CAR_Public/070404.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, March 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 64

                            Headlines


ASARCO LLC: Ariz. Court Approves Settlement of Retirees' Suit
BROOKLINE BANK: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Notice of Sale Form
CANADA: Government Sued for Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons
CANADA: CA$200M Suit Over TCE Contamination Allowed to Proceed
CANADA COVE: Calif. Court Certifies Suit Over Water Charges

ESS TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 2008 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Suit
FIDELITY MORTGAGE: Seeks Summary Judgment in Penn. FLSA Lawsuit
FOREST HILL: Okla. Judge Rejects Bid for Immunity from Lawsuits
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Ind. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Enron-Related Lawsuit

MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Tenn. Court Over Recalled Pet Food
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Wis.
MUSICLAND HOLDING: Suit by Former Managers Denied Certification
NETZERO: Plaintiff in Suit Over Internet Fees to Withdraw
NETZERO: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Cancelled Internet Accounts

NEW CENTURY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 10
OIL FIRMS: Ill. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Gas Price Lawsuit
PARMALAT SPA: Investors to Get $50 Million Partial Settlement
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Potential Suit Over Electricity Rates
REFCO INC: FXA Claim Reclassified as Unsecured Nonpriority

REFCO INC: June 29 Hearing Set for $108M Settlement with BAWAG
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Asks "Colon" Plaintiff on Plan to File Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Seeks Decertification of Calif. Labor Suits
SCOTTISH RE: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
SILICON IMAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Amended Securities Suit

SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Allows Suit Over 2004 Sioux Falls Flooding
UNITED PARCEL: Franchisees Amend Complaint Filed in Calif. Court
WAL-MART STORES: USWCC Files Amicus Curiae in "Dukes" Litigation
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: 9t Circuit to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
XL CAPITAL: Seeks to Dismiss N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit

XM SATELLITE: Seeks Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crowley Maritime Records 15,259 Tort Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $511.4M for A&E Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Corp. Units Face 1,295 Pending Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face ASARCO LLC Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Still Face Cases in Miss.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire Reserves $3.4M for A&E Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Rising Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: XL Capital Records 1,447 Open Claims in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott, JRMI Face Insurance Suit in La.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Junked in Favor of McDermott Units

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Records 87,070 Injury Claims at 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Int'l. Reserves $151.8M at 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Faces 18T Open Claims in '06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Faces Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Ltd. Reserves $95M for A&E Losses

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne Corp. Reserves $500,000 for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Reserves $350,000 for Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: May 14 Trial Set for Calif. Water Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graybar Electric Faces 3,109 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Faces Injury Suits in 3 States

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Reserves $23.3M for 4Q Losses  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Engages in Insurance Suit in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 500 Cases W/ 10,400 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 520 Pending Claims in '06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: White Mountains Records 1,173 Claims in '06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selective Insurance Has 2,273 Claims at 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $123.5M Interest at 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air (Canada) Faces Thundersky Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baldor Electric Units Face Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Inks $20M Settlement w/ Federal Ins.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Issues $2,000 Penalty to Envirovantage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Settles With Bldg. Owner, Builder
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Asbestos Levels in Wyo. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Financial Reserves $131M for A&E

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Records $64.6M Liability


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COAST FINANCIAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit
RADIOSHACK CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


ASARCO LLC: Ariz. Court Approves Settlement of Retirees' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Richard S. Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi approves
ASARCO LLC's settlement agreement resolving certain retiree
health and benefit plans disputes in Class Action Civil Suit No.
03-1297 pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix Division.

The court also approves ASARCO's reimbursement of the reasonable
fees and expenses of the retiree class' counsel.

Pursuant to the settlement, ASARCO, the Unions and the Retiree
Class will file a joint stipulation of dismissal of the Arizona
Litigation.

In June 2003, ASARCO LLC, Silver Bell Mining, L.L.C., and
Encycle/Texas, Inc., had initiated a class action civil suit No.
03-1297 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix Division, seeking a declaratory judgment to  
determine rights under certain retiree health and benefit plans.

Concurrent with ASARCO's negotiations of a new collective  
bargaining agreement with certain labor unions, it also  
negotiated a settlement to resolve all retiree medical benefit  
claims asserted in the Arizona Litigation.

Parties to the Settlement are:

   * ASARCO LLC;

   * The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,   
     Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service  
     Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC; the  
     International Brotherhood of Electric Workers Locals 518,  
     570, 583 and 602; and the International Chemical Workers  
     Union Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers; and

   * Any individual who was an employee-participant, a dependent
     or a spouse of a participant in the ASARCO employee benefit
     plans that provided for retiree health and prescription  
     drug benefits; and

   * Any individual who retired before Jan. 1, 2007, from a
     union represented position at an ASARCO, Silver Bell, and
     Encycle/Texas, location who is not yet 65 years old or is
     qualified for Medicare.

The settlement provides that:

   (a) Class members not yet eligible for Medicare will pay
       monthly premiums of $100 per participant and a maximum of
       $200 per family, instead of continuing to pay monthly
       premiums ranging from $220 to $430 per month.  Medicare
       eligible class members who continue to be eligible for
       benefits will pay monthly premiums of $75 per participant
       and a $150 maximum per family.

   (b) Annual deductibles will be reduced to $200 for an
       individual and $400 for a family.  The separate
       prescription drug deductible that the company had imposed
       will be eliminated.

   (c) The general mail order for prescription drug co-pays will
       be $5 rather than the greater of $5 or 20% of the cost.

   (d) The new program requires ASARCO to pay 90% of non-drug
       costs and that retires pay the remaining 10%.  However,
       the out-of-pocket maximum that retirees have to pay is
       reduced from $5,000 per family and $2,500 per individual
       down to $2,000 for the entire family.

   (e) Class Members who have dropped out of the retiree health
       care plan since 2003 will have a right to re-enroll  
       within a specified period of time.

The new premiums are effective March 1, 2007.

Based in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-  
- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company.  
Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. is ASARCO's ultimate parent.  The  
company filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr.  
S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).  (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue
No. 42; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


BROOKLINE BANK: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Notice of Sale Form
------------------------------------------------------------
Brookline Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookline Bancorp,
Inc., received on Feb. 28, 2007 a complaint filed against it in
the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by
Carrie E. Mosca.

Ms. Mosca, an attorney, defaulted on a loan obligation on an
automobile that she co-owned.  She alleges that the form of
notice of sale of collateral that the bank sent to her after she
and the co-owner became delinquent on the loan obligation did
not contain information required to be provided to a consumer
under the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
individuals to whom the bank sent the same form of notice in
connection with transactions documented as consumer transactions
during the four-year period prior to the filing of the action.

The action seeks statutory damages, an order restraining the
Bank from future use of the form of notice sent to Ms. Mosca, an
order barring the bank from recovering any deficiency from other
individuals to whom it sent the same form of notice and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The bank said it intends to vigorously defend the action.  


CANADA: Government Sued for Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian federal government is a defendant in a purported
class action over the alleged use of chemical weapons on a
number of military bases, Jeff Keele of CJOB reports.

Frederick Easton of Winnipeg is one of the lead plaintiffs in
the case.  The 74-year-old man claims he and thousands of others
were exposed to a number of toxic chemicals while serving on
military bases in Alberta and Ontario.

The claim alleges the government intentionally exposed some of
the soldiers to harmful agents including mustard gas between
1940 and 1976.

The class action is seeking damages and a monetary award for
injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs.


CANADA: CA$200M Suit Over TCE Contamination Allowed to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court permitted residents of the town of
Shannon to proceed with a purported class action against the
Canadian Department of National Defense and SNC-Tech over the
alleged contamination of drinking water in the community with
trichloroethylene (TCE).

Shannon is about 20 kilometers northwest of Quebec City.  Its
residents are seeking more than CA$200 million in damages for
health problems they say were caused by water tainted with TCE,
an industrial solvent that was used at the adjacent Canadian
Forces Base Valcartier in the 1950s.  TCE is a substance Health
Canada has said is a potential carcinogen.

Residents say they've experienced unusual health problems,
including many cancer cases.  About 400 of the town's 2,000
residents are involved in the case.

Generally, the residents accuse the national defense department
and SNC-Tech of covering up problems caused by TCE.  SNC-Tech, a
division of Groupe SNC Lavalin, owns the facilities on the
military base where the solvent was used.

Back in 2004, plaintiffs had sought permission to launch a class
action.  Though the claims haven't yet been proven in court, on
March 23, Judge Bernard Godbout ruled the case could proceed.


CANADA COVE: Calif. Court Certifies Suit Over Water Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Mateo County Superior Court has granted class-action
status to a lawsuit over water charges at the Canada Cove Mobile
Home Park, which is owned by Canada Cove LLC, The Half Moon Bay
Review reports.

Paul Minoletti, a lawyer for the residents, said that the court
has deemed the case appropriate for the designation and the
class will be certified in the next month.

Generally, the suit contends that there was systematic
overcharging to all residents and in the same dollar amounts.
The case will encompass at least 450 households and reach back
about five years, according to Mr. Minoletti.

"But we're going to try to go back farther because we're
contending there was fraud," Mr. Minoletti adds.  He explains
that complaints about the high rates, which go back as far as 15
years, were not addressed in a straightforward manner.

Mr. Minoletti explains that under state law, up to $2,000 in
penalties for every violation is allowed.  A violation in the
case could consist of every overcharged bill that was sent.

Despite the court ruling, Canada Cove has recently sent
residents letters offering a payment of $300 if they waive all
rights to participate in the lawsuit, according to the report.

For more details, contact Paul G. Minoletti of Greene, Chauvel,
Descalso & Minoletti, 951 Mariner's Island Boulevard, Suite 630,
San Mateo, CA 94404-1561, Phone: (650) 573-9500, Fax: (650) 573-
9689, Web site: http://www.greenechauvel.com/.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 2008 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A January 2008 trial is slated for the securities fraud class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against ESS Technology, Inc., and certain
of its present and former officers and directors.

On Aug. 12, 2002, following the company's downward revision of
revenue and earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of
2002, a series of putative federal class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.   

Complaints alleged that the company and certain of its present
and former officers and directors made misleading statements
regarding the company's business and failed to disclose certain
allegedly material facts during an alleged class period of Jan.
3, 2002 through Aug. 12, 2002, in violation of federal
securities laws.  

These actions were consolidated and are proceeding under the
caption, "In re ESS Technology Securities Litigation."   

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the putative
class.  They later amended their consolidated complaint on Nov.
3, 2003, which the company then moved to dismiss on Dec. 18,
2003.  

On Dec. 1, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss, and struck from the complaint
allegations arising prior to Feb. 27, 2002.

On Dec. 22, 2004, based on the court's order, the company moved
to strike from the complaint all remaining claims and
allegations arising prior to Aug. 10, 2002.  

On Feb. 22, 2005, the court granted the company's motion in part
and struck all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to
Aug. 1, 2002 from the complaint.  

In an order filed on Feb. 8, 2006, the court certified a
plaintiff class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities
during the period beginning Aug. 1, 2002, through and including
Aug. 12, 2002.

On March 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
their operative complaint, which the court denied on May 30,
2006.

Trial has been tentatively set for January 2008, according to
the company's March 16 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 ESS Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 02-CV-4497," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San  
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,  
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:  
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA),  
         100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111,  
         Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534; and  

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,  
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San  
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:  
         support@milberg.com.

Representing the company are Meredith N. Landy and Joshua D.  
Baker of O'Melveny & Myers, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA  
94025-7019, Phone: 650.473.2600, Fax: 650.473.2601, E-mail:  
mlandy@omm.com or jbaker@omm.com.


FIDELITY MORTGAGE: Seeks Summary Judgment in Penn. FLSA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Mortgage Inc., a subsidiary of Delta Financial Corp.,
is seeking partial summary judgment in a collective action filed
against it in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that it did not pay its loan officers
overtime compensation and/or minimum wage in violation of the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint seeks an amount equal to the unpaid wages at the
applicable overtime rate, an amount equal to the minimum wages
at the applicable minimum wage, an equal amount as liquidated
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, leave to add additional
plaintiffs and leave to amend to add claims under applicable
state laws.

The company filed an answer and discovery has commenced.  In
April 2005, the plaintiff filed his motion for conditional class
certification and in May 2005, Fidelity filed its opposition to
that motion.

In June 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification be granted, and that plaintiff's
motion to authorize judicial notice be granted subject to
revision and final approval by the District Court.

In July 2005, Fidelity filed with the District Court its
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the company's
objections.

In July 2005, the District Court upheld the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.  Any potential class members who
desired to join the collective action were provided an
opportunity to do so during an "opt-in" period that ended in
October 2005.

Approximately 180 individuals, virtually all of whom are former
employees, are plaintiffs in the collective action.  In April
2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.  

By agreement in June 2006, the court stayed the action while the
parties engaged in non-binding mediation, and plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment was withdrawn without prejudice to it being
re-filed.

The matter was not resolved through mediation, the stay was
lifted in August 2006, the plaintiffs' motion was re-filed and
the company filed its opposition to the motion and a cross-
motion for partial summary judgment.

In September 2006, the plaintiffs filed their papers in response
to the company's opposition to their motion and replied to its
cross-motion.

In October 2006, the company filed its reply papers to the
plaintiffs' opposition to the company's cross-motion, according
to Delta Financial's March 9 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Pontius v. Delta Financial Corp., Case No. 2:04-cv-
01737-GLL-LPL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Gary L. Lancaster.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Sarah M. Fleegel, Donald H.
Nichols, Jill M. Novak, Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols, Kaster &
Anderson, PLLP, 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth St., Minneapolis,
MN 55402, US, Phone: (612) 256-3200, E-mail: fleegel@nka.com,
nichols@nka.com, novak@nka.com, srey@nka.com  

Representing the company is Robert W. Pritchard, Littler
Mendelson, 625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222,
Phone: (412) 201-7628, E-mail: rpritchard@littler.com.


FOREST HILL: Okla. Judge Rejects Bid for Immunity from Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Terrence L. Michael dismissed a bankruptcy
filing by the owners of the Forest Hill Cemetery funeral
businesses, effectively lifting a hurdle that prevents several
class actions from proceeding against them, reports say.

The class actions were on hold pending a ruling by the Oklahoma
judge.  On March 26, the judge ruled that Forest Hill owner,
Oklahoma businessmen Clayton Smart, filed for bankruptcy to
avoid a takeover by the state of Tennessee.

The recent ruling allows Shelby County Chancellor Arnold Goldin
to appoint an administrator to control all aspects of the
businesses.

Attorney Kevin Snider is one attorney handling one of several
class actions against the Forest Hill funeral homes and three
cemeteries in the Memphis area.

B.J. Wade of Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt P.C. has also filed
a class action against the company (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
29, 2006).

Policyholders of pre-need burial contracts sued less than a week
after the company announced it would not honor the policies.  In
one of the suits, they allege that the company intentionally
deceived them into thinking that the contracts would be fully
honored (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Mr. Wade, and Tom Clary, also of Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt
P.C. and Martin Zummach of Sparkman-Zummach, on behalf of Dianne
Camp and David Camp of Mississippi, filed that suit.

According to the complaint, the words and actions of company in
informing plaintiffs and the general public that the pre-need
contracts would no longer be honored amounts to a total and
unqualified refusal to perform the pre-need contracts.

Mr. Smart, the owner of the three funeral homes and 270 acres of
cemeteries making up the Forest Hill properties, previously said
that his company would no longer honor the policies, since a
trust fund it was supposed to maintain to cover the contracts
was insufficient.

The announcement constituted an anticipatory breach of contract,
according to the complaint, which seeks actual and punitive
damages as well as other remedies to be determined by the court.

The suit could benefit more than 13,000 holders of prepaid
burial contracts.

Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt, P.C., 26 N. Second Street,
Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: (901) 527-4673, Fax: (901) 521-0940,
Web site: http://www.gewwlaw.com.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Ind. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
dismissed a purported class action against Indianapolis Power &
Light Co., a wholly owned unit of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., and
certain of its former officers and directors, alleging
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act.

The class action, filed on March 29, 2002, alleged that the
value of employees' 401(k) and retirement plans plummeted when
Virginia-based AES Corp. acquired the utility in a stock swap in
2001.  

It also alleged company officers dumped IPALCO shares about the
time employees were prohibited from selling company stocks owned
through their benefit plans.

In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a
class action.  The court granted the motion for class
certification on Sept. 30, 2003 (Class Action Reporter,
Reporter, May 31, 2006).

In dismissing the suit, Judge David F. Hamilton found no
evidence of illicit profits or wrongdoing and said executives
had complied with federal securities law.

In a 113-page ruling, Judge Hamilton wrote, "There is no
evidence at all that the individual defendants had any negative
inside information about AES or the prospects of its stock."

He goes on to write, "Defendants did not give investment advice
themselves.  They also made competent and appropriate investment
advice readily available to Thrift Plan (retirement plan)
participants."

Judge Hamilton dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

The suit is, "Nelson, et al. v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David
Frank Hamilton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman, John R. Price,
Nicholas Styant-Browne, Andrew M. Volk of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594, E-mail:
steve@hbsslaw.com, john@johnpricelaw.com, nick@hagens-
berman.com, andrew@hbsslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dane Hal Butswinkas of Williams & Connolly, LLP, 725
         Twelfth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202)
         434-5110, Fax: (202) 434-5029, E-mail:
         dbutswinkas@wc.com, Web site: http://www.wc.com;and

     (2) James H. Ham, III of Baker & Daniels, 300 North
         Meridian Street, Suite 2700, Indianapolis, IN 46204,
         Phone: (317) 237-1256, Fax: (317) 237-1000, E-mail:
         jhham@bakerd.com, Web site: http://www.bakerd.com.


JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Enron-Related Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney Stein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed with prejudice a class action
accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co. of helping Enron Corp. defraud
investors.  On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.

In a ruling issued March 29, Judge Stein said the plaintiffs
failed to show that JPMorgan deceived them by playing down its
exposure to Enron or overstating its own reputation for
integrity, according to Reuters.

He had dismissed an earlier complaint in March 2005, but allowed
the plaintiffs to refile their case.

JP Morgan has paid $2.2 billion to settle a class action by
former Enron investors and $330 million suit by Enron's
liquidators.


MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Tenn. Court Over Recalled Pet Food
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Barbara Light of Knoxville have filed a lawsuit
seeking damages from Menu Foods Inc., the Canada-based company
that recalled 90 brands of cat and dog food, The Knoxville News-
Sentinel reports.  The lawsuit could expand to cover pet owners
around the country if a judge grants it class-action status.

Ms. Light's cat, Trudy, suffered kidney damage after eating a
batch of Special Kitty food, one of the brands included in the
recall, according to the lawsuit.

The cat didn't die but needed veterinary treatment, said Ms.
Light's lawyer, Dan Stanley.

"It had pretty much the exact, identical symptoms that these
products are causing," he said.

The Knoxville lawsuit accuses Menu Foods of negligence,
including failing to test the food properly to make sure it was
safe for pets to eat.

Some local pet owners want $25 million from the maker of the pet
food they believe sickened their dogs and cats.

Earlier, the company has recalled 60 million cans and pouches of
"cuts and gravy" style dog and cat food sold throughout North
America.

The food is sold under 95 brand names, including store brands
carried by Wal-Mart and other large retailers, as well as
private labels like Iams, Nutro and Eukanuba.

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

Plaintiff's lawyer, Dan Channing Stanley, is with The Law
Offices of J.D. Lee, Lee Building, 3rd Floor, 422 South Gay
Street, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, Phone: 877-735-3533 or 865-
544-0101, Fax: 865-544-0536, Website:
http://www.jdlee.com/main.htm.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Technologies, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the
company's March 8 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Between March 22, 2006 and April 26, 2006, seven putative
securities class actions were filed on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired shares of the company's common stock
between Aug. 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006.

Defendants in the suit include the company, Richard A. Linden,
its former president and chief executive officer; and Scott T.
Veech, its former chief financial officer.  One of the suits
also names Brian E. Pedlar, former president of Cedara Software
Corp. and former senior vice president, who served as interim
co-president and co-chief executive officer from July 2, 2006 to
Aug. 18, 2006.  One case has been voluntarily dismissed.

The cases arise out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement
that the company would revise its results of operations for the
fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well
as its investigation of allegations made in anonymous letters
received by the company.  

The lawsuits allege that the company and individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  It seeks damages in
unspecified amounts.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the court consolidated the seven cases,
appointed the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust to be the lead
plaintiff and approved the Trust's choice of its lead counsel.
Pursuant to court order, the lead plaintiff was required to file
its amended complaint.

The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under
Judge Rudolph T Randam

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel M. Shanley of DeCarlo & Connor, 533 S. Fremont
         Ave. - 9th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706, Phone: 213-
         488-4100, Fax: 213-488-4180; and

     (2) Paul J. Geller of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 120 E Palmetto Park Rd. - Ste. 500, Boca
         Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-
         3364.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David H. Kistenbroker of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP,
         525 W. Monroe St. - Ste. 1900, Chicago, IL 60661-3693,
         Phone: 312-902-5200, Fax: 312-577-4481, E-mail:
         david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com; and

    (ii) Pamela G. Smith of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 525 W.
         Monroe St. - Ste. 1900, Chicago, IL 60661-3693, Phone:
         312-902-5442, Fax: 312-577-4770, E-mail:
         pamela.smith@kattenlaw.com.


MUSICLAND HOLDING: Suit by Former Managers Denied Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York denied a request to certify a
proposed class of in-store managers formerly employed in
Musicland Holding Corp.'s California stores.

Tracy Kirkman and Taggert Strickland filed a class proof of
claim and asked the Bankruptcy Court to certify the proposed
class.

The plaintiffs' claim assert that the proposed class was
deprived of overtime pay and other overtime benefits incurred
between Sept. 19, 2001 and Jan. 6, 2006, in violation of
California law.  The class claim was filed before the Bar Date,
asserting a priority wage claim for $1,262,418 and a general
unsecured claim for $13,272,176.

Contrary to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors' Civil
Rule 23(a)(2) objection, the Court finds that the Class Claim
presents the same question applicable to all putative members --
whether a former in-store manager is entitled to overtime pay
and other benefits under California law.

Rule 23(a)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
the Court to decide that "there are questions of law or fact
common to the class."

Instead, the Court notes, the Committee's argument concerns the
adequacy of representation -- whether the class can consist of
both priority and general unsecured claims, whether the
Plaintiffs can adequately represent the class, and asserts
concerns on the fact that the Plaintiffs appear to be the only
in-store managers that filed individual claims.

After hearing the parties' arguments, Judge Bernstein finds
that:

   (a) The putative class of former employees was not certified
       prepetition and the California court did not send a
       formal notice regarding the class action to the putative
       class members.  Thus, the putative class members did not
       have a reasonable expectation that a class claim would be
       filed that would protect their rights, or that they did
       not have to comply with the Bar Date;

   (b) All of the priority wage creditors received actual notice
       of the Bar Date;

   (c) Despite actual notice, the Plaintiffs were the only
       putative class members that filed individual claims.
       Allowing the class proof of claim would extend the Bar
       Date for those creditors who failed to file a timely
       claim to the prejudice of those creditors who did, the
       Court holds;

   (d) The class claim would seriously delay the administration
       of the case -- a fact exacerbated by the delay in making
       the  certification motion.  The Plaintiffs and its
       counsel, Scott Cole & Associates, APC, obviously knew
       about the case and the Bar Date but filed the
       Certification Motion after the Debtors have filed a Plan.

Accordingly, Judge Bernstein denies the Plaintiffs' request to
certify the proposed class.  (Musicland Bankruptcy News, Issue
No. 29; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


NETZERO: Plaintiff in Suit Over Internet Fees to Withdraw
---------------------------------------------------------
The class representative in a purported consumer class action
against NetZero, a brand name of United Online Inc., intends to
withdraw from the case, according to United Online's March 1
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On July 27, 2006, plaintiff Donald E. Ewart filed the lawsuit in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, against NetZero claiming that NetZero continues to
charge consumers fees after they cancel their Internet access
account.

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and
damages.  NetZero has filed a response to the lawsuit denying
the material allegations of the complaint.  

On Jan. 29, counsel for Mr. Ewart advised the trial court that
Mr. Ewart would be withdrawing from the action as a class
representative and that counsel would seek permission from the
court to add one or more new class representatives.

On that same date, the court ordered counsel for Mr. Ewart to
file their motion to substitute a new class representative by
March 2.

As of Feb. 27, Mr. Ewart has not withdrawn from the action and
his counsel has not filed a motion to substitute a new class
representative.

United Online, Inc. on the Net: http://www.unitedonline.net/.


NETZERO: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Cancelled Internet Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero, a brand name of United Online, Inc., remains a
defendant in a purported consumer class action pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.

On March 6, 2006, plaintiff Anthony Piercy filed the suit
against NetZero claiming that it continues to charge consumers
fees after they cancel their Internet access account.  Plaintiff
is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.

NetZero has filed a response to the lawsuit denying the material
allegations of the complaint, according to United Online's March
1 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

United Online, Inc. on the Net: http://www.unitedonline.net/.


NEW CENTURY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 10
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP reminds investors of New Century
Financial Corp. of an April deadline to file as lead plaintiff
in a securities fraud suit.

All persons and institutions who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of New Century Financial Corp. (Pink Sheets:NEWCP)
between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive, may move the
Court not later than April 10, 2007, to serve as lead plaintiff.

The complaint charges New Century Financial and certain of the
company's executive officers and directors with violations of
federal securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff claims
that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's financial performance caused New Century Financial's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors.

New Century Financial operates in the U.S. as a real estate
investment trust which originates and purchases mortgage loans.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
knew but failed to disclose that New Century Financial was being
forced to buy back substantially more loans than originally had
been expected.  Despite knowing of the surge in forced loan
repurchases, the defendants failed to properly account for them.

In addition, the company failed to write down the value of the
loans re-acquired, even though these troubled loans had
materially declined in value.

On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century Financial shocked the market by
announcing that it would restate its financial results for the
first three quarters of 2006 because the company had failed to
account for all of the re-purchased loans and had failed to
properly reduce the value of the loans repurchased.

The company was forced to admit that its financial statements
for the quarters ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006 and Sept.
30, 2006 could no longer be relied upon.  As a result of the
Feb. 7, 2007 revelations, New Century Financial shares slumped
to a 52-week low, dropping $10.92 -- a decline of more than 36%,
on volume of 25 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

For more information, contact Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg
at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP -- http://www.glancylaw.com--  
Phone: (310) 201-9150, (888) 773-9224, E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.


OIL FIRMS: Ill. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Gas Price Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied a motion that sought the dismissal of a purported class
action, "Siegel et al. v. Shell Oil Co. et al.," which accuses
several petroleum companies of conspiring to drive up the price
of gasoline.

Michael and Rebecca Siegel filed the suit on Jan. 4, 4006,
seeking class-action status on behalf of all affected Illinois
consumers.  They brought it under the state's consumer fraud
statute.

The suit names as defendants:

      -- Exxon Mobil Corp.;
      -- Marathon Oil Co.;
      -- Venezuela-owned Citgo Petroleum Corp.;
      -- U.S. affiliates of Royal Dutch Shell PLC; and
      -- U.S. affiliates of BP PLC.

Specifically, defendants are accused of intentionally limiting
the available gasoline supply, driving up prices and boosting
profits.

In dismissing the companies' dismissal motion, Judge Amy J. St.
Eve stated, "facts consistent with the allegations could
establish that defendants unjustly enriched themselves or acted
deceptively or unfairly."  

The ruling allows plaintiffs to demand evidence and testimony
from the companies to bolster their claims, including records
detailing the reasons for their production and pricing
decisions.

The suit is "Siegel et al. v. Shell Oil Co. et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00035," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Larry Daniel Drury of Larry D. Drury, Ltd., 205 West
         Randolph, Suite 1430, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312)
         346-7950, E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com; and

     (3) Ilan J. Chorowsky of The Chorowsky Law Offices, 1130 N.
         Dearborn St., Suite 3110, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone:
         (312) 643-5893, E-mail: ichorowsky@gmail.com.


PARMALAT SPA: Investors to Get $50 Million Partial Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-national notification program began on March 22, 2007,
as ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to alert investors, brokers, financial
institutions, and other nominees who bought the common stock or
bonds of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and its subsidiaries and
affiliates from Jan. 5, 1999, through and including Dec. 18,
2003, about a $50 million partial settlement of a U.S. class
action about the prices paid for Parmalat common stock and
bonds.

The lawsuit alleges that Parmalat and numerous other defendants
participated in a fraudulent financial scheme, resulting in the
understatement of Parmalat's debt by nearly $10 billion and the
overstatement of its net assets by over $16 billion.  Parmalat
ultimately filed for bankruptcy, and the value of its stock and
bonds dramatically declined.

Several of the defendants have now agreed to settle the case
(Banca Nazionale del Lavoro S.p.A. (BNL), Credit Suisse Group,
Credit Suisse, Credit Suisse International, and Credit Suisse
Securities (Europe) Limited), while the lawsuit proceeds against
Parmalat S.p.A. (the successor to Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A.),
financial institutions, two auditing firms, and certain
individuals.

The Court defined "Class members" in the settlement to include
all people and entities who bought Parmalat common stock and/or
bonds from Jan. 5, 1999 through and including Dec. 18, 2003, and
were damaged thereby, regardless of where such people live or
where they purchased their Parmalat securities.

Notices informing Class members about their legal rights will be
mailed, and are scheduled to appear in publications reaching
readers in the U.S., Italy, and around the world, leading up to
a hearing in New York on July 19, 2007, when the Court will
consider whether to approve the settlement.

In May 2004, the Court appointed the law firms of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, of Washington, D.C., Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., of Wilmington, DE, and Spector Roseman &
Kodroff, P.C., of Philadelphia, PA, to represent the Class.  
These firms have been litigating this case known as In re
Parmalat Securities Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 0030 (LAK), since
that time, and they negotiated the partial settlement.

Those affected by the settlement may simply await further notice
about how to ask for a payment, or may now exclude themselves
from the partial settlement, or object to the terms of the
proposed settlement.  The deadline for exclusions and objections
is June 19, 2007.

The money in the settlement fund will not be distributed yet.  
In part because the litigation is still proceeding against the
remaining defendants, there is no plan to allocate the money
now; thus it is not possible to determine the amount of Class
member payments, or what the average payment will be on a per
share or per bond basis.  Payments will depend on the number of
valid claim forms that Class members eventually send in, how
many shares of Parmalat stock they bought or how many bonds they
bought, when they bought and sold them, and the prices they
paid.

A neutral Court website has been established at
http://www.ParmalatSettlement.com/where notices and the  
Settlement Stipulation may be obtained.  Those affected may also
write to:

     Parmalat Notice Administrator
     P.O. Box 4068
     Portland, OR 97208-4068

The Class Counsels are:

     1) Mark S. Willis, Esq.
        Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
        Telephone +1-202-408-4606

     2) James Sabella, Esq.
        Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
        Telephone +1-646-722-8500

     3) Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
        Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
        Telephone +1-215-496-0300

                       About Parmalat

Based in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A. --
http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products that  
can be stored at room temperature for months.  It also has 40-
some brand product line, which includes yogurt, cheese, butter,
cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and vegetable
sauces, soups and juices.

The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on
Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  Gary
Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When the U.S. Debtors filed
for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200
million in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors emerged from
bankruptcy on April 13, 2005.

Parmalat S.p.A. and its Italian affiliates filed separate
petitions for Extraordinary Administration before the Italian
Ministry of Productive Activities and the Civil and Criminal
District Court of the City of Parma, Italy on Dec. 24, 2003. Dr.
Enrico Bondi was appointed Extraordinary Commissioner in each of
the cases.  The Parma Court has declared the units insolvent.

On June 22, 2004, Dr. Bondi filed a Sec. 304 Petition, Case No.
04-14268, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Parmalat has three financing arms: Dairy Holdings Ltd., Parmalat
Capital Finance Ltd., and Food Holdings Ltd.  Dairy Holdings and
Food Holdings are Cayman Island special-purpose vehicles
established by Parmalat S.p.A.  The Finance Companies are under
separate winding up petitions before the Grand Court of the
Cayman Islands.  Gordon I. MacRae and James Cleaver of Kroll
(Cayman) Ltd. serve as Joint Provisional Liquidators in the
cases.  On Jan. 20, 2004, the Liquidators filed Sec. 304
petition, Case No. 04-10362, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York.  In May 2006, the Cayman
Island Court appointed Messrs. MacRae and Cleaver as Joint
Official Liquidators.  Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Richard I. Janvey, Esq., at Janvey,
Gordon, Herlands Randolph, represent the Finance Companies in
the Sec. 304 case.

The Honorable Robert D. Drain presides over the Parmalat
Debtors' U.S. cases.

(Troubled Company Reporter Vol. 11, No. 70; Bankruptcy  
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or   
240/629-3300).


PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Potential Suit Over Electricity Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Co. has received a notice that informs
it of a possible filing of a class action against the company
over its electricity rates, but no such suit has been filed so
far, according to the company's March 2 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Feb. 14, 2005, Portland General received a Notice of
Potential Class action for Damages and Demand to Rectify Damages
from counsel representing Frank Gearhart, David Kafoury and
Kafoury Brothers, LLC, stating that the Potential Plaintiffs
intend to bring a class action against the company.

Potential Plaintiffs allege that for the period from Oct. 1,
2000 to the present, Portland General's electricity rates have
included unlawful charges for a return on investment in the
Trojan Nuclear Plant in an amount in excess of $100 million.

Under Oregon law, there is no requirement as to the time the
lawsuit must be filed following the 30-day notice period.  No
action has been filed to date, according to the company's March
2 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Portland General Electric Co. on the Net:
http://www.portlandgeneral.com/.


REFCO INC: FXA Claim Reclassified as Unsecured Nonpriority
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert D. Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York reclassifies the secured Account
Claim portion of each Refco F/X Associates, LLC (FXA) Class
Action Client Disputed Claim as an unsecured nonpriority claim.

Judge Drain disallows the Class Claim portion and reduces each
FXA Class Action Client Disputed Claim to corresponding amounts.

In a separate ruling, Judge Drain authorizes the Plan
Administrator of the Chapter 11 cases of the Reorganized Refco
Inc. and its debtor-affiliates to file, under seal, the complete
list of the FXA Class Action Client Disputed Claims and any
subsequent amendments pursuant to Section 107(b) (Refco
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 59; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc.: http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215-945-7000).

FXA customers, filed class actions in both the U.S. District
Court and Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons or entities that maintained currency-
trading accounts through FXA.

The customers who filed the suit are:

       -- American Financial International Group - Asia, LLC;
       -- Norma LaVigne;
       -- Vaughn LaVigne; and
       -- Michael Shmigelsky

Each customer filed the class action on behalf of themselves and
others who traded currencies through FXA from Aug. 11, 2005, up
to the present, and that were damaged by fraud at Refco, Inc.


REFCO INC: June 29 Hearing Set for $108M Settlement with BAWAG
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on June 29 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $108 million partial settlement by BAWAG P.S.K. Bank
Fuer Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Osterreichische Postsparkasse
Aktiengesellschaft, a defendant in the class action, "In re
Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 8626
(GEL)."  
      
The hearing will be held before Judge Gerard E. Lynch in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, 10007.

The settlement covers persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Refco Group Ltd., LLC/ Refco Finance Inc. 9%
Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012 (CUSIP Nos. 75866HAA5 and/or
75866HAC1) and/or Refco, Inc. common stock (CUSIP No. 75866G109)
between Aug. 5, 2004 and Oct. 17, 2005.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before, May 26 and 30, respectively.

                        Case Background
   
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of New York, was consolidated in April (Class Action  
Reporter, Apr. 7, 2006).  It claimed the collapsed commodity
brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its books, far more than
previously thought.  It also accuses company executives, company
auditors, and investment bankers of negligence.  

This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the
company a mere two months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public
offering of common stock, and only fourteen months after its
issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012.  The company
filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result.

The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E.
Lynch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Max W. Berger (MB-5010), John P. Coffey  (JC-3832),  
         John C. Browne (JB-0391) and Noam N. Mandel (NM-0203)  
         of Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP, 1285  
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:  
         (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444; and  

     (2) Stuart M. Grant (SG-8157), James J. Sabella (JS-5454),  
         Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A. Almeida, Christine M.  
         Mackintosh and Jill Agro of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,  
         Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000, Fax: (646)  
         722-8501 and (302) 622-7100

For more details, contact Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., PO Box 9087, Dublin, OH 43017-
0987, Web site: http://www.refcosecuritieslitigation.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Asks "Colon" Plaintiff on Plan to File Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. filed on Jan. 30 a notice requiring
plaintiff in "Colon v. Thorn Americas, Inc.," to serve notice of
its intent to proceed with its case within 90 days.  

The original plaintiff filed the class action in November 1997
in New York state court.  The company, in connection with its
Thorn Americas, Inc. acquisition, assumed this matter.

The plaintiff acknowledges that rent-to-own transactions in New
York are subject to the provisions of New York's Rental Purchase
Statute but contends the Rental Purchase Statute does not
provide the company immunity from suits for other statutory
violations.  

Plaintiff alleges the company has a duty to disclose effective
interest under New York consumer protection laws, and seeks
damages and injunctive relief for failure to do so.

The suit also alleges violations relating to excessive and
unconscionable pricing, late fees, harassment, undisclosed
charges, and the ease of use and accuracy of payment records.  

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requests class
certification, injunctive relief requiring the company to cease
certain marketing practices and price rental purchase contracts
in certain ways, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
rescission of the class members contracts, an order placing in
trust all moneys received by the company in connection with the
rental of merchandise during the class period, treble damages,
attorney's fees, filing fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and any further relief granted by the court.  

Plaintiff has not alleged a specific monetary amount with
respect to the request for damages.  The proposed class includes
all New York residents who were party to the company's rent-to-
own contracts from Nov. 26, 1994.  

In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties
from the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, the
company obtained a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division
of the State of New York, dismissing the plaintiff's claims
based on the alleged failure to disclose an effective interest
rate.  The plaintiff's other claims were not dismissed.

Plaintiff moved to certify a statewide class in December 2000.  
The court heard the plaintiff's class certification motion on
Nov. 7, 2001 and, on Sept. 12, 2002, the court issued an opinion
denying in part and granting in part the plaintiff's requested
certification.

The opinion grants certification as to all of the plaintiff's
claims except the plaintiff's pricing claims pursuant to the
Rental Purchase Statute, as to which certification was denied.  
The parties have differing views as to the effect of the court's
opinion, and accordingly, the court granted the parties
permission to submit competing orders as to the effect of the
opinion on the plaintiff's specific claims.

Both proposed orders were submitted to the court on March 27,
2003, and on May 30, 2003, the court held a hearing regarding
such orders.  No clarifying order has yet been entered by the
court.

From June 2003 until May 2005, there was no activity in this
case.  On May 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's claim and to decertify the class, based upon the
plaintiff's failure to schedule her claim in this matter in her
earlier voluntary bankruptcy proceeding.  

Plaintiff opposed the motion and asked the court to grant it an
opportunity to find a substitute class representative in the
event the court determined Ms. Colon was no longer adequate.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court issued an order denying that motion,
but noted that no motion to intervene to add additional class
representatives had been filed.

On March 14, 2006, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion seeking
leave to intervene Shaun Kelly as an additional class
representative.  

In response to plaintiffs' motion, the court ordered the parties
to confer regarding a possible mediation and ruled that the
company could depose Mr. Kelly before filing any objection to
his intervention.  

Plaintiffs' counsel has not responded to the company's repeated
requests to schedule Mr. Kelly's deposition or schedule
mediation.

Accordingly, on Jan. 30 the company filed a notice pursuant to
the applicable rules requiring plaintiff to serve notice of its
intent to proceed with its case within 90 days.  

The plaintiff's failure to serve this notice will constitute a
basis for a motion to dismiss the action for unreasonably
neglecting to proceed.  

If the plaintiff does fail to serve the required notice, the
company intends to file such a motion to dismiss as soon as
possible thereafter.  

If the court ultimately allows Mr. Kelly to intervene and enters
a final certification order, the company intends to pursue an
interlocutory appeal of such certification order.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. on the Net: http://www.rentacenter.com/.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Seeks Decertification of Calif. Labor Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. plans to file motions to decertify two labor
violations suits that were granted class-action status and are
coordinated on March 7, 2005 before the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

One of the suits, "Eric Shafer, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,"
is a state-wide class action originally filed on May 20, 2002,
in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County.

The other case "Victor E. Johnson, et al. v. Rent-A-Center,
Inc.," was filed on Feb. 24, 2004, in the Orange County Superior
Court.

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that the company improperly
classified its California store managers as exempt from overtime
under California wage and hour law and failed to pay them
overtime.

In addition, they allege that the company failed to provide its
California store managers with meal and rest periods, failed to
pay store managers overtime due when their employment ended, and
engaged in unfair business practices.

Plaintiffs' seek to recover back overtime wages and accompanying
waiting time penalties, civil penalties under California Labor
Code Section 2699, certain injunctive relief and attorneys fees.

On July 15, 2005, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  The company opposed plaintiffs' motion.  The
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held
on May 12, 2006.

On June 23, 2006, the court granted class certification as to
plaintiffs' claims for back overtime wages and accompanying
waiting time penalties, and as to plaintiffs' unfair business
practices claim.

The court denied class certification as to plaintiffs' meal and
rest period claims and as to plaintiffs' claim for civil
penalties under California Labor Code Section 2699.

Plaintiffs assert that the class includes all store managers
employed by the company in California since September 1998,
which they estimate to be 700 to 1,000 members.  

Equivalent hourly rates for annual salaries paid to the class
members ranged from approximately $16.83 to $31.25 per hour
based on a 40-hour workweek.  

Plaintiffs assert that store managers were required to work
approximately 10-20 hours of overtime per week.  Overtime wages
would be calculated at 1.5 times the hourly rate.

In addition, California law provides for a waiting time penalty
in the amount of 30 days' compensation when all compensation due
to an employee is not paid upon separation.  The court's class
certification ruling is procedural only and does not address the
merits of plaintiffs' claims.  

The court's class certification ruling is procedural only and
does not address the merits of plaintiffs' claims.  The company
believes that class certification was improper and that its
store managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime.

The company intends to file a motion for class de-certification
at the appropriate time, 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.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. on the Net: http://www.rentacenter.com/.


SCOTTISH RE: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Re Group Ltd. is a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On Aug. 2, 2006, putative class actions were filed against:

     -- the company;
     -- Glenn Schafer, the chairman of its board of directors;
     -- Dean E. Miller, chief financial officer;
     -- Scott E. Willkomm, former chief executive officer; and
     -- Seth Vance, former chief executive officer - North
        America.

Between Aug. 7, 2006 and Oct. 2, 2006, seven additional related
class actions were filed against the company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and certain third
parties.  

Each of the complaints allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning the company's business and operations, thereby
causing investors to purchase the company's securities at
artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act.

Two of the complaints also allege violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, related to a 2005 preferred
stock offering.  Each of the class actions filed seek an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.

On Oct. 12, 2006, all of the class actions were consolidated.

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

The first identified complaint is "Zuckerman v. Scottish Re
Group Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-05853-SAS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Arthur N. Abbey of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
         aabbey@abbeygardy.com; and

     (2) Max W. Berger of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossmann, L.L.P., 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-
         1444.

Representing the company is George E. Anhang of LeBoeuf, Lamb,
Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite
1200, Washington, DC 20009, Phone: (202) 986-8052.


SILICON IMAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Amended Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed a third consolidated amended complaint in the
securities class action, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve
Tirado, and Robert Gargus."  The case was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock from Oct. 19, 2004 to
Jan. 24, 2005.

Commenced on Jan. 31, 2005, the lawsuit alleged that the company
and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
misstatements of material facts and violated certain provisions
of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The consolidated amended complaint no longer named Mr. Gargus as
an individual defendant, but added Dr. David Lee as an
individual defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class
period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
26, 2005.  

Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to file, and did file, a
second consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 8, 2005.  The
second consolidated amended complaint extends the end of the
class period from April 22, 2005 to Oct. 13, 2005 and adds
additional factual allegations under the same causes of action
against us, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also adds a
new plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 9, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on April 10, 2006
and defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May
19, 2006.

On June 21, 2006 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint by the court's established deadline of July 21, 2006.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third consolidated
amended complaint on Sept. 1, 2006 and plaintiffs filed an
opposition to that motion on Nov. 1, 2006.  

Defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on Dec. 15,
2006, and with leave of court, plaintiffs filed a surreply on
Jan. 16.

The court vacated the hearing on this motion that was scheduled
for Feb. 9.  On Feb. 23, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint with leave to
amend, 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.

The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Aaron H. Darsky of Schubert & Reed, LLP, Three
         Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-788-4220, Fax: 415-788-0161, E-mail:
         adarsky@schubert-reed.com;

     (2) Merrick Scott Rayle of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP,
         212 Wood Street, Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227, Phone:
         831-333-0309, Fax: 831-333-0325, E-mail:
         mrayle@lshllp.com; and

     (3) Richard A. Speirs of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
         LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010,
         Phone: 212-223-3900.

Representing the defendants is Emmett C. Stanton of Fenwick &
West, LLP, Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street,
Mountain View, CA 94041-2008, Phone: 650-988-8500, Fax: 650-938-
5200, E-mail: estanton@fenwick.com.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Allows Suit Over 2004 Sioux Falls Flooding
--------------------------------------------------------------
A circuit judge has allowed a purported class action by Sioux
Falls residents damaged by flooding in 2004 to go ahead against
the city, Keloland TV reports.

Homeowners filed the suit on behalf of themselves and anyone in
the city whose property was damaged in the May 29 and June 16,
2004 storms.  

Court documents claim that the rains flooded streets and
basements and sent up to several feet of raw sewage into homes
across Sioux Falls.  It also claims that homeowners suffered
personal injury and property damage because the City of Sioux
Falls negligently designed, constructed, maintained and
inspected it's sanitary and storm sewer lines and systems.

The class includes people who live in the area of Sioux Falls
from 57th street to the South, Southeastern drive to the East,
Kiwanis Avenue to the West and Russell Street to the North.  
They must also have suffered flooding damage and have the
documentation, such as receipts for repairs, to prove it.  The
class is estimated to include between 300 and 500 people.

The plaintiffs' attorney is John Hughes.  He can be reached at
339-3939.


UNITED PARCEL: Franchisees Amend Complaint Filed in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. was named as a defendant in an
amended class action filed by 220 franchisees of The UPS Store
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The suit was originally filed on May 9, 2006 and was amended.  
In it, the franchisees contend that, among other claims, UPS:

      -- omitted and/or did not disclose relevant information to
         franchisees opening new The UPS Store locations and
         those franchisees switching from the one brand to The
         UPS Store brand;

      -- it made false claims about how well The UPS Store would
         perform financially; and

      -- competes and uses information from the franchisee to
         acquire customers for UPS directly, bypassing the
         franchisee altogether.

Aside from UPS, other defendants in the suit are:
      
      -- Mail Boxes Etc, Inc.;
      -- BSG Holding, Inc;
      -- BSG Holdings Subsidiary, Inc.; and
      -- Rocky Romanella.

Franchisees listed as plaintiffs in the case are:

      -- Samica Enterprises, LLC;
      -- Extex, Inc.;
      -- ST Gabriel, LLC;
      -- Jamar Enterprises, Inc.;
      -- Coto, Inc.;
      -- 5XW, Inc.;
      -- Kingman Enterprises, LLC;
      -- John E. Moran;
      -- Livingston Holdings, Inc.;
      -- Komb Holdings, LLC;
      -- Eagle Shipping, LLC;
      -- Habel, Inc.;
      -- MBMP, Inc.;
      -- Formon Associates, Inc.;
      -- Phoenix Business Systems, Inc.;
      -- 3 Eagles Enterprises, LLC;
      -- Breakpoint, Inc.;
      -- Bowdoin Up, LLC;
      -- Tristar Property Development, Inc.;
      -- McClintock Enterprises, Inc.;
      -- Tap Enterprises, LLC;
      -- S and L Management, Inc.;
      -- Wayne County Holdings, Inc.;
      -- Ladich, LLC;
      -- BMSA, Inc.;
      -- By, LLC;
      -- Derry Postal and Packaging, Inc.;
      -- William Allem; and
      -- Rhonda Norfleet.

The suit is "Samica Enterprises LLC et al. v. Mail Boxes Etc Inc
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02800-GHK-CT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge George H. King with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert S. Boulter of Lagarias and Boulter, 1629 Fifth
         Ave., San Rafael, CA 94901-1828, Phone: 415-460-0100,
         E-mail: rsb@tlsgroup.com;

     (2) L. Michael Hankes, 63 Commerical Wharf, Boston, MA
         02110, US, Phone: 617-723-1144; and

     (3) Jonathan Weiss of Jonathan Weiss Law Offices, 10576
         Troon Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436, Phone: 310-558-
         0404, E-mail: jw@lojw.com.

Representing the defendants is Jane H. Barrett of Morrison and
Foerster, 555 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024,
Phone: 213-892-5377, E-mail: jbarrett@mofo.com.


WAL-MART STORES: USWCC Files Amicus Curiae in "Dukes" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce (USWCC) submitted an amicus
curiae in an employment discrimination class action, "Dukes v.
Wal-Mart," which seeks redress for the retailer's treatment of
female employees over the past 25 years.  USWCC's amicus curiae
letter was submitted with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit.

The legal team submitting the amicus curiae on behalf of USWCC
and its over 500,000 members includes attorneys from Legal
Momentum, Hersh & Hersh LLP, and Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore,
LLP.

USWCC joined the case to oppose Wal-Mart's recent petition for a
rehearing on the suit's class-action status.  

"The U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce's action underscores the
vital importance of this case to expose gender discrimination in
the workplace and to vindicate women's essential legal rights,"
according to USWCC chief executive Margot Dorfman.

"We are specifically concerned about the ability of women to
organize in order to address historic issues of economic
discrimination against women.  It is the goal of the USWCC to
move women's economic role from merely a "target market" for
corporate and political gain to be recognized as the leading
economic force in America.

"Unfortunately and inexcusably, for too many women the promises
of equal pay and opportunities are still only promises," Ms.
Dorfman says.  

"Despite years of advancement and acknowledgement of the growing
economic clout of women, we still do not stand on equal footing
with men in the workplace.

"This case is a very sad reminder that 42 years after the
passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, women don't earn
equal pay for equal work -- even at the country's largest
employer," Ms. Dorfman adds.

                         Case Background

Filed in 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, the lawsuit alleges Wal-Mart
discriminated against its female employees by:

      -- advancing male employees more quickly than female
         employees;

      -- denying female employees equal job assignments,
         promotions, training, and compensation; and

      -- retaliating against employees who opposed the
         retailer's unlawful workforce practices.

The case was granted class certification in 2004, to include all
women employed at Wal-Mart from late 1998 to present -- an
estimated 2 million current and former employees.

In February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
affirmed the district court's class order.  Wal-Mart has asked
the entire 9th Circuit to rehear its February decision; in order
to get this rehearing, a majority of the 27 judges on the
circuit must vote for it.

However, Ms. Dorfman contends, "Maintaining class action status
in this case is the only feasible way Wal-Mart employees can
redress the discriminating policies they're working under."

"A woman with family responsibilities often isn't in a position
to quit her job or risk antagonizing her employer with a
challenge to a bad work place practice.  The women represented
in this suit, however, have a strong collective voice that says,
'For 25 years Wal-Mart has treated women as less-valuable than
men; that stops now!'  Individual employees are also practically
powerless to obtain accurate information on pay inequality," Ms.
Dorfman adds.

"Often women aren't fully aware of the discrepancy between their
own pay and their male peers.  A class action ensures women
access to complete and accurate payroll data, and a fair and
efficient means to adjudicate the claims of nearly 2 million
women who would otherwise be powerless against Wal-Mart to
receive any remedy at all."

A copy of USWCC's amicus curiae is available at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1c6a

For more details, contact Jill Van Dierendonck of USWCC, +1-800-
738-0653, Web site: http://www.uswcc.org.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: 9t Circuit to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit is hearing Washington
Mutual, Inc.'s appeal with regards to the dismissal of its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  

In July 2004, the company and a number of its officers were
named as defendants in a series of cases alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule
10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

By stipulation, those cases were consolidated into a single case
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington styled, "South Ferry L.P. #2 v.
Killinger, et al., No. CV04-1599C (W.D. Wa. Filed Jul. 19,
2004)."

In brief, the plaintiffs in the securities action allege, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Washington Mutual,
Inc., securities from April 15, 2003, through June 28, 2004,
that in various public statements the defendants purportedly
made misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts
concerning, among other things, alleged internal systems
problems and hedging issues.

The defendants moved to dismiss the securities action on May 17,
2005.  After briefing, but without oral argument, the court on
Nov. 17, 2005, denied the motion in principal part, however, the
Court dismissed the claims against certain of the individual
defendants, dismissed claims pleaded on behalf of sellers of put
options on Washington Mutual stock, and concluded that the
plaintiffs could not rely on supposed violations of accounting
standards to support their claims.

The remaining defendants subsequently moved for reconsideration
or, in the alternative, certification of the opinion for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit.  The District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration, but on March 6, 2006, granted the motion for
certification.

On June 9, 2006, the 9th Circuit granted the defendants' motion,
indicating that it will hear the merits of the defendants'
appeal.

The defendants filed their initial brief on Sept. 25, 2006.
Pursuant to an updated, stipulated briefing schedule, the
plaintiffs filed their responsive brief on Jan. 10, 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.

The suit is "South Ferry L.P. #2 v. Killinger, et al., No. CV04-
1599C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge John C. Coughenour.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Clifford A. Cantor, 627 208TH Ave., SE Sammamish, WA
         98074-7033, Phone: 425-868-7813, Fax: 425-868-7870, E-
         mail: cacantor@comcast.net; and

     (2) Lori G. Feldman and Salvatore J Graziano of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad & Schulman, (NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
         lfeldman@milbergweiss.com and
         sgraziano@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Fred B. Burnside of Davis Wright Tremaine, (SEA), 1501
         4th Ave., STE. 2600, Seattle, WA 98101-1688, Phone:
         206-622-3150, Fax: 206-903-3791, E-mail:
         fredburnside@dwt.com; and

    (ii) Jay B. Kasner of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
         (NY), Four Times Square, STE. 45-100, New York, NY
         10036-6522, Phone: 212-735-2628, E-mail:
         jkasner@skadden.com.


XL CAPITAL: Seeks to Dismiss N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital, Ltd. is seeking dismissal of an Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation pending against it in U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action multi-
district lawsuit, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed
a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new defendants,
in the pending action approximately 30 entities, including:

     -- Greenwich Insurance Co.,
     -- Indian Harbor Insurance Co., and
     -- XL Capital Ltd.

In the MDL, named plaintiffs have asserted various claims
purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased
insurance.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements.  

The named plaintiffs have asserted statutory claims under the
Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law
claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  Discovery in
the MDL continues.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint in
late November 2005.  On Feb. 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking leave to further amend their amended complaint to, among
other things, add additional defendants, including:

      -- X.L. America, Inc., and
      -- XL Insurance America, Inc.

That motion was denied without prejudice.  By opinion and order
dated Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled on defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs' RICO and
antitrust claims were deficient as pled and directing plaintiffs
to file a supplemental RICO case statement and a supplemental
statement of particularity as to their Sherman Act claims.

Plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings on Oct. 25, 2006.  
In accordance with the court's Oct. 3, 2006 order, defendants
anticipate filing responses to plaintiffs' supplemental
pleadings.  

On or about Feb. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification.  Defendants filed an opposition to the
class certification motion, as well as a separate motion seeking
to exclude the testimony of the expert witness upon whom
plaintiffs have relied in seeking class certification.

The court set oral arguments on March 1 in connection with
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The court has not yet scheduled
oral argument in connection with plaintiffs' class certification
motion.

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


XM SATELLITE: Seeks Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class action pending against it in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

On May 8, 2006 an investor sued XM Satellite seeking damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who acquired XM securities from July 28, 2005 through and
including Feb. 15, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that XM and Hugh Panero, its president and
chief executive officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and
78t of the U.S. Commerce and Trade Code, and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 Code of Federal Regulations
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, Washington-based XM and Mr. Panero
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements during the class period that
artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Specifically, the complaint says defendants led the market to
believe that XM would grow its subscriber base to 6 million by
year-end 2005, while lowering two of its "key metrics:"
Subscriber Acquisition Costs and Cost Per Gross Addition.

In reality, however, the company was allegedly well aware that
costs, especially SAC and CPGA, would skyrocket in the fourth
quarter of 2005 due to a $25 million promotional campaign to
combat the debut of the popular "Howard Stern Show" on Sirius
Satellite Radio, XM's chief competitor.

On Feb. 16, 2006, the company announced a net loss of $268.3
million for the fourth quarter of 2005, compared with $188.2
million a year earlier.  

For the full 2005 year, XM's net loss was $666.7 million,
compared to $642.4 million in 2004.  In addition, the company
announced that both SAC and CPGA were much higher than the
market had been led to believe.

The market reacted swiftly to those revelations, sending the
price of XM's common stock down 5.03%, from a close of $25.25
per share on Feb. 15, 2006, to $23.98 per share the next day.
The company's stock price fell a further 10.05% to $21.57 per
share at the close of trading Feb. 17, 2006, the complaint says.

According to the complaint, Mr. Panero and other insiders
engaged in highly suspicious stock sales during the class
period, with Mr. Panero selling approximately 413,334 shares, or
98.71% of his personally held XM stock, for approximately
$8,841,161.

Collectively, company insiders sold approximately 2,769,516 of
personally held XM stock during the fourth quarter of 2005,
reaping proceeds of approximately $73,325,009.

On June 7, 2006, Judge Ellen Huvelle signed a Consolidation
Order, consolidating all related cases into one class action as
"In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. 06-0802."

On July 3, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court.  On Aug.
1, 2006, Judge Huvelle issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the company said it received a letter from the
staff of the SEC requesting that the company voluntarily provide
documents to the Staff regarding the company's subscriber
targets, costs associated with attempting to reach those
targets, and related matters during the third and fourth
quarters of 2005.

On Sept. 26, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
class action complaint.  The company has filed a motion to
dismiss this matter, 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 "In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 06-0802," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia under Judge Ellen Huvelle.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kimberly Anne Chadwick of Doherty, Sheridan & Persian,
         8408 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031, Phone:
         (703) 698-7700, Fax: (703) 641-9645, E-mail:
         kchadwick@dsp-law.com;  

     (2) Donald J. Enright and Karen Jennifer Marcus both of
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax: (202)
         337-8090, E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com or kjm@ftllaw.com;  

     (3) Burton John Fishman of Fortney & Scott, 1750 K Street,
         NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 689-
         1200, Fax: (202) 776-7801, E-mail:
         fishman@fortneyscott.com;  

     (4) Nancy M. Juda of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730,
         Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-2024, E-mail:
         nancyj@lerachlaw.com;  

     (5) Gary Edward Mason of The Mason Law Firm, 1225 19th
         Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         (202) 429-2290, Fax: (202) 429-2294, E-mail:
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;  

     (6) Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B
         Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         233-4565, Fax: (619) 233-0508, E-mail:
         ashingler@scott-scott.com; and

     (7) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll both of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue,
         NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com or stoll@cmht.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Charles Edward Davidow and Michael A Mugmon both of
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 1875
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
         (202) 663-6241 or (202) 663-6101, Fax: (202) 663-6363,
         E-mail: charles.davidow@wilmerhale.com or
         michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com; and

    (ii) Christopher J. Herrling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
         & Dorr LLP, 2445 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-
         1420, Phone: (202) 663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-
         mail: cherrling@wilmer.com.


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crowley Maritime Records 15,259 Tort Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley Maritime Corp. faces 15,259 maritime asbestos cases and
other toxic tort cases, most of which were filed in the Federal
Courts in Cleveland and Detroit, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2007.

The Company remains a defendant, with other shipowners and other
entities, in 15,251 maritime asbestos cases and other toxic tort
cases, most of which were filed in Cleveland and Detroit Federal
Courts. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2006)

Filed on behalf of a seaman, longshoreman, ship repair worker or
his personal representative, each of these cases alleges injury
or illness based on exposure to asbestos or other toxic
substances and sets forth a claim based upon the theory of
negligence under the Jones Act and on the theory of
unseaworthiness under the General Maritime Law.

Under an order issued by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation dated July 29, 1991, all Ohio and Michigan cases were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania for pretrial processing. On May 1, 1996, the
cases were administratively dismissed.

Thirty-six of the Ohio and Michigan claims which name one or
more Company entities as defendants have been reinstated, but
the plaintiffs' attorneys are not actively pursuing these cases.

In addition, the Company is a defendant with others in 97
asbestos or other toxic cases pending in jurisdictions other
than the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These other
jurisdictions include state and federal courts in Northern
California, Oregon, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland and New
York.  

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has accrued US$3.1 million as its
best estimate of the liability and has recorded a receivable
from its insurance companies of US$1.1 million related to its
reinstated asbestos litigation and other asbestos and toxic
claims.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 66 claims
filed, 5 claims settled, and 3 claims dismissed. Settlements
totaled US$83,000 and the average settlement was US$17,000. The
Company paid US$607,000 for legal matters.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 62 claims
filed, 6 claims settled, and 6 claims dismissed. Settlements
totaled US$93,000 and the average settlement was US$16,000. The
Company paid US$571,000 for legal matters.

In 2004, the Company settled for about US$6.3 million certain
asbestos-related claims that involved seamen employed by the
Company for over 30 years. In August 2006, the Company entered
into a settlement agreement with two insurance companies for
recovery of amounts paid by the Company for these asbestos-
related claims. This settlement in the amount of US$6.3 million
was recognized as a reduction of Operating Expenses during the
2006-3rd quarter.

Based in Jacksonville, Fla., Crowley Maritime Corp. provides
diversified transportation services in domestic and
international markets. The Company also provides fuel
transportation and distribution services domestically. The
Company operates through four segments: Liner Services,
Logistics Services, Marine Services, and Petroleum Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $511.4M for A&E Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group Ltd., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005,
reserved a net of US$511.4 million for asbestos and
environmental losses, compared with US$450.5 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a gross
of US$650.1 million for A&E losses, compared with US$649.5
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$135.6 million representing case reserves
reported by ceding companies, US$152.1 million representing
additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed
reinsurance claims, US$213.7 million representing case reserves
established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims,
including its Mt. McKinley business, and US$148.7 million
representing incurred but not reported reserves.

The Company incurred adverse development for A&E exposures of
US$113.4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006 and US$77.1
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's net three-year A&E survival ratio was 4.1 years at
Dec. 31, 2006.

In 2006, the Company made asbestos net claim payments of US$16.6
million to Mt. McKinley claimants where the claim was either
closed or a settlement was reached.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, Mt. McKinley reserved a gross
of US$581 million for asbestos exposures, compared with US$568.9
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, Mt. McKinley reserved a net of
US$442.4 million for asbestos exposures, compared with US$365.3
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's net three-year survival ratio on its asbestos
exposures was four years for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

For 2006, the Company's incurred losses on A&E claims totaled
US$650,134,000 on a gross basis, compared with US$649,460,000
for 2005.

For 2006, the Company's incurred losses on A&E claims totaled
US$511,412,000 on a net basis, compared with US$450,350,000 for
2005.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group Ltd. is the holding
company for Everest Reinsurance Co., an underwriter of property
& casualty reinsurance and insurance. The Company offers
specialized underwriting in several areas, including property &
casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical
malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional
errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Corp. Units Face 1,295 Pending Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corp., as of Feb. 15, 2007, recorded 1,295 asbestos-related
cases pending against its subsidiaries or the former subsidiary
where the Company has provided limited indemnity, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2007.

Several Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants or
co-defendants in cases alleging injury relating to asbestos. In
these cases, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages based on common law, statutory or premises liability or,
in the case of subsidiary American Steamship Co., the Jones Act,
which makes limited remedies available to certain maritime
employees.

In addition, demand has been made against the Company under a
limited indemnity given in connection with the sale of a
subsidiary by the purchaser for asbestos-related claims filed
against the former subsidiary.

Out of the total number of pending cases, 1,190 are Jones Act
claims, which were primarily filed against ASC prior before
2000.

In 2006, 124 new asbestos-related cases were filed and 112 cases
were dismissed or settled. In 2005, 22 new cases were filed and
46 cases were dismissed or settled.

For this two-year period, the aggregate amount paid to settle
asbestos-related cases filed against the Company's subsidiaries
and the former subsidiary was less than US$185,000.


COMPANY PROFILE

GATX Corp.
500 W. Monroe St.
Chicago, Ill. 60661-3676
Phone: 312-621-6200
Fax: 312-621-6648
Toll Free: 800-428-8161
http://www.gatx.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2006 Sales (mil.):                US$1,229.1
1-Year Sales Growth:              8.3 percent
2006 Net Income (mil.):           US$111.7
2005 Employees:                   1,870
1-Year Employee Growth:           (30.2 percent)

Description:
The Company leases, manages, operates and invests in long-lived,
widely used assets in the rail, marine and industrial equipment
markets. The Company has three financial segments: Rail,
Specialty and ASC. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had assets of
US$4.6 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face ASARCO LLC Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp.'s direct and indirect parent corporations,
including Americas Mining Corp. and Grupo Mexico, have from time
to time been named parties in asbestos-related litigation
involving ASARCO LLC.

Asarco, a mining company, is indirectly wholly owned by Grupo
Mexico.

In March 2003, AMC bought its interest in the Company from
Asarco. In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre
and other parties, not including the Company, were named in a
lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with alleged
asbestos liabilities, which suit claims that AMC's purchase of
the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance.

The suit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result of
the Aug. 9, 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco. On Feb.
2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in
possession, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in
the New York State suit, including that AMC's purchase of the
Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.

In 2005, certain Asarco subsidiaries filed bankruptcy petitions
in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In August 2005,
Asarco entered into bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of
Corpus Christi, Tex.  

Asarco's bankruptcy case is jointly administered with the
bankruptcy cases of its subsidiaries.

With its U.S. operations in Phoenix, Southern Copper Corp. is an
integrated producer of copper, molybdenum, zinc, and silver. Its
mining, smelting, and refining facilities are located in Peru
and in Mexico. The Company also conducts exploration activities
in those countries and Chile.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Still Face Cases in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Transocean Inc.'s subsidiaries have been named, with
other unaffiliated defendants, in several asbestos-related
complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2007.

The cases involve over 700 persons alleging personal injury from
asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by some of
these defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries to whom the Company may owe indemnity. Further, the
complaints name other unaffiliated defendant companies,
including companies that allegedly made drilling related
products with asbestos.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used those 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.

The Company has not yet been able to conduct extensive discovery
or determine the number of plaintiffs that were employed by its
subsidiaries or otherwise have any connection with its drilling
operations.

Based in Houston, Transocean Inc. provides offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells. As of Feb. 2, 2007, the
Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 82
mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire Reserves $3.4M for A&E Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Co., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$3.4
million in asbestos and environmental loss reserves, compared
with US$4.2 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company has potential exposure to environmental pollution,
mold and asbestos claims.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
US$478,326,000 as net liability for losses and loss settlement
expenses, compared with US$559,963,000 for the year ended Dec.
31, 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
US$518,886,000 as gross liability for losses and loss
settlement, compared with US$620,100,000 for the year ended Dec.
31, 2005.

Based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United Fire & Casualty Co. offers
property/casualty and life insurance products. The Company's
offerings include fidelity and surety bonds and fire,
homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation lines. More than
half of the Company's property/casualty business is written in
Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Rising Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., since 2000, has been
facing rising claims filed against it and certain of its
affiliates in various United States jurisdictions by persons
alleging bodily injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

The number of claims has increased and the resolution of these
claims may take a significant period of time, according to the
Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corp., and are
based on a product sold by RFPC before the time that the Company
acquired any interest in RFPC.

On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former
stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that
entity's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to
RFPC's product was resolved in the Company's favor.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

To date, RFPC's insurers have provided RFPC with defense and
indemnity in these actions.

Based in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corp. provides value-added, technology-based equipment and
services for the global rail industry. In 2006, the Company had
sales of about US$1 billion and net income of about US$85
million. Sales of aftermarket parts and services represent over
50 percent of total sales in 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: XL Capital Records 1,447 Open Claims in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital Ltd., as of Dec. 31, 2006, had about 1,447 open claim
files for potential asbestos exposures and 589 open claim files
for potential environmental exposures on business written before
1986, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had about 878 open claim files
for potential asbestos exposures and 414 open claim files for
potential environmental exposures on business written before
1986. (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2006)

The Company's exposure to A&E claims arises from contracts
written, both on a proportional and excess basis, after 1972.
The Company discontinued writing contracts with these exposures
in 1985.

In 2006, the Company acquired US$40.2 million in losses through
a loss portfolio transfer contract written by the Financial
lines segment, of which US$18.3 million in losses related to A&E
claims.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
US$211,961,000 as gross unpaid losses and loss expenses related
to A&E exposure claims on business written before 1986, compared
with US$124,001,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 3005.

Incurred but not reported losses, net of reinsurance, was
US$24.1 million in 2006 and US$16.7 million in 2005.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, XL Capital Ltd., through its
subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance coverages, and
financial products and services to industrial, commercial and
professional service firms, insurance companies and other
enterprises on a worldwide basis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott, JRMI Face Insurance Suit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International Inc. and its subsidiary, J. Ray
McDermott Inc., continue to face an asbestos-related declaratory
judgment action filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court,
Assumption Parish, La, according to the Company's 2006 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Aug. 23, 2004, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and
Threadneedle Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a declaratory judgment
action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al v.
J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al.

The suit was filed against the Company, JRMI and two insurer
defendants, Travelers and INA. The suits seeks a declaration
that the London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify the
Company and JRMI for certain bodily injury claims, including
claims for asbestos and welding rod fume personal injury, which
have been filed by claimants in various state courts, and an
environmental claim involving Company unit The Babcock & Wilcox
Co.

Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a
declaration of non-coverage in about 20 underlying matters. This
proceeding was stayed by the state court on Jan. 3, 2005 based
on the consideration of certain of the claims in litigation
pending before the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Tex., in a matter entitled Benoit, et al., v. J. Ray
McDermott, Inc., et al.

The London Insurers, Travelers and INA have filed motions for
reconsideration of the Jan. 3, 2005 stay order.

Based in Houston, McDermott International Inc. is a global
engineering and construction firm active in offshore oil and gas
construction, power generation systems, and government
contracting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Junked in Favor of McDermott Units
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish, La., on
Jan. 10, 2007, dismissed plaintiffs' asbestos-related claims in
favor of McDermott International Inc.'s affiliates, J. Ray
McDermott Inc. and Delta Hudson Engineering Corp.

The proceeding, entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott,
Inc., et al., was filed by about 88 plaintiffs against about 215
defendants.

In the suit, the plaintiffs generally alleged injuries for
exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and
noise while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act
seamen. About 70 plaintiffs alleged employment by JRMI or DHEC
in that capacity.

In 2006, JRMI and DHEC filed various motions, including a motion
to dismiss asserting that the plaintiffs' claims were improperly
joined together, which motion was granted by the Court.

Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed without prejudice to
their right to refile their claims.

Based in Houston, McDermott International Inc. is a global
engineering and construction firm active in offshore oil and gas
construction, power generation systems, and government
contracting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Records 87,070 Injury Claims at 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., at
Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about 87,070 asbestos personal injury
claims, compared with 100,250 claims at Dec. 31, 2005, according
to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2006, Metropolitan Life had about 7,870 claims filed
during the year, compared with about 18,500 claims at Dec. 31,
2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, Metropolitan Life settled US$35.5 million for
claims, compared with US$74.3 million for claims at Dec. 31,
2005.

Metropolitan Life, during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006,
received about 6,384 asbestos-related claims compared with about
12,100 claims for the same period in 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

Metropolitan Life faces asbestos-related suits filed primarily
in state courts. These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.

The suits have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
Metropolitan Life's employees from the 1920s through about the
1950s and allege that Metropolitan Life learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life have included
negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos. Since 2002, trial courts
in California, Utah, Georgia, New York, Texas, and Ohio have
granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life.

Based in New York, MetLife Inc. provides insurance and other
financial services with operations throughout the United States
and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, the Company offers life insurance, annuities,
automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other
financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance,
reinsurance and retirement & savings products and services to
corporations and other institutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Int'l. Reserves $151.8M at 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, reserved a
gross of US$151.8 million for asbestos-related claims, compared
with US$141.4 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the
Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a net of US$117.3 million
for asbestos-related claims, compared with US$108.9 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a gross of US$194.9
million for asbestos- and environmental-related claims, compared
with US$170.7 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a net of US$157.8 million
for A&E claims, compared with US$132.2 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company reserved US$185.1 million gross,
US$170.7 million net, for A&E claims. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 24, 2007)

Based in Chicago, Old Republic International Corp. is engaged in
insurance underwriting. The Company conducts its business
through regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into
three major segments: General (property and liability), Mortgage
Guaranty, and Title insurance segments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Faces 18T Open Claims in '06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc., in 2006, recorded about 18,000 plaintiffs
and claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it,
compared with 32,000 plaintiffs and claimants in 2005, according
to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2006, the Company recorded about 7,000 claims filed and
21,000 claims disposed. In 2005, the Company recorded about
9,000 claims filed and 12,000 claims disposed.

The Company faces suits filed in state and federal courts by
persons alleging bodily injury, including death, as a result of
exposure to dust from asbestos fibers. From 1948 to 1958, one of
the Company's former business units commercially produced and
sold about US$40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate
based pipe and block insulation material with asbestos. The
Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April
1958.

Of the pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, about 91 percent of
plaintiffs and claimants either do not specify the monetary
damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court. About eight percent of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages of US$15 million or less, and one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million but less
than US$100 million. Less than one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages of US$100 million or greater but less
than US$123 million.

The Company also faces other asbestos-related suits or claims
involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-
defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of Dec.
31, 2006, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about 347,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per
claim of about US$6,425.  

Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$82.6 million at Dec.
31, 2006, US$91 million at Dec. 31, 2005, and are included in
the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.  

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$3.11 billion through 2006, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.

Based in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois Inc. makes packaging
products and glass. The Company also makes healthcare packaging
including plastic prescription containers and medical devices,
and plastic closure systems including tamper-evident caps and
child-resistant closures, with operations in the U.S., Mexico,
Puerto Rico, Brazil, Hungary, Malaysia and Singapore.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Faces Suits in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Co.'s subsidiaries continue to face several
asbestos-related complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi, according to the Company's 2006 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed by several hundred
persons that allege that they were employed by some of the named
defendants between about 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly made drilling related products with asbestos that are
the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
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 under the Jones Act and that the Plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

These complaints have been severed and venue of the claims
transferred to the county in which the plaintiff resides or the
county in which the cause of action allegedly accrued.

After the filing of amended complaints, the Company has joined
with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel discovery
to determine what plaintiffs have an employment relationship
with which defendant, including whether or not any plaintiffs
have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of the
Company.

Out of 528 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 11
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant.

Based in Houston, Parker Drilling Co. is a worldwide provider of
contract drilling and drilling-related services. Since starting
operations in 1934, the Company has operated in 53 countries and
the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Ltd. Reserves $95M for A&E Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
PartnerRe Ltd.'s reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses, as
of Dec. 31, 2006, includes US$95 million that represents an
estimate of its net ultimate liability for asbestos and
environmental claims, according to the Company's 2006 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the gross liability for A&E claims was
US$105 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's reserves for unpaid losses
and loss expenses included US$96.6 million that represents an
estimate of its net ultimate liability for A&E claims. (Class
Action Reporter, March 10, 2006)

Most of the net amount relates to U.S. casualty exposures
arising from business written before Jan. 1, 1992 by certain
companies, which were at the time part of the AGF Group and are
currently part of subsidiaries PartnerRe SA or Partner
Reinsurance Company of the U.S.

PartnerRe SA ceased writing industrial casualty business
covering risks in the U.S. in 1986.

Based in Pembroke, Bermuda, PartnerRe Ltd. provides reinsurance
on a worldwide basis through its wholly owned subsidiaries,
Partner Reinsurance Co. Ltd., PartnerRe SA, and Partner
Reinsurance Co. of the U.S. Risks reinsured include property,
casualty, motor, agriculture, aviation/space, catastrophe,
credit/surety, engineering, energy, marine, specialty property,
specialty casualty, other lines and life/annuity and health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne Corp. Reserves $500,000 for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PolyOne Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, has reserves totaling
US$500,000 for asbestos-related claims that are probable and
estimable, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been named in various lawsuits involving
multiple claimants and defendants for alleged asbestos exposure
in the past by workers and contractors and their families at
plants owned by the Company or its predecessors, or on board
ships owned or operated by the Company or its predecessors.

Based in Avon Lake, Ohio, PolyOne Corp. provides specialized
polymer materials, services and solutions with operations in
thermoplastic compounds, specialty polyvinyl chloride vinyl
resins, specialty polymer formulations, color and additive
systems, and thermoplastic resin distribution, with equity
investments in manufacturers of PVC resin and its intermediates
and in a formulator of polyurethane compounds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Reserves $350,000 for Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has identified and established a reserve of
US$350,000 concerning a potential asbestos issue at its Gradall
facility, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2007.

The estimated timing and the fair market value of removing or
disposing of existing asbestos cannot be reasonably estimated at
this time.

On Feb. 3, 2006, the Company bought the assets of the Gradall
excavator business of JLG Industries Inc., including JLG's
manufacturing plant in New Philadelphia, Ohio.

The Company also preliminarily established an environmental
reserve of US$1,939,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's
Ohio facility.

Three specific remediation projects that were identified before
the acquisition are in process and estimated to be US$400,000.  

The balance of US$1,539,000 is mainly for potential ground water
contamination or remediation that was identified before the
acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third party
company located near the Gradall facility.


COMPANY PROFILE

Alamo Group Inc.
1502 E. Walnut
Seguin, Tex. 78155
Phone: 830-379-1480
Fax: 830-372-9683
http://www.alamo-group.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2006 Sales (mil.):                US$456.5
1-Year Sales Growth:              24 percent
2006 Net Income (mil.):           US$11.5
1-Year Net Income Growth:         1.8 percent
2005 Employees:                   1,862
1-Year Employee Growth:           (2.7 percent)

Description:
The Company designs, manufactures, distributes, and services
high quality equipment for right-of-way maintenance and
agriculture. The Company's products include tractor-mounted
mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street
sweepers, snowblowers, pothole patchers, excavators, vacuum
trucks, agricultural implements and related aftermarket parts
and services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: May 14 Trial Set for Calif. Water Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A May 14, 2007 trial date has been set for an asbestos-related
complaint filed against California Water Service Group,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2007.

On Oct. 26, 2006, the Company was served with a complaint in
Superior Court County of Los Angeles Case No. BC360406. The suit
alleged personal injury due to exposure to asbestos.

The plaintiff claims to have worked for three of the Company's
contractors on pipeline projects for the period 1958-1999 and
Palos Verdes Water Co., a water utility acquired by the Company
in 1970.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and other defendants are
responsible for his asbestos related injuries.

The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of US$27.5 million.

The Company's insurance carrier has accepted the defense of the
claim, reserving certain rights along with one of the
contractor's insurance company.

Based in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service Group's main
regulated utility, California Water Service Co., provides water
in 26 systems for 456,000 customers throughout the state.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graybar Electric Faces 3,109 Pending Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
about 3,109 pending individual cases and 188 pending class
actions related to asbestos, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 14, 2007.

These cases allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries
resulting from the use of or exposure to products sold by the
Company.

The Company had about 2,800 individual cases and 160 class
actions that involve asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, April 7,
2006)

The Company's insurance carriers have historically borne all
costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are
continuing to do so.

Accordingly, the Company's future liability with respect to
pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued
solvency of the Company's insurance carriers.

Based in St. Louis, Graybar Electric Company Inc. is engaged in
the distribution of electrical, telecommunications and
networking products and the provision of related supply chain
management and logistics services, primarily to contractors,
industrial plants, telephone companies, power utilities,
federal, state and municipal governments and commercial users in
North America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Faces Injury Suits in 3 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Co. has been named in asbestos-related
lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and
South Dakota, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2007.

The suits alleged that certain wire and cable, which may have
contained asbestos, caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable. These suits are individual
personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money
damages as the sole remedy.

It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a
result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.

In connection with ALLTEL Corp.'s sale of the Company in 1997,
ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages
associated with these claims that the Company believes it could
enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

In addition, the Company maintains general liability insurance
that has applied to these claims.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been
covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of
these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance
companies.

Based in Houston, Houston Wire & Cable Co. distributes specialty
wire and cable and related services to the U.S. electrical
distribution market. In 2006, the Company had over 2,700
customers in over 8,000 individual locations. In 2006, the
Company distributed about 22,000 stock-keeping units from 11
strategically located distribution centers in 10 states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Reserves $23.3M for 4Q Losses  
--------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$23.3 million as
gross reserves for asbestos-related losses, compared with
US$26.9 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 13, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$10.6 million, net of
reinsurance, for asbestos-related losses, compared with US$13.2
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Of the net asbestos reserves at Dec. 31, 2006, about US$6.6
million related to incurred but not reported losses, compared
with US$10.3 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

All incurred asbestos and environmental losses were for accident
years 1986 and prior.

Based in Philadelphia, PMA Capital Corp. underwrites workers'
compensation, integrated disability, and commercial insurance,
including commercial automobile and multi-peril. The company
targets middle-market and large accounts. The Company sells
about half of its workers' compensation products in
Pennsylvania. Some 80 percent of business is sold in the East.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Engages in Insurance Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. is engaged in an asbestos-related insurance
action, captioned NL Industries Inc. v. American Re Insurance
Co., et al., pending in Dallas County Court at Law, Tex., Case
No. CC-06-04523-E, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March
13, 2007.

In April 2006, the Company filed a comprehensive action against
all of the insurance companies, which issued policies to the
Company that could provide insurance for lead pigment actions
and asbestos actions asserted against the Company.

In this action, the Company asserted that defendants have
breached their obligations to the Company under those insurance
policies with respect to lead pigment and asbestos claims.

The Company seeks a declaration as to the rights and obligations
of each insurance company with respect to those claims.

In October 2006, the court stayed this proceeding.

Based in Dallas, NL Industries Inc., operates through its
subsidiary, Kronos Worldwide. Kronos supplies titanium dioxide
(TiO2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity, and brightness
of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc.
owns about 83 percent of NL Industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 500 Cases W/ 10,400 Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. faces about 500 pending asbestos-related
cases, involving a total of about 10,400 plaintiffs and their
spouses, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2007.

The Company has been dealt with about 500 pending asbestos-
related cases, involving a total of about 10,700 plaintiffs and
their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006)

The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in
several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products made by the
Company's former operations with asbestos, silica or mixed dust.  

From time to time, the Company has received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against
former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with
which the Company has entered into settlements extinguishing
certain insurance policies.

These insurers may seek indemnification from the Company.

Based in Dallas, NL Industries Inc., operates through its
subsidiary, Kronos Worldwide. Kronos supplies titanium dioxide
(TiO2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity, and brightness
of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc.
owns about 83 percent of NL Industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 520 Pending Claims in '06
----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group Ltd., a White Mountains Insurance
Group Ltd. subsidiary, at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 520 accounts
with asbestos-related claims, compared with 592 claims at Dec.
31, 2005, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 121 OneBeacon asbestos
accounts during the year and 193 asbestos accounts closed during
the year. At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 128 OneBeacon
asbestos accounts during the year and 200 asbestos accounts
closed during the year.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 942 total OneBeacon accounts
with asbestos and environmental claims, 251 accounts reporting
A&E claims during the year, and 396 accounts on which A&E claims
were closed during the year.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 1,087 total OneBeacon
accounts with A&E claims, 308 accounts reporting A&E claims
during the year, and 529 accounts on which A&E claims were
closed during the year.

Since the 1990s, OneBeacon has experienced an increase in claims
from commercial insureds, including many non-Fortune 500-sized
accounts written during the 1970s and 1980s, who are named as
defendants in asbestos suits. In 2006, 121 new insureds with
peripheral involvement presented asbestos claims under prior
OneBeacon policies.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, there were about 323 active claims by
insureds against the Company without product liability coverage
asserting operations or premises coverage.

Based in Hanover, N.H., White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd.
provides insurance products and services through its three main
operating divisions: OneBeacon Insurance (specialty, commercial,
and personal property & casualty), White Mountains Re
(reinsurance and advisory services), and Esurance (personal
auto).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: White Mountains Records 1,173 Claims in '06
----------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountains Re Group Ltd., a White Mountains Insurance Group
Ltd. subsidiary, at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 1,173 total
asbestos-related claims, compared with 1,339 claims at Dec. 31,
2005, according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2006, White Mountains Re had 186 asbestos claims
reported during the year and 377 asbestos claims closed during
the year. At Dec. 31, 2005, White Mountains Re had 223 asbestos
claims reported during the year and 285 asbestos claims closed
during the year.

At Dec. 31, 2006, White Mountains Re had a total of 1,685
asbestos and environmental claims at the end of the year, 232
A&E claims reported during the year, and 704 A&E claims closed
during the year. At Dec. 31, 2005, White Mountains Re had a
total of 2,089 A&E claims, 288 A&E claims reported during the
year, and 500 A&E claims closed during the year.

White Mountains Re's A&E exposure is primarily from reinsurance
contracts written between 1974 through 1985 by Folksamerica Re
predecessor companies, MONY Reinsurance and Christiania General.

Based in Hanover, N.H., White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd.
provides insurance products and services through its three main
operating divisions: OneBeacon Insurance (specialty, commercial,
and personal property & casualty), White Mountains Re
(reinsurance and advisory services), and Esurance (personal
auto).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pride International Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi, according to the Company's 2006 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named as co-defendants in several
complaints in Mississippi by several hundred individuals that
allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants
between about 1965 and 1986. More suits have been filed since
August 2004.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used
products with asbestos in offshore drilling operations, land-
based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling
rigs, vessels and other equipment.

The plaintiffs assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act. The complaints name as
defendants numerous other companies that are not affiliated with
the Company, including companies that allegedly made drilling
related products with asbestos that are the subject of the
complaints.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. Eight individuals of the many plaintiffs in
these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for
the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors.

Discovery and investigation is ongoing to determine whether
these individuals were employed in the Company's offshore
operations during the alleged period of exposure.

Based in Houston, Pride International Inc. provides contract
drilling and related services to oil and natural gas companies
worldwide, operating offshore and on land. As of Feb. 28, 2007,
the Company had a fleet of 272 rigs, consisting of two deepwater
drillships, 12 semisubmersible rigs, 28 jackup rigs, 16 tender-
assisted, barge and platform rigs and 214 land-based drilling
and workover rigs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selective Insurance Has 2,273 Claims at 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, had 2,273
pending asbestos-related claims, compared with 2,089 claims at
Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's 2006 annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2006, asbestos claims constituted 89 percent of the
Company's 2,568 environmental claims compared with 88 percent of
its 2,382 outstanding environmental claims at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 358 claims received during
the year and 174 claims closed during the year. At Dec. 31,
2006, the Company noted US$910,000 as the average gross loss
settlement on closed claims and US$67,000 as the gross amount
paid to administer closed claims.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 276 claims received during
the year and 1,212 claims closed during the year. At Dec. 31,
2005, the Company noted US$530,000 as the average gross loss
settlement on closed claims and US$230,000 as the gross amount
paid to administer closed claims.

Of the 2,273 asbestos cases, 859 involve three insureds. The
total case reserves associated with these three insureds
amounted to US$900,000 on a gross and net basis.

During 2006, the 174 closed asbestos claims accounted for about
US$200,000 of the total asbestos paid of US$1 million. The total
case reserves for asbestos related claims amounted to US$6.9
million on a gross and net basis.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had a gross of
US$14,146,000, US$12,863,000 net, as reserves for losses and
loss expenses, compared with a gross of US$13,113,000,
US$11,813,000, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Based in Branchville, N.J., Selective Insurance Group Inc.,
through its subsidiaries, offers property and casualty insurance
products and diversified insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $123.5M Interest at 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air, Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, accrued an asbestos-related
interest of US$123.5 million, compared with an interest accrual
of US$90.3 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in
the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current
and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and
its affiliates in connection with the Cryovac transaction.

On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors approved the
agreement in principle. The Company recorded a charge of
US$850.1 million as a result of the asbestos settlement in its
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended Dec. 31,
2002.

The charge consisted of a non-cash charge of US$512.5 million
covering a cash payment that the Company will be required under
the settlement to make upon the effectiveness of a plan of
reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy.

Under the terms of the settlement, this amount accrues interest
at a 5.5 percent annual rate from Dec. 21, 2002 to the date of
payment.

Asbestos settlement and related costs in 2006 were US$1.6
million and US$2.2 million in 2005. These costs reflected legal
and related fees for asbestos-related matters.

Based in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corp., through its two
direct wholly owned subsidiaries: Cryovac Inc. and Sealed Air
Corp. (U.S.), manufactures and sells a wide range of food and
protective packaging products. The Company operates in two
reportable business segments: Food Packaging and Protective
Packaging.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air (Canada) Faces Thundersky Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada)
Co./Cie still faces an asbestos-related lawsuit styled
Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al., File No.
CI04-01-39818, according to the Company's 2006 annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The case in pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

In the suit filed in November 2004, W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R.
Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as defendants.

The claim is brought as a putative class proceeding and seeks
recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident,
other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing or
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
before the Cryovac Transaction.

Another proceeding was filed in January 2005 in the Manitoba
Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified
subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney
General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the
recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly
provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the
class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six more putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and
its subsidiaries Cryovac Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie,
as well as other defendants including W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R.
Grace & Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
before the Cryovac Transaction.

Grace and W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto, recognizing
the Chapter 11 actions in the U.S. involving Grace Canada Inc.'s
U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada
Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying all current
proceedings against Grace Canada Inc. related to asbestos under
the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been
renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada Inc., the court
ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian
affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the
effect of staying all of the Canadian actions. The stay has been
extended through April 1, 2007, and the Company expects the stay
to be further extended.

Based in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corp., through its two
direct wholly owned subsidiaries: Cryovac Inc. and Sealed Air
Corp. (U.S.), manufactures and sells a wide range of food and
protective packaging products. The Company operates in two
reportable business segments: Food Packaging and Protective
Packaging.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baldor Electric Units Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Baldor Electric Co. subsidiaries, which were acquired
from Rockwell Automation Inc., are named defendants in asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's 2006 annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the Company acquired the Reliance Electric
industrial motors business and the Dodge mechanical power
transmission business from Rockwell Automation and certain of
its subsidiaries (Acquired Business).

The total consideration paid was US$1.8 billion, including a
payment of US$1.75 billion in cash, which is subject to
adjustment, and the issuance of 1.58 million shares of the
Company's common stock to Rockwell Automation.

The Acquired Business faces suits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain
components of its products many years ago. Hundreds of claimants
are in lawsuits that name the Acquired Business as a defendant,
together with hundreds of other companies.

However, most of the complaints do not identify any of the
Acquired Business's products or specify which of these claimants
were exposed to asbestos attributable to the Acquired Business's
products. Past experience has shown that most of the claimants
will never identify any of the Acquired Business's products.

Based in Fort Smith, Ark., Baldor Electric Co. is a manufacturer
of industrial electric motors, drives, and generators, supplying
over 8,000 customers in more than 160 industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Inks $20M Settlement w/ Federal Ins.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corp., on March 26, 2007, said that SB Decking
Inc., an inactive subsidiary, and Federal Insurance Co. agreed
to pay US$20 million to settle an asbestos insurance dispute,
The Associated Press reports.

The parties had a dispute regarding certain coverage issues on
policies issued by Federal as applied to numerous asbestos
claims brought against SB Decking.

They have now agreed to settle this dispute where Federal will
pay US$20 million in four installments to SB Decking to be used
to pay defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of
SB Decking in connection with asbestos-related claims.

In return, SB Decking and the Company released Federal from any
further liability under all policies issued to SB Decking.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Issues $2,000 Penalty to Envirovantage
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has issued a
US$2,000 penalty to Envirovantage Inc. for breaching asbestos
management regulations, Seacoastonline reports.

DEP staff discovered the Company's violation during a routine
inspection June 13, 2006. The Company was removing 3,300 square
feet of siding that had asbestos at 4 Hamlin Place in York
Beach.

John Bucci, asbestos and lead inspector for the DEP, said, "They
were supposed to be done with the job, and we inspected the
perimeter of the building and found there was some debris left
behind."

DEP staff sampled and photographed the suspect debris. Further
analysis showed the siding had asbestos.

Mr. Bucci said the Company was notified of the asbestos and
returned quickly to re-clean the site.

Mr. Bucci said the DEP has not had any encounters with the
Company in the past.

Based in Epping, N.H., Envirovantage Inc. specializes in lead
paint removal, asbestos abatement, mold remediation, and
historical building restorations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Settles With Bldg. Owner, Builder
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that it has
reached a settlement with a San Francisco building owner and a
construction contractor for violating federal regulations
governing asbestos removal from buildings, according to an EPA
press release dated March 26, 2007.

The penalty for the building owner, Cheng, Chow and Chu Inc. is
US$149,000. The construction company, Sincere Construction, will
pay a US$1,500 penalty.

In August 2000, Cheng, Chow and Chu hired Sincere Construction
to remove regulated asbestos-containing materials - like
acoustic ceiling, tiles, linoleum, insulation, fire-proofing,
and stucco - from property it was renovating in on Maple Court
and Main Street in Hayward, Calif.

More than 31,000 square feet of asbestos-containing material was
removed from the building, which was used as a chiropractic
college before closing.

Inspections of the building by EPA and Bay Area Air Quality
Management officials uncovered numerous asbestos emission and
disposal violations.

Debris collected at the site for analysis showed extremely high
levels of asbestos. Inspectors verified that the asbestos was
not kept wet and emissions to the outside air were apparent.

In addition, Sincere Construction is not a certified asbestos
contractor as required by law.

Deborah Jordan, director of the Air Division in the EPA's
Pacific Southwest region, said, "Because of its potential for
endangering health, asbestos removal demands the utmost care and
specialized training. Companies that provide removal services
must ensure that their employees are properly trained to prevent
asbestos exposure to the public."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Asbestos Levels in Wyo. Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigators would use air
and soil samples to check whether building debris with asbestos
in a Cheyenne, Wyo. Lot affects human health or the environment,
billingsgazette.com reports.

Neighbors who live close to the lot are concerned the asbestos
may be getting into the air and harming their health. Health
officials at a 2006 public meeting said it was unlikely the
asbestos in such form found on the lot endangered their health.

However, a private contractor who investigated on behalf of the
residents reached a different conclusion.

The EPA plan will use more than a dozen air sampling devices and
as many as nine stream sediment samples to see if asbestos on
the site is being blown or washed off in quantities dangerous to
human health or the environment.

The sampling is expected to take place during three consecutive
days in May 2007. The report is expected 45 to 60 days after the
sampling is complete.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Financial Reserves $131M for A&E
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corp., in 2006, had a net reserve of US$131
million for asbestos and environmental claims, compared with
US$130 million in 2005 and US$128 million in 2004, according to
the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Net reserves for all A&E claims were 3.9 percent in 2006, 4.2
percent in 2005, and 4.3 percent in 2004.

Loss and loss expenses incurred for all A&E claims were US$12
million, or 0.6 percent of total loss and loss expenses in 2006,
compared with US$12 million, or 0.7 percent in 2005, and US$42
million, or 2.4 percent, in 2004.

The Company generally wrote commercial accounts after the
development of coverage forms that exclude asbestos cleanup
costs. The Company said it believes its exposure to risks
associated with past production and installation of asbestos
materials is minimal because the Company was primarily a
personal lines company when most of the asbestos exposure
occurred.  

Based in Fairfield, Ohio, Cincinnati Financial Corp., through
its subsidiaries, markets commercial, personal and life
insurance through independent insurance agencies to businesses
and individuals. At year-end 2006, the Company had 4,048
associates, with 2,888 headquarters associates providing support
to 1,160 field associates.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Records $64.6M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation LLC, at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded an asbestos-
related liability of US$64.6 million, compared with US$67.4
million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's 2006 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had recorded a US$65.5 million
liability for asbestos-related matters. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 17, 2006)

The Company had about 186 cases for which it was potentially
liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at Dec. 31,
2006, compared with 176 cases at Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison Co. and Exelon Generation Co. LLC on Feb.
20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and
agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses
associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in
the agreement.

Commonwealth Edison and Midwest Generation apportioned
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based on the
number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations
or Company locations.

The supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision.

Headquartered in Chicago, Midwwest Generation LLC is an
independent power producer with a generating capacity of more
than 5,620 MW from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois.
Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison International's
merchant energy business, Edison Mission Energy.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


COAST FINANCIAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against Coast Financial Holdings,
Inc. (CFHI) on March 20, 2007.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. 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 Oct. 28, 2005 through Jan. 19, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is May 21, 2007.

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


RADIOSHACK CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against RadioShack Corp. (RSH) on
March 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. 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 Jan. 14, 2003 through June 7, 2006.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is May 15, 2007.

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


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Wireless Facilities, Inc. (WFII) between March 29,
2001 to March 12, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Wireless Facilities and certain
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning Wireless
Facilities' improper and undisclosed practice of backdating
options conferred on certain executives, which made it appear
that such options were issued upon dates when the market price
of Wireless Facilities stock was lower than actual market price
on the actual grant dates, thereby masking the profits the
option recipients obtained.

Under generally accepted accounting principles, these profits
were required to be recognized as an expense in the company's
financial statements for the appropriate period, but were not.  
This backdating of options also violated provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments.  
Thus, the complaint alleges, the company's financial statements
in Form 10-K flings for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
and 2005 and Form 10-Q quarterly filings were materially false
and misleading.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is no later than 60 days from
March 19, 2007.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull
& Brody by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, by calling toll-free 1-800-
337-4983, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull,
Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, on the
Net: http://www.ssbny.com.


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *