CAR_Public/070413.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 73

                            Headlines


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Cerberus Acquisition Plan
ALABAMA: Jefferson County Withdraws $32M Winston Suit Settlement
AMARANTH ADVISORS: Offers Options for Investors to Recoup Losses
AUSTRALIA: F-111 Technicians Drop Suit Over Chemical Exposure
AUSTRALIA: Esperance Residents Consider Suit Over Lead Poisoning

BARODON SF: Recalls Dietary Supplement V.MAX with Aminotadalafil
BECTON DICKINSON: Medical Clinic Files Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
CALIFORNIA: Suit by LA Foster Kids Remanded to District Court
CALIFORNIA: San Diego County's Medical Care Policy Challenged
CANADA: Suit Over Failed Richmond Hill Project Settled for CA$2M

CHEMNUTRA INC: Recalls Wheat Gluten Containing Melamine
CHICAGO BOARD: Faces Lawsuit in Del. Over Proposed $8.9B Merger
DIGITAL SECURITY: Recalls Smoke Detectors that Could Fail in Use
DIRECT GENERAL: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Elara Holdings Merger
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Fraud Claims

FEDEX EXPRESS: Agrees to $53.5M Settlement of Racial Bias Case
FIRST DATA: Faces Del. Suit Over Kohlberg Acquisition Proposal
HARMONIC INC: August 2008 Trial Set in Securities Fraud Suit
ING LIFE: NYSUT Trust Members File ERISA Violations Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Talks to Settle Suit Over Foster Care System Unravel

NATURAL HEALTH: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Complaint in Tex.
SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Faces Ill. Lawsuits Over Kmart Merger
SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Underway in Ill. Suit Over 7% Notes
SEARS ROEBUCK: Delivers $215M Ill. Securities Suit Settlement

SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
SELECT MEDICAL: Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Discovery Phase
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING: Recalls Motorcycle Radius Triple Clamps
* FDA Orders Recall of Pergolide Drugs Linked to Heart Disease


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $198M for Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Ind. Drop to 8,600 in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp. Reserves $841M for Claims in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Group Reserves $7.29M at 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $127M Charge for Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Reserves $55.4M for A&E Policies
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Still Faces Product Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Motor Co.'s Defense Costs Drop in 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Units Face 6 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GSF Unit Has Pending Insurer Suit in Calif.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Co. Has $240M Receivable in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 26,045 Pending Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $233.6M Liabilities in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Has $666.07M for A&E Claims in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Records 365 Injury Cases in 4Q06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Records 3,270 Cases in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Reserves $36M for A&E Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Industrial Has $11.3M Gain on Merger
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 3 Third-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp., Goulds Pumps Resolve 8.2T Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Faces Insurance Suits in Calif., N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Unit Still Faces Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OfficeMax Continues to Face Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Has No Active Open Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Records 1,708 Pending Cases at 4Q06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 93 Hilco Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Corp. Drop to 404 in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures Has 9 Pending Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 96 Exposure Suits in 4Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Has 161 Pending Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Corp. Has $1.115B Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VWR Int'l. Continues to Face Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Int'l. Faces Rail Workers' Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leap Tech. Has No Renewed Cases Since 1996

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $13.9M Liability in 4Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Faces Glove-Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Has $91.5M Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $4M Removal Costs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oneida Rostone Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Faces 2,368 Open Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fansteel Inc. Dismissed from Ivan Hand Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Faces 1,332 Claims in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI Has $1.1M-$1.6M Liability at Maine Site

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Records $57.9M Liabilities in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Units Face 10,846 Active Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Reserves $52.1M for Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Corp. Still Faces Injury Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrade Says Artra's Plan Became Effective

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. Urged to Produce Documents
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Move to Conduct Grace's Discovery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Four Plaintiffs Sue 163 Defendants in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Files Suit v. 56 Defendants in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker Files Suit v. 43 Firms in Tex. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JR Tokai Had Locomotive Parts with Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parties Settle Adams Lawsuit in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA to Penalize Aapex for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS ALERT: Pioneer Companies Faces "Premises" Suits in La.
ASBESTOS ALERT: DT Solutions Faces Removal Lawsuit in Md. Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDITED HOME: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ELI LILLY: Grant & Eisenhofer Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NEW CENTURY: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
US AUTO: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.

          
                            *********


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Cerberus Acquisition Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliated Computer Services Inc. said it faces two class
actions filed by purported shareholders opposed to a proposal to
acquire the company presented by Darwin Deason and Cerberus
Capital Management, L.P. on March 20, 2007, reports say.

The suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, New Castle County against the company and certain
directors.

The company stated that the allegations in both lawsuits are
substantially similar.  In each of the lawsuits, the plaintiff
claims to be a shareholder of the company purporting to bring
the action on behalf of all public shareholders of the company.

Each plaintiff alleges that the $5.9 billion proposal is
"inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process,"
Affiliated said in a filing with the U.S. Securities & Exchange
Commission.


ALABAMA: Jefferson County Withdraws $32M Winston Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County commissioners voted on April 10 to withdraw
from an agreement that would settle a purported class action
filed against the county over excess money from the sale of
delinquent taxpayers' estates, The Birmingham News reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of hundreds of people whose
property was sold by the county for delinquent taxes from 1992
to 2005 and who have not collected refunds of amounts paid for
their property in excess of what they owed.

The county has kept the excess money in trust, and with
interest, was able to come up with $32 million from which
payments are set aside for the proposed settlement class.  But
it said additional claims have been filed and could exhaust the
account before all involved have had an opportunity to make
their claims.  

The class is known as the Winston class for an original
plaintiff, Raymond Winston.  Lawyers for the class have asked
U.S. District Judge David Proctor to enforce the settlement.  
Judge Proctor is to consider the proposed settlement Friday.  

"We're trying to make sure we don't have multiple lawsuits all
after the same thing," Assistant County Attorney Charlie Wagner
said.

Earlier, Birmingham news reported that Mr. Wagner has given
court notice that additional lawsuits have been filed on
different issues, but all challenge the distribution of tax sale
proceeds.  

The suit is "Winston et al. v. Jefferson County, Alabama et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-00497-RDP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge David Proctor.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) G Daniel Evans at Evans & Sexton PC, 1736 Oxmoor Road,        
         Suite 101, Birmingham, AL 35209, 870-1970, E-mail:
         gdevans@evanslawpc.com; and

     (2) Edgar C Gentle, III at Gentle Pickens & Turner, Two
         North Twentieth Building, Suite 1200, 2 North 20th
         Street, Birmingham, AL 35203, 716-3000, E-mail:
         escrowagen@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Lee W. Loder at Loder PC, P.O. Box 13545, Birmingham,   
         AL 35202-3545, Phone: 205-326-0566, Fax: 205-326-0564,
         E-mail: loderlawfirm@aol.com; and

     (2) Charles S. Wagner at Jefferson County Attorney's
         Office, 716 Richard Arrington Jr Blvd North,
         Birmingham, AL 35203, 325-5688, E-mail:
         cockrellh@jccal.org.


AMARANTH ADVISORS: Offers Options for Investors to Recoup Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaranth Advisors LLC, a collapsed hedge fund, is polling
investors to determine whether they are interested in a proposal
by an unidentified investor group regarding recovery of
investments, CNNMoney.com.

A March 22 letter reportedly obtained by Reuters proposes two
options: if an investor agrees not to sue Amaranth, they could
get faster distributions from the ongoing liquidation, but if
they decide not to release the firm from liability, a portion of
their pending proceeds would be set aside in a litigation
reserve fund.  If there is a successful class action settlement,
investors who waived litigation rights could still be entitled
to a portion of those proceeds.

The investor group who proposed the options represents about 10
percent of the capital in its flagship multi-strategy fund,
according to the report.

Amaranth is a former $9.2 billion hedge fund group that lost
about $6.4 billion in energy trading last September.  It was
left with about $2.25 billion in assets after the collapse.

Amaranth said if there is "sufficient interest in this
proposal," it will draw up formal consent documents, according
to the letter.

It is unclear whether any investor has sued Amaranth, the report
said.


AUSTRALIA: F-111 Technicians Drop Suit Over Chemical Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former RAAF maintenance workers who suffered serious health
problems after working on Australia's F-111 strike fighters
withdrew a class action scheduled for a hearing in Brisbane
Supreme Court on April 11, reports say.

The case was filed in December in the Brisbane Supreme Court.  
The technicians' lawyer, Debra Daniels, said the move was due to
"legal issues" but said a new class action would be launched,
complying with the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act.

The technicians worked at the Amberley RAAF base, west of
Brisbane, between 1973 and 1989, when they were exposed to
dangerous chemicals while servicing aircraft fuel tanks.

Members of the group have reportedly developed cancer,
depression and skin and neurological disorders.


AUSTRALIA: Esperance Residents Consider Suit Over Lead Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Esperance are considering filing a class action
against the state government and local port officials over lead
poisoning resulting from the export of Magellan Metals' lead
carbonate from Esperance Port.

Slater & Gordon lawyer Chris Prast traveled to the remote
coastal town last week to meet locals and discuss their
concerns, according to The Australian.

More than 4000 birds died late last year and early this year as
a result of lead poisoning.  The Department of Environment
confirmed recently that isotope testing had identified Magellan
Metals as the source of the lead found in dead birds and
rainwater tanks around Esperance.  Magellan Metals subsequently
stopped all mining operations.

A blood test of more than 900 Esperance residents, or 7 percent
of the population, showed that 12 residents have returned lead
levels above World Health Organization's recommendation,
including two infants, according to the report.


BARODON SF: Recalls Dietary Supplement V.MAX with Aminotadalafil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barodon SF, based in Los Angeles, is conducting a voluntary
nationwide recall of the company's supplement product sold under
the name V.MAX.

Barodon SF is conducting this recall after being informed by
representatives of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that
lab analysis by FDA of V.MAX samples found the product contains
aminotadalafil.  

Aminotadalafil is an analog of Tadalafil, an FDA-approved drug
used as treatment for male erectile dysfunction.  This poses a
threat to consumers because aminotadalafil may interact with
nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as
nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.

According to the FDA, consumers with diabetes, high blood
pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take
nitrates.  According to the FDA, erectile dysfunction is a
common problem in men with these conditions, and they may seek
products to enhance sexual performance.  Additionally, FDA
advises that aminotadalafil may cause side effects, such as
headaches and flushing.

V.MAX is sold nationwide and in the past has also been exported
to South Korea and Japan.  V.MAX is packaged with an outer box
containing three smaller inner boxes each containing five
capsules making it a total of 15 capsules per unit.

No illnesses have been reported to the company to date in
connection with this product.


BECTON DICKINSON: Medical Clinic Files Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. is facing a purported federal class
action that accuses it of using its size to suppress competition
and overcharge its products.

The suit, "International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice
v. Becton Dickinson & Co.," was filed on April 5 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

IMSMP, a New York-based medical clinic, filed the suit, which is
seeking class-action status, on behalf of itself and other
"similarly situated" but unnamed health care providers.

Generally, the suit charges the Franklin Lakes-based medical-
device maker of violating federal antitrust laws through various
illegal business practices to maintain its near monopoly in the
market for hypodermic products.

According to the suit, the company's conduct resulted in it
being able to overcharge hospitals and other health care
providers for its disposable hypodermic products.  It adds that
plaintiffs have been left to pay the bill for Becton's abuse of
its dominant position.

Additionally, the suit also accuses the company of stifling
competition by "bundling" its products and offering customers
deep discounts to buy an array of items.  

The "bundling contracts" have reduced competition because
smaller companies that make fewer products can't afford to offer
similar discounts, the suit argues.

The suit is "International Multiple Sclerosis Management
Practice v. Becton Dickinson & Co., Case No. 2:07-cv-01602-JLL,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge Jose L. Linares.

Representing the plaintiffs is James v. Bashian of The Law
Office Of James V. Bashian, PC, Fairfield Commons, 271 Route 46
West, Suite F207, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Phone: (973) 227-6330, E-
mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com.


CALIFORNIA: Suit by LA Foster Kids Remanded to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit reversed and remanded a class action filed by
foster children in the custody of Los Angeles County who
otherwise could face institutionalization, according to
CourtHouseNews.

The suit, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, was filed in July 2002, on behalf of a
class of children who were in Los Angeles County foster care or
at risk of being placed into foster care.

The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the
director of the state Department of Health Services and the
director of Department Social Services as well as Los Angeles
County, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS), and the Director of DCFS (LA County
Defendants).
                        
The complaint alleged that the class was entitled to and had not
received "medically necessary mental health services in a home-
like setting."  Separate claims were alleged based on violations
of the children's rights under the Medicaid Act and the Due
Process Clause of the federal Constitution; under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act; under the Due
Process Clause of the California Constitution; and under
California statutory law.

The complaint was later amended to include a statewide class of
children in foster care or at risk of being placed in foster
care.  The district court certified the class and approved a
settlement agreement between the plaintiff class and LA County
Defendants.

                     Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction to require
the Director of DHS and the Director of DSS to provide
wraparound services and therapeutic foster care (TFC) to members
of the class.

Plaintiffs described wraparound and TFC as highly effective
"integrated community-based interventions for children with
emotional, behavioral, and mental health disorders."

Plaintiffs argued that the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis,
and Treatment provisions obligate the State to provide
wraparound and TFC to them.  In particular, they alleged that
MediCal policies impeding access to wraparound services or TFC
violated the Medicaid statute.  They alleged that MediCal
covered only some components of wraparound and TFC, and that
state policies made it difficult to access either type of care.

Defendants argued that the Medicaid statute does not require
them to provide services in the wraparound or TFC forms demanded
by plaintiffs, and that MediCal provides all required services.
They characterized wraparound and TFC as processes or
approaches, rather than services, and argued that the Medicaid
Act does not create obligations to provide either.

Defendants also disputed plaintiffs' contention that all of the
components of wraparound and TFC are health care services
properly covered by Medicaid.

On March 14, 2006, the district court entered an order granting
a mandatory preliminary injunction against defendants, ordering
them to provide medically necessary wraparound services and TFC
to class members on a consistent, statewide basis within 120
days of the order's entry.

Stating that defendants did not dispute that they did not
provide wraparound and TFC as such, the court found that
"wraparound services and therapeutic foster care fall within the
EPSDT obligations of Medicaid-participating states."  The court
also cited what it described as plaintiffs' undisputed evidence
that wraparound and TFC are medically necessary for children
with serious mental health needs.

On this basis, the court concluded that plaintiffs had shown a
strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their Medicaid
Act claim.  The court also described the potential for
irreparable harm to plaintiffs in the form of unnecessary
institutionalization and unmet mental health needs, if the
injunction were not issued.

The court denied defendants' motions for clarification and
reconsideration, but subsequently issued an Addendum to the
order, which contained short answers to defendants' questions
from their motion for clarification.

                       Defendants Appeal

On appeal, defendants argue that the district court abused its
discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against them and
in denying their motion for reconsideration.  Specifically, they
contend that the court:

     (1) failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law,
         as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure;

     (2) committed clear error in its factual findings;

     (3) applied the wrong legal standard both as to the
         standard for issuance of a mandatory preliminary
         injunction against a state agency and as to the
         underlying legal questions; and

    (4) failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure's
        requirement that an injunction be specific in its terms.

                   9th Circuit Court's Ruling

In a ruling filed March 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit ruled that the district court abused its discretion
by relying on an erroneous legal interpretation of the federal
Medicaid statute in granting plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.  The preliminary injunction is reversed
and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

A copy of the order is available for free at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d1b

The suit is "Katie A, et al. v. Diana Bonta, et al., Case No.
2:02-cv-05662-AHM-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge A. Howard Matz with
referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick H. Gardner of National Center For Youth Law,
         405 14th St., 15th Fl., Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: 510-
         835-8098;

     (2) Alison Barkoff of Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
         1101 15th Street Northwest, Suite 1212, Washington, DC
         20005, US, Phone: 202-467-5730, E-mail:
         alisonb@bazelon.org;

     (3) Melinda R. Bird of Protection & Advocacy, 3580 Wilshire
         Blvd., Ste. 902, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2512, Phone:
         213-427-8747, E-mail: melinda.bird@pai-ca.org; and

     (4) Lew Hollman of Center for Law in the Public Interest,
         3250 Ocean Park Blvd., Ste. 300, Santa Monica, CA
         90405-3219, Phone: 310-314-1947.

Representing the defendants are, Jerry M. Custis of Montery
County Counsel, Children's Services Div., 201 Centre Plz Dr
Suite 1, Monterey Park, CA 91754-2143, Phone: 323-526-6257; and
Sandra L. Goldsmith, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General of
California, 300 S. Spring St., Ste. 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013,
Phone: 213-897-2000, Fax: 213-897-2805.


CALIFORNIA: San Diego County's Medical Care Policy Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the Western Center on Law and Poverty asked a state
appeals court to overturn a ruling that regulates poor people's
eligibility for medical care in San Diego County, according to
reports.

Previously, Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Styn ruled that the
County Medical Services program could not refuse to pay for
treatment to persons earning more than $802.  Later, however,
the court approved a new income limit when county supervisors
increased the threshold to $1,078 a month.

Lawyers for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, representing
more than 20 class action clients, filed an appeal to overturn
that ruling in June.

On appeal, the lawyers said there should be no income limit, and
that patients who earn more than the county's income threshold
should be allowed to pay for a part of their treatment and still
receive it, according to North County Times.  County officials
argue that opening up the system to "sliding-scale" payments
would make all county residents eligible, and could bankrupt the
system, the report said.

Officials said the appeals court is expected to issue its own
ruling within the next 90 days.

Western Center on Law and Poverty on the Net:
http://www.wclp.org.


CANADA: Suit Over Failed Richmond Hill Project Settled for CA$2M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Colin Campbell has approved a CA$2 million settlement
for distribution to investors in a failed Richmond Hill project,
according to YorkRegion.com.

The suit relates to a defunct 1994 project at the Bayview
Landmark mall, at Blackmore Avenue, north of Hwy. 7 involving
133 people who put deposits for the development so they could
own stores in the mall.  They invested anywhere from $25,000 to
$100,000 in the condo units.  The development was stopped due to
municipal opposition.  Later, it was found out that deposits
that were supposed to be held in trust by lawyers were spent by
the developer.

A class action was certified in 1996.  A settlement was reached
by lawyer Landy Marr who took over the case in 2004.

The settlement will be dispersed, based on pro-rated shares, to
the 133 tenants.  Claims filing deadline is June 30.


CHEMNUTRA INC: Recalls Wheat Gluten Containing Melamine
-------------------------------------------------------
ChemNutra Inc. of Las Vegas recalled all wheat gluten it had
imported from one of its three Chinese wheat gluten suppliers,
Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd.

The wheat gluten ChemNutra recalled was all shipped from China
in 25 kg. paper bags, and distributed to customers in the same
unopened bags.  The bags were all labeled "Wheat Gluten Batch
No.: _______ Net Weight: 25 kg Gross Weight: 25.1 kg Made in
China".

The batch numbers included in the recall are 20061006, 20061027,
20061101, 20061108, 20061122, 20061126, 20061201, 20061202,
20061203, 20061204, 20061205, 20061206, 20061208, 20061221,
20070106, 20070111, 20070116, and 20070126.  

Each ChemNutra shipment had the certificate of analysis
information from the supplier, including batch number and the
supplier's content analysis and test results.  ChemNutra shipped
from its Kansas City warehouse to three pet food manufacturers
and one distributor who supplies wheat gluten only to the pet
food industry.

ChemNutra's shipments commenced Nov. 9, 2006 and ended March 8,
2007.  ChemNutra did not ship to facilities that manufacture
food for human consumption, and the distributor ChemNutra
shipped to supplies wheat gluten only to pet food manufacturers.  
The total quantity of Xuzhou Anying wheat gluten shipped was 792
metric tons.

ChemNutra learned on March 8 from one pet food manufacturer that
the wheat gluten it had sold them -- all from the Xuzhou Anying
-- was among ingredients suspected as a potential cause of pet
food problems.  ChemNutra immediately quarantined its entire
wheat gluten inventory and assisted this customer's
investigation.

After that manufacturer issued a pet food recall, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration immediately commenced a thorough
investigation of ChemNutra's wheat gluten, including
documentation analysis, inspection, and laboratory testing.  
ChemNutra cooperated fully with the FDA and immediately notified
its other three wheat gluten customers about the FDA's
investigation.  Those customers had all purchased smaller
amounts of the Xuzhou Anying wheat gluten commencing in January,
2007.

On Friday, March 30, the FDA announced they had found melamine
in samples of the wheat gluten ChemNutra had imported from
Xuzhou Anying.  The FDA did not inform ChemNutra of any other
impurities in the Xuzhou Anying wheat gluten, nor of any
impurities in the wheat gluten from ChemNutra's other two
Chinese suppliers.

The toxicity of melamine is not clear.  However, since melamine
is not approved by the FDA for pet food, it should absolutely
not have been in wheat gluten.  ChemNutra is extremely concerned
about the purity of all of its products.  The company is
particularly troubled that the certificates of analysis provided
by the above-named supplier did not report the presence of
melamine.

ChemNutra wants to ensure its products are safe.  Consequently,
in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the FDA, ChemNutra
will be conducting its own independent, analytical tests of
wheat gluten from all of its suppliers.

ChemNutra has sent recall notices to all four of its direct
customers.  


CHICAGO BOARD: Faces Lawsuit in Del. Over Proposed $8.9B Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and its board of directors
were named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
that challenges a proposed $8.9 billion merger with Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Holdings, Inc.

The Louisiana Municipal Employees' Retirement System filed the
suit on March 16 in the Court of the Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.  

Specifically named as defendants in the suit are:

      -- CBOT Holdings, Inc.;
      -- Charles P. Carey;
      -- Robert F. Corvino;
      -- Bernard W. Dan;
      -- John E. Callahan;
      -- James E. Cashman;
      -- Mark E. Cermak;
      -- Jackie Clegg;
      -- Brent M. Coan;
      -- James A. Donaldson;
      -- Larry G. Gerdes;
      -- James P. McMillin;
      -- Joseph Niciforo;
      -- C.C. Odem, II;
      -- John Pittrzak;
      -- Christopher Stewart;
      -- Michael D. Walter;
      -- Charles M. Wolin; and
      -- Chicago Mercantile.

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, alleges that the
Chicago Mercantile merger agreement contains "numerous coercive
and preclusive" protections that "heavily tilt the playing field
in the favor of Chicago Mercantile."  These provisions include a
$240 million termination fee, and the prohibition of CBOT
directors from seeking other suitors.

According to the suit, by considering the Chicago Mercantile
offer, CBOT directors put "their own personal interests ahead"
of shareholders and failed "to maximize shareholder value."

The suit makes three counts of claims of relief, they are:

      -- Count I - Class Action Claim For Breach of Fiduciary
         Duty Against the Individual Defendants;

      -- Count II - Class Action Claim For Breach of Fiduciary
         Duty of Disclosure Against the Individual Defendants;
         and

      -- Count III - Class Action Claim for Aiding and Abetting
         Breaches of Fiduciary Duties Against Chicago
         Mercantile.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1d1e

The suit is "Louisiana Municipal Employees' Retirement System v.
CBOT Holdings, Inc., et al. Case No. 2803," filed in the Court
of the Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gerald H. Silk of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann      
         LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212) 554-1282 and (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212)
         554-1444, E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.blbglaw.com;and

     (2) Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N.
         Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone:
         (302) 622-7070, Fax: (302) 622-7100, E-mail:
         sgrant@gelaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.gelaw.com/stuartm_grant.cfm.


DIGITAL SECURITY: Recalls Smoke Detectors that Could Fail in Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Digital Security Controls, of Toronto, Canada, is recalling
about 32,000 units of Digital Security Controls FSA and FSB
Series Smoke Detectors.

The CPSC said these smoke detectors could fail to reliably
detect smoke during a fire.  No incidents or injuries have so
far been reported.

The recall involves Digital Security Controls FSA and FSB series
photo-electric smoke detectors.  They are wired directly into
the building circuitry, and do not use a battery.  The dome
shaped units have a metal mesh covering around the smoke sensor.

The smoke detectors, manufactured in Canada, are sold by
commercial and residential installers nationwide from October
2006 through December 2006 for between $60 and $70 per unit.

Customers are advised to immediately contact their installer to
receive a free inspection to determine if their units are
included in the recall.  If so, they will receive free
replacement smoke detectors with installation.  Customers also
can contact Digital Security Controls for additional information
on how to receive free replacement smoke detectors.  Only
professional installers should remove and replace these units.

Picture of the recalled product:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07136.jpg

Digital Security Controls on the Net: http://www.dsc.com.


DIRECT GENERAL: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Elara Holdings Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Direct General Corp. faces a purported class action in the
Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee over its definitive
merger agreement with Elara Holdings, Inc., according to the
company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Elra Holdings is an affiliate of Calera Capital and TPG Capital
(formerly known as Fremont Partners and Texas Pacific Group
respectively), and Elara Merger Corp.

On Jan. 4, a putative class action complaint was filed against
the company under the caption, "Thompson v. Direct General
Corp."  

The suit purports to be brought on behalf of all Direct General
Corp. public shareholders and names Direct General Corp. and all
of its directors as the Direct General defendants and Elra,
Texas Pacific, and Fremont Partners as the Parent defendants.

The complaint alleges that the company's board of directors
violated fiduciary duties to shareholders by entering into the
merger agreement, and that the Parent defendants aided and
abetted the alleged violation.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the
consideration to be paid to shareholders is grossly inadequate.

Direct General Corp. on the Net: http://www.direct-general.com/.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Fraud Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faro Technologies, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of an amended
complaint in a securities fraud class action pending against it
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical
securities fraud suits were filed against the company and
certain of its officers.

On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and
Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead
plaintiff.

On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint against the company and the individual
defendants.

The amended complaint also names Grant Thornton LLP, the
company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an
additional defendant.
  
In the amended complaint, Kornitzer seeks to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004
and March 15, 2006.

On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant
made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during
the class period in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Kornitzer suit alleges:

      -- that the company's reported gross margins and net  
         income were knowingly overstated as a result of  
         manipulation of the company's inventory levels;

      -- that the company failed to disclose deficiencies  
         associated with the company's implementation and use of  
         its enterprise resource planning system and material  
         requirements planning system;

      -- made false and misleading statements regarding the  
         company's internal controls;

      -- failed to disclose the fact that the company was  
         accruing commissions and bonuses which would have a  
         material, adverse effect upon the company's  
         profitability; and  

      -- improperly reported sales and net income based, in  
         part, on sales and new orders obtained in violation of  
         the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The company's deadline for responding to the second amended
complaint is April 26.  The company intends to file a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, according to the company's
March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 6:05-cv-01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District Court of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway
and with referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John F. Edgar and John M. Edgar of Edgar Law Firm, LLC,
         4520 Main St., Suite 1650, Kansas City, MO 64111, US,  
         Phone: 816/531-0033, Fax: 816/531-3322, E-mail:
         jfe@edgarlawfirm.com and jme@edgarlawfirm.com.

     (2) Patrick A. Klingman, Karen M. Leser, James E. Miller,
         James C. Shah, Nathan Zipperian and Scott R. Shepherd  
         of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone: 860-
         526-1100, 610-891-9880 and 954-943-9191, Fax: 860-526-
         1120, 610-891-9883 and 954-943-9173, E-mail:
         pklingman@sfmslaw.com, kleser@sfmslaw.com,     
         jmiller@sfmslaw.com, jshah@classactioncounsel.com,
         nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com and  
         sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com.

Representing the defendants are:
  
     (i) Richard S. Davis and Robert A. Scher of Foley &  
         Lardner, LLP, Phone: (407) 244-3260 and (212) 682-7474,  
         Fax: (407) 648-1743 and (212) 687-2329, E-mail:
         rdavis@foley.com; and

    (ii) Daniel A. Casey and Jeffrey T. Kucera of Kirkpatrick &  
         Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd.,  
         Suite 2000, Miami, FL 33131-2399, Phone: 305-539-3324  
         and 305-539-3322, Fax: 305-358-7095, E-mail:
         dcasey@klng.com and jkucera@kl.com.


FEDEX EXPRESS: Agrees to $53.5M Settlement of Racial Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Express, a unit of FedEx Corp., agreed to settle for $53.5
million a racial discrimination lawsuit that was filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The suit, "Satchell et al. v. FedEx Express," was originally
filed on June 6, 2003 on behalf of:

      -- Daniel Sherman;
      -- Derrick Satchell;
      -- Kalini Boykin;
      -- Ken Stevenson;
      -- Kevin Smith;
      -- Rachel Hutchins;
      -- Rick Gonzales;
      -- Sophia Shainza Hanif; and
      -- Valerie Brown.

In general, the suit alleges that the company discriminated
against its African-American and Hispanic workers by passing
them over for promotion, paying them less than white workers and
treating them unfairly in evaluation and disciplinary
proceedings.

According to a FedEx spokeswoman, the $53.5 million cost of the
settlement will be covered by insurance.  She explains that the
company entered into the settlement, which is still subject to
court approval, voluntarily.

The spokeswoman adds that the company decided to settle the case
in order to avoid a lengthy and costly litigation and appeals
process.

James Finberg, a partner at San Francisco-based law firm
Altshuler Berzon, L.L.P., which was handling the class action
explains that settlement had been mediated by a third party.

Under the proposed deal, the company denied any acts of racial
discrimination.  In addition, as part of the settlement, the
company will tighten up and improve its human resources
operations, according to a FedEx spokeswoman.

The settlement would affect about 20,000 Hispanics and African-
Americans who work or have worked for FedEx in the company's
western U.S. region, which includes the states of California,
Washington, Utah and Hawaii, since October 1999.

The suit is "Satchell v. FedEx Express, Case No. 03-2659," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Susan Illston.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Guy B. Wallace of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery
         Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca 94109, Phone:
         415-421-7100, Fax: 415-421-7105, E-mail:
         gwallace@schneiderwallace.com;  

     (2) Michael S. Davis of The Law Offices of Michael S.
         Davis, 345 Hill Street, San Francisco, CA 94114, Phone:
         (415) 282-4315, Fax: (415) 358-5576, E-mail:
         msdlegal@comcast.net;

     (3) Waukeen Q. Mccoy of The Law Offices of Waukeen Q.
         McCoy, 703 Market Street, Suite 1407, San Francisco, CA
         94103, Phone: 415-675-7705, Fax: 415-675-2530, E-mail:
         mccoylawsf@yahoo.com; and

     (4) James M. Finberg of Altshuler Berzon, LLP, 177 Post
         Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-
         421-7151, Fax: 415-362-8064, E-mail:
         jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com.


FIRST DATA: Faces Del. Suit Over Kohlberg Acquisition Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corp. was named a defendant in a purported
stockholder's class action that sought to block a planned $29
billion buyout of the company by investment firm Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co., The Rocky Mountain News reports.

Chris Larson, a stockholder of the company, filed the suit in
Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington.  He alleges in his suit
that the deal shortchanges investors, and thus he is seeking an
order blocking it "until the company adopts and implements a
procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price."

Mr. Larson also said in his complaint, which seeks class-action
status, that KKR's offer, a 26 percent premium at the time, "is
wholly inadequate, as First Data is worth far more than $34 a
share."

First Data Corp. on the Net: http://www.firstdata.com/.


HARMONIC INC: August 2008 Trial Set in Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
An August 2008 trial is slated for the consolidated securities
class action against Harmonic, Inc., according to the company's
March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Between June 28 and Aug. 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities were filed in or removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The actions were subsequently consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on Dec. 7, 2000, was brought on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Harmonic's
publicly traded securities between Jan. 19 and June 26, 2000.  
It alleged claims on behalf of a purported subclass of persons
who purchased C-Cube Microsystems Inc.securities between Jan. 19
and May 3, 2000.

In addition to the company and certain of its officers and
directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems and
several of its officers and directors as defendants.  The
complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding Harmonic's prospects and customers and its acquisition
of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).

The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated
section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or
misleading registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy
in connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the District Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint with leave to amend.  An amended complaint alleging
the same claims against the same defendants was filed on Aug.
13, 2001.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 24,
2001.  On Nov. 13, 2002, the District Court issued an opinion
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
leave to amend.  Judgment for defendants was entered on
Dec. 2, 2002.

On Dec. 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to
Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On June 6, 2003, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.  A panel of
three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
heard the appeal on Feb. 17, 2005.  

On Nov. 8, 2005, the 9th Circuit panel affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings the
decision of the District Court.

The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' fraud claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead their allegations of fraud.  

The 9th Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, however, finding that those claims did not
allege fraud and therefore were subject to only minimal pleading
standards.

Regarding the secondary liability claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, the 9th Circuit reversed the dismissal of that
claim against Anthony J. Ley, the company's chairman and chief
executive officer, and affirmed the dismissal of that claim
against Harmonic, while granting leave to amend.  The 9th
Circuit remanded the surviving claims to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On Nov. 22, 2005, both the Harmonic defendants and the
plaintiffs petitioned the 9th Circuit for a rehearing of the
appeal.  On Feb. 16, 2006 the 9th Circuit denied both petitions.

On May 17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on the
issues remanded for further proceedings by the 9th Circuit, to
which the Harmonic defendants responded with a motion to dismiss
certain claims and to strike certain allegations.

On Dec. 11, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
respect to the Section 12(a)(2) claim against the individual
Harmonic defendants and granted the motion to strike, but denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 15 claim.

A case management conference was held on Jan. 25, 2007, at which
the court set a trial date in August 2008, with discovery to
close in February 2008.  

The court also ordered the parties to attend a settlement
conference with a magistrate judge or a private mediation before
June 30.

Harmonic, Inc. on the Net: http://www.harmonicinc.com/.


ING LIFE: NYSUT Trust Members File ERISA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two members of the ING Opportunity Plus and Opportunity
Independence programs filed a suit alleging Employee Retirement
Security Act violations against the management of the employee
organization and the company that offered annuities under the
programs.

Plaintiffs Betsabe Montoya and Blanche Pesce filed the suit in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
March 28.

They filed the suit on behalf of themselves and other
participants and beneficiaries of the ING Opportunity Plus and
Opportunity Independence programs (the Plan), section 403(b) tax
deferred annuity programs established and maintained by
defendant New York State United Teachers Member Benefits Trust,
an arm of defendant New York State United Teachers.

The annuities offered under the Plan were issued by defendant
ING Life Insurance and Annuity Co., and its predecessor Aetna
Life Insurance and Annuity Co. (collectively, ING).  This case
is brought pursuant to sections 502(a)2 and (a)3 of the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974, as amended, against the
fiduciaries of the Plan for violations of ERISA.

Defendants are:

     * NYSUT,
     * NYSUT Trust,
     * NYSUT Trust Board of Trustees during the class period,
       and
     * ING Life Insurance and Annuity Co.

NYSUT and NYSUT Trust are accused of engaging in elaborate
"exclusive endorsement" scheme whereby NYSUT Trust was paid
millions of dollars by ING to market and promote the program
directly to NYSUT members.  They allegedly vigorously promoted
the Plan for financial gain and to the detriment of the Plan
participants.

Defendants are accused of:

     -- breaching their duties of prudence and loyalty through
        their exclusive endorsement of the scheme; and

     -- breaching their fiduciary duties under ERISA by charging
        excessive fees and failing to adequately monitor the
        plan to ensure that it was in the best interests of the
        Plan participants;

     -- failing to provide complete and accurate information to
        Plan participants regarding endorsement fees paid to
        NYSUT Trust and Revenue Sharing Kickback Fees paid to
        ING.

ING is accused of engaging in improper revenue sharing kickback
scheme with Investment Advisors.

The proposed class period is June 1, 1989 to Dec. 31, 2006.

Plaintiffs pray for:

     -- an order compelling defendants to make good to the plan
        all losses to the plan resulting from defendants'
        breaches of their fiduciary duties, including losses to
        the plan resulting from imprudent investment of the
        plan's assets, to restore to the plan all profits the
        defendants made through use of the plan's assets; and to
        restore to the plan all profits which the  plan
        participants would have made if defendants had fulfilled
        their fiduciary obligations;

     -- imposition of Constructive Trust on any amounts by which
        any defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of      
        the plan as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty,
        and in connection therewith:

             (1) an order requiring NYSUT Trust to disgorge the  
                 endorsement fees that it received from ING and
                 pay such fees to the plan;

             (2) an order requiring ING to disgorge revenue
                 sharing payments it received from Investment
                 Advisors and to pay such payments to the plan;
                 and

             (3) an order requiring ING to disgorge excessive
                 fees charged to plan accounts with respect to
                 its management and administration of the plan

     -- an order enjoining defendants, and each of them, from
        any further violations of their ERISA fiduciary
        obligations;

     -- an order requiring defendants to appoint one or more
        independent fiduciaries to participate in the management
        of the plan;

     -- an order awarding actual damages in the amount of any
        losses the plan suffered;

     -- an order awarding pre- and post- judgment interest based
        on the greatest of:

             (1) the defendants' internal rates of return;

             (2) the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation's
                 interest rates;

             (3) statutory interest rates;

     -- an order awarding costs pursuant to ERISA Section
        502(g), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(g) and other applicable
        laws or regulations;

     -- an order awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to ERISA
        Section 502(g), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(g) and the common
        fund doctrine;

     -- an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate
        equitable and injunctive relief against the defendants;
        and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may seem just
        and proper.

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

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

The suit is "Montoya et al.v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Co.
et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02574-NRB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey C. Engerman of Law Offices of Jeffrey C.
         Engerman, PC, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, 7th Floor, Los
         Angeles, CA 90025, Phone: (310) 207-7777;

     (2) Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., 3101 North
         Central Avenue, Suite 1400, Phoenix, AZ 850012, Phone:
         (602) 248-0088;

     (3) Derek W. Loeser, Lynn Lincoln Sarko and Amy Williams-
         Derry, all of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 Third
         Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206)
         623-1900; and

     (4) David Steven Preminger of Rosen Preminger & Bloom LLP,
         708 Third Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10017,
         Phone: (212) 682-1900, Fax: (212) 867-6878, E-mail:
         dpreminger@rpblawny.com.


MICHIGAN: Talks to Settle Suit Over Foster Care System Unravel
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Department of Human Services and Children's Rights,
a New York advocacy group that filed a lawsuit to reform
Michigan's foster care system, have broken off settlement talks
designed to resolved the case.

According to Marcia Lowry, the head of Children's Rights, the
only way to now resolve the matter is by way of a trial.  Ms.
Lowry made the comment following a recent hearing before Judge
Nancy Edmunds of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  

In that hearing, attorneys for the state argued to dismiss the
lawsuit, which alleges the foster care system suffers from a
gross shortage in resources and services for foster children.

Judge Edmunds did not immediately issue a ruling; instead, she
scheduled a June 2008 trial.

Until recently, resolving the allegations in the lawsuit has
been on a dual track.  As the litigation moved forward, the
parties involved entered into settlement talks.  However, those
talks broke off last week, according to Ms. Lowry.

                         Case Background

The suit, "D.B. et al. v. Granholm et al.," was filed on Aug. 8,
2006 by the Children's Rights.  It was brought on behalf of six
foster children identified by first names or last initial only.  
But it is expected to affect nearly 19,000 foster children in
the state.

In February, Judge Edmunds granted class-action status to the
case, after reviewing written briefs and verbal arguments from
lawyers for the advocacy group and the state Attorney General's
Office.  

Generally, the suit seeks to force the state Department of Human
Services to adequately provide for the safety, well-being, and
permanency of foster children.

In seeking for class certification, Children's Rights argued
that Michigan's foster care system is accused of routinely
violating the constitutional rights of foster children by
denying them adequate services such as finding permanent
adoptive homes.

In arguing against class certification, Assistant Attorney
General William Morris stated that the Children's Rights had not
provided evidence that such problems afflict thousands of other
children in the foster care system and that.  He adds that in
any event, the children have lawyers assigned to them and
juvenile court judges can address the issues plaintiffs are
raising.

The suit is "D. B. et al. v. Granholm et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
13548-NGE-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds with referral
to Judge Donald A. Scheer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Susan Lambiase, Children's Rights, 330 Seventh Avenue,
         New York, NY 10001, US, Phone: 212-683-2210; and

     (2) Richard J. Landau of Dykema Gossett (Ann Arbor), 2723
         S. State Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6188,
         Phone: 734-214-7669, E-mail: rlandau@dykema.com.

Representing the defendants is William R. Morris of Michigan
Department of Attorney General, P.O. Box 30758, Lansing, MI
48909, Phone: 517-373-7700, E-mail: morriswr@michigan.gov.
           

NATURAL HEALTH: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Complaint in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against
Natural Health Trends Corp. have filed an amended complaint.

On Sept. 11, 2006, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a putative
class action purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of the
company's common stock to recover damages caused by alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit names the company and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  

On Dec. 20, 2006, the court granted an unopposed motion to
designate The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead counsel.  

On Feb. 18, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, according
to the company's March 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-01654," is filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana  
         St., Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-
         7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com;
  
     (2) Christopher S. Hinton of The Hinton Law Firm, 350 Fifth  
         Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 646/723-
         3377, Fax: 212/202-3827; and

     (3) Phillip Kim and Laurence Rosen both of The Rosen Law  
         Firm, 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118,  
         Phone: 212/686-1060, Fax: 214/202-3827.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In May and July 2006, two putative class actions, which each
name as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward Lampert, were
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, purportedly on behalf of a class of persons that sold
shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or after May 6, 2003
through June 4, 2004.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart Holding Corp.'s
Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan.
24, 2003 and amended on Feb. 25, 2003 misrepresented Kmart's
assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by
the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its
stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.  They, thus, seek
damages for alleged misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the court consolidated the suits.  Plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint was due March 30.

The suit is "In re: Sears Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:2006cv04053," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Faces Ill. Lawsuits Over Kmart Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. remains a defendant in several purported
class actions in Illinois in relation to its merger with Kmart
Holding Corp., according to the company's March 27 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Feb. 3.

Sears Holdings is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corp. and
Sears, Roebuck and Co.  It was formed as a Delaware corporation
in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears.

The merger, completed on March 24, 2005, combined two of
America's oldest existing retail entities, both with origins
dating to the late 1800s.

Following the announcement of the merger on Nov. 17, 2004,
several actions have been filed relating to the transaction.

                      Fischer Litigation

"William Fischer, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al.," was
a consolidated action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Originally, the case was one of three actions that were filed
and then later consolidated.

The actions assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
Sears' stockholders against Sears and certain of its officers
and directors, together with Kmart, Edward S. Lampert, William
C. Crowley and other affiliated entities, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the merger and seeking
damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the merger favors interested
defendants by awarding them disproportionate benefits, and that
the defendants failed to take appropriate steps to maximize the
value of a merger transaction for Sears' stockholders.

On Sept. 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's Aug. 8, 2006 order dismissing plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  Briefing on the appeal is underway.

                        Levie Litigation

"Maurice Levie, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al.," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

This action asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class of Sears' stockholders against Sears
and Alan J. Lacy, for allegedly failing to make timely
disclosure of merger discussions with Kmart during the period
Sept. 9 through Nov. 16, 2004, and seeks damages.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and an
amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2005.  

The amended complaint names Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners,
L.P. as additional defendants, and purports to assert claims on
behalf of sellers of Sears stock during the period Sept. 9
through Nov. 16, 2004.  

The defendants have answered the amended complaint.  On Oct. 2,
2006, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the
briefing on which has been completed.  Meanwhile, the parties
have commenced written discovery.

Sears Holdings Corp. on the Net: http://www.searsholdings.com/.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Underway in Ill. Suit Over 7% Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action relating to 7%
notes that Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. issued on June 21,
2002.

On June 17, 2003, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the company and
certain officers, purportedly on behalf of a class of all
persons who, between June 21, 2002 and Oct. 17, 2002, purchased
7% notes that Sears Roebuck issued.

Pursuant to a subsequently filed amended complaint, plaintiffs
named as additional defendants certain former Sears officers not
originally named, Sears Roebuck and several investment banking
firms which had acted as underwriters for Sears Roebuck's March
18, May 21 and June 21, 2002 notes offerings.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and, as against the individual defendants, violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint purports to allege that defendants made a number
of false and misleading statements in one or more prospectuses
for debt securities offerings and in U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings and other public statements,
concerning the adequacy of reserves for uncollectible accounts,
and the condition of Sears' former credit business, among other
things.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification.
Discovery is underway, according to Sears Holdings Corp.'s March
27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3

The suit is "Ong, et al. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-04142," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist,
Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker
Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-
2403, Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Walter C. Carlson of Sidley Austin, LLP, One South
         Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-
         7000, E-mail: wcarlson@sidley.com;

     (2) Robert Y. Sperling of Winston & Strawn, 35 West Wacker
         Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-
         5600, E-mail: rsperling@winston.com; and

     (3) Mary B. Anderson of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
         LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago,
         IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E-mail:
         mbanderson@sonnenschein.com.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Delivers $215M Ill. Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered an order and final judgment in a consolidated securities
fraud class action against Sears, Roebuck and Co. that was
settled for $215 million.

On and after Oct. 18, 2002, several actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Sears and certain former officers alleging that certain
public announcements by Sears concerning its credit card
business violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The court consolidated the actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.

On Jan. 18, 2007, Sears made a payment to plaintiffs of
approximately $215 million pursuant to the terms of a settlement
dated Sept. 14, 2006.

Sears received proceeds totaling $125 million from claims made
under relevant insurance policies and thus the cash payment for
settlement by Sears was approximately $90 million on a pre-tax
basis.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the court entered an order and final judgment
as to the consolidated action and, with the time for appeal of
such order and final judgment having expired without any appeal
having been filed, this matter is concluded.

The suit is "In re: Sears, Roebuck and Co. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-07527," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Elaine
E. Bucklo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300; and

     (2) Jennifer Winter Sprengel of Miller Faucher and
         Cafferty, LLP, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         jsprengel@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey C. Fourmaux of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,
         51 West 52nd Street, New York, HY 10019, Phone: (212)
         403-1000; and

     (ii) Harold C. Hirshman of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
          LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower,
          Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, Web site:
          http://www.sonnenschein.com.   


SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck, and Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sears
Holdings Corp., have reached a settlement for the matter, " In
re: Sears, Roebuck and Co. ERISA Litigation," according to Sears
Holdings' March 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3.

On and after Nov. 15, 2002, several actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Sears, certain officers and directors, and alleged
fiduciaries of Sears' 401(k) Savings Plan, seeking damages and
equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

The plaintiffs purport to represent participants in the Plan,
and allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in
connection with the Plan's investment in Sears' common shares
and alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding
Sears' financial condition.

The court has consolidated these actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.

Pursuant to an agreement dated Feb. 13, defendants have agreed
to settle the matter.  

The suit is "Kehr v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-08324," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven E. Cauley of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100; and

     (2) Christopher B. Sanchez of Miller Faucher and Cafferty,
         LLP, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL
         60602, (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         csanchez@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Harold C. Hirshman of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
         LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago,
         IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000; and

    (ii) Elissa Eun Choo Rhee-Lee of Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears
         Law Department, 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates, IL
         60179, Phone: (708) 286-9214.


SELECT MEDICAL: Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action pending against Select Medical Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania remains in the discovery and class certification
phase, according to the company's March 28 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 3006.

On Aug. 24, 2004, Clifford C. Marsden and Ming Xu filed a
purported class action complaint on behalf of the public
stockholders of the company against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A.
Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice and the company.

In February 2005, the court appointed James Shaver, Frank C.
Bagatta and Capital Invest, die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der
Bank Austria Creditanstalt Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs.

On April 19, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders of Select,
against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A.
Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice, and the company as defendants.

The amended complaint continues to allege, among other things,
failure to disclose adverse information regarding a potential
regulatory change affecting reimbursement for the company's
services applicable to long-term acute care hospitals operated
as hospitals within hospitals, and the issuance of false and
misleading statements about the financial outlook of the
company.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees.  The company
believes that the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this
action.

In April 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the
company and the individual officers' preliminary motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

In February 2007, the court vacated in part its previous
decision on the company's and the individual officers' motion to
dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims regarding the company's
alleged improper revenue practices.

The company and the individual officers have answered the
amended complaint and the case has moved to the discovery and
class certification phase.

The suit is "Marsden, et al. v. Select Medical Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04020-JCJ," filed in the U.S. District for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge J. Curtis Joyner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Lori G. Feldman, Shannon L. Hopkins
         and Peter E. Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
         sdumain@milbergweiss.com, lfeldman@milbergweiss.com and
         shopkins@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) Eric L. Young of Kenney Lennon & Egan, 3031 Walton
         Road, Building C, Suite 202, Plymouth, PA 19462, Phone:
         215-260-5493, E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com.

Representing the defendants are, David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline and Stuart T. Steinberg of Dechert, LLP, Phone: 215-
994-4000, 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2521, E-mail:
david.howard@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com and
stuart.steinberg@dechert.com.


UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING: Recalls Motorcycle Radius Triple Clamps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Engineering, of Temecula, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
48 radius triple clamps sold for use with Motocross Motorcycles.

CPSC said the radius triple clamps on these motorcycles can
crack during operation, posing a risk that the fork of the bike
could separate and result in serious injury or death to the
rider.  No incidents or injuries have been reported so far.

The recall involves Radius Triple Clamps sold as an upgrade for
use with a certain make and models of motocross motorcycles.  
The clamps are black in color and display the Universal logo on
each end and the name "UNIVERSAL" on one side.  They were
ordered under part numbers 1025-40-0618 and 1025-40-0678.

The radius triple clamps were made in China and sold at off-road
motorcycle dealers and distributors sold the recalled clamps
from July 2006 through February 2007 for about $180.

Consumers who have installed the Clamp should not operate their
motorcycle until the Clamp has been removed and replaced with a
factory OEM clamp.  Universal Engineering will not be issuing
replacement clamps.  Universal Engineering is providing a full
refund for the cost these clamps.  Consumers who have been
identified as having purchased the Clamps will be notified by
mail directly from Universal Engineering.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07538.jpg


* FDA Orders Recall of Pergolide Drugs Linked to Heart Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announces that
manufacturers of pergolide drug products, which are used to
treat Parkinson's disease, will voluntarily remove these drugs
from the market because of the risk of serious damage to
patients' heart valves.

The products being withdrawn are Permax, the trade name for
pergolide marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and two generic
versions of pergolide manufactured by Par and Teva.  Pergolide
is in a class of medications called dopamine agonists and is
used with levodopa and carbidopa to manage the symptoms (tremors
and slowness of movement) of Parkinson's disease.

In 2006, an estimated 12,000 patients received prescriptions for
pergolide from retail pharmacies in the U.S.  Patients taking
pergolide should contact their doctors to discuss alternate
treatments.  Patients should not stop taking the medication, as
stopping pergolide abruptly can be dangerous.

There are alternative therapies available for Parkinson's
disease, including three other dopamine agonists that have not
been associated with valvular heart disease.  The removal of
pergolide products is not expected to adversely affect patient
care because of the alternative therapies available.

"Based on important new drug safety information, FDA has been
working with the manufacturers of pergolide products to
voluntarily remove these drugs from the market," said Douglas
Throckmorton, M.D., deputy director of FDA's Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research.  "The FDA's increased evaluation of
post-market safety is benefiting the public because, in this
case, as new data about the product became available, we were
able to remove a less safe drug from the market."

Two recent New England Journal of Medicine studies confirm
previous findings associating pergolide with increased chance of
regurgitation (backflow of blood) of the mitral, tricuspid, and
aortic valves of the heart.  Valve regurgitation is a condition
in which valves don't close tightly, allowing blood to flow
backward across the valve.  Symptoms include shortness of
breath, fatigue and heart palpitations.

In light of this additional post-market safety information, the
companies that manufacture and sell pergolide will stop shipping
pergolide for distribution and, in cooperation with FDA, will
withdraw the products from the market.

Permax was approved in 1988 for Eli Lilly and company as an
adjunctive therapy with levodopa in Parkinson's disease.  
Valvular heart disease was first described in association with
pergolide in 2002.  In 2003, FDA asked Lilly to add valvulopathy
(abnormality of cardiac valves) to the warnings section of
Permax labeling, at which time a Dear Healthcare Practitioner
letter was sent by Lilly.

In 2006, the warning was upgraded to a black box warning, the
FDA's strongest form of warning, because of new data concerning
risks of heart valve damage.

FDA is issuing a Public Health Advisory detailing the removal of
pergolide products from the market.  Information and recommended
actions for physicians, pharmacists and patients are available
at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/pergolide.htm.

The effect of the voluntary withdrawal on supplies of pergolide
currently in pharmacies will not be immediate.  This delay will
allow time for health care providers and patients to discuss
appropriate treatment options and time to change treatments.

FDA is working with the manufacturers of pergolide to determine
if it might be possible, once the drug is withdrawn from the
market, to make the drug available under an Investigational New
Drug Application for those few patients who are currently
receiving pergolide and who cannot be successfully converted to
other available treatments.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $198M for Claims in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., a Crown Holdings Inc.
subsidiary, as of Dec. 31, 2006, accrued US$198 million for
pending and future asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Crown Cork estimates that its range of potential liability for
pending and future asbestos claims that are probable and
estimable is between US$198 million and US$247 million.

Crown Cork faces suits filed throughout the U.S. by persons
alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. In
1963, Crown Cork acquired a subsidiary that had two operating
businesses, one of which is alleged to have made asbestos-
containing insulation products.

The Company recorded pre-tax charges of US$10 million in 2006
and 2005 to increase its accrual for asbestos-related
liabilities.

Crown Cork made cash payments of US$26 million in 2006 and US$29
million in 2005 for asbestos-related claims.

Non-current asbestos liabilities were US$173 million in 2006,
compared with US$184 million in 2005.

During 2006, Crown Cork received 5,000 new claims, settled or
dismissed 5,000 claims, and had 79,000 claims outstanding at the
end of the year.

During 2005, Crown Cork received 9,000 new claims, settled or
dismissed 4,000 claims, and had 79,000 claims outstanding at the
end of the year.

The outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2006 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos.

Historically (1977-2006), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings Inc. designs,
manufactures, and sells packaging products. The Company's main
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal caps and
closures. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company operated 141 plants
along with sales and service facilities throughout 42 countries
and had about 21,700 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Ind. Drop to 8,600 in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, had
8,600 claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits, compared with
22,200 claimants for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to
the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
9,100 claimants in asbestos-related suits, compared with 18,100
claimants in the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 15,800
claimants associated with claims closed and 2,200 claimants
associated with claims opened. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005,
the Company recorded 12,500 claimants associated with claims
closed and 7,200 claimants associated with claims opened.

The Company has been named as a defendant in suits filed by
persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants
allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the Company owned
or formerly owned or from products that the Company formerly
made for specialized applications.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos liability was US$54.6
million, compared with US$47.8 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related insurance
receivable was US$38.1 million, compared with US$34.7 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in West Paterson, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a
specialty chemicals and materials company focused on developing,
manufacturing and selling value-added products. The Company's
products serve end markets including aerospace, adhesives,
automotive and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates,
inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp. Reserves $841M for Claims in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corp., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
gross asbestos-related loss reserves of US$841 million, compared
with US$930 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according
to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded net
asbestos-related loss reserves of US$789 million, compared with
US$880 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had 414 policyholders, of which 22
were traditional defendants and 392 were peripheral defendants.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had net loss reserves of US$22
million and paid US$43 million for the 22 traditional
defendants.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had net loss reserves of US$451
million and paid US$66 million for the 392 peripheral
defendants.

In December 2002, Company subsidiary Chubb Indemnity Insurance
Co. was named in actions commenced by various plaintiffs against
Chubb Indemnity and other non-affiliated insurers in the
District Courts in Nueces, Travis and Bexar Counties in Texas.

The plaintiffs generally allege that Chubb Indemnity and the
other defendants breached duties to asbestos product end-users
and conspired to conceal risks associated with asbestos
exposure.

The plaintiffs seek to impose liability on insurers directly.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and punitive
damages.

Pursuant to the asbestos reform bill passed by the Texas
legislature in May 2005, these actions were transferred to the
Texas state asbestos Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 1, 2005.

In June 2003, Chubb Indemnity was also named in a number of
similar cases in Cuyahoga, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties in
Ohio. The allegations and the damages sought in the Ohio actions
are substantially similar to those in the Texas actions.

In May 2005, the Ohio Court of Appeals sustained the trial
court's dismissal of a group of nine cases for failure to state
a claim.

After the appellate court's decision, Chubb Indemnity and other
non-affiliated insurers were dismissed from the remaining cases
filed in Ohio, except for a single case, which had been removed
to federal court and transferred to the federal asbestos
Multidistrict Litigation.

There has been no activity in that case since its removal.

Based in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corp. is known for
comprehensive homeowners insurance for yacht owners. The Company
also offers property-casualty insurance to companies. The
Company's specialty commercial insurance includes the lucrative
executive risk business that offers professional liability
policies to executives.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Group Reserves $7.29M at 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded
US$7,288,116 as reserves for asbestos and environmental related
claims for direct insurance and assumed reinsurance business,
compared with US$6,895,641 at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 15, 2007.

The Company has exposure to A&E claims associated with the
insurance business written by the parties to the pooling
agreement and the reinsurance business assumed from Employers
Mutual Casualty Co. by the reinsurance subsidiary.

However, with regard to the assumed reinsurance business, all
A&E exposures related to 1980 and Employers Mutual retains prior
accident years.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company incurred US$945
million for A&E losses and settlement expenses, compared with
US$1.660 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved US5.182
billion for A&E loss and settlement expense, compared with
US$4.680 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company is defending about 600 asbestos bodily injury
lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. Most of
these defenses are subject to express reservation of rights
based upon the lack of an injury within the Company's policy
periods, because many asbestos suits do not specifically allege
dates of asbestos exposure or dates of injury.

At Dec. 31, 2006, about 25,000 plaintiff cases remain open. Four
former policyholders and one current policyholder dominate the
Company's asbestos claims.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company carried A&E reserves for direct
insurance and assumed reinsurance business totaling
US$7,288,000, which represents 1.3 percent of total loss and
settlement expense reserves. The A&E reserves include
US$1,367,000 of case loss reserves, US$4,185,000 of IBNR loss
reserves, and US$1,736,000 of bulk settlement expense reserves.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had 57,569 open asbestos-related
claims, reported 33,145 claims during the year, and disposed of
34,176 claims during the year.

At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had 58,600 open asbestos-related
claims, reported 925 claims in 2006, and disposed of 579 claims
during the year.

Based in Des Moines, Iowa, EMC Insurance Group Inc. conducts
operations in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
through its subsidiaries. The Company focuses on the sale of
commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to small and
medium-sized businesses. Most of the Company's business is
marketed and generated in the Midwest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $127M Charge for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp., in the 2006-4th quarter, recorded an
additional US$127 million charge for unasserted asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2007.

The charge reduced net income by US$82 million or earnings per
share by US$0.15 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has been subject to asbestos-related claims. The
Company has seen these claims arise from three circumstances.
Most of these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have
resulted from asbestos used in brake components.

A limited numbers of claims have arisen from asbestos in the
insulation and brakes used in the manufacturing of locomotives
and claims brought by contractors who allege exposure to
asbestos-containing products while working on Company premises.

The Company said it believes that the US$127 million recorded at
Dec. 31, 2006, is the best estimate of its minimum probable
future obligation for the resolution of incurred but not yet
reported asbestos claims.

Based in Detroit, General Motors Corp. makes cars and trucks
with brands like Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Pontiac, Saab,
and Saturn. The Company also produces cars through its Holden,
Opel, and Vauxhall units, and heavy-duty transmissions through
Allison Transmission.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Reserves $55.4M for A&E Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC Inc.'s gross reserves for asbestos/environmental
policies, at Dec. 31, 2006, amounted to US$55.4 million,
compared with US$72.2 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 15, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's ceded reserves for A&E policies
amounted to US$43.2 million, compared with US$59.2 million at
Dec. 31, 2005.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's net loss and loss adjustment
expense reserves for A&E policies amounted to US$12.2 million,
compared with US$13 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 401
pending claims, 80 claims reported during the year, and 148
claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 469
pending claims, 96 claims reported during the year, and 102
claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.

Based in New York, NYMAGIC INC. is a holding company, which owns
and operates insurance companies, risk bearing entities and
insurance underwriters and managers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Still Faces Product Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Essex Inc. said that, since about 1990, Essex
International Inc. and certain subsidiaries have been faced with
asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 15, 2007.

Essex International is a subsidiary of Superior Essex Holding
Corp., which is a subsidiary of Superior Essex Inc.

The suits were filed by electricians, other skilled tradesmen
and others claiming injury, in most cases, from exposure to
asbestos found in electrical wire products.

Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International,
in which the insurers had previously refused to defend and
indemnify Essex International against these suits, was settled
in 1999.

Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for
most of its costs and expenses incurred in the defense of these
suits. The insurers have also undertaken to defend, are
currently defending and, will indemnify Essex International
against those asbestos suits.

Under Superior TeleCom Inc.'s plan of reorganization, certain of
the claimants in these actions will be able to assert claims
under applicable insurance coverage and other arrangements.

Based in Atlanta, Superior Essex Inc. operates as a wire and
cable manufacturer with a broad portfolio of wire and cable
products with primary applications in the communications, magnet
wire, and related distribution markets. The Company operates 21
manufacturing facilities in North America, Europe, and China,
and employs more than 4,000 people.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Motor Co.'s Defense Costs Drop in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co.'s annual payout and related defense costs in
asbestos cases decreased in 2006, according to the Company's
2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

However, the Company said that these costs may become
substantial in the future.

The Company's annual payout and related defense costs in
asbestos cases had been increasing between 1999 and 2003, and
began to decline in 2004 and 2005.

Asbestos was used in brakes, clutches and other automotive
components dating from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle
manufacturers, the Company has been the target of asbestos
litigation and is a defendant in various actions for injuries
claimed to have resulted from alleged contact with certain Ford
parts and other products with asbestos.

Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health
problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component
parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos
products in Company facilities, or asbestos aboard its former
maritime fleet. Most of these cases have been filed in state
courts.

Most of the asbestos litigation the Company faces involves
mechanics or other individuals who have worked on the brakes of
the Company's vehicles over the years. In most of the asbestos
litigation, the Company is not the sole defendant.

Most of the Company's asbestos cases do not specify a dollar
amount for damages, and in many of the other cases the dollar
amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum. The majority of
these cases involve multiple defendants, with the number in some
cases exceeding one hundred.

Many of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and the
Company is often unable to tell from the pleadings which of the
plaintiffs are making claims against the Company as opposed to
other defendants.

Based in Dearborn, Mich., Ford Motor Co. makes cars and trucks
with brands like Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Units Face 6 Pending Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain GlobalSantaFe Corp. subsidiaries continue to face six
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Mississippi, according to the
Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Five of the Mississippi suits are pending in the Circuit Court
of Jones County and one of which is pending in the Circuit Court
of Jasper County, Miss., alleging that certain individuals
aboard its offshore drilling rigs had been exposed to asbestos.

These six suits are part of a group of 23 suits filed on behalf
of about 800 plaintiffs against a large number of defendants,
most of which are not affiliated with the Company. The Company's
subsidiaries have not been named as defendants in any of the
other 17 suits.

The suits assert claims based on theories of unseaworthiness,
negligence, strict liability and the Company's subsidiaries'
status as Jones Act employers; and seek unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages. In general, the defendants are alleged to
have made, distributed, or utilized products with asbestos.

In the case of the Company's named subsidiaries and that of
several other offshore drilling companies named as defendants,
the suits allege those defendants allowed those products to be
used aboard offshore drilling rigs.

Based in Houston, GlobalSantaFe Corp. is an offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor, owning or operating a fleet of 59 marine
drilling rigs. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's fleet included
43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersible rigs, three
drillships, and two more semisubmersible rigs the Company
operates for third parties.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GSF Unit Has Pending Insurer Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GlobalSantaFe Corp. subsidiary continues to be involved in an
asbestos-related insurance lawsuit filed against its insurance
underwriters in the Superior Court of San Francisco County,
Calif., according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Filed in 2004, the suit seeks a declaration as to its rights to
insurance coverage and the proper allocation among its insurers
of liability for claims payments in order to assist in the
future management and disposition of certain claims.

The subsidiary's three primary insurers have historically been
paying settlement and defense costs for the subsidiary. One of
these insurers was nearing insolvency and claimed exhaustion of
its coverage limits. However, after negotiations, the insurer
has agreed to make a cash payment in exchange for a release of
all further liability for the subsidiary's asbestos liabilities.

Both of the subsidiary's other primary insurers have entered
into settlement agreements with the subsidiary that will provide
for limited additional funding of asbestos liabilities and
attorneys' fees and associated costs.  

The insurance coverage in question relates to suits filed
against the subsidiary arising out of its involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in
the litigation and funds received from the cancellation of
certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant in suits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos. As of Jan. 1, 2007,
the subsidiary had been named as a defendant in about 4,200
lawsuits, the first of which was filed in 1990, and a number of
which are pending.

The Company said it believes that as of Jan. 1, 2007, from US$35
million to US$40 million had been expended to resolve claims
(including both attorney fees and expenses, and settlement
costs, with the subsidiary having expended US$4 million of that
amount due to insurance deductible obligations.

The same subsidiary is a defendant in a suit filed against it by
Union Oil Company of California in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill. That suit arises out of claims alleging personal
injury caused by exposure to asbestos at a refinery owned by
Union and constructed by the Company's subsidiary.

Union has alleged that the subsidiary is required to defend and
indemnify it under the terms of contracts entered into for the
construction of the refinery. The Company has also been named as
a defendant in the pending litigation.

Based in Houston, GlobalSantaFe Corp. is an offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor, owning or operating a fleet of 59 marine
drilling rigs. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's fleet included
43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersible rigs, three
drillships, and two more semisubmersible rigs the Company
operates for third parties.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Co. Has $240M Receivable in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co.'s insurance receivables for asbestos- and
silica-related liabilities, at Dec. 31, 2006, totaled US$240
million, of which US$68 million is current, according to the
Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Several Company subsidiaries, particularly DII Industries and
Kellogg Brown & Root, face asbestos- and silica-related suits.

Effective Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and
future claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of DII
Industries, Kellogg Brown & Root, and the Company's other
affected subsidiaries, which were filed on Dec. 16, 2003, when
the plan of reorganization became final and nonappealable.

In 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

In 2006, the Company received about US$167 million in asbestos-
and silica-related insurance proceeds. The Company expects to
receive US&68 million in 2007, US$46 million in 2008, $131
million in 2009, and US$16 million in 2010.

Based in Houston, Halliburton Co.'s 80 percent-owned KBR
division has two segments: Government and Infrastructure
provides logistics, management, and field support for military
bases and civilian installations; and Energy and Chemicals
designs and builds oil production facilities around the world as
well as offshore.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 26,045 Pending Claims in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about 26,045
unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 980 were
premises claims and the rest were products claims, according to
the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

There were also about 2,075 unpaid claims, which have been
settled or are subject to the terms of a settlement agreement.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded about 30,125
unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 995 were
premises claims and the rest were products claims. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006)

The Company faces asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits and
claims that arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from
resin encapsulated pipe and tank products that were sold by one
of the Company's former subsidiaries to a limited industrial
market.

The Company also faces suits alleging exposure to asbestos at
facilities formerly or presently owned or operated by the
Company.

Moreover, as of Dec. 31, 2006, there were about 528 claims,
which have either been dismissed without payment or are in the
process of being dismissed without payment, but with plaintiffs
retaining the right to re-file.

Between Jan. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2006, the Company received
about 2,665 new claims. During that same period, the Company
spent about US$31.5 million to resolve and defend asbestos
matters, including $23.1 million in settlement payments and
about US$8.4 million for defense costs.

Based in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and markets
specialty chemicals and related services for a broad range of
business, consumer and industrial applications. The Company has
operations in North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
Product sales occur in over 135 countries with significant
revenue streams generated on five continents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $233.6M Liabilities in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as of
Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, amounted to US$233.6 million,
according to the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's current
asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$36.4 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos-related
assets amounted to US$87.5 million, compared with US$120.7
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's primary and first level excess insurance policies
that provided coverage for these asbestos-related matters
exhausted their products limits at or before the end of July
2003.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company initiated litigation against the
solvent excess insurance carriers that provided insurance
coverage for asbestos-related liabilities in a matter captioned
Hercules Inc. v. OneBeacon, et al., Civil Action No. 02C-11-237
(SCD), Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Beginning in August 2004 and continuing through October 2004,
the Company entered into settlements with all of the insurers
named in that suit. As a result, the suit was dismissed in early
November 2004.

The Company entered into several settlements with its insurers
in 2004. The first settlement involved insurance policies issued
by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and reinsured by
Equitas Ltd. and related entities. As part of that settlement,
Equitas placed US$67 million into a trust set up to reimburse
the Company for a portion of the costs it incurred to defend and
resolve certain asbestos claims.

On Jan. 4, 2007, the Company received as a lump sum distribution
about US$41.3 million, an amount representing a complete
liquidation of the remaining balance of the Equitas Trust,
including accrued interest, and the Equitas Trust has been
terminated.

In addition, effective Oct. 8, 2004, the Company entered into a
comprehensive confidential settlement agreement with respect to
certain insurance policies issued by various insurance companies
operating in the London insurance market, and by one insurance
company located in the United States.

Under the terms of the Second Settlement Agreement, the
participating insurers agreed to place a total of about US$102.2
million into a trust, with such amount to be paid over a four-
year period commencing in January 2005 and ending in 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, about US$66.1 million of the US$102.2
million had been placed into the Second Trust, and the Second
Trust had a balance of about US$13.8 million. On or about Jan.
31, 2007, an extra US$16.4 million was placed into the Second
Trust.

In addition, effective Oct. 13, 2004, the Company reached a
confidential settlement agreement with the balance of its
solvent excess insurers whereby a significant portion of the
costs incurred by the Company with respect to future asbestos
product liability claims will be reimbursed, subject to those
claims meeting certain qualifying criteria.

That agreement is not expected to result in reimbursement to the
Company, however, unless and until defense costs and settlement
payments for qualifying asbestos products claims paid by the
Company subsequent to the effective date of the agreement (with
credit for certain amounts spent prior to the effective date of
the agreement) aggregate to about US$330 million to US$370
million.  

As of Dec. 31, 2006, defense costs and settlement payments for
qualifying asbestos products claims of about US$132.4 million
have been credited towards the range of US$330 million to US$370
million.

Based in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and markets
specialty chemicals and related services for a broad range of
business, consumer and industrial applications. The Company has
operations in North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
Product sales occur in over 135 countries with significant
revenue streams generated on five continents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Has $666.07M for A&E Claims in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Ltd., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a
gross provision of US$666,075,000 for asbestos & environmental
claims and allocated loss adjustment expenses, compared with
US$578,079,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a net
provision of US$349,963,000 for A&E claims and ALAE, compared
with US$383,957,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

A number of Company subsidiaries wrote general liability
policies and reinsurance before their acquisition by the Company
under which policyholders continue to present asbestos-related
injury claims and claims alleging injury, damage or clean-up
costs arising from environmental pollution.

The Company's A&E exposure is administered out of its offices in
the United Kingdom and Rhode Island and centrally administered
from the U.K.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had 13 separate insurance and
reinsurance subsidiaries whose reserves are categorized into
about 215 reserve categories in total, including 21 distinct
asbestos reserving categories and 24 distinct environmental
reserving categories.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had net loss reserves of
US$306.9 million for asbestos-related claims and US$43.1 million
for environmental pollution-related claims.

During 2006, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired
during the year, the Company's reserves for A&E liabilities
increased by US$10.1 million gross and decreased by US$55.1
million net.

Based in Montgomery, Ala., The Enstar Group Inc., through
Castlewood Holdings and other affiliates, provides claims
administration, adjustment and settlement, and collection
services for companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Records 365 Injury Cases in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Dec. 31, 2006, was a co-defendant
in about 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company was a co-defendant in about 370
cases asserting claims on behalf of about 9,900 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, punitive damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed, or do not specify the monetary
damages sought.

There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on
a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In another case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of
action and US5 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product made or sold by the Company or its
subsidiaries.

Based in Cleveland, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through
subsidiaries owned by direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries
Inc., is an industrial supply chain logistics and diversified
manufacturing business operating in three segments: Integrated
Logistics Solutions, Aluminum Products, and Manufactured
Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Records 3,270 Cases in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about
3,270 outstanding asbestos-related cases for which it was
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had about 3,300 outstanding
asbestos-related cases, for which the Company was responsible
for any related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8,
2006)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it sold in
March 1998. The Company assumed future liabilities relating to
any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products made by the
seller of the acquired brake business. The Company agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed after Sept. 1,
2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through Feb. 28, 2007, the
amounts paid for settled claims were about US$5 million.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Reserves $36M for A&E Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
United America Indemnity Ltd., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
recorded US$36,010,000 as gross reserves for asbestos &
environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses, compared with
US$40,124,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
US$11,157,000 as net reserves for A&E losses and LAE, compared
with US$11,519,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of
general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. The
Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental
contamination claims.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had US$4.8 million of net loss
reserves for asbestos-related claims and US$6.3 million for
environmental claims.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's survival ratio on a gross
basis for its open A&E claims was 7.4 years, compared with 7.1
years as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's survival ratio on a net basis
for its open A&E claims was 10.6 years, compared with 9.6 years
as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in the Cayman Islands, United America Indemnity Ltd.,
through its United National Group and Penn-America Group
subsidiaries, provides specialty and surplus property/casualty
insurance, including insurance for social service agencies,
equine mortality risks, and vacant properties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Industrial Has $11.3M Gain on Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Corp., as a result of a Merger, included in
the gain on the Merger the elimination of asbestos-related
liabilities, net of insurance receivables, in the amount of
US$11,265,000.

On Dec. 29, 2006, Detroit Stoker Co. was acquired by a newly
formed corporation affiliated with a private investment group
(Merger Parent) by way of a merger of Bram Acquisition Corp.
(Merger Sub) with and into Detroit Stoker with Detroit Stoker
being the surviving corporation (the Merger).

The Company and Detroit Stoker have been, and may in the future
be, named as defendants in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation arising out of commercial stoker products made by the
Company and Detroit Stoker, some of the parts and components of
which used asbestos-containing material fabricated and provided
by third parties.

Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Parent and the surviving
corporation agreed to indemnify the Company for any asbestos-
related litigation liabilities, including any asbestos
liabilities from Detroit Stoker's operation as a division of the
Company and the Company's own operations.

To secure these indemnity obligations, Merger Parent established
an escrow account for the sole benefit of the Company.

Historically, the Company recorded an undiscounted liability for
its best estimate of liabilities for asbestos-related matters in
the amount of US$31,450,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005, including
damages and defense costs, and its insurance receivables for
asbestos-related liabilities were US$20,186 at Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Hunt Valley, Md., United Industrial Corp. designs,
produces, and supports aerospace and defense systems. The
Company operates through subsidiary AAI Corp., and AAI Corp.'s
direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries AAI Services
Corp., Aerosonde Pty Ltd, Aerosonde North America Inc., ESL
Defence Ltd., McTurbine Inc., and Symtx Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 3 Third-Party Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded three third-
party payor actions pending against its subsidiary Liggett Group
LLC, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded four third-party
payor actions pending against Liggett. (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 15, 2006)

Insurance companies, union health and welfare trust funds,
asbestos manufacturers and others have commenced the Third-Party
Payor Actions.

Although no specific amounts are provided, it is understood that
requested damages against the tobacco company defendants in
these cases might be in the billions of dollars.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, Liggett incurred legal fees
and other litigation costs totaling about US$5,353,000, compared
with US$8,048,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett unit makes discount
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix,
and Eve, OMNI-branded "reduced-carcinogen" cigarettes, and
several generic lines of cigarettes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp., Goulds Pumps Resolve 8.2T Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corp. and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps Inc., during 2006,
resolved about 8,200 asbestos-related claims, compared with
16,000 claims in 2005, and 4,200 claims in 2004, according to
the Company's 2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company and Goulds have been joined as defendants with
numerous other industrial companies in product liability
lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

These claims stem primarily from products sold before 1985 that
contained a part made by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which
allegedly had asbestos. The asbestos was encapsulated in the
gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.

In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies
were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may
have contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury
or do not identify any Company or Goulds product as a source of
asbestos exposure.

Nearly all of the claims were dismissed, with settlement on a
small percentage of claims. The average amount of settlement per
plaintiff has been nominal and substantially all defense and
settlement costs have been covered by insurance.

Based in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corp., with 2006 sales and
revenues of about US$7.81 billion, is a global multi-industry
company engaged directly and through its subsidiaries in the
design and manufacture of a wide range of engineered products
and related services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Faces Insurance Suits in Calif., N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corp. continues to face two insurance asbestos-related
actions in California and New York, according to the Company's
2006 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The suits are styled: Cannon Electric Inc. et al. v. Ace
Property & Casualty Co. et al. Superior Court, County of Los
Angeles, Calif., Case No. BC 290354, and Pacific Employers
Insurance Co. et al., v. ITT Industries Inc., et al., Supreme
Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463.  

The parties in both cases seek an appropriate allocation of
responsibility for the Company's historic asbestos liability
exposure among its insurers.

The California action is filed in the same venue where the
Company's environmental insurance recovery litigation has been
pending since 1991. The New York action has been stayed in favor
of the California suit.

The Company and ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have successfully
resolved the matter and the Company is working with other
parties in the suit to resolve the matter as to those insurers.

Moreover, Utica National and Goulds Pumps Inc., a Company
subsidiary, are finalizing a coverage-in-place agreement to
allocate the Goulds' asbestos liabilities between insurance
policies issued by Utica and those issued by others.

The Company continues to receive the benefit of insurance
payments during the pendency of these proceedings.

Based in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corp., with 2006 sales and
revenues of about US$7.81 billion, is a global multi-industry
company engaged directly and through its subsidiaries in the
design and manufacture of a wide range of engineered products
and related services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Unit Still Faces Suits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Noble Corp. continues to
face three asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the subsidiary was served as a named defendant
in two suits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi involving numerous other unaffiliated companies as
co-defendants.

In December 2004, the subsidiary was served as a named defendant
in a third suit filed in Mississippi Circuit Court.

The suits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of about 131 named individuals alleging personal injury,
including claims under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the period 1965 through 1986.

Although the suits continue to be in procedural stages, amended
complaints recently filed by plaintiffs reflect that about 20 or
fewer of about 131 named individuals may have claims that they
were employed by the subsidiary or otherwise associated with the
Company's drilling operations.

Of these 20, 14 served amended complaints on the subsidiary by
the applicable deadline.

Based in Sugar Land, Tex., Noble Corp. performs contract-
drilling services with its fleet of 63 offshore drilling units.
This fleet consists of 13 semisubmersibles, three dynamically
positioned drillships, 44 jackups and three submersibles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OfficeMax Continues to Face Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Inc., over the past several years and continuing into
2006, faces cases where the plaintiffs allege asbestos-related
injuries from exposure to asbestos products or exposure to
asbestos while working at job sites.

The claims vary widely and often are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company. None of the claims seeks
damages from the Company individually, and the Company is
generally one of many defendants.

Many of the cases filed against the Company have been dismissed,
although the Company has settled some cases. The settlements
have been covered mostly by insurance, and the Company said it
believes any future settlements or judgments in these cases
would be similarly covered.

To date, no asbestos case against the Company has gone to trial.

Based in Naperville, Ill., OfficeMax Inc. provides office
supplies and paper, print and document services, technology
products and solutions and furniture to large, medium and small
businesses, government offices, and consumers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Has No Active Open Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corp. said that there are no active
asbestos-related cases pending against it or its former
subsidiary, NATCO Ltd. Partnership, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 22, 2007.

The Company or NATCO are named as defendants in about 280
lawsuits, most of which were filed between 1989 and 2000, and 18
of which were filed in the last three years.

In these suits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, mainly
fibrosis or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on the
Company's vessels.

Most of these suits have been filed in the Northern District of
Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan.

All of the cases filed against the Company before 1996 were
administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since
that time have similarly been administratively transferred to
the inactive docket.

Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a
future date without being barred by the statute of limitations.  
However, to date, no plaintiffs with claims against the Company
have sought reinstatement.

Based in Oak Brook, Ill., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corp.
provides dredging services in the United States. The Company was
founded in 1890 as Lydon & Drews Partnership and contracted its
first project in Chicago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Records 1,708 Pending Cases at 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, was a party to about 1,708
pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about
10,551 claimants, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22,
2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company was party to about 1,704
pending cases involving about 11,119 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2006)

These cases allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets made or
distributed by certain Company subsidiaries for use in the
petrochemical refining and exploration industries.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
3,766 claims filed, 12,508 claims dismissed, and 123 claims
settled. For the period, the average settlement amount per claim
was US$5,613 and the total defense costs were US$4,895,104.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded
2,596 claims filed, 1,998 claims dismissed, and 66 claims
settled. For the period, the average settlement amount per claim
was US$8,660 and the total defense costs were US$5,324,407.

Of the 10,551 claims pending at Dec. 31, 2006, 143 cited
specific amounts of damages. Of the 143 claims, 119 claims
sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages
and 24 sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total
damages.

With respect to compensatory damages, 119 of the 143 claims
sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 24 sought between
US$1 million and US$5 million. With respect to punitive damages,
111 of the 143 claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5
million and 32 sought US$5 million.

Total settlement costs for those cases, some of which were filed
over 20 years ago, have been about US$3.8 million. All relief
sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature.

To date, about 50 percent of the Company's costs related to
settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered
by primary insurance. Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company
entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level
excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the
Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance
is exhausted.

Based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corp. makes highly
engineered products serving niche markets in a diverse range of
commercial, industrial, and consumer applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 93 Hilco Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. faces asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, with 93 plaintiffs, from predecessor Hilco Inc., in
the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County.

The Company has never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs, seven filed actions in 2006, 15
filed actions in 2005, 44 filed actions in 2004, 24 filed
actions in 2003, and three filed actions in 2002. There are 108
other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and eight
other plaintiffs that have settled as of Dec. 31, 2006 for a
total of US$3,313,000. There has been no judgment against Hilco.

The Company's Universal Supply Group Inc. subsidiary was named
by 24 plaintiffs. Of these, two filed actions in 1999, one filed
an action in 2000, five filed actions in 2001, 11 filed actions
in 2005, and five filed actions in 2006.

Six plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed
and, of the total US$3,313,000 of settled actions, two
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500. No money
was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. After
these dismissed and settled actions, 16 plaintiffs name
Universal.

The Company said that it believes that none of the litigation
that was brought against the Company's Universal subsidiary
through Dec. 31, 2006 is material, and that the only material
litigation that was brought against Hilco through that date was
Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corp., filed on April 26, 2004 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,
Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 under an agreement reached in connection with a
US$10,000,000 jury verdict that was rendered on Aug. 5, 2005.

The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

On April 29, 2005, before the Rhodes case trial, Hilco filed a
third party complaint against Sid Harvey Industries in an action
demanding contributor payment in connection with the Settlement.
Sid Harvey Industries moved successfully for summary judgment.
Hilco filed an appeal as to the dismissal of Hilco's Third Party
Complaint.

In a decision dated Dec. 29, 2006, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the dismissal of Hilco's
Third Party Complaint and remanded the matter for further
proceedings as to Hilco's claim for contribution.

Based in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.'s operations
are conducted through subsidiaries, Universal Supply Group Inc.,
The RAL Supply Group Inc., and American/Universal Supply Inc.
The Company distributes heating, ventilating and air
conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate
control systems, appliances, and plumbing fixtures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Corp. Drop to 404 in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp., primarily its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation
Corp., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 404 pending
asbestos-related cases, compared with 507 pending cases for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual
report, on Form 10-KSB, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 23, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 458 pending asbestos-
related cases, down from 485 pending cases at June 30, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006)

Before 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and
installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has
resulted in claims of personal injury allegedly related to
asbestos exposure. To date all of the Company's asbestos-related
injury claims have been paid and defended by its insurance
carriers.

In 2006, the Company recorded 232 new cases filed, 254 defense
judgments and dismissals, 82 settled cases, and 335 total
resolved cases. In 2006, the Company recorded US$4,858,750 as
total indemnity payments, US$59,254 as the average indemnity
paid on settled cases, and US$14,504 as the average indemnity
paid on all resolved cases.

In 2005, the Company recorded 199 new cases filed, 294 defense
judgments and dismissals, 108 settled cases, and 402 total
resolved cases. In 2005, the Company recorded US$8,513,750 as
total indemnity payments, US$78,831 as the average indemnity
paid on settled cases, and US$21,178 as the average indemnity
paid on all resolved cases.

Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corp. conducts its business
operations subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp. For over 30
years, the Company and its predecessors have been providing
insulation and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the
West Coast.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp.'s subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp., and
several other liability insurers continue to face an asbestos-
related declaratory relief action filed by ACE Property &
Casualty Co., Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha, and
Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co.

On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE, Central National, and Industrial
Underwriters, which are all related entities, sued Metalclad and
a number of Metalclad's other liability insurers, in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial Underwriters issued
umbrella and excess policies to Metalclad, which has sought and
obtained from the plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under
these policies for the asbestos lawsuits brought against
Metalclad during the last four to five years.

The ACE Law seeks declarations regarding various coverage
issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether
historical and pending asbestos suits brought against Metalclad
are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of liability or
separate "per occurrence" limits of liability.

The ACE suit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Co. on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of
Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy.

The ACE suit does not seek any monetary recovery from Metalclad.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE suit under the Company's indemnification obligations in the
Settlement Agreement.

Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corp. conducts its business
operations subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp. For over 30
years, the Company and its predecessors have been providing
insulation and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the
West Coast.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures Has 9 Pending Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Ventures LLC faces about nine active asbestos-related
injury claims, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2007.

The Company had 12 pending bodily injury asbestos-related suits.
(Class Action Reporter, April 7, 2006)

These injury claims are pending against Kaiser LLC and Kaiser
Steel Corp. The bankruptcy estate of Kaiser Steel is embodied in
KSC Recovery Inc.

Many of the plaintiffs allege that they or their family members
were aboard Kaiser ships or worked in shipyards in the Oakland-
San Francisco area or Vancouver, Washington area in the 1940s
and that the Company or KSC Recovery were associated with one or
more shipyards or has successor liability.

However, there is an increasing number of claims related to
other facilities like the former Kaiser Steel Mill Site
Property.

Most of these suits are third party premises claims alleging
injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing products
and involve multiple defendants.

Virtually all of the complaints against the Company and KSC
Recovery are non-specific, but involve allegations relating to
pre-bankruptcy activities.

Of the claims resolved to date, about 78 percent have been
resolved without payment to the plaintiffs, and of the 46 cases
that have been settled to date involving a payment made to
plaintiffs, the settlement amount was US$37,500 or less for 38
of those cases.

Based in Ontario, Canada, Kaiser Ventures LLC's holdings include
an 82.5 percent stake in Mine Reclamation Corp. and a 50 percent
stake in West Valley Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer
Station. The Company is the reorganized successor to Kaiser
Steel Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 96 Exposure Suits in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norcross Safety Products LLC, as of Dec. 31, 2006, had about 644
product liability lawsuits, of which 15 percent, or about 96
suits, is asbestos-related, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 27, 2007.

About 85 of these 644 suits involve plaintiffs alleging injury
from exposure to silica dust.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded about 669 product
liability lawsuits, in which about 9 percent, or about 60 suits,
is asbestos-related. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2006)

Most of these suits and claims are product liability matters
that arise out of the use of respiratory product lines made by
the Company's North Safety Products subsidiary.  

As of Dec. 31, 2006, North Safety Products, along with its
predecessors and the former owners of those business were named
as defendants in about 632 suits involving respirators allegedly
made and sold by it or its predecessors.

The Company monitors 12 more suits in which it feels that North
Safety Products, its predecessors and the former owners of those
businesses may be named as defendants.

Collectively, these 644 suits represent a total of about 8,746
plaintiffs. These suits typically allege that the purposed
injuries resulted in part from respirators that were negligently
designed or manufactured.

Invensys plc, formerly Siebe plc, is contractually obligated to
indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of
defending claims, resulting from respiratory products made or
sold before the acquisition of North Safety Products in October
1998.

Based in Oak Brook, Ill., Norcross Safety Products LLC designs,
makes, and markets branded products in the fragmented personal
protection equipment industry. The Company's products include
respiratory protection, protective footwear, hand protection,
eye, head and face protection, bunker gear and linemen equipment
for utility workers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Has 161 Pending Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc., for the three months ended Feb. 28, 2007, recorded
161 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2007.

For the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 154
pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with
152 claims for the year ended Nov. 30, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 2, 2007.

For the three months ended Feb. 28, 2007, the Company recorded
19 claims filed, 11 claims dismissed, and one claim settled. For
the period, the Company recorded US$3,000 as the aggregate
settlement costs and US$3,000 as the average settlement costs.

For the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 62 claims
filed, 55 claims dismissed, and five claims settled. For the
period, the Company recorded US$67,000 as the aggregate
settlement costs and US$14,000 as the average settlement costs.

The Company continues to face lawsuits alleging personal injury
or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials,
products or in manufacturing operations. Most of the cases have
been filed in Madison County, Ill. and San Francisco.

Since 1998, more than 200 of these asbestos suits have been
resolved with the majority being dismissed.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the
fiscal 2007-1st quarter were US$100,000. Legal and
administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal 2006 and
fiscal 2005 were US$500,000 for each period.

Based in Rancho Cordova, Calif., GenCorp Inc. is a technology-
based manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems
with a real estate business segment that includes activities
related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of the
Company's excess real estate assets. The Company's continuing
operations are organized into two segments: Aerospace and
Defense and Real Estate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Corp. Has $1.115B Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corp., as of June 30, 2006, recorded a US$1.115
billion liability for subsidiary Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corp.'s asbestos, silica, and coal tar pitch volatiles-related
claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2007.

The Company was one of many defendants in a number of lawsuits,
some of which involved claims of multiple persons, in which the
plaintiffs allege that certain of their injuries were caused by
exposure to asbestos or exposure to products with asbestos
produced or sold by the Company or as a result of employment or
association with the Company.

The suits related to products the Company had not sold for more
than 20 years. As of the Feb. 12, 2002 bankruptcy filing date,
about 112,000 asbestos-related claims were pending.

Due to the reorganization proceedings, holders of asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile claims were stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing
new suits against the Debtors.

As a result, the Company did not make any asbestos payments
during the pendency of the reorganization proceedings.

The Company estimated that its total liability for asbestos,
silica and coal tar pitch volatile personal injury claims was
expected to be between about US$1.1 billion and US$2.4 billion.

The Company said that it believed that substantial recoveries
from the insurance carriers were probable and had estimated the
amount of remaining solvent insurance coverage to be in the
range of US$1.4 billion to US$1.5 billion. The Company disclosed
that it believed that it would be able to recover from insurers
amounts totaling about US$965 million.

During the latter half of 2005 and the first half of 2006, the
Company entered into conditional settlement agreements with
insurers under which the insurers agreed, in aggregate, to pay
about US$1.246 billion in respect of substantially all coverage
under certain policies having a combined face value of about
US$1.460 billion.

Many of the agreements provided for multi-year payouts and for
some of the settlement amounts to be accessed, claims would have
to be made against the PI Trusts that would aggregate well in
excess about US$1.115 billion liability amount reflected by the
Company at June 30, 2006.

The Company did not provide any accounting recognition for the
conditional settlement agreements in the June 30, 2006 financial
statements.

Based in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser Aluminum Corp. is an
independent fabricated aluminum products manufacturing company
with 2006 net sales of about US$1.4 billion. The Company
operates 10 production facilities in the U.S. and one in Canada.
The Company makes rolled, extruded, drawn and forged aluminum
products. The Company produced and shipped about 523 million
pounds of fabricated aluminum products in 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VWR Int'l. Continues to Face Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
VWR International Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
exposure lawsuits stemming from the distribution of certain of
its products, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2007.

From time to time, the Company is named a defendant in cases
that arise as a result of its distribution of scientific
supplies, including litigation resulting from the distribution
of products with asbestos by the Company and certain of its
predecessors.

Until 1987, the Company distributed certain asbestos-containing
products for use in laboratories, including pads, protective
clothing and laboratory equipment.

Individuals who were exposed to these asbestos-containing
products have, from time to time, brought claims against the
Company for asbestos-related injuries.

Based in West Chester, Pa., VWR International Inc. distributes
products like chemicals, glassware, instruments, protective
clothing and other assorted laboratory products. The Company
maintains operations in more than 20 countries and processes an
average of 52,000 order lines daily from 20 strategically
located distribution centers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Int'l. Faces Rail Workers' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International Inc., from time to time, has claims
brought against it relating to the exposure of former employees
of its railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2007.

These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached
in September 1990 with the Company's insurance carriers.

However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by
people who were not Company employees and who may claim second
hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust, or other chemicals or
elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans.

Based in Commerce, Calif., Reading International Inc.'s business
consists primarily of: the development, ownership and operation
of multiplex cinemas in the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leap Tech. Has No Renewed Cases Since 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------
None of the asbestos-related cases against subsidiaries of Leap
Technology Inc. have been reinstated since May 1, 1996,
according to the Company's annual report, on Form 10-KSB, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2007.

The Company is involved in litigation relating to the offshore
supply business conducted before Aug. 14, 1996 by certain
Company subsidiaries, which are now inactive.

The cases were filed against those subsidiaries and other ship-
owning companies based on the alleged exposure of 64 former
seamen to maritime asbestos and other toxic substances while
working on vessels operated by such companies as part of an
industry wide series of similar claims.

On May 1, 1996, the claims against the Company's subsidiaries
and the other defendants were administratively dismissed subject
to reinstatement against one or more specific defendants upon a
specific showing that a plaintiff suffers from an asbestos-
related disease and that he was exposed to asbestos containing
products on the vessels operated by those defendants.

During the past five years, the Company has incurred between
about US$600 and US$1,400 per year in legal fees monitoring the
status of the claims against the Company's subsidiaries.

Based in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Leap Technology Inc., formerly
known as Seal Holdings Corp., is a holding company that was
formerly focused on the acquisition of, and strategic
investments in, companies providing services in health care and
life sciences.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corp. continue to face personal
injury actions from asbestos exposure, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 2007.

There are in excess of 60 cases against D/C that are pending on
the U.S. mainland, primarily in California, and are allegedly
based on D/C's former business operations.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Co. v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corp., Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center.

In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff
alleges that it is an insurance company to whom D/C has tendered
for defense and indemnity various personal injury suits
allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products.  

Plaintiff alleges that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.

D/C has filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. In February
2006, D/C merged into a newly formed Illinois limited liability
company named D/C Distribution LLC.

Based in Chicago, Kaanapali Land LLC is the reorganized entity
resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii
LLC, certain of its subsidiaries, and FHT Corp. under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code, dated June 11, 2002. The Company's
continuing operations are in three business segments:
Agriculture, Property, and Golf.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $13.9M Liability in 4Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp.'s current asbestos-related liabilities, as of
Dec. 31, 2006, amounted to US$13,959,000, compared with
US$28,369,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 30, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related receivable
amounted to US$21.8 million, compared with US$14.8 million as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with
the Bankruptcy Court seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted against it
related to the use of asbestos in its products decades ago.

In October 2006, Congoleum and the Asbestos Claimants' Committee
jointly filed a revised version of the Tenth Plan of
Reorganization, the Eleventh Plan, which reflected minor
technical changes agreed to by the various parties supporting
Congoleum's plan.

In October 2006, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to consider
the adequacy of the disclosure statements with respect to the
Tenth Plan and the Revised Plan of Continental Casualty Co. and
Continental Insurance Co. and to hear arguments on respective
summary judgment motions that the Tenth Plan and the CNA Plan
are not confirmable as a matter of law.

In February 2007, the Bankruptcy Court issued two separate
opinions ruling that the Tenth Plan and the CNA Plan are not
confirmable as a matter of law.

Because the Tenth Plan and Eleventh Plan are substantially
identical, the Company said it believes the ruling issued with
respect to the Tenth Plan also applies to the Eleventh Plan.

In March 2007, Congoleum resumed global plan mediation
discussions seeking to resolve the issues raised in the
Bankruptcy Court's ruling with respect to the Tenth Plan.
Congoleum has also appealed the ruling with respect to the Tenth
Plan to the District Court.

Based in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corp. makes flooring
products for residential and commercial use. Its products
include plank flooring, resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or
vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and laminate and
commercial flooring. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 55
percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Faces Glove-Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings Inc. continues to face asbestos-related glove-
exposure actions, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2007.

The Company has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits
alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves sold by
one of the Company's predecessors-in-interest.

One or more of the Company's general liability or products
liability insurers is defending these actions.

Based in Kewanee, Ill., Boss Holdings Inc. operates primarily in
the work gloves and protective wear business segment. The
Company also conducts operations in the pet supplies business
segment and promotional and specialty products segments.
Specialty lighting products are part of the work gloves and
protective wear business segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Has $91.5M Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded
an asbestos-related insurance asset in the amount of US$91.5
million, compared with US$98.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2005,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2007.

No recorded insurance asset was recorded in respect of asbestos
claims as of Dec. 31, 2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the Company's plan of reorganization, which was
confirmed by order dated Aug. 18, 2006, became effective, and
the Company emerged from Chapter 11.

Before the Filing, AWI was a member of the Center for Claims
Resolution, which handled the defense and settlement of
asbestos-related personal injury claims on behalf of its
members. The CCR pursued broad-based settlements of asbestos-
related personal injury claims under the Strategic Settlement
Program and had reached agreements with law firms that covered
about 130,000 claims that named the Company as a defendant.

Upon the Company's emergence on Oct. 2, 2006, the Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants' Committee was disbanded. The Future
Claimants' Representative will continue to serve, but as of Oct.
2, 2006 his expenses will be borne by the Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust.

As of Oct. 2, 2006, when the POR became effective, all present
and future asbestos-related personal injury claims against the
Company, including contribution claims of co-defendants, arising
directly or indirectly out of the Company's pre-Filing use of or
other activities involving asbestos are channeled to the
Asbestos PI Trust.

The Company reflected the resolution of this liability, which
totaled about US$3.2 billion as of Sept. 30, 2006, as part of
emerging from Chapter 11.

Based in Lancaster, Pa., Armstrong World Industries Inc.'s Floor
Products unit produces vinyl sheet and tile, linoleum, specialty
carpet, and hardwood flooring. Its Armstrong Building Products
unit produces acoustical ceilings and suspension systems, and
its Armstrong Cabinet Products makes hardwood, kitchen, and
bathroom cabinets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $4M Removal Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, has accrued
US$4 million for asbestos-related removal costs, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2007.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company accrued US$2.5 million for
estimated future costs regarding asbestos remediation of the
Company's City National Plaza property. (Class Action Reporter,
May 26, 2006)

With respect to asbestos materials present at the Company's City
National Plaza property, these materials have been removed or
abated from certain tenant and common areas of the building
structure.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos materials from
various areas of the building structure.

Based in Los Angeles, Thomas Properties Group Inc. is a full-
service real estate operating company that owns, acquires,
develops and manages office, retail and multi-family properties
on a nationwide basis. The Company is successor to Thomas
Properties Group LLC and its affiliates.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oneida Rostone Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reunion Industries Inc. says that Oneida Rostone Corp. continues
to face asbestos-related injury or wrongful death actions,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2007.

Oneida Rostone is pre-merger Reunion's Plastics subsidiary and
the Company's Plastics segment.

Since July 10, 2001, the actions have been filed in multiple
states, including California, Oregon, Washington, New York, and
Mississippi.

In October 2001, Allen-Bradley Co. (currently owned by Rockwell
Automation Inc.), a former owner of the Rostone business of
Oneida Rostone, accepted the Company's tender of its defense and
indemnification in the first such suit filed.

Subsequent to this acceptance in the first suit, Rockwell
Automation has accepted and defended all additional suits, a
total of 241 separate actions, which the Company has tendered.

Based in Pittsburgh, Reunion Industries Inc. owns and operates
industrial manufacturing operations that design and manufacture
engineered, high-quality products for specific customer
requirements. Products include large-diameter seamless pressure
vessels, hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders and metal bar
grating.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Faces 2,368 Open Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reunion Industries Inc. faces 2,368 open and active asbestos-
related claims filed against it, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, 2007.

The Company has been named in asbestos lawsuits filed since Jan.
1, 2001 by various plaintiffs' law firms in Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland, Alabama, and West
Virginia.

The claims are primarily directed against over 100 defendants,
including the Company, and allege that cranes from the Company's
former crane manufacturing location in Alliance, Ohio, were
present in various steel mills located in those states and that
those cranes had asbestos to which plaintiffs were exposed over
a 40 year span.

Counsel for the Company has filed an answer to each complaint
denying liability by the Company and asserting all alternative
defenses permitted under the various Courts' Case Management
Orders.

Counsel for the Company has successfully resolved about 750-800
cases without any liability to the Company.

The Company denies that it made any products with asbestos or
otherwise knew or should have known that any component part
other manufacturers provided contained any dangerous or toxic
materials.

Based in Pittsburgh, Reunion Industries Inc. owns and operates
industrial manufacturing operations that design and manufacture
engineered, high-quality products for specific customer
requirements. Products include large-diameter seamless pressure
vessels, hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders and metal bar
grating.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fansteel Inc. Dismissed from Ivan Hand Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fansteel Inc., in January 2007, was dismissed from an asbestos-
related exposure lawsuit filed in August 2005 by the Estate of
Ivan Hand, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2007.

The Company's insurance carriers were notified and one insurance
carrier agreed to defend the Company.

Based in Deerfield, Ill., Fansteel Inc. and its subsidiaries
make engineered metal components. Products made are used in a
various markets including military and commercial aerospace,
automotive, energy, agricultural and construction machinery,
lawn and garden equipment, marine, plumbing and electrical
hardware and general industrial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Faces 1,332 Claims in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, is a co-defendant
in about 1,332 pending asbestos-related claims involving about
1,918 individuals, compared with 1,703 claims as of Dec. 31,
2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had about 1,314 pending
asbestos-related claims, with about 1,661 plaintiffs, filed
against it. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006)

These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile
Division, which was previously acquired by subsidiary Congoleum
Corp. The claimants allege personal injury or death from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 625 new
claims filed, 30 settlements, and 966 dismissals. During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 621 new claims, 24
settlements, and 732 dismissals.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were about
US$3.1 million in 2006 and US$1.3 million for each of the years
2005 and 2004, all of which were paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, as were the related defense costs.

The average indemnity cost per resolved claim was about US$3,100
in 2006, US$1,700 in 2005, and US$2,000 in 2004.

The estimated range of liability for settlement of current
claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2012
was US$10.3 million to US$35.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's insurance for asbestos-
related liabilities amounted to US$9,320,000, compared with
US$8,959,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$10,300,000, compared with
US$9,500,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Based in Wellesley, Mass., American Biltrite Inc. produces
Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and
it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates
supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect
materials during handling and for varied applications. The
Company owns 70 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI Has $1.1M-$1.6M Liability at Maine Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. estimates between about US$1.1 million
and US$1.6 million as the total cost of site investigation,
remediation, maintenance, and monitoring for land at its
formerly owned sheet vinyl plant in Lisbon, Maine, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2007.

The Company had estimated between US$1.2 million and US$1.5
million. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006)

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has put Miller
Industries Inc., the present owner of the Lisbon Falls, Maine,
plant on notice to clean up a dumpsite where there is exposed
asbestos from sheet vinyl waste along with other hazardous
substances.

In September 2005, a lawsuit was filed by Miller against the
Company, in which the suit alleged that the Company and another
named defendant were liable for costs to clean up a dumpsite
(Parcel A) and a second parcel of land (Parcel B), which is
alleged to contain polychlorinated biphenyls in the soil.

The suit, captioned Miller Industries Inc. v American Biltrite
Inc. et al, was filed on Sept. 22, 2005 in the Androscoggin
Superior Court of Maine. Miller was seeking indemnification or
contribution from the Company for the cleanup of both parcels of
land (Maine Sites).

In Feb. 3, 2006, the Superior Court of Maine dismissed the suit
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

In January 2006, the Maine DEP notified the Company that it is a
potentially responsible party as to both Parcel A and Parcel B,
which was subsequently named a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency site.

Before the commencement of the Miller suit, the Company had been
investigating and reviewing the condition of the Parcel A and
its potential liability for its share of any clean-up costs.

Miller has advised the Company that the cost of site
investigation, and remediation for Parcel B is about US$550,000.

At this time, the Company is not able to determine what its
potential liability will be with regard to the Maine Sites since
the Company has neither accepted nor negotiated its allocable
share of the costs with Miller.

Under an agreement between the Company and The Biltrite Corp.,
TBC is liable for 37.5 percent of costs incurred by the Company
for the Maine Sites.

Based in Wellesley, Mass., American Biltrite Inc. produces
Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and
it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates
supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect
materials during handling and for varied applications. The
Company owns 70 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Records $57.9M Liabilities in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s current asbestos-related liabilities,
for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007, amounted to US$57,925,000,
compared with US$58,925,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2007.

For the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007, the Company's long-term
asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$314,935,000,
compared with US$362,360,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006.

Certain of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, mainly
Bondex International Inc., face various asbestos-related bodily
injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with most current
claims pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi,
Texas, and Florida.

These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-
related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products previously made by the Company's
subsidiaries or others.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is divided into
two units: industrial and consumer products. Industrial
offerings include products for waterproofing, corrosion
resistance, floor maintenance, and wall finishing. The Company's
do-it-yourself items include caulks and sealants, rust-
preventative and general-purpose paints, repair products, and
hobby paints.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Units Face 10,846 Active Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries, as of Feb. 28, 2007, had
a total of 10,846 active asbestos-related cases, compared with a
total of 10,175 cases as of Feb. 28, 2006, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 9, 2007.

Certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, mainly
Bondex International Inc., face various asbestos-related bodily
injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with most current
claims pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi,
Texas, and Florida.

For the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007, the subsidiaries secured
dismissals and settlements of 736 claims and made total payments
of US$18.2 million, which included defense costs paid during the
current quarter of US$7.2 million.

For the comparable period ended Feb. 28, 2006, dismissals and
settlements covered 213 claims and total payments were US$17.1
million, which included defense costs paid during the quarter of
US$7 million.

Excluding defense costs, the average costs to resolve a claim,
including dismissed claims, were US$14,946 for the quarter ended
Feb. 28, 2007 and US$47,418 for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2006.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries filed a complaint in July
2003 for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith
against various third-party insurers, challenging their
assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related claims
have been exhausted.

The coverage litigation involves insurance coverage for claims
arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos containing products
made by the previous owner of the Bondex tradename before March
1, 1966.

On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc., as it was known
then, bought the assets and assumed the liabilities of the
previous owner of the Bondex tradename. That previous owner
subsequently dissolved and was never a subsidiary of Republic
Powdered Metals, Bondex, RPM Inc., or the Company.

The Company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in
the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging
exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate
limits.

Two of the defendant insurers have filed counterclaims seeking
to recoup certain monies should the plaintiffs prevail on their
claims. Under a case management order, the parties have
substantially completed all fact and expert discovery relating
to the liability phase of the case.

The parties will next file dispositive motions, including
motions for summary judgment, and related briefs. The
subsidiaries anticipate a trial during the 2007 calendar year.

During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, Bondex reached a cash
settlement of US$15 million, the terms of which are confidential
by agreement of the parties, with one of the defendant insurers.
The settling defendant has been dismissed from the case.

Claim filings in Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Illinois
at the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007, comprise about 75 percent of
the total aggregate claims filed against Bondex.

At the end of fiscal 2006, the Company increased its reserve for
asbestos claims by about US$335 million, while paying out
US$12.9 million for dismissals and settlements resulting in the
Company's reserve moving from US$99.2 million at Feb. 28, 2006
to US$421.3 million at May 31, 2006.

As of Feb. 28, 2007, total reserves were about US$372.9 million,
of which US$314.9 million was reserved for unasserted potential
future claims and US$58 million was reserved for pending known
claims.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is divided into
two units: industrial and consumer products. Industrial
offerings include products for waterproofing, corrosion
resistance, floor maintenance, and wall finishing. The Company's
do-it-yourself items include caulks and sealants, rust-
preventative and general-purpose paints, repair products, and
hobby paints.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Reserves $52.1M for Claims in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc., at Feb. 28, 2007, reserved US$52.1
million for current asbestos-related liabilities, compared with
US$53.8 million at May 31, 2006 and US$53.7 million at Feb. 28,
2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2007.

At Feb. 28, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos reserves
totaled US$7 million, compared with US$13.3 million at May 31,
2006, and US$11.8 million at Feb. 28, 2006.

The Company provides, through its wholly owned insurance
subsidiaries, certain insurance coverage, primarily product
liability, to its other subsidiaries. Third party insurers
provide excess coverage. The Company's reserves provide for
these potential losses as well as other uninsured claims.

The changes in the reserve balance have occurred as a result of
the Company's continuing evaluation of its liability under a
class action lawsuit settlement covering its Dryvit residential
exterior insulated finish systems product line.

Third party excess insurers have historically paid varying
shares of Dryvit's defense and settlement costs for individual
commercial and residential EIFS suits under various cost-sharing
agreements.

Dryvit has assumed a greater share of the costs associated with
its EIFS litigation as it seeks funding commitments from the
Company's third party excess insurers and will likely continue
to do so pending the outcome of coverage litigation involving
these same third party insurers.

One of the Company's excess insurers filed suit seeking a
declaration with respect to its rights and obligations for EIFS
related claims under its applicable policies. During last year's
fiscal 3rd-quarter, the court granted Dryvit's motion to stay
the federal filing based on a more complete state court
complaint filed against these same insurers and the Company's
insurance broker.

The coverage case is now proceeding in state court. Discovery in
this litigation is ongoing.

The trial is scheduled for Dec. 3, 2007. A previously set
scheduling order is likely to be amended by the court in April
2007.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is divided into
two units: industrial and consumer products. Industrial
offerings include products for waterproofing, corrosion
resistance, floor maintenance, and wall finishing. The Company's
do-it-yourself items include caulks and sealants, rust-
preventative and general-purpose paints, repair products, and
hobby paints.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Corp. Still Faces Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
CompuDyne Corp., individually and as an alleged successor,
continues to face lawsuits involving asbestos-related personal
injury and death claims, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 10, 2007.

The Company has been named as a defendant in cases related to
claims for asbestos exposure allegedly due to asbestos in
certain of its predecessor's products.

The Company has advised its insurers of each of these cases, and
the insurers are providing a defense pursuant to agreement with
the Company, subject to reservation of rights by the insurers.

The insurers have advised that claims in asbestos litigation for
punitive damages, exemplary damages, malicious and willful and
wanton behavior and intentional conduct are not covered.

One of the carriers has given notice that asbestos related
claims are excluded from certain of these policies. The insurers
have additional coverage defenses, which are reserved, including
that claims may fall outside of a particular policy period of
coverage.

To date, litigation costs have not been significant and the
Company has not paid any settlements from its own funds.

Based in Annapolis, Md., CompuDyne Corp. provides products and
services to the public security markets. The Company operates in
four segments: Institutional Security Systems, Attack
Protection, Integrated Electronic Systems, and Public Safety and
Justice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrade Says Artra's Plan Became Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrade Inc. said that the Amended Joint Reorganization Plan of
wholly owned subsidiary Artra Group Inc., on April 2, 2007,
became effective, according to a Company press release, on Form
8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 9, 2007.

On June 3, 2002, Artra Group Inc. filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The
Petition was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division and is known by Case
Number 02 B 21522.

The Petition was filed in response to a growing number of
asbestos and asbestos related litigation claims directed toward
Artra, arising from Artra's prior ownership of Baltimore Paint
and Chemical (a division or subsidiary of Artra Group Inc.) and
The Synkoloid Co. (a division or subsidiary of Artra Group Inc.)
and their affiliated entities.

On or about June 25, 2002, the U.S. Trustee for the Northern
District of Illinois appointed the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors of Artra Group Inc. to represent the
interests of Artra's unsecured creditors.

The Creditors Committee filed an action in the Bankruptcy Court
seeking to consolidate the Company and Artra in the Bankruptcy
Case. In connection with the Committee Action, the Creditors
Committee alleged that the Company was obligated to Artra about
US$23,337,000, plus accrued interest, under a series of
promissory notes made by the Company during calendar year 2001.

In response to the Committee Action, the Company negotiated a
settlement with Artra, the Creditors Committee and the Futures
Representative.

Under the terms of the Original Asbestos Settlement, the Company
agreed to make a one-time payment of US$3,000,000 to Artra, and
further agreed to issue a promissory note to Artra in the
principal amount of US$2,000,000, which promissory note was to
be secured by a letter of credit.

On Jan. 24, 2007, Artra and the Committee filed an Amended Joint
Reorganization Plan of Artra Group Inc. As proposed under the
Plan, Artra would emerge from the bankruptcy case as an
operating business.

On Jan. 25, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
confirming the Plan. On Feb. 28, 2007, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois entered an additional
order affirming confirmation of the Plan.

After confirmation of the Plan, on April 9, 2007, the Company
entered into an agreement with reorganized Artra and the
Asbestos Trust under which the parties amended the terms of the
Original Asbestos Settlement.

On April 5, 2007, the Company received notice from the Asbestos
Trust that all conditions required under the Amended Asbestos
Settlement had been satisfied, and that payment of an aggregate
amount of US$2,000,000 was due from the Company under the terms
of the Amended Asbestos Settlement.

On April 9, 2007, the Company tendered to the agent for
Reorganized Artra and the Asbestos Trust US$2,000,000 in payment
of the cash portion of its obligations under the Amended
Asbestos Settlement.


COMPANY PROFILE

Entrade Inc.
500 Central Ave.
Northfield, Ill. 60093
Phone: 847-441-6650
Fax: 847-441-6959

Description:
Entrade Inc. is focused on developing its Nationwide Auction
Systems. Nationwide specializes in the disposal of surplus
property like vehicles, equipment, excess inventory, and
repossessions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. Urged to Produce Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and
the Future Claims Representative further ask the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to compel W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors to
produce documents and deposition discovery concerning the
Debtors' prepetition estimates of their potential asbestos
personal injury liability.

Mark Harford, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, in Wilmington,
Del., relates that the Debtors have published the estimates of
their asbestos liabilities in Form 10-K filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in the years between 1996 and
2001. The PI liabilities estimates were used by the Debtors in
asserting that the transfer of their business to Sealed Air
Corporation was a fraudulent transfer because they were
insolvent at the time of transfer.

The Debtors, however, contended in February 2007, in one of the
PI estimation pre-trial hearings, that their PI claims payment
history is an improper basis for estimating their future
asbestos liabilities. In support of their position, the Debtors
maintained that the hundreds of millions of dollars they paid in
asbestos PI settlements before the Petition Date were not paid
to avoid legitimate trial risks.

To test the Debtors' position, the PI Committee and the FCR thus
ask the Court to compel the Debtors to comply with discovery
aimed at uncovering the actual views of the Debtors' lawyers.

The PI Committee and the FCR also seek the Court's permission to
file under seal, as exhibits, deposition testimonies containing
confidential information relating to the Debtors' policies
regarding the settling and litigation of PI claims and the
history of PI judgments against them.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 127; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Move to Conduct Grace's Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2006, the Bankruptcy Court held Zonolite Attic
Insulation does not pose a serious threat of disease. One of the
evidences that the Bankruptcy Court used in making that
conclusion was a study conduced by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in the Libby, Mont.,
area, describing it as a scientific study negating any disease
risk from ZAI.

William D. Sullivan, Esq., in Wilmington, Del., relates that in
February 2005, the Montana federal court indicted the Debtors
for its activities involving Libby vermiculite.  Under the
Montana Litigation, the Debtors sought to exclude the ATSDR
study as evidence, asserting that the study was unscientific and
totally inadmissible.

In August 2006, the Montana federal court granted the Debtors'
motion and excluded the study as failing Daubert.  However, the
Debtors did not attempt to amend in ZAI briefs to reflect the
Montana federal court's ruling, Mr. Sullivan notes.

The Debtors' continued use of a study, which has been excluded
as evidence in another court, raises a serious issue, Mr.
Sullivan asserts. "Representing to one court that a scientific
study is competent and persuasive evidence on risk of disease,
while advising another court that the work is not even a
'study,' raises questions of judicial process that deserves
answers."

Thus, the ZAI Claimants ask the Court to grant them 90 days to
pursue discovery concerning the situation and direct all of the
Debtors' personnel, including counsel, to make themselves and
all relevant documents available without the necessity of a
subpoena.

The ZAI Claimants also ask the Court to direct the Debtors and
their counsel to prepare a detailed privilege log for any
documents withheld from production.

According to Mr. Sullivan, the anticipated discovery will focus
on these issues:

(a) Who among the Debtors' law firms handling asbestos matters
knew of the Montana federal court ruling and who were also
involved in ZAI matters;

(b) DID any discussions took place about alerting the Bankruptcy
Court through the ZAI briefing about the Debtors' contradictory
position;

(c) Was the failure to amend the ZAI briefs excusable in light
of the complexities of the case; and

(d) Did anyone on the Debtors' side, after the issuance of the
December 2006 Opinion with its reliance on the ATSDR Study,
considered informing the Bankruptcy Court it had relief on a
study that was inadmissible for any purpose.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 127; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Four Plaintiffs Sue 163 Defendants in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four plaintiffs, on March 30, 2007, jointly filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit, naming 163 defendants, in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Pittsburg attorney David Chervenick filed the suits on behalf of
Jack and Edith England, Clifford and Edwina Maffett, John
Nesselroad Jr., and Ralph and Naomi Smith.

The Englands live in Little Hocking, Ohio. The suit says Mr.
England was a sheetmetal worker for Union Local 33. He has
asbestosis and lung cancer.

The Maffetts live in Toronto, Ohio. In the suit, Mr. Maffett was
a millwright with Union Local USWA 1190. He has asbestosis and
lung cancer.

Mr. Nesselroad Jr. lives in Colliers, W.Va. He was a boilermaker
for Union Local 154. He has asbestosis.

The Smiths live in Cairo, W.Va. Mr. Smith was a millwright for
Union Local 1755 and has asbestosis and mesthelioma.

The suit says the plaintiffs were exposed to and inhaled
asbestos dust, which caused the disabilities. Each exposure
occurred at various places in West Virginia, the suit says.

Forty-one of the plants are located in West Virginia.

The suit claims the companies knew about the risk associated
with the exposure to asbestos fibers, yet did not warn their
employees.

In an 18-count suit, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages against all the defendants, both jointly and
severally.

A visiting judge will be assigned to Case No. 07-C-620.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Files Suit v. 56 Defendants in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney William Schwartz, on behalf of Charles and Beatrice
Coffman of Jackson County, W.Va., sued 56 companies in an
asbestos-related suit filed in Kanawha Circuit Court, The West
Virginia Record reports.

The suit was filed on March 30, 2007.

Mr. Coffman was a member of Pipefitter Local 521 and worked on
various industrial sites from 1952 to 2004. The suit claims he
was exposed to asbestos while working on the different sites.

According to the suit, Mr. Coffman was unaware of the dangers of
asbestos and suffers from mesothelioma.

The suit names 16 plants at which Mr. Coffman worked, where he
was exposed. They are Appalachian Power Co., Allied Chemical,
Ashland Oil Inc., B.F. Goodrich Co., Glasgow Powerhouse,
Goodyear, John Amos Power Plant, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corp., Kyger Creek Powerhouse, Louisa Powerhouse, Monongahela
Power Co., Monsanto Co., Ohio Power Co., Ravenswood Aluminum
Corp., Union Carbide Corp., and Virginia Electric & Power Co.

In the 10-count suit, Mr. Coffman claims the companies were
negligent in informing their employees about the risks of
asbestos. Therefore, he claims he did not know the danger of the
asbestos, which caused him to suffer physically and mentally.

The Coffmans seek judgment and damages against all defendants.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-616 has been assigned to
a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker Files Suit v. 43 Firms in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willie Scott, represented by Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost
Umphrey, sued the A.O. Smith Corp., with 42 other corporations,
for distributing products with asbestos throughout Jefferson
County, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Scott blames corporations, like Lockheed Martin and Zurn
Industries, for making and distributing asbestos products.

Medical records attached to Mr. Scott's suit state that he had
occupational exposure to asbestos, probably while working as a
laborer for the Texaco refinery from 1952 to 1983.

The document also says Mr. Scott, a lung cancer patient, has
been a cigarette smoker for most of his adult life. He is around
71 years of age.

The petition says the 43 defendants named in his suit were
negligent, failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced
products before flooding the market with dangerous goods.

Moreover, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Corp. (3M Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing
defective masks that failed to "provide respiratory protection."

Mr. Scott is suing for physical pain and suffering in the past
and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages,
loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future,
physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future
medical expenses.

Mr. Scott filed his petition on April 4, 2007 with the Jefferson
County District Court. Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District
Court, has been assigned to Case No. D179-064.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JR Tokai Had Locomotive Parts with Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
JR Tokai, on April 9, 2007, said that it used asbestos in train
parts but said that passengers were not in danger, Mainichi
Daily News reports.

JR Tokai officials said that they would replace all parts
containing asbestos in April 2007.

The Company admitted that parts with asbestos were used in 35
bullet train cars and 172 other train carriages. The parts
include air compressors and heaters.

According to Company officials, asbestos was inside the parts
and passengers were not in danger.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parties Settle Adams Lawsuit in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties of a lawsuit, styled Helen Adams et al. vs. AC&S et al.,
reached a settlement before trial began in Jefferson County
District Court in Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit was originally filed in 2004 on behalf of more than
2,000 plaintiffs against around 400 corporations.

The suit alleges that plaintiffs or their representatives were
exposed to asbestos or asbestos-related products of the
defendants, resulting various respiratory and other diseases.

Brent Coon & Associates of Beaumont, Tex., represents the
plaintiffs.

While filed under the same case number, each of the plaintiffs'
cases is being handled separately. The April 2, 2007 settlement
named James Jones as plaintiff, represented by Jason Cansler of
Brent Coon & Associates.

The April 2, 2007 settlement brings the number of decided cases
within the suit to 220.

In the original petition, defendants including AC&S, Foster
Wheeler, H.B. Zachry, Brown & Root, Bechtel and Dresser as
contractors or distributors sold, installed, removed or
distributed asbestos-containing products, which were dangerous
and defective.

3M Corp. is specifically named for providing mask products to
plaintiffs that did not provide adequate respiratory protection.

Plaintiffs seek damages not limited to: past and future pain and
suffering, past and future mental anguish, lost wages, loss of
earning capacity, disfigurement, past and future physical
impairment, medical bills and funeral bills in the event of
death.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA to Penalize Aapex for Exposing Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Occupational Safety and Health Association has proposed to
impose a US$57,000 fine to Aapex Environmental Services Inc. for
allegedly exposing employees to asbestos-related health problems
at a suburban construction project, Insurance Journal reports.

The OSHA cited Aapex Environmental for six alleged violations of
occupational health standards at the former Agway building in
DeWitt following an inspection.

OSHA's inspection found that required monitoring of employee
exposure to asbestos was not conducted on several occasions.
That finding resulted in a proposed fine of US$42,000.

The inspection also found that Aapex Environmental failed to
collect short-term air sampling, keep accurate exposure
monitoring records, notify employees of sampling results, train
employees to properly establish an asbestos containment system,
and prevent asbestos-contaminated water from leaking from an
enclosed work area. Those five citations resulted in another
US$15,000 in proposed fines.

According to OSHA spokesman Ted Fitzgerald, Aapex Environmental
has scheduled an April 20, 2007 meeting with OSHA to discuss the
penalties.

The proposed fines come on the heels of an admission in March
2006 by an Aapex Environmental supervisor that he improperly
disposed of asbestos fibers, allowing them to drain into public
sewers, contaminate construction debris and collect in public
spaces outside the Agway building.

Everett Blatche, 44, pleaded guilty to one felony count of
conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and
Superfund law.

Mr. Blatche faces up to five years in prison and up to
US$250,000 in fines when he is sentenced in August 2007.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Pioneer Companies Faces "Premises" Suits in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Companies Inc. faces pending asbestos-related "premises
liability" lawsuits in Louisiana, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 15, 2007.

These premise liability cases allege exposure to asbestos-
containing materials by employees of third-party contractors or
subcontractors who allegedly performed services at the Company's
St. Gabriel, La. Facility.

The cases do not relate to any products made or sold by the
Company or any predecessor company.

The Company said it believes there are about 65 pending premises
liability suits, which allege or may allege exposure at the St.
Gabriel plant.

Most of these suits have multiple plaintiffs who make claims
against multiple defendants without providing reliable details
of where or when the claimants were exposed to asbestos.

Since most of these cases are in the preliminary stages, the
Company is unable to estimate a range of potential liability for
these cases at this time.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Pioneer Companies Inc.
700 Louisiana St., Ste. 4300
Houston, Tex. 77002
Phone: 713-570-3200
Fax: 713-225-6475
http://www.piona.com/

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2006 Sales (mil.):                US$525.7
1-Year Sales Growth:              1.9 percent
2006 Net Income (mil.):           US$67.2
1-Year Net Income Growth:         (4.4 percent)
2005 Employees:                   524

Description:
Pioneer Companies Inc. and its subsidiaries manufacture and
market chlorine, caustic soda, and related products. The Company
conducts its business through units: PCI Chemicals Canada Co.
and Pioneer Americas LLC.


ASBESTOS ALERT: DT Solutions Faces Removal Lawsuit in Md. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diversified Thermal Solutions Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, DT
Solutions Inc., faces an asbestos-related removal lawsuit filed
in the Circuit Court of Allegheny County, Md., according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2007.

First Capital Insulation Inc. filed the suit against DT
Solutions and Mt. Savage Firebrick Co. on Sept. 25, 2005.

DT Solutions entered into an agreement for the purchase of real
property from Mt. Savage Firebrick.

First Capital Insulation seeks about US$38,000 for its removal
and disposition of asbestos containing material from two brick
ovens.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, this matter had not been resolved.


COMPANY PROFILE

Diversified Thermal Solutions Inc.
4126 Delp St., Ste. 200
Memphis, Tenn.
Phone: 901-365-7650
Fax: 901-365-9617
http://www.dthermal.com

Description:
Diversified Thermal Solutions Inc. makes refractory products,
like clay and brick, for the linings of high-temperature
furnaces and reactors. Before the refractory business, the
Company was involved in providing international long distance
communications service.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDITED HOME: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action 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 common stock of Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Co. (LEND) between Nov. 1, 2005 and March 12,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Accredited and certain of the company's
executive officers 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
Accredited's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

Accredited and its subsidiaries operate as a mortgage banking
company in the U.S. and Canada, which originates, finances,
securitizes, services and sells "non-prime" or "sub-prime"
mortgage loans secured by residential real estate.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
knew but failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects, including that:

      (1) the company was improperly accounting for loan losses
          as conditions in the sub-prime industry deteriorated;

      (2) as a result, the company's financial statements were
          materially misstated;

      (3) the company's underwriting guidelines were not
          adequately restrictive for borrowers in the sub-prime
          loan market;

      (4) the company would be forced to further tighten its
          underwriting guidelines which would have a material
          impact on its future loan production;

      (5) the company was operating without effective risk
          management policies and procedures in place;

      (6) the company lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

      (7) for the foregoing reasons, the company's statements
          about its financial well-being and future business
          prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when
          made.

On Feb. 14, 2007, Accredited reported its financial and
operating results for the fourth quarter and year ended Dec. 31,
2006, emphasizing that it had "continued to increase reserve
balances" by increasing the company's total reserves by $42
million for the quarter, and was maintaining "strong liquidity."

Less than one month later, on March 12, 2007, Accredited shocked
investors when the company revealed that its cash resourses had
effectively been depleted, and that the company was now forced
to explore strategic options for continued survival.

The company further revealed for the first time that it had been
forced to pay approximately $190 million in margin calls since
Jan. 1, 2007, one-third of which had been received prior to the
company's Feb. 14, 2007 announcement.  The company further
revealed that it was forced to seek financial waivers and
extensions of the covenants it had made with its financial
lenders.

As a result of this news, analysts predicted that the company
could face liquidation and possible bankruptcy, causing
Accredited shares to decline $7.43 per share, or 65 percent, to
close on March 13, 2007 at $3.97 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP -- http://www.glancylaw.com-- 1801  
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 or
by e-mail to info@glancylaw.com.


ELI LILLY: Grant & Eisenhofer Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action was commenced in the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of
Eli Lilly and Co. (LLY) between March 28, 2002 and Dec. 22, 2006
inclusive.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for misrepresenting to
investors known adverse side-effects associated with the use of
Zyprexa, the company's best-selling drug and by failing to
disclose a systematic and illegal campaign by the company to
increase Zyprexa sales by marketing Zyprexa for unapproved, off-
label uses.

The complaint alleges that for over a decade, Eli Lilly knew of
links between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes.  In
addition, during the Class Period, the company engaged in a
scheme to market Zyprexa for uses that were not approved by the
FDA, in violation of FDA regulations that proscribed such
marketing.  Federal and state regulators have commenced lawsuits
against Lilly based on these marketing schemes and the company
has denied any wrongdoing.

During the Class Period, in the face of mounting independent
research connecting Zyprexa to diabetes and weight gain, and
lawsuits by persons who suffered these side-effects, Lilly
emphatically denied any such link.  Yet, as public agencies
raised warnings about the safety of Zyprexa, and Lilly settled
product liability lawsuits involving the drug, Lilly's stock
lost more than $30 billion in market value in connection with
the fraud.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is June 1, 2007.

For more information, contact Sharan Nirmul or Naumon A. Amjed,
at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North
Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, at 888-464-3529 or 302-622-
7000 or by e-mail at lawyers@gelaw.com.


NEW CENTURY: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the securities
of New Century Financial Corp. (OTC: NEWC.PK) during the period
from Feb. 3, 2005 through March 2, 2007.  The complaint extends
the existing class period from the originally filed actions.

The deadline to file a motion seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff is April 10, 2007.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued
numerous materially false and misleading statements concerning
New Century's profitability, underwriting standards, and
financial strength.

On Feb. 7, 2007, in contrast to the positive statements issued
throughout the Class Period, New Century announced that it would
restate its financial results because the company had:

     (1) failed to reserve adequately for all of the non-
         performing mortgages it was forced to repurchase; and

     (2) failed to account properly for the reduction in value
         of the mortgages repurchased.

On March 2, 2007, in a filing with the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission, the company stated that the Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors initiated its own independent
investigation concerning, among other things, "issues pertaining
to the company's valuation of residual interests in
securitizations in 2006 and prior periods."

Also on March 2, 2007, New Century stated that it was out of
compliance with debt covenants and that if it were unable to
reach agreements with all of its lenders, the company's auditor
will include an explanatory paragraph on the company's financial
statements indicating that substantial doubt exists as to the
company's ability to continue as a going concern.  On March 5,
2007, New Century's common stock dropped more than 60% to a low
of $5.25.

On April 2, 2007, New Century announced that it filed for
voluntary bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  New Century's common and preferred shares have been de-
listed from the New York Stock Exchange and now trade on the
over-the-counter market.  On April 4, 2007, New Century's common
stock closed at $1.00 per share.

For more information, contact Kevin McGee, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
at Zwerling Schachter -- http://www.zsz.com-- Phone: 1-800-721-  
3900, E-mail: kmcgee@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com.


US AUTO: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that
a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired the common stock of U.S. Auto Parts
Network, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRTS) pursuant to the company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus (the Registration
Statement) issued in connection with its Feb. 8, 2007 initial
public offering.

The complaint charges U.S. Auto Parts and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933.  U.S. Auto Parts is an online provider of
aftermarket auto parts, including body parts, engine parts,
performance parts and accessories.

The complaint alleges that on Feb. 8, 2007, U.S. Auto Parts
accomplished its IPO of 10 million shares at $10.00 per share
(including 8 million shares sold by U.S. Auto Parts and 2
million shares sold by stockholders, including certain of the
defendants) for net proceeds of $100 million, pursuant to the
false and misleading Registration Statement.  

The Registration Statement failed to disclose that U.S. Auto
Parts was having difficulty with its acquisition of PartsBin --
a company it acquired in May 2006 -- which would adversely
affect its fourth quarter 2006 and first quarter 2007 results.  
Due to defendants' positive but false statements, by March 2007
the stock was trading around $11 per share.

Then on March 20, 2007, after the market closed, U.S. Auto Parts
issued a press release announcing disappointing fourth quarter
2006 and year-end results.  On this news, U.S. Auto Parts' stock
price collapsed in one day from $11.07 per share on March 20,
2007 to close at $6.49 per share on March 21, 2007.

Allegedly, the true facts which were omitted from the
Registration Statement were:

     (a) the company was having difficulty with the integration
         of PartsBin due in large part to the different
         distribution methods utilized by U.S. Auto Parts and
         PartsBin to fill customer orders;

     (b) PartsBin was suffering from certain internal control
         deficiencies which caused or led to at least the
         following problems for U.S. Auto Parts:

         (i) the company was having trouble filling customer
             orders under its drop-ship distribution system and
             was required to issue credits to its customers for
             out-of-stock products that it had previously
             recorded as sales; and


        (ii) the products offered via the drop-ship distribution
             method generated lower product margins than the
             products offered under the stock-and-ship
             distribution method, which further eroded and would
             continue to erode U.S. Auto Parts' already
             suffering margins; and

     (c) the company had experienced a disastrous fourth quarter
         which would result in disappointing 2006 results.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired the common stock of U.S. Auto Parts
pursuant to the company's false and misleading Registration
Statement issued in connection with its Feb. 8, 2007 IPO.  The
plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience
in actions involving financial fraud.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins
of Lerach Coughlin (http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/usautoparts/)
at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
wsl@lerachlaw.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  * * *