
proceedings for work-related injuries from the use of asbestos
in its manufacturing processes from 1960 to 1980. In addition,
18 more asbestos related out-of-court claims and one civil party
claim have been forwarded to Dalmine.

During 2006, two new claims were filed, four claims were
dismissed, and one claim was settled.

Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company are EUR3.8
million.

Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection
with the claims not yet settled is about EUR12.6 million
(US$16.6 million).

Based in Luxembourg, Tenaris S.A., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and distributes seamless steel pipe products. The
Company also produces welded steel pipes for gas pipelines in
South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Water Faces 104 Cases in Miss., N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies Inc. faces about 104 asbestos-related
cases filed primarily in Mississippi and New Jersey state
courts, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

These cases allege injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

These filings typically name multiple defendants and are filed
on behalf of many plaintiffs. They do not identify any
particular Company products as a source of asbestos exposure.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from each case when the
scheduled trial date comes near or when discovery fails to yield
any evidence of exposure to any of its products.

The Company faced about 121 cases filed primarily, but not
exclusively, in Mississippi and New Jersey state courts alleging
injury or death as a result of asbestos exposure. (Class Action
Reporter, March 10, 2006)

Based in North Andover, Mass., Watts Water Technologies Inc.
makes valves used in plumbing, heating, and water control
applications. The Company's products include ball valves, safety
relief valves, pressure regulators, float valves, and drainage
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Estimates Mont. Liability at $255.2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., at Dec. 31, 2006, estimated US$255.2 million
as liability for asbestos remediation related to its former
vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., compared with US$226.2
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The US$255.2 million estimate includes the cost of remediation
at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby.

The US$255.2 million estimate includes US$164.4 million for
asserted reimbursable costs through 2005 that was recorded in
the 2006-2nd quarter.  

As a result of a 2002 district court ruling, the Company is
required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million
(plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for
all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-related
remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining
and processing activities in Libby.  

These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a global basis
through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Performance Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Faces 625 Property Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., as of Jan. 31, 2007, recorded about 625
outstanding property damage claims after the reclassification,
withdrawal, or expungement of claims, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2007.

As of Oct. 31, 2006, the Company had about 640 outstanding
asbestos-related property damage claims, after reclassification,
withdrawal, or expungement of claims. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 24, 2006)

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage suits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing
or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases filed before the April
2, 2001 bankruptcy filing date, 140 were dismissed without
payment of any damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after
trial were entered in favor of the Company in nine cases,
excluding cases settled following appeals of judgments in favor
of the Company.

Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases, one of which is on appeal, for a total of US$86.1
million, 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
US$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding, including the
one on appeal.

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to the Company's former
Zonolite Attic Insulation product and eight relate to a number
of former asbestos-containing products, two of which also are
alleged to involve ZAI.

About 4,300 more property damage claims were filed before the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
suits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 suits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.

These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the
removal, replacement and disposal of all ZAI insulation. The
plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and
that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per
home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been
stayed.

The plaintiffs in the ZAI suits dispute the Company's position
on the safety of ZAI. On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court
held a hearing on motions filed by the parties to address a
number of important legal and factual issues regarding the ZAI
claims.  

On Dec. 14, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos
and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no
unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a global basis
through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Performance Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2007.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy filing date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury suits, involving about 35,720
claims, were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts and about 55,489 suits involving about
163,698 claims were disposed of for a total of US$645.6 million.  

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 claims for personal injury were
pending against the Company.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a global basis
through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Performance Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Liability Remains at $1.7B in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s asbestos-related liability, as of Dec. 31,
2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, totaled US$1.7 billion, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2007.

The amount recorded at Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005 includes
the US$1.613 billion maximum amount reflected as a condition
precedent to the Plan of Reorganization and US$87 million
related to pre-Chapter 11 contractual settlements and judgments
included in general unsecured claims.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a global basis
through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Performance Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Notes $917M Coverage from 55 Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about US$917
million of asbestos-related excess coverage from 55 presently
solvent insurers, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had about US$959 million of
asbestos-related excess coverage from about 54 presently solvent
insurers. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

The Company bought insurance policies that provided coverage for
years 1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related suits and
claims. Coverage for 1962 through 1972 has been exhausted,
leaving coverage for 1973 through 1985 available for pending and
future claims. Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-
related liabilities has not been commercially available to the
Company.

With one exception, coverage disputes regarding the Company's
primary insurance policies have been settled, and the settlement
amounts paid in full.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts
paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount for settled insurers available under these settlement
agreements is about $487 million.

Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers
with respect to about US$430 million of excess coverage. In
addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess
insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of
US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of
the holders of claims for which the Company was provided
coverage under the affected policies.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a global basis
through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Performance Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Insurance Recovery Remains at $500M
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., at Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, recorded
US$500 million as non-current asbestos-related insurance
recovery, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2007.

The Company faces property damage and personal injury lawsuits
relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products.

As of the Company's April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date, the
Company was a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related suits, 17
involving claims for property damage (one of which has since
been dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims for
personal injury.

Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new suits against the Debtors.

Separate creditors' committees representing the interests of
property damage and personal injury claimants, and a legal
representative of future personal injury claimants, have been
appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases.

The Company's obligations with respect to present and future
claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a global basis
through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Performance Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Drop to 158
----------------------------------------------------------------
BNS Holding Inc., as of Feb. 28, 2007, recorded 158 known open
and active asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 19, 2007.

As of Jan. 26, 2007, the Company recorded 196 known open and
active asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2,
2007)

Since 1994, the Company's BNS Co. subsidiary has been notified
that it has been named as a defendant in a total of 671 known
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims (as of Feb. 28, 2007). Fifty-
four of those claims were filed before Dec. 31, 2001.

More claims were filed in subsequent years as follows: In 2002,
98 claims; in 2003, 194 claims; in 2004 178 claims; in 2005, 76
claims and in 2006, 64 claims. As of Feb. 28, 2007, seven more
claims were filed.

In 2006, 11 claims were granted Summary Judgment and were
closed, 10 claims were settled for an aggregate of US$8,000 and
122 more claims were dismissed. As of Feb. 28, 2007, three more
claims were granted Summary Judgment and were closed, 20 claims
were dismissed, and one claim was settled for US$1,000.

The Company has recorded a liability of US$569,000 relating to
the open and active claims against BNS Co. as of Jan. 31, 2007
and Oct. 31, 2006.

Based in Middletown, R.I., BNS Holding Inc. became a holding
company for BNS Co. in December 2004. BNS Co. was engaged in the
metrology business and the design, manufacture, and sale of
precision measuring tools and instruments, and manual and
computer controlled measuring machines. BNS Co. sold its
remaining assets in June 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Corp. Has 122 Pending Suits at 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corp., as of Dec. 21, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, is a co-
defendant in 122 asbestos-related cases, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 19, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company faced about 124 asbestos-
related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006)

The suits alleged that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases from exposure to asbestos products or
equipment with asbestos sold by one or more named defendants.

These suits relate to the discontinued Heat Technologies
segment, which was sold in March 2005.

Due to the noninformative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims
against it.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970 to Aug. 1, 1973,
have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide
a defense under those policies.

Based in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corp., f/k/a Selas Corp.
of America, engages in the design, development, engineering and
manufacturing of micro-miniature components, systems and molded
plastic parts mainly for the hearing instrument, electronics,
telecommunications, computer and medical equipment industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $308.7M Losses, Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, was
US$308.7 million, compared with US$274.7 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related
unpaid losses and LAE was US$189 million, compared with US$119.3
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the
Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and LAE were
US$279,969,000, compared with US$234,490,000 for the three and
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
1, 2006)

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the
Company's net unpaid losses and LAE were US$168,003,000,
compared with US$89,195,000 for the three and nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006)

Included in the Company's reserves are amounts related to
asbestos-related illnesses and environmental impairment, which,
net of related reinsurance recoverable, totaled US$215.7 million
as of Dec. 31, 2006 and US$132.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims increased
US$27.1 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's survival ratio for A&E liabilities as of Dec. 31,
2006 is 11 years.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company incurred US$62.5
million as gross losses and LAE, compared with US$54.2 million
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company incurred US$27.1
million as net losses and LAE, compared with US$41.2 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The asbestos open claim count as of Dec. 31, 2006 was 1,553,
amounting to US$228.5 million in gross case losses and LAE
reserves. The largest 10 reported claims account for 15.2
percent of the gross case reserves, with an average reserve of
US$3.5 million.

The asbestos open claim count as of Dec. 31, 2005 was 1,532,
amounting to US$206 million in gross case losses and LAE
reserves. The largest 10 reported claims account for 15.7
percent of the gross case reserves, with an average reserve of
US$3.2 million.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. offers
treaty and facultative reinsurance to property and casualty
insurers and reinsurers. The Company is established through 14
offices in the U.S., London, Paris, Singapore, and Latin
America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Faces 324 Claims in 10 Ala. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. faces 10 asbestos-related lawsuits filed in
Alabama state courts by a total of about 324 individual
plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007.

Over 100 defendants are named in each case. In all 10 cases, the
plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos while
working at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and contracted
mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness.

They claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the
plant, which were made by each defendant. In eight of the cases,
plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered over 2,082 cases
pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada,
Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and
California to the Company for defense and indemnification.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions in a 1993 Purchase
Agreement between the parties where Sterling bought the LaBour
Pump business and other assets from the Company. Sterling has
not sued the Company in connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed
to asbestos and products with asbestos in the course of their
employment. Each complaint names as defendants many
manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently
because plaintiffs came into contact with different products in
the course of their employment. Plaintiffs claim that LaBour
Pump or Sterling may have made some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

LaBour Pump Co., a former Company subsidiary, has been named as
a defendant in over 361 similar cases in New Jersey. These cases
have also been tendered by Sterling. The Company has elected to
defend these cases, many of which have been dismissed or settled
for nominal sums.

Based in Arlington, Va., Katy Industries Inc. makes maintenance
products like cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. The
Company also makes electric-corded products like extension
cords, surge protectors, and garden lighting. The Company was
established in 1967.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K&F Incurs Administrative Costs for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
K&F Industries Holdings Inc., to date, has incurred
administrative costs in connection with asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2007.

Since 1993, about 180 non-employee plaintiffs filed product
liability suits against the Company, alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos.

To date in connection with these suits, the Company has sought
and received defense and indemnity from The Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co., which produced aircraft braking systems with
asbestos-containing brake linings between about 1940 and 1985 at
the Akron, Ohio facility now operated by Aircraft Braking
Systems.

Goodyear has been named as a defendant in all of these claims.
In addition, most of the product liability claims name Loral
Corp. (now part of Lockheed Martin Corp.), from whom the Company
bought the aircraft braking system production assets in 1989.

Company subsidiary Nasco Aircraft Brake Inc. has been named in
seven asbestos product liability cases, two since the Company
acquired NASCO, and has also incurred insignificant expenses in
connection with these claims.

In 2003, the Company participated with Lockheed Martin in the
resolution of numerous worker-related claims, including 157
claims made against the Company, for an aggregate cost of
US$120,000. No further employee asbestos exposure claims are
pending against the Company.

Based in White Plains, N.Y., K&F Industries Holdings Inc. is a
holding company that conducts its business exclusively through
its indirect, wholly owned subsidiary K&F Industries Inc., which
the Company acquired in Nov. 18, 2004. The Company is engaged in
the design, development, manufacture and distribution of wheels,
brakes and brake control systems, and the manufacture of
materials for fuel tanks, iceguards, inflatable oil booms and
various other products made from coated fabrics for military and
commercial uses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Co. Mulls Adjusting Plan Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said that subsidiary Quigley Company Inc. could
adjust certain provisions in its reorganization plan and the
voting procedures to conform with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's
ruling, and then possibly re-solicit the plan for acceptance or
seek alternative remedies.

These and other options, including additional payments, are
being considered, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2007.

Quigley, a wholly owned Company subsidiary acquired in 1968,
sold small amounts of products with asbestos until the early
1970s.

In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps which, if
approved by the courts and claimants, will resolve all pending
and future claims against the Company and Quigley in which the
claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley
products with asbestos, silica or mixed dust.

The Company took a charge of US$369 million before-tax (US$229
million after-tax) to 2004-3rd quarter earnings in connection
with these matters.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the
Bankruptcy Court that must be approved by both the Bankruptcy
Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York after receipt of the vote of 75 percent of the
claimants.

In connection with that filing, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80
percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley
products against Quigley and the Company.

The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in
payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005
and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of
certain required documentation from each of the claimants.

The reorganization plan, the approval of which is considered
probable, will establish a Trust for the payment of all
remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging
injury from exposure to Quigley products.

Pfizer will contribute US$405 million to the Trust through a
note, which has a present value of US$172 million, as well as
about US$100 million in insurance, and will forgive a US$30
million secured loan to Quigley.

As certified by the balloting agent in May 2006, more than 75
percent of Quigley's claimants holding claims that represent
more than two-thirds in value of claims against Quigley voted to
accept Quigley's plan of reorganization.

On Aug. 9, 2006, in reviewing the voting tabulation methodology,
the Bankruptcy Court ruled that certain votes that accepted the
plan were not predicated upon the actual value of the claim. As
a result, the reorganization plan was not accepted.

In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company
in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to
certain insurance coverage which provides for payments to the
Company over a 10-year period of amounts totaling US$406
million.

Based in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm. Subsidiaries in the Pfizer family include
Embrex, Warner-Lambert, and Parke-Davis. Customers include
McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Optical Has 110,200 Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Optical Corp. and other defendants, as of Dec. 31,
2006, face about 110,200 asbestos-related claims, according to
Pfizer Inc.'s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2007.

These claims are pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials.

Between 1967 and 1982, Pfizer's subsidiary Warner-Lambert Co.
owned American Optical Corp., which made and sold respiratory
protective devices and asbestos safety clothing.

In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-
Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other
claims.

The Company is engaged in the defense of, and will continue to
explore various means to resolve, these claims.

Several of the insurance carriers that provided coverage for the
American Optical asbestos and other allegedly hazardous
materials claims have denied coverage.

Separately, there is a small number of suits pending against the
Company in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged personal injury from exposure to products with asbestos
and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime
Products Co., which was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and
which sold products with asbestos until the 1970s.

Suits are also pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities
owned or formerly owned by the Company or its subsidiaries.

Based in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm. Subsidiaries in the Pfizer family include
Embrex, Warner-Lambert, and Parke-Davis. Customers include
McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Teledyne Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teledyne Technologies Inc. has been joined with a number of
defendants in lawsuits alleging injury or death from exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has not incurred material liabilities in connection
with these suits. The filings typically do not identify any
Company product as a source of asbestos exposure, and the
Company has been dismissed from cases for lack of product
identification, but after some defense costs have been incurred.

Also, because of the prominent "Teledyne" name, the Company may
be mistakenly joined in suits involving a company or business
that was not assumed by the Company as part of its 1999 spin-
off.

The Company's historic insurance coverage, including that of its
predecessors, may not fully cover those claims and defense of
those matters, as coverage depends on the year of purported
exposure and other factors.

Certain gas generators made by Teledyne Energy Systems Inc. had
a sealed, wetted asbestos component. While the company has been
transitioning to a replacement material, has placed warning
labels on its products and takes care in handling of this
material by employees, there is no assurance that the Company
will not face product liability claims involving this component.

Based in Thousand Oaks, Calif., Teledyne Technologies Inc.
provides sophisticated electronic components, instruments and
communications products, including defense electronics,
monitoring and control instrumentation for marine, environmental
and industrial applications, data acquisition and communications
equipment for airlines and business aircraft and components, and
subsystems for wireless and satellite communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Continues to Face Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to a number of lawsuits
initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad
workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
made by The Pullman Co., a Company subsidiary. Nearly all of the
claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the
Company's automotive emission control products.

A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

Many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number
of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from various
industries.

Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or
specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.

In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash costs or
non-cash charges to earnings if any of these matters is resolved
unfavorably to the Company.

To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved
favorable resolution.

Based in Lake Forest, Ill., Tenneco Inc. makes Walker exhaust
systems and Monroe ride-control equipment for vehicle
manufacturers and the replacement market. The Company's product
line also includes vibration-control systems, catalytic
converters, and various exhaust system accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TODCO Continues to Face Aaron Suit in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODCO continues to deal with an asbestos-related suit styled
Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Co. et al., which is
filed in the Circuit Court, 2nd Judicial District, Jones County,
Miss.

The Aaron case is used to refer to several cases filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi involving 768 persons
that alleged personal injury from asbestos exposure in the
course of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and
2002.

The complaints named as defendants certain of the Company's
subsidiaries and certain of Transocean Inc.'s subsidiaries to
whom the Company may owe indemnity and other unaffiliated
defendant companies, including companies that allegedly made
drilling related products with asbestos that are the subject of
the complaints.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranged from about 20 to 70. The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels
and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and
strict liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

To date, three plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant in
their amended complaints.

The Company has not yet conducted any additional discovery to
verify the number of plaintiffs that were employed by the
Company's subsidiaries or Transocean's subsidiaries or otherwise
have any connection with the Company's or Transocean's drilling
operations.

Based in Houston, TODCO provides services to exploration and
production businesses operating in the shallow waters of the
Gulf of Mexico, in the Gulf Coast inland marine region, as well
as in Trinidad and Venezuela.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Remain at 350 in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006 and Sept. 30, 2006,
recorded about 350 asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it,
according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been named a co-defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. All of the claims against the
Company resolved to date have been concluded before trial,
either through dismissal or through settlement with payments to
the plaintiff that are not material to the Company.

To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including
settlement costs, have not been significant.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$22 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$25 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17,
2006)

Based in Glen Allen, Va., MeadWestvaco Corp. is a global company
with positions in the packaging, consumer and office products,
specialty chemicals and specialty papers markets. The Company's
main operating business segments are: Packaging Resources,
Consumer Solutions, Consumer and Office Products, and Specialty
Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Dana Corp. Drop to 73,000 in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about 73,000 active
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, compared with
77,000 claims at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 20, 2007.

The Dec. 31, 2006 claims included about 6,000 claims that were
settled but awaiting final documentation and payment, compared
with 10,000 claims at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had about 75,000 active pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, compared with 77,000
claims at Dec. 31, 2005. The claims at Sept. 30, 2006 included
9,000 claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation
and payment, compared with the Dec. 31, 2005 claims that
included 10,000 claims. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had recorded US$72 as an asset for
probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and
projected claims, compared with US$78 recorded at Dec. 31, 2005.

Before 2006, the Company reached agreements with some of its
insurers to commute policies covering asbestos-related claims.
There were no commutations of insurance in 2006. At Dec. 31,
2006 the liability totaled US$11 million.

In addition, the Company had a net amount recoverable from its
insurers and others of US$14 million at Dec. 31, 2006, compared
with US$15 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Until 2001, most of the Company's asbestos-related claims were
administered, defended and settled by the Center for Claims
Resolution, which settled claims for its member companies on a
shared settlement cost basis. In 2001, the CCR was reorganized
and discontinued negotiating shared settlements.

Through Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had paid US$47 million to CCR
claimants and collected US$29 from its insurance carriers with
respect to these claims. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had a net
receivable of US$13 million that it expects to recover from
available insurance and surety bonds relating to these claims.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp. supplies axle, driveshaft,
structural, and sealing and thermal management products for
global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about 45,000
people and operates 121 facilities in 28 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japanese Gov't Aid Benefits 20% of Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 20 percent of applications sent to the Japanese government
to aid people with asbestos-related lung cancer or family
members of those who died have been approved, The Daily Yomiuri
reports.

A year has passed since a law was enacted to provide financial
assistance to victims of asbestos-related diseases who are not
covered by workers accident compensation, which provides aid to
employees in plants using asbestos.

The law restricts eligibility for financial aid to people who
contracted asbestos-linked mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung
cancer while living near factories using asbestos.

The Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency in
Kawasaki, which accepts applications for the aid, said it had
received 836 applications as of Feb. 28, 2007 from asbestos-
related lung cancer sufferers and family members of those with
the disease. However, 185 applicants were approved.

Those with the disease are entitled to receive aid like medical
allowances, while family members of victims are eligible to
receive JPY3 million in condolence money.

Among applications submitted by family members, 84 percent of
cases in which the victims had mesothelioma were successful,
while 9 percent of applications by family members of lung cancer
victims were considered eligible for the aid.

The law provides special allowances to family members of
employees who died from asbestos-linked diseases even after the
five-year statute of limitations for workers accident
compensation expires. However, the number of ineligible cases
exceeded the number of those eligible.

Yuji Natori, a doctor at Hirano Kameido Himawari Clinic, said
the government should review the requirements for the aid as
some types of asbestos are difficult to detect in a pathologic
examination.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Minerals Technologies Records 26 Pending Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Corp. recorded 26 pending asbestos-related
cases filed against it, according to the Company's 2006 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Certain Company subsidiaries face a number of cases seeking
damages for exposure to asbestos containing materials.

In 2006, the Company was named in three new asbestos cases. To
date, the Company has not settled any asbestos suits.

The Company is unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the suits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.

The aggregate cost to the Company for 2006 for the legal defense
of asbestos and silica cases was US$100,000.   


COMPANY PROFILE
Minerals Technologies Inc.  
The Chrysler Bldg., 405 Lexington Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10174-1901
Phone: 212-878-1800
Fax: 212-878-1801
http://www.mineralstech.com

Description:
Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad
range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral
products and supporting systems and services. The Company has
two segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDITED HOME: Federman Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on March 16, 2007, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Accredited Home Lenders Holding
Co.

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

The class period is from Nov. 1, 2005 through March 12, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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


NEW CENTURY: Berger & Montague Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of all purchasers of Series B Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock of New Century Financial Corp. (OTC Bulletin
Board: NEWCO.PK) between Aug. 15, 2006 and Feb. 7, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges New Century and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

It alleges that those defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period which resulted in artificially inflating
the value of New Century's Series B Preferred Stock.

Additionally, the Complaint charges New Century, certain of its
officers and directors, as well as:

     (i) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
    (ii) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
   (iii) Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc., and
    (iv) Jeffries & Co., Inc.

with violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, for the materially false and misleading statements
incorporated by reference in the Series B Preferred's
Registration Statement, Prospectus, and Prospectus Supplement.

The Securities Act claims, unlike the Exchange Act claims, are
unique to purchasers of the Series B Preferred Stock, in that
they are asserted against New Century's Underwriters and do not
require a showing of fraudulent intent.

On Feb. 7, 2007 New Century shocked investors by revealing hat
the company would have to restate its financial results, due to
insufficient reserves associated with its sub-prime lending
business and material weaknesses in its internal control
function.

On March 2, 2007, following the close of the market, New Century
disclosed that it had received notification from the U.S.
Attorney's Office that it was conducting a criminal inquiry. On
March 13, 2007, New Century revealed that the SEC opened an
investigation.

As a result of New Century's stunning revelations, the price of
New Century's Series B Preferred Stock initially plummeted from
$24.95 per share on Feb. 7, 2007, to $19.04 on Feb. 12, 2007 --
a decline of over 23%.

Following its revelation on March 13, 2007 that it faced an SEC
investigation, amid speculation of bankruptcy, the Series B
Preferred Stock traded as low as $6 per share on March 14, 2007
-- a decline of 76%.

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

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas
Risen, Esq., Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager, all
of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com/.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class
action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of RadioShack Corp. between Jan. 14,
2003 and June 7, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the company's business and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of RadioShack securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 15, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-
4847 (Toll-Free), E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Website:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action against
Wireless Facilities, Inc. and certain officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on behalf of Wireless Facilities common stock purchasers during
the period March 29, 2001 to March 12, 2007 inclusive for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the
company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
company's business, accounting practices and financial results.

Amongst other things, defendants concealed WFI's longstanding
and highly improper practice of backdating its stock option
awards to executive management, which resulted in undocumented
windfall compensation to recipients of the awards.

Defendants' improper grant of backdated stock options violated
the company's stock option plans, as well as Generally Accepted
Accounting Practices ("GAAP").

As a result, defendants informed shareholders on March 12, 2007
that the company's quarterly and annual financial statements for
the fiscal years 2000-2006 were materially false and misleading,
that the company would not timely file its SEC Form 10-K for the
2006 fiscal year and that the company expected to receive a
delisting notice from the NASDAQ.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 18, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Scott+Scott, LLP, Phone: (800)
404-7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


WORLDSPACE INC: Labaton Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of WorldSpace, Inc. pursuant to the initial public
offering of WorldSpace commencing on or about Aug. 4, 2005.

The complaint charges WorldSpace, Noah A. Samaram, Sridhar
Ganesan, and UBS Securities LLC of violating Section 11, 12(a)2,
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

It alleges that the representations made in connection with the
sale of WorldSpace common stock in the IPO were materially false
and misleading because the company's share price was
artificially inflated because subscribers who had purchased a
three-month, pre-paid subscription to the WorldSpace "access
control system" pursuant to a promotional offer, but who
declined to continue or to pay for a subscription following the
end of the promotional period were not timely removed from the
company's subscriber count.

Rather than report these expired subscriptions as "churned,"
Defendants continued to include these expired subscriptions in
the company's subscriber count for an additional 90-days
following the expiration of the initial three-month promotional
period.

At the time these facts and their effects on the company's
operating results were fully disclosed, the price of the
company's common stock declined.

On March 16, 2006, on a conference call with investors,
WorldSpace revealed that service to subscribers was not
immediately discontinued when a customer failed to renew its
subscriptions.

This news shocked the market, causing WorldSpace share to
plummet the next day, March 17, 2006, by $2.63 per share, a more
than 22% drop from the previous day's closing price of $11.52
per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 15, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


                            *********


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  * * *