CAR_Public/070427.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 83

                            Headlines


ACER INC: Recalls Lithium-Ion Batteries for Notebook Computers
AT&T INC: Calif., N.Y. Lawyers Sign Amicus Brief for "Hepting"
BIG LOTS: Awaits Final Approval of Calif. Labor Suit Settlement
BIG LOTS: Continues to Faces La. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Managers' Work Classification

CAFE LUNA: Former Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
CALIFORNIA: CJAC Urges "Swift Legislative Action" on AB 1505
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unlawful Tariffs Increase
DELPHI CORP: Judge Drain Grants OTRS' Motion to Lift Stay
DILLARDS INC: Settles ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio for $35M

DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Post-2007 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Lawsuit
DOLLAR TREE: Settles Calif. Suit Alleging Labor Code Violations
FJC SECURITY: Faces Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations in N.Y.
HUNTER'S VIEW: Expands Recall of Harness that Could Fail in Use

IRELAND: Drivers Union Wants Extensive Licensing Exam
JPMORGAN CHASE: IPO Underwriting Fees Suit in N.Y. Under Appeal
JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Cash Balance Lawsuit in Discovery
JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Interchange Fees Lawsuit in Discovery
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal $2.2B Settlement in "Newby"

JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Ark. Court Denies Motions in "Johnson" Litigation
KINDER MORGAN: Settlement of Suit Over Ohio Styrene Leak Okayed
KINDER MORGAN: No Hearing Set in Bravo Dome Landowners' Suit
LIFECARE HOLDINGS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in La.

MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Mulls Dismissal of "Decristofaro" Case
MILITARY HIGHWAY: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over Contaminated Water
NETELLER: Customers Plan to Sue to Free Frozen Funds
ONEOK INC: Settlement of Suit Over Northern Border Deals Okayed
ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Mulls Appeal in 2001 Gas Explosion Suits

ONEOK PARTNERS: Kans. Court Yet to Certify Price I, II Lawsuits
PMC INVESTIGATIONS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Labor Code Violations
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Minn. Labor Code Violations Suit
RANDGOLD & EXPLORATION: Suit Planned Over Merger with JCI
RUBIN MEMORIAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations in Fla.

SMARTPAK: Recalls Pet Food Possibly Contaminated with Melamine
TELSTRA CORP: G9's Broadband Proposal Could Spur Investor Suit
TOM ALLISON: Faces Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations in Fla.
VIRGINIA: Lawsuit Against Virginia Beach, SPSA on Hold
WELLS FARGO: Settles ACORN's Unfair Trade Practices Suit in Cal.

WHITNEY CANADA: Real Estate Investors to File Suit in Quebec
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's Claims Settlement Totals $565M in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Liability Totals $647.1M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $860.1M Recoverable in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victims Seek JPY206M in Suit v. Japan Govt.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Japanese Victim Qualifies for Relief

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Seeks Husband's Coworkers to Win Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oregon Appeal Court Favors Shipping Firms  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.249B Liabilities in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $953M NARCO Receivable in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 56,037 Bendix Claims in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Have $1.806B Liability in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MassDEP Issues $133,425 Penalty for Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arkansas Hospital Cleanup Could Cost $600T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $442.88M Liability in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Finds Hazards at New York Condominium

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Pipes Still Used in Indian State
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Woman Wins Damages for Childhood Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Bar PD Claims' Modification
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Mont.'s Request in Grace Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Plaintiffs Appeal in Jones Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradley Case Remanded in Plaintiff's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records 85,884 Pending Claims in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $21.1M Costs for Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aapex Contests OSHA's $57T Cleanup Penalty

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in New York Elementary School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Exxon in Altimore Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois' Liabilities Drop to $497.7M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace's Liability Stays at $1.7B in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $569M for Litigation in 1Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Liability Stays at $512.5M in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim Seeks Up to GBP800T from Shipbuilder
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Files Suit v. 47 Companies in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dumped at Australian Town Landfill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Satterfield Action


                            *********


ACER INC: Recalls Lithium-Ion Batteries for Notebook Computers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acer Inc., of Taiwan, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,000 units of
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries containing Sony Energy
Devices Corp.-made cells used in Acer notebook computers.

The company said the lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing
a fire hazard to consumers.

As announced previously, there have been 16 reports of notebook
batteries overheating.  These reports were associated with
earlier recalls by other notebook computer manufacturers of
batteries containing these Sony cells.  These previous reports
involved only minor property damage and two minor burns.  None
of these reports involved batteries in Acer notebook computers.

These recalled rechargeable lithium-ion batteries were
manufactured in China and Taiwan and were imported by Acer
America Corp., of San Jose, California.  These recalled
batteries are being sold through authorized electronics
retailers nationwide from May 2004 through November 2006 for
between $500 and $1,500.

Pictures of recalled rechargeable lithium-ion batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07167a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07167b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled batteries
immediately and contact Acer to receive a free replacement
battery.  Consumers can continue to use the notebook computers
safely by turning the system off, removing the battery, and
using the AC adapter and power cord to power the system until
the replacement battery is received.

For assistance in determining if their battery packs are covered
by this program and to request a free replacement battery pack,
consumers can visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.acerbatteryrecall.com/AcerWeb.

Consumers can also contact Acer toll-free at (800) 503-2330
anytime.


AT&T INC: Calif., N.Y. Lawyers Sign Amicus Brief for "Hepting"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Members of The Los Angeles County Bar Association have voted
unanimously to sign an amicus brief in support of a suit filed
against AT&T Corp. and its holding company, AT&T Inc. for
allegedly collaborating with the National Security Agency on
illegal spying in ordinary Americans, the Metropolitan News-
Enterprise reports.

The Beverly Hills Bar Association and Bar Association of San
Francisco have already signed onto the amicus brief, the report
said.

The 9th Circuit in November agreed to hear an interlocutory
appeal of a ruling by Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker to deny a
motion by the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss the suit on
state secrets privilege.

The brief urges the 9th Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
allow the class action.  It was drafted by the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York on behalf of the plaintiffs in
"Hepting v. AT&T Corp."

The brief argues that the surveillance program will "chill"
attorney-client communications that is supposedly protected by
the constitution.  

A first amended complaint filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:    

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution     
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by     
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or     
        using plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence    
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by     
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of     
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;    

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control     
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101     
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act     
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and     
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using     
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of    
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized     
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'     
        communications;    

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored     
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)     
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of     
        plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended     
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18     
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records     
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental     
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal     
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,     
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.    

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.    

Since the filing of this complaint, 20 additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.     

All 21 pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court, namely the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California, before the judge
presiding over the Hepting case.   The case is consolidated as:   
"In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records   
Litigation, MDL-1791."  

Representing the plaintiffs are:           

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454     
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-    
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:     
         cindy@eff.org; and     

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman     
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San     
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-     
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.          

Representing the defendants are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.          
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont          
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:          
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:          
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and  
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Final Approval of Calif. Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has yet to issue an order granting final
approval to a tentative settlement between Big Lots, Inc., and
the plaintiff in a class action alleging violations by the
company of certain California wage and hour laws.

In October 2005, a class action complaint was served upon the
company for adjudication in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Ventura.  The suit alleged that the
company had violated certain California wage and hour laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged
unpaid wages and rest and meal period compensation, as well as
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

In the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, the company and the
plaintiff reached a tentative settlement of the California
matter.  On Nov. 6, 2006, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the tentative settlement.

The tentative settlement remains subject to acceptance by the
class and final court approval.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Big Lots, Inc. on the Net: http://www.biglots.com/.  


BIG LOTS: Continues to Faces La. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative collective
action alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
misclassifying assistant managers as exempt.

The civil putative collective action complaint was filed on
November 2004 against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying a class of all current and former assistant store
managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001.  

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to
the Louisiana matter.

As of Feb. 3, 2007, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined
the matter, according to the company's April 3, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

The Louisiana case is "Johnson, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance
with referral to Judge Sally Shushan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Philip Bohrer of Bohrer Law Firm,
8712 Jefferson Hwy, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-
925-5297, E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Dominic J. Ovella of Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, One Galleria Blvd., P.O. Box
8288, Suite 1400, Metairie, LA 70011-8288, Phone: 504-836-6500,
E-mail: novella@hmhlp.com.


BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Managers' Work Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed in September against Big Lots
Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles.

The suit alleged that the company had violated certain
California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store
managers as exempt.  

Plaintiff seeks to recover, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination,
improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal
periods, reimbursement of expenses and loss of unused vacation
time.

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Big Lots, Inc. on the Net: http://www.biglots.com/.


CAFE LUNA: Former Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cafe Luna Rosa, Inc. is facing a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging
Labor Code violations, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiff Rose Joseph, a Cafe Luna Rosa employee, brings
this action on behalf of herself and other current and former
employees Cafe Luna Rosa similarly situated to her for overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

This action is brought to recover from defendant overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.

Plaintiffs in this action are defendant's non-exempt employees
who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks
on or after April 2004 and who allegedly did not receive any
time-and-a-half wages for all of their overtime hours worked.

Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
in one or more work weeks during her employment with Cafe Luna.  
However, defendant did not pay time and a half wages for all of
the overtime hours worked by plaintiff and the other employees
similarly situated to her.

The plaintiff claims she and others are entitled to liquidated
damages.

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to her who have or will
opt into this action, demand judgment against Cafe Luna Rosa for
the payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half their
regular rate of pay due them for the hours worked by them for
which they have not been properly compensated, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and
such further relief that the court deems just and appropriate.

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

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

The suit is "Joseph v. Cafe Luna Rosa, Inc., Case No. 9:07-cv-
80361-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

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


CALIFORNIA: CJAC Urges "Swift Legislative Action" on AB 1505
------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil Justice Association of California urged swift
legislative action on a bill that it believes will bring much-
needed clarity to the complex and costly world of class actions.

Introduced this month, the bill (AB 1505) is intended to give
judges clear statutory rules for handling these cases and
greatly reduce the legal uncertainty that makes these lawsuits
expensive and time-consuming.

According to John H. Sullivan, president of CJAC, "Imagine the
DMV passing out handbooks written for horse and buggy driving.  
That's the status of California's statutes governing class
actions."

Mr. Sullivan also said, "This bill will stop the game playing
going on because of the uncertainty of current class action case
law, and it will protect the class action remedy for people's
important rights."

Commenting on the proposal, its author Assemblywoman Nicole
Parra said, "It is critical that our judges have clear rules
when it comes to handling class actions, just as judges do at
the federal level.  This bill brings California up to date with
the rest of the nation."

She added, "Ultimately consumers and taxpayers will benefit from
the reforms in AB 1505.  A more efficient legal system means
lower costs for products and services and less crowded
courtrooms."

Assembly Bill 1505 will help curb California's jackpot justice
system by bringing together many of the well-developed and
tested rules for federal class actions with processes the
state's own judges have developed for handling complex cases in
their courtrooms.

The Civil Justice Association of California on the Net:
http://www.cjac.org/.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unlawful Tariffs Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. was informed that a lawsuit and a request
for certification of the lawsuit as a class action have been
filed against the company in the District Court of Tel-Aviv.

The plaintiffs, claiming to be subscribers of the defendants,
contend that the company raised its tariffs unlawfully and in
violation of its license, in pricing plans that include a
commitment to purchase certain services for a fixed period.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately
$57.55 million.

The company hasn't yet been served, as required by law, with the
lawsuit and request to certify it as class action.

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

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


DELPHI CORP: Judge Drain Grants OTRS' Motion to Lift Stay
---------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Robert Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York lifts, in part, an automatic stay with
respect to the Securities Litigation initiated by the Teachers'
Retirement System of Oklahoma and other entities against, among
others, the company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Judge Drain directs the company to produce to the Lead
Plaintiffs the approximately 576,000 pages of responsive
documents they have previously produced to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The company will not produce any document under which they
assert any privilege or attorney work product protection absent
further Bankruptcy Court order, Judge Drain clarifies.  The
company, however, must provide the Lead Plaintiffs with a
privilege log for those withheld documents.

Judge Drain permits the Lead Plaintiffs to use the produced
documents for any purpose, provided that they may not use the
documents for pleading purposes until after the District Court
(i) rules on the pending motions to dismiss filed in the
Securities Litigation; or (ii) defers the Motions to Dismiss and
permits the Lead Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint and use the
Documents.

The Bankruptcy Court indefinitely adjourns ruling on the Lead
Plaintiff's remaining requests pending a District Court verdict
on the unresolved motions to dismiss that will further lift the
stay under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The company may supplement their objection to the Lift-Stay
Motion and object to other lift-stay motions filed by the Lead
Plaintiffs in the Bankruptcy Court so long as they are
consistent with the Bankruptcy Court's Order.

Troy, Mich.-based Delphi Corporation (OTC: DPHIQ) --
http://www.delphi.com/-- is the single largest global supplier  
of vehicle electronics, transportation components, integrated
systems and modules, and other electronic technology.  The
company's technology and products are present in more than 75
million vehicles on the road worldwide.  The company filed for
chapter 11 protection on Oct. 8, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case
No. 05-44481).


DILLARDS INC: Settles ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio for $35M
------------------------------------------------------------
Dillards, Inc. entered into an agreement to settle for $35.0
million a purported class action filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio alleging violations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Filed in 2000, the suit also names as defendants the Mercantile
Stores Pension Plan and the Mercantile Stores Pension Committee
and was filed on behalf of a putative class of former Plan
participants.  

The complaint alleges that certain actions by the Plan and the
Committee violated the ERISA of 1974, as amended, as a result of
amendments made to the Plan that allegedly were either improper
and/or ineffective and as a result of certain payments made to
certain beneficiaries of the Plan that allegedly were improperly
calculated and/or discriminatory on account of age.  

The second amended complaint does not specify any liquidated
amount of damages sought and seeks recalculation of certain
benefits paid to putative class members.  

During the year ended Feb. 3, 2007, the company signed a
memorandum of understanding for $35.0 million to settle the case
and, accordingly, accrued an additional $21.7 million ($13.6
million after tax or $0.17 per diluted share) regarding the case
in trade accounts payable and accrued expenses.  

The settlement is still pending court approval, according to the
company's April 3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

The suit is "Christnacht, et al. v. Dillards Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:00-cv-00488-SSB-JS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Stanley Morris Chesley and
Terrence Lee Goodman, Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA
1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-621-0267, E-mail:
stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc, or terrygoodman@wsbclaw.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Michael Devanney Eagen and Gregory Alan Harrison of
         Dinsmore & Shohl - 1, 1900 Chemed Center 255 E 5th
         Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-977-8200,
         E-mail: michael.eagen@dinslaw.com or
         greg.harrison@dinslaw.com; and
     
     (2) Gina Marie Saelinger of Ulmer & Berne LLP, 600 Vine
         St., Suite 2800, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-977-
         8200, Fax: 513-977-8141, E-mail: gsaelinger@ulmer.com.


DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in California state court, alleging wage and
hourly violations.

In 2003, the company was were served with the lawsuit, which was
filed by a former employee who alleged that employees did not
properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods,
along with other alleged wage and hourly violations.

The suit requested that the California state court certify the
case as a class action.  It was dismissed with prejudice in May
2005, and the dismissal was appealed.  

A California appeals court granted the appeal and its petition
for review to the California Supreme Court was denied.  

The case has been remanded to the trial court where it will
likely be consolidated with a companion suit, which had been
filed in the same court following the trial court's earlier
dismissal.

The company anticipates that the plaintiff will seek class
certification, which the company will oppose, according to the
company's April 3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. on the Net: http://www.dollartree.com/.


DOLLAR TREE: Post-2007 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is expecting a post-2007 trial for a
purported class action filed by its former employees in Oregon,
alleging that they did not properly receive sufficient meal
breaks and paid rest periods.

In 2005, the company was served with the lawsuit, which also
alleges other wage and hour violations.  

Plaintiffs requested the court to certify classes for their
various claims and the presiding judge did so with respect to
two classes, one alleging that the company's Oregon employees,
in violation of that state's labor laws, were not paid for rest
breaks and the other that upon termination of employment,
employees were not tendered their final pay in a timely manner.

Other claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed by an earlier
order of the court and are being appealed by the plaintiffs.

Discovery will ensue on the certified class issues, but no trial
is anticipated before the end of 2007, according to the
company's April 3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. on the Net: http://www.dollartree.com/.


DOLLAR TREE: Settles Calif. Suit Alleging Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. reached a settlement for a purported
class action pending in a California state court alleging
violations of the state's labor code.

In 2006, the company was served with the lawsuit filed by a
former employee specifically alleging:

      -- that she was paid for wages with a check drawn on a
         bank which did not have any branches in the state, an
         alleged violation of the state's labor code;

      -- that she was paid less for her work than other similar
         employees with the same job title based on her gender;
         and

      -- that the company did not pay her final wages in a
         timely manner, also an alleged violation of the labor
         code.

The plaintiff requested the court to certify the case as a class
action.  

The company has been successful in removing the case from state
to the federal court level.

Parties have reached a settlement and executed an agreement,
which is pending court approval, according to the company's
April 3, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. on the Net: http://www.dollartree.com/.


FJC SECURITY: Faces Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FJC Security Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging Labor Code violations, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Lead plaintiff Dwayne Mauney, employed as a security guard by
FJC Security Services, brings this claim on behalf of all
persons employed by defendant at any time since April 19, 2001,
to the entry of judgment in this case, who were non-exempt
employees within the meaning of the New York Labor Law and have
not been paid regular wages and overtime wages in violation of
the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Mauney claims he often worked in excess of 40 hours a week,
yet defendant willfully failed to pay him any compensation for
all the hours worked by him as well as overtime compensation of
one and one-half times his regular hourly rate, and for an extra
hour in each day worked over ten hours, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor regulations.

The complaint alleges that upon information and belief,
throughout all relevant time periods and during the course of
plaintiffs' own employment and while defendant employed
plaintiffs and the collective action members, defendants failed
to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage and
overtime pay rights provided by the FLSA.

Mr. Mauney asserts, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated current ad former employees of the defendant who elect
to opt into this action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), that they are:

     (i) entitled to unpaid wages from defendant for overtime
         work for which they did not receive overtime premium
         pay, as required by law; and

    (ii) entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29
         U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.

Questions of law and fact that the suit raises are:

     (a) whether the defendant employed the collective action
         members within the meaning of the FLSA;

     (b) whether the defendant failed to keep true and accurate
         time records for all hours worked by plaintiffs and the
         collective action members;

     (c) what proof of hours worked is sufficient where the           
         employer fails in its duty to maintain time records;

     (d) whether defendants failed to post or keep posted a
         notice explaining the minimum wages and overtime pay
         rights provided by the FLSA in any area where
         plaintiffs are employed, in violation of CFR Section
         516.4;

     (e) whether defendant failed to pay the collective action
         members overtime compensation for hours worked in
         excess of forty hours per workweek, in violation of the
         FLSA and the regulations promulgated thereunder;

     (f) whether defendant's violations of the FLSA are willful
         as that term is used within the context of the FLSA;

     (g) whether defendant is liable for all damages claimed,
         including but not limited to compensatory, punitive and
         statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements
         and attorneys' fees; and

     (h) whether defendant should be enjoined from such
         violations of the FLSA in the future.

Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
collective action members and members of the class, respectfully
request that the court grant the following relief:

     -- certification this action as a class action pursuant to
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the
        members of the class and appointing plaintiff and his
        counsel to represent the class;

     -- an order tolling the statute of limitations;

     -- designation of this action as a collective action on
        behalf of the collective action members and prompt
        issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
        to all similarly situated members of an FLSA Opt-In
        Class, apprising them of the pendency of this action,
        permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this
        action by filing individual Consents to Sue pursuant to
        29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and appointing plaintiffs and
        their counsel to represent the collective action
        members;

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
        herein are unlawful under the FLSA and the New York
        Labor Law;

     -- an injunction against the defendant and its officers,
        agents, successors, employees, representatives and any
        and all persons acting in concert with it, as provided
        by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,
        policies and patterns set forth in the complaint;

     -- an award of wages and unpaid overtime compensation due
        under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law;

     -- an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a
        result of the defendant's willful failure to pay
        overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216;

     -- an award of prejudgment and postjudgment interests;

     -- an award of costs and expenses of this action together
        with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and

     -- such other and further relief as this court deems just
        and proper.

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

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

The suit is "Mauney v. FJC Security Services, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-01638-CBA-RML," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Carol B. Amon with
referral to Judge Robert M. Levy.

Representing plaintiffs is William C. Rand of the Law Office of
William Coudert Rand, 711 3rd Avenue, Suite 1505, New York, NY
10017, Phone: 212-286-1425, Fax: 212-599-7909, E-mail:
wcrand@wcrand.com.


HUNTER'S VIEW: Expands Recall of Harness that Could Fail in Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter's View, of Peoria, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 200,000
additional safety harnesses sold with tree stands and harnesses
provided as replacements.  About 500,000 were recalled in April
2005.

The company said the harnesses could fail during use, resulting
in a hunter falling from the tree stand and suffering serious
injuries or death.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves all 2004 and 2005 model year Fall Arrest
Systems, or harnesses with "Model Year 2004" or "Model Year
2005" printed on a white Hunter's View label attached to the
harness or the tree strap.  The recall includes all model number
harnesses sold during these years.  The recall also includes
replacement harnesses provided to consumers as a result of the
previous recall.

These recalled harnesses were manufactured in China and are
being sold by hunting and sporting good stores nationwide
beginning in January 2004 for between $30 and $300.

Pictures of recalled safety harnesses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07160a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07160b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these harnesses immediately
and contact Hunter's View to receive a free replacement harness.  
Consumers who previously participated in this recall are being
directly contacted about this recall.  As an alternative to the
free replacement harness, the firm also is offering an upgraded
harness at a reduced cost.

For more information, contact Hunter's View at (888) 878-0440
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
their Web site: http://www.huntersview.com


IRELAND: Drivers Union Wants Extensive Licensing Exam
-----------------------------------------------------
The National Taxi Drivers Union made donations to pay for a
legal team to explore a possible class action that would
challenge state legislation regulating the taxi industry, Sunday
Business Post reported.

Union president Tommy Gorman said Limerick solicitor McMahon
O'Brien Downes had been hired to examine a possible case on the
grounds that 1978 laws, which regulated the industry were
unconstitutional.  He has called for the Public Service Vehicle
license exam to be made more extensive to better equip foreign
and Irish drivers with knowledge regarding their work.

The Commission for Taxi Regulation has received 285 complaints
about taxi drivers since it was set up last September.  Most of
them concerned overcharging, driver conduct, car cleanliness and
problems with bookings, according to the report.


JPMORGAN CHASE: IPO Underwriting Fees Suit in N.Y. Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is considering an
appeal against the denial of class-action status to an antitrust
lawsuit against a unit of JPMorgan Chase & Co.

A wholly separate antitrust class action on behalf of purported
classes of IPO issuers and investors alleging that certain
underwriters, including JPMorgan Securities, conspired to fix
their underwriting fees in IPOs is in discovery.

On April 18, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied class certification as to the issuer
plaintiffs.

The denial of class certification has been appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, according to the company's
March 1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. on the Net: http://www.jpmorgan.com/.


JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Cash Balance Lawsuit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery as to notice claims is ongoing in the purported
class action, "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation,"
which was filed in the District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The putative consolidated class action names the JPMorgan Chase
Retirement Plan (together with the predecessor plans of the
JPMorgan Chase & Co. predecessor companies, the "Plans") and the
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Director of Human Resources as
defendants.  

Current and former participants in the Plans filed in the suit,
alleging various claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Plaintiffs' claims are based upon alleged violations of ERISA
arising from the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula
under the Plans to calculate participants' pension benefits.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that:

      -- the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula
         under the Plans violated ERISA's proscription against
         age discrimination (age discrimination claim);

      -- the conversion to a cash balance formula violated
         ERISA's proscriptions against the backloading of
         pension benefits and created an impermissible
         forfeiture of accrued benefits (backloading and
         forfeiture claims); and

      -- defendants failed to adequately communicate to Plan
         participants the conversion to a cash balance formula
         and in general the nature of the Plan (notice claims).

In October 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the firm's motion to dismiss the age
discrimination and notice claims, but granted the firm's motion
to dismiss the backloading and forfeiture claims.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is fully briefed and
remains pending with the court.  

Fact discovery is ongoing, but only as to the notice claims,
according to the company's March 1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.  Discovery as to the age discrimination claims
has been temporarily stayed, pending resolution of a similar
case that is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. on the Net: http://www.jpmorgan.com/.


JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Interchange Fees Lawsuit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated antitrust class action
over "interchange fees" that names JPMorgan Chase & Co., as one
of the defendants.

On June 22, 2005, a group of merchants filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that VISA, MasterCard, Chase Bank USA,
N.A. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as certain other banks,
and their respective bank holding companies, conspired to set
the price of interchange in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  It further alleges tying/bundling and exclusive
dealing.

Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints
have been filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging
the setting of interchange, as well the associations' respective
rules.

All cases have been consolidated in the Eastern District of New
York for pretrial proceedings.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on April 24, 2006.  

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss all claims that
predate Jan. 1, 2004.  The motion has not yet been decided.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a supplemental complaint
challenging MasterCard's initial public offering in 2006,
alleging that the offering violates the Section 7 of the Clayton
Act and that the offering was a fraudulent conveyance.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both of those claims.  The
motion has not yet been decided.

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's March 1, 2007
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. on the Net: http://www.jpmorgan.com/.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal $2.2B Settlement in "Newby"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The $2,200,000,000 settlement by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in the
lead securities fraud class action arising out of its banking
relationships with Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries has been
appealed.

The company and certain of its officers and directors were
originally involved in a number of lawsuits arising out of its
relationships to Enron.

Several actions and other proceedings against the company have
been resolved, including adversary proceedings brought by
Enron's bankruptcy estate.

In addition, as previously reported, the company has reached an
agreement to settle the lead class action litigation brought on
behalf of the purchasers of Enron securities, captioned, "Newby
v. Enron Corp.," for $2.2 billion (pretax).

On May 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas approved a settlement in the Newby action, and
entered an order of final judgment and dismissal as to the
JPMorgan Chase defendants.

Certain plaintiffs have appealed this final judgment to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and one such appeal
remains pending, according to the company's March 1, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., Case No.
4:01-cv-03624," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of a purported class
action that alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act against JPMorgan Chase & Co. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

A putative class action on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees
who participated in the firm's 401(k) plan alleged claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties and negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its
directors and named officers.

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and ordered some of plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

In September 2005, the Firm moved for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of this ERISA lawsuit in its entirety and, in
September 2006, the court granted summary judgment in part, and
ordered plaintiffs to show cause as to why the remaining claims
should not be dismissed.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the court dismissed the litigation with
prejudice.  On Dec. 29, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal, which is pending, according to the company's March 1,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. on the Net: http://www.jpmorgan.com/.


KINDER MORGAN: Ark. Court Denies Motions in "Johnson" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Miller County, Arkansas denied motions
arguing that the Arkansas courts lack personal jurisdiction in
the class action, "Weldon Johnson and Guy Sparks, et al. v.
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et al., No. 04-327-2," which names
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and several other firms
including its subsidiaries as defendants.

The parties have recently concluded jurisdictional discovery and
various defendants have filed motions arguing that the Arkansas
courts lack personal jurisdiction over them.  

The court denied these motions,



The suit was filed on Oct. 8, 2004.  It includes as defendants
the company and:

     -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.;
     -- Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.;
     -- KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.;
     -- Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC;
     -- Tejas Gas, LLC;
     -- Midcon Corp.; and
     -- CenterPoint Energy, Inc.

The complaint was served on the Kinder Morgan defendants on Oct.
21, 2004.  It purports to bring a class action on behalf of
those who purchased natural gas from the defendants from Oct. 1,
1994 to the date of class certification.

It alleges that CenterPoint by and through its affiliates has
artificially inflated the price charged to residential consumers
for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from the non-
CenterPoint defendants.

The complaint further alleges that in exchange for CenterPoint's
purchase of such natural gas at above market prices, the non-
CenterPoint defendants sell natural gas to CenterPoint's non-
regulated affiliates at prices substantially below market, which
in turn sells such natural gas to commercial and industrial
consumers and gas marketers at market price.

The complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful
enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants,
and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 18, 2004, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Case No.
04-4154.  On Jan. 26, 2005, the plaintiffs moved to remand the
case back to state court, which motion was granted on June 2,
2005.

The parties have recently concluded jurisdictional discovery and
various defendants have filed motions arguing that the Arkansas
courts lack personal jurisdiction over them.  

The court denied these motions, according to the company's March
1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. on the Net: http://www.kindermorgan.com/.


KINDER MORGAN: Settlement of Suit Over Ohio Styrene Leak Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio approved a
proposed $2 million settlement in a consolidated class action
filed against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and certain of
its subsidiaries as well as other firms, over a styrene gas leak
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
  
On Aug. 28, 2005, a railcar containing the chemical styrene
began leaking styrene gas in Cincinnati, Ohio while en route to
a terminal operated by Queen City.  The railcar was sent by the
Westlake Chemical Corp. from Louisiana, transported by Indiana &
Ohio Railway, and consigned to Westlake at its dedicated storage
tank at the Queen City terminal.  

The railcar leak resulted in the evacuation of many residents
and the alleged temporary closure of several businesses in the
Cincinnati area.  Within three weeks of the incident, seven
separate class action complaints were filed in the Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas, including case numbers: A0507115,
A0507120, A0507121, A0507149, A0507322, A0507332, and A0507913.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court consolidated the complaints under
consolidated case number A0507913.  Concurrently, 13 designated
class representatives filed a Master Class Action Complaint in
the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, case number A0507105
against:

     -- Westlake Chemical Corp.;
     -- Indiana and Ohio Railway Corp.;
     -- Queen City Terminals, Inc.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC;,
     -- Kinder Morgan GP, Inc.; and
     -- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.

The complaint alleged negligence, absolute nuisance, nuisance,
trespass, negligence per se, and strict liability against all
defendants stemming from the styrene leak.  It sought
compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, punitive damages, pre
and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees.

The claims against the Indiana and Ohio Railway and Westlake are
based generally on an alleged failure to deliver the railcar in
a timely manner, which allegedly caused the styrene to become
unstable and leak from the railcar.  The plaintiffs alleged that
The Kinder Morgan had a legal duty to monitor the movement of
the railcar en route to its terminal and guarantee it's timely
arrival in a safe and stable condition.

On Oct. 28, 2005, Kinder Morgan filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  On Dec. 1, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  On Dec. 12,
2005, Kinder Morgan filed a motion for an extension of time to
respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in order
to conduct discovery regarding class certification.  

On Feb. 10, 2006, the court granted the company's motion for
additional time to conduct class discovery.

In June 2006, the parties reached an agreement to partially
settle the class action.  On June 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed
an unopposed motion for conditional certification of a
settlement class.

The settlement provides for a fund of $2.0 million to distribute
to residents within the evacuation zone (Zone 1) and residents
immediately adjacent to the evacuation zone (Zone 2).  Persons
in Zones 1 and 2 reside within approximately one mile from the
site of the incident.

The court preliminarily approved the partial class action
settlement on July 7, 2006.  The company agreed to participate
in and fund a minor percentage of the settlement.

A fairness hearing occurred on Aug. 18, 2006 for the purpose of
establishing final approval of the partial settlement.  The
Court approved the settlement, entered a final judgment, and
certified a settlement class for Zones 1 and 2, according to the
company's March 1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. on the Net: http://www.kindermorgan.com/.


KINDER MORGAN: No Hearing Set in Bravo Dome Landowners' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Supreme Court has yet to schedule a date for oral
arguments in a purported class action filed by J. Casper
Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro Ltd. against
Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P.

The suit, No. 04-26-CL., was filed individually and on behalf of
all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the
Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico.

This case -- originally filed in the 8th Judicial District
Court, Union County New Mexico -- involves a purported class
action against Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P. alleging that it has
failed to pay the full royalty and overriding royalty (royalty
interests) on the true and proper settlement value of compressed
carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit in the period
beginning Jan. 1, 2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the U.S. of America, and those private royalty interests that
are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

Plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class previously
certified as a class action by the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico in the matter, "Doris Feerer, et al. v.
Amoco Production Co., et al., Case No. 95-0012."

Plaintiffs also allege that Kinder Morgan CO2 Co.'s method of
paying royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of
"Feerer."

Kinder Morgan CO2 Co. has filed a motion to compel arbitration
of this matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained
in the Feerer suit settlement agreement, which motion was denied
by the trial court.

Kinder Morgan appealed that ruling to the New Mexico Court of
Appeals.  Oral arguments took place before the New Mexico Court
of Appeals on March 23, 2006, and it affirmed the district
court's order on Aug. 8, 2006.

Kinder Morgan filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the New
Mexico Supreme Court.  The New Mexico Supreme Court granted the
petition on Oct. 11, 2006.  Kinder Morgan filed its Brief in
Chief in the New Mexico Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 2006.

No oral argument has been set, according to the company's March
1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. on the Net: http://www.kindermorgan.com/.


LIFECARE HOLDINGS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeCare Holdings, Inc. has been named as a defendant in various
civil lawsuits and actions filed with the Louisiana Patient
Compensation Fund by former patients at Memorial Medical Center
who allege damages as a result of injuries sustained during
Hurricane Katrina.

Tenet Healthsystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., the company's
former landlord, is also named as a defendant in these actions.

In one of these cases, plaintiffs' counsel is seeking class
action certification to represent other individuals who were
also patients or present at Memorial Medical Center at the time
of Hurricane Katrina.

In addition to disputing the merits of the allegations in these
suits, the company believes that certification of a class in
these actions is not appropriate and that each of these cases
should be adjudicated independently, according to the company's
April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Mulls Dismissal of "Decristofaro" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri has yet to rule on a
motion to dismiss a purported stockholder class action filed
against The May Department Stores Co., which was acquired by
Federated Department Stores, Inc.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former May
stockholder, filed a purported class action on behalf of all
former May stockholders against May and the former members of
the board of directors of May.  

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith
and candor to May stockholders in connection with the merger.

On Aug. 30, 2005, pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger,
dated as of Feb. 27, 2005, by and among Federated, The May
Department Stores Co., and Milan Acquisition LLC (a subsidiary
of Federated), May merged with and into Milan Acquisition LLC.  
As a result of the merger, May's separate corporate existence
was terminated.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit upon
which the court has not yet ruled.

Federated Department reported no development in the matter in
its April 4, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Federated Department Stores, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.federated-fds.com/.


MILITARY HIGHWAY: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over Contaminated Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
Military Highway Water Supply Corp. (MHWSC) faces a purported
class action in Texas over alleged arsenic contamination in
drinking water, Allen Essex of The Valley Morning Star reports.

The suit was filed by about 300 plaintiffs claiming that
arsenic-contaminated drinking water has caused illnesses and has
forced mostly low-income rural residents to buy bottled water
and seek medical care and mental health services.

Specifically, the suit claims that the utility and state health
officials have told customers that although arsenic has been
detected in drinking water, there are no immediate health
threats.  However, the assurances seem ominous, the suit states.

Assurances from water district officials that new equipment will
be added in the future that would eventually lower arsenic
levels found in water from MHWSC's wells are not sufficient and
residents are very worried about the health of their families,
especially young children, the suit states.  

According to the suit, customers believe water district
officials have concealed the contamination problem from them.

It also adds "The fear of what other problems may have been
hidden from them and what adverse effects may surface in the
future have caused great mental anguish for many members of the
class."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensation for health care,
psychiatric care, costs of purchasing purified drinking water,
temporary housing, lost earnings, property value loss and cost
of future monitoring and prevention.


NETELLER: Customers Plan to Sue to Free Frozen Funds
----------------------------------------------------
Reports that came out in March say customers of online gambling
firm NETeller are planning a class action to recover funds
frozen by the firm after its founders were arrested in January.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. detained Stephen
Lawrence and John Lefebrve in January on charges of money
laundering.  The U.S. Department of Justice then seized funds
after the arrests.  A separate $55 million was seized largely in
the process of being transferred into American accounts,
according to manxradio.  Customers were left being owed between
$1,000 and $10,000.

A discussion group 'NETeller Customer Coalition' based on Yahoo!
has been set up to explore legal options.  According to
manxradio, the coalition is "aware of a clause in NETeller's
Terms of Service that forbids a class action [], but also note
that if NETeller has itself breached the terms of its own ToS,
then the door has been opened to this type of action.  Any such
case, of course, would likely involve a filing in the Isle of
Man [in the Irish Sea], NETeller's official residence of
incorporation."

The company has signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York to come up with a
plan to return the funds to U.S. customers.

The case against NETeller's founders is set to go to court on
May 16, according to reports.


ONEOK INC: Settlement of Suit Over Northern Border Deals Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County approved a proposed settlement in the purported
class action, "Richard Manson v. Northern Plains Natural Gas
Co., LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1973-N," which names ONEOK,
Inc. and some of its affiliates as defendants.

On March 2, 2006, a holder of limited partnership units of
Northern Border Partners, L.P. filed the complaint on behalf of
a putative class of all holders of Northern Border limited
partnership units against Northern Border, TransCanada Corp.,
the company and some of its affiliates, and the individual
members of the Policy Committee of Northern Border.

The plaintiff claims that the transactions the company announced
on Feb. 15, 2006, including the sale of some of its assets to
Northern Border, an increase of the company's general partner
interest in Northern Border to 100 percent and the sale by
Northern Border of 20 percent of its interest in Northern Border
Pipeline Co. to TC PipeLines, LP, will constitute a breach of
Northern Border's partnership agreement and a breach of
defendants' fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff sought to enjoin the transactions or to rescind them
if the transactions are completed prior to entry of a final
judgment in the case.  

He also sought to recover damages on behalf of the class for the
profits and any special benefits obtained by the defendants, as
well as interest, costs, attorneys' fees and expert fees.

On Dec. 1, 2006, a stipulation of settlement was filed with the
court.  The principal terms of the settlement are:

      -- a reduction in the distribution premium on ONEOK-owned
         units from 115 percent to 110 percent if the vote on
         the unit conversion and partnership amendment fail;

      -- a reduction of the distribution premium on ONEOK-owned
         units from 125 percent to 123.5 percent if the vote on
         the unit conversions and partnership amendment fail and
         ONEOK or its subsidiary is later removed as general
         partner; and

      -- the defendants would not object to an attorney fee
         award of $2,500,000 or less and expenses of not more
         than $50,000.  

Notice of the settlement was mailed to the common unit holders
of ONEOK Partners on Dec. 4, 2006.  

The fairness hearing on the settlement was held on Jan. 18,
2007, in Georgetown, Delaware pursuant to which the Chancery
Court entered an order and final judgment approving the
settlement and awarding plaintiff's attorney a $2,500,000
attorney fee and up to $50,000 in costs, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

ONEOK, Inc. on the Net http://www.oneok.com/.


ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Mulls Appeal in 2001 Gas Explosion Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas Supreme Court has yet to rule on an appeal in two
separate class actions filed against by owners of residential
real estate in Reno County, Kansas against ONEOK, Inc. and
several of its subsidiaries in early 2001 relating to certain
gas explosions in Hutchinson, Kansas.  

One of the suit was filed by "Loyd Smith, et al." against:

     -- Kansas Gas Service Co., Inc.;
     -- ONEOK, Inc.;
     -- Western Resources, Inc.;
     -- Mid Continent Market Center, Inc.;
     -- ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C.;
     -- ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc.; and
     -- ONEOK Gas Transportation, L.L.C.

Case No. 01-C-0029 filed in the District Court of Reno County,
Kansas.

Another suit was filed by "Gilley, et al." against:

     -- Kansas Gas Service Co.;
     -- Western Resources, Inc.;
     -- ONEOK, Inc.;
     -- ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C.;
     -- ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc.;
     -- ONEOK Gas Transportation L.L.C.; and
     -- Mid Continent Market Center, Inc.

Case No. 01-C-0057 filed in the District Court of Reno County,
Kansas.

The court certified two separate classes of claimants, which
included all owners of residential real estate in Reno County,
Kansas whose property had allegedly declined in value, and
owners of businesses in Reno County whose income, had allegedly
suffered.

Both cases were adjudicated in September 2004 and resulted in
jury verdicts.  In the class action relating to the residential
claimants, the jury awarded $5 million in actual damages, which
is covered by insurance.  In the business owners' class action,
the jury rendered a defense verdict awarding no actual damages.  

The jury rejected claims for punitive damages in both cases.  In
a separate hearing on plaintiffs' attorney fees, the Judge
awarded $2,047,406 in fees and $646,090.78 in expenses, which is
also covered by insurance.  

The company is reviewing its options for appeal of the
residential claimants' class action verdict and subsequent award
of attorney fees.  With the exception of a related lawsuit that
was filed in Sedgwick County, Kansas, which is now on appeal,
all other litigation regarding the gas explosions has been
resolved.  

On April 11, 2005, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a new
trial and denied a post trial motion filed by defendants.  The
business class plaintiffs and residential class plaintiffs have
filed notices of appeal.  

The company filed a notice of appeal of the residential class
verdict and the attorney fee award.  The cases were transferred
to the Kansas Supreme Court for the appeals, and the appeals
have been fully briefed.

A ruling on the appeals is pending, according to the company's
Feb. 28, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

ONEOK, Inc. on the Net http://www.oneok.com/.


ONEOK PARTNERS: Kans. Court Yet to Certify Price I, II Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of ONEOK Partners, L.P., remain defendants
in a consolidated lawsuit pending in the 26th Judicial District,
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas.

The consolidated suits are:

      -- "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., Case No.
         Case No. 99C30 (Price I) (f/k/a Quinque Operating
         Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.);" and
  
      -- "Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas
         Pipelines, et al., 26th Judicial District, District
         Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case
         No. 03C232 (Price II)."

Plaintiffs in Price I brought the suit on May 28, 1999, against
MidContinent Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Field Services Co.,
ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.P., and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P.,
formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP -- all of which were recently
acquired by the company -- as well as approximately 225 other
defendants.

Plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims that the
defendants had underpaid gas producers and royalty owners
throughout the U.S. by intentionally understating both the
volume and the heating content of purchased gas.

After extensive briefing and a hearing, the court refused to
certify the class sought by the plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs then
filed an amended petition limiting the purported class to gas
producers and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming and
limiting the claim to under measurement of volumes.  They are
seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005 on the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the suit as a class action.  The court has not
yet ruled on the class certification issue.

The plaintiffs filed Price II on May 12, 2003, after the court
had denied class status in Price I.  Plaintiffs claim that 21
groups of defendants, including MidContinent Market Center,
Inc., ONEOK Field Services Co., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.P.,
and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. -- formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP --
all of which were recently acquired by the company,
intentionally underpaid gas producers and royalty owners by
understating the heating content of purchased gas in Kansas,
Colorado and Wyoming.

Price II has been consolidated with Price I for the
determination of whether either or both cases may properly be
certified as class actions.  Plaintiffs in this suit are also
seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Like Price I, oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005 in
relation the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class
action.  The court has not yet ruled on the class certification
issue.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb.
28, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

ONEOK Partners, L.P. on the Net http://www.oneok.com/.


PMC INVESTIGATIONS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
PMC Investigations & Security, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleging Labor Code violations, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiff Tremayne Tate, employed as a security guard at
PMC Investigations & Security, brings this claim on behalf of
all persons who were employed by defendant at any time since
April 19, 2001, to the entry of judgment in this case, who were
non-exempt employees within the meaning of the New York Labor
Law and have not been paid overtime wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

Mr. Tate claims he often worked in excess of 40 hours a week,
yet the defendant willfully failed to pay him overtime
compensation of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate,
and for an extra hour in each day worked over 10 hours, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations.

The complaint alleges that upon information and belief,
throughout all relevant time periods and during the course of
plaintiffs' own employment and while defendant employed
plaintiffs and the collective action members, defendants failed
to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage and
overtime pay rights provided by the FLSA.

Plaintiff further complains on behalf of himself, and a class of
other similarly situated current and former employees of the
defendant, that they are entitled to back wages for overtime
work performed for which they did not receive overtime premium
pay as required by the New York Labor Law Section 650 et seq.
and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations.

The suit raises the question of:

     (a) whether the defendant employed the collective action
         members within the meaning of the FLSA;

     (b) whether the defendant failed to keep true and accurate
         time records for all hours worked by plaintiffs and the
         collective action members;

     (c) what proof of hours worked is sufficient where the
         employer fails in its duty to maintain time records;

     (d) whether defendants failed to post or keep posted a
         notice explaining the minimum wages and overtime pay
         rights provided by the FLSA in any area where
         plaintiffs are employed, in violation of C.F.R. Section
         516.4;

     (e) whether defendant failed to pay the collective action
         members overtime compensation for hours worked in
         excess of forty hours per workweek in violation of the
         FLSA and the regulations promulgated thereunder;

     (f) whether defendant's violations of the FLSA are willful
         as that term is used within the context of the FLSA;

     (g) whether defendant is liable for all damages claimed
         hereunder, including but not limited to compensatory,
         punitive and statutory damages, interest, costs and
         disbursements and attorneys' fees; and

     (h) whether defendant should be enjoined from such
         violations of the FLSA in the future.

Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
collective action members and members of the class, respectfully
request that the court grant the following relief:

     -- certification of this action as a class action pursuant
        to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the
        members of the class and appointing plaintiff and his
        counsel to represent the class;

     -- an order tolling the statute of limitations;

     -- designation of this action as a collective action on
        behalf of the collective action members and prompt
        issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
        to all similarly situated members of an FLSA Opt-In
        Class, apprising them of the pendency of this action,
        permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this
        action by filing individual Consents to Sue pursuant to
        29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and appointing plaintiffs and
        their counsel to represent Collective Action members;

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
        herein are unlawful under the FLSA and the New York
        Labor Law;

     -- an injunction against the defendant and its officers,
        agents, successors, employees, representatives and any
        and all persons acting in concert with it, as provided
        by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,
        policies and patterns set forth in the complaint;

     -- an award of wages and unpaid overtime compensation due
        under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law;

     -- an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a
        result of the defendant's willful failure to pay
        overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216;

     -- an award of prejudgment and postjudgment interests;

     -- an award of costs and expenses of this action together
        with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and

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

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1df0

The suit is "Tate v. PMC Investigations & Security, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-01639-DRH-ARL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Denis R.
Hurley with referral to Judge Arlene R. Lindsay.

Representing plaintiffs are Jeffrey M. Gottlieb of Berger &
Gottlieb, 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR, New York, NY 10003,
Phone: 212-228-9795, E-mail: nyjg@aol.com; and William C. Rand
of the Law Office of William Coudert Rand, 711 3rd Avenue, Suite
1505, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-286-1425, Fax: 212-599-
7909, E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Minn. Labor Code Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota alleging Labor Code violations, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiffs Lyle Brennan, Christopher Richard, and
Michael Lundell, bring the following action for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act
and common law claims.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
individuals who are, were or will be employed by defendants in
the State of Minnesota as Network Technicians at any time within
three years of the filing of this complaint until the final
disposition of this action.

The complaint alleges that over the course of the past several
years, defendants have implemented job standards for its Network
Technicians that include a minimum number of jobs per day a
Network Technician must complete (Quality Jobs Per Day or QJD).

It further claims, that if a Network Technician does not reach
the set standard for QJD, that Technician may, at the sole
discretion of defendants, be placed on disciplinary "steps" that
can ultimately lead to termination.

Plaintiffs claim defendants' QJD is and has been consistently,
arbitrarily and artificially high and unreasonable and the
manner in which defendants calculate QJD is arbitrary,
unreasonable and penal to Network Technicians.

As a result of defendants' policies and procedures with respect
to QJD, a large percentage of Network Technicians have been
allegedly unable consistently to meet the QJD numbers, and are
therefore eligible to be placed on disciplinary steps, subject
to the sole discretion of defendants.

In order to attempt to meet QJD and avoid being terminated,
plaintiffs and similarly situated employees have been allegedly
forced to resort to working through lunch breaks and other
breaks, as well as prior to and subsequent to their shifts,
without compensation.

Plaintiffs further allege that defendants' supervisors endorsed
and instructed Network Technicians to work uncompensated time,
making statements to that include, but are not limited to words
to the effect that:

     a) "You need to lie, cheat and steal to make your numbers";

     b) "You need to get creative with your numbers and break
        times to make QJD"; and

     c) "You need to do whatever you need to during your lunch
        and breaks to make your numbers, but if you work through
        your lunch and breaks and record the time, I will fire
        you."

The complaint asserts that these allegations violate the FLSA's
wage and overtime requirements by failing to compensate
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for time worked.

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, pray for relief as follows:

     -- judgment against defendants for any and all
        compensatory, liquidated and other and further damages
        allowable by law, including an amount equal to
        plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals'
        unpaid wages at the applicable wage and overtime rates;

     -- an amount equal to the unpaid back wages as liquidated
        damages;

     -- an award of prejudgment interest;

     -- penalties pursuant to the Minnesota FLSA for violations
        of its break requirements;

     -- the reasonable value of services performed for, and/or
        benefit conveyed to defendants by plaintiffs and others
        similarly situated;

     -- costs and attorney's fees;

     -- such other and further relief, legal and/or equitable,
        as this Court deems proper, equitable and/or just.

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

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

The suit is "Brennan et al. v. Qwest Communications
International, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-02024-ADM-JSM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
under Judge Ann D. Montgomery, with referral to Judge Janie S.
Mayeron.

Representing plaintiffs is Paul Egtvedt of Paul Egtvedt,
Attorney at Law, 4236 Upton Avenue South, #101, Mpls, MN 55410,
Phone: 612-501-3076, E-mail: pegtvedt@mn.rr.com.


RANDGOLD & EXPLORATION: Suit Planned Over Merger with JCI
---------------------------------------------------------
An Anglorand Securities broker is planning to file a class
action over the proposed merger of South African companies
Randgold & Exploration Ltd. and JCI Inc., according to a report
by Matthew Hill of Mining Weekly.

Dave Palmer, who represented clients that held 1,35-million of
Randgold's shares, as well as 40-million of JCI's shares, plans
to file the suit in the U.S., where R&E's depository receipts
used to be listed.

The companies are recommending a merger announced in mid-March
to shareholders, and are now negotiating the terms of the
proposal.  It will involve the exchange of JCI shares with
Randgold's.  According to Mining Weekly, the proposed exchange
ratio approved by both companies' boards of directors is one
Randgold share for every 95 JCI shares.  Shares in the company
have been suspended since 2005.

If the merger is successful, Randgold`s shareholders and JCI
shareholders will respectively own some 78% and 22% of the post-
merger Randgold share capital and JCI will become a wholly owned
subsidiary of Randgold, according to the report.

The two firms have fraud claims against each other.  The alleged
fraud reportedly happened during the tenure of mining magnate
Brett Kebble, who was murdered in September 2005 after resigning
as chief executive of JCI and Randgold.   No one has been
charged in connection with the alleged fraud, though.

Mr. Palmer said that this, to his knowledge, was the "biggest
fraud case in South African history", and yet the local
authorities had done nothing about it, according to the report.

He said that his clients stood to lose hundreds of millions of
rands in claims, if the two firms were to settle for the ZAR1.2
billion ($172.8 million) to ZAR1.5 billion ($216 million) that
the mediators had recommended JCI to owe Randgold.


RUBIN MEMORIAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rubin Memorial Chapel LLC has been named in a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiffs Steven Sokolowsky and Michael Enkoff, former
funeral directors of Rubin Memorial, bring this action to
recover wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs allege they were employed with Rubin Memorial in the
preceding three-year period as funeral directors and otherwise
performed non-exempt labor.  

The complaint alleges plaintiffs are covered, non-exempt
employees and are entitled to overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs further allege that at no time during their
employment were they and/or other similarly situated employees
paid overtime.  They also claimed they were not paid time and
one-half their hourly rate as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered in their favor and
against the defendants as follows:

     -- that plaintiffs be awarded general and compensatory
        damages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest;

     -- that plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney's fees
        and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C Section 216; and

     -- that plaintiffs be awarded such other and further relief
        as the court deems just and proper.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1df8

The suit is "Sokolsky et al. v. Rubin Memorial Chapel LLC, et
al., Case No. 9:07-cv-80354-DMM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Donald M.
Middlebrooks.

Representing plaintiffs is Cathleen Ann Scott, 250 South Central
Boulevard, Jupiter Gardens Suite 104, Jupiter, FL 33458, Phone:
561-653-0008, Fax: 653-0020, E-mail:
CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com.


SMARTPAK: Recalls Pet Food Possibly Contaminated with Melamine
--------------------------------------------------------------
SmartPak initiated a voluntary recall of a single production run
of the LiveSmart Weight Management Chicken and Brown Rice Dog
Food.

The particular lot of food recalled included rice protein
concentrate that was supplied by Wilbur-Ellis, the same company
that supplied rice protein concentrate contaminated with
melamine to Natural Balance.

No previous lots were affected, nor does the company use rice
protein concentrate in any other formulas of LiveSmart dog or
cat foods.

Only a very limited amount of product had left the company's
facility prior to the recall (less than 1,200 pounds).

No reports of any injury to any dogs has been reported.  Dogs
that have consumed the LiveSmart Weight Management food and show
signs of kidney failure (such as loss of appetite, lethargy and
vomiting) should be seen by a veterinarian.

The company has temporarily suspended further distribution of
the LiveSmart Weight Management Chicken and Brown Rice Dog Food.


TELSTRA CORP: G9's Broadband Proposal Could Spur Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Australian authorities stand to face a class action by Telstra
Corp. Ltd. shareholders should it allow rival companies to
launch their own $3.6 billion high-speed broadband network, a
Telstra executive said according to Glenda Korporaal of The
Australian.

The telco's group managing director of public policy, Phil
Burgess, mentioned the possibility at the Australia Unlimited
forum, according to Ms. Korporaal's March 9 report.  

Talks are out about a rival high-speed broadband network
proposed by Optus and eight other telecommunications carriers
(G9).  The rival G9 network needs access to Telstra exchanges to
be rolled.  Mr. Burgess said the company would take action in
the High Court if it was forced to provide access to its
exchanges.  He also warned of a possible class action by Telstra
shareholders, Ms. Korporaal reported.

He said Telstra was prepared to spend $4 billion rolling out a
high-speed service, but is deterred by Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission policies and other regulators that
wanted to "confiscate" its infrastructure.

He called the G9 proposal a fraud because "it calls for the
confiscation of the property of Telstra shareholders."

According to Ms. Korporaal, in the forum, Mr. Burgess also
criticized Fairfax Media Ltd. chief executive David Kirk for
blaming Australia's poor level of broadband rollout on a lack of
competition, saying, "it was investment and not competition
policy that would provide the means to roll out a proper high-
speed broadband network."


TOM ALLISON: Faces Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Allison Pools, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Lead plaintiff Luiz Claudio Lemika, a former employee of Tom
Allison Pools, bring this action on behalf of himself and other
employees and former employees of the company similarly situated
for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

This suit covers all non-exempt salaried employees at Tom
Allison Pools who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or
more work weeks on or after May 2004, but who did not receive
time and half for such overtime hours worked.

The complaint alleges defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S.C.
Section 201-209, in that plaintiff and those similarly situated
to plaintiff performed services for defendants for which no
provisions were made by the defendants to properly pay
plaintiffs for those hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a
work week.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him who have or will
opt into this action, demand judgment against defendants,
jointly and severally, for the payment of all overtime hours at
one and one-half their regular rate of pay due them for the
hours worked by them for which they have not been properly
compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs of suit, and such further relief that the court deems
just and appropriate.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1df2

The suit is "Lemika v. Tom Allison Pools, Inc. et al., Case No.
0:07-cv-60591-ASG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Alan S. Gold.

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


VIRGINIA: Lawsuit Against Virginia Beach, SPSA on Hold
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit by Virginia Beach lawyer Glen Huff against Virginia
Beach and the Southeastern Public Service Authority is on hold
pending an outcome of a final decision to close down a compost
facility operated by SPSA, WAVY-TV reports.

Residents are complaining of foul smells from the recycling
center, near Tarleton Oaks.  Virginia Beach and SPSA are
planning to relocate the yard.

SPSA on the Net: http://www.spsa.com/.

Glen A. Huff, shareholder, Huff, Poole & Mahoney, Huff Poole &
Mahoney Building, 4705 Columbus St., Virginia Beach, Virginia
23462-6749 (Independent City), Phone: 757-552-6021, Fax: 757-
552-6016.


WELLS FARGO: Settles ACORN's Unfair Trade Practices Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., the consumer finance subsidiary of
Wells Fargo & Co., and the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy and Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. have agreed to
settle a class action alleging unfair and deceptive lending
practices.

In the proposed settlement, Wells Fargo Financial commits to
continue for three years several improvements it had already put
into practice, which have further strengthened its nonprime real
estate-secured lending practices, and to implement other
practices to benefit its customers.

It also agrees to enact a default relief program, earmarking
$2.4 million to provide relief to qualifying class members whose
loans have become delinquent by more than 60 days.

Qualifying class members who submit claims may also be entitled
to cash payments, which will be determined using a formula to
disburse up to $4.4 million.

Class members are certain California customers who entered into
real estate-secured loans with Wells Fargo Financial between
Dec. 18, 1999 and Nov. 20, 2005.

Settlement of the lawsuit, filed in December 2003 in San
Francisco Superior Court, is subject to approval by that court.

The two firms, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy (Burlingame, Calif.)
and Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. (Madison, Wis.), filed the
suit in 2003 against Wells Fargo.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN), the national advocacy group for low-income people, said
in the suit that the financial services firm misled borrowers
about the real terms and conditions of loans and employs "bait-
and-switch" sales tactics (Class Action Reporter, June 30,
2004).

ACORN, a party to the lawsuit, had alleged that Wells Fargo
Financial failed to adequately disclose points and prepayment
penalties and had inaccurately reported loan balances on some of
its California customers to credit reporting agencies.

The firm also allegedly failed to inform borrowers with good
credit that they can qualify for credit at significantly better
rates and fees than those charged by the company.

Wells Fargo Financial said it has always had good nonprime
lending practices and in recent years has made numerous
improvements to make them even stronger.

All parties to the proposed settlement agreed these improvements
are in the best interest of borrowers and have further
strengthened Wells Fargo Financial's service to nonprime
borrowers.

Headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, Wells Fargo Financial, the
consumer finance subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:
WFC), makes many loans to people with weaker credit histories.

Its parent is the second-largest U.S. mortgage lender, and one
of the largest U.S. subprime mortgage lenders.


WHITNEY CANADA: Real Estate Investors to File Suit in Quebec
------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Canada, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Whitney
Information Network, Inc., received notice of an Amended Motion
for Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of
Quebec, Canada on Jan. 11, 2007.

A class action was requested for all persons who have made
various real estate investments, at the alleged inducement, or
through, Marc Jemus, Fran?ois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their
companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or
Whitney Information Network, Inc. and/or Jean Lafreniere.


WHITNEY INFORMATION: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Information Network, Inc. was served with a complaint
filed by a purported shareholder, Rodney Durham, on Jan. 30,
2007.

Named as defendants are Whitney Information; Russell A. Whitney,
chairman and chief executive; and Nicholas S. Maturo, president
and chief operations officer.

The complaint was filed on Dec. 28, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court in the Middle District of Florida accusing the company of
securities violations.  

Plaintiffs seek damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Whitney stock from
Nov. 18, 2003 through and including Dec. 15, 2006.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's Claims Settlement Totals $565M in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc.'s current settlement for asbestos-related
liabilities, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$565 million,
compared with US$557 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a
Company press release dated April 19, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term settlement for
asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$338 million,
compared with US$332 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007 and March 31, 2006, the Company recorded a
net asbestos settlement of US$9 million.

The Company reported record sales, for the 2007-1st quarter, of
US$2.9 billion, surpassing 2006-1st quarter record sales by 11
percent.

First quarter net income was US$194 million, or US$1.17 per
share. Net income includes an after-tax charge of US$5 million,
or US$0.03 a share, to reflect the net increase in the current
value of the Company's obligation under its proposed asbestos
settlement agreement reported in May 2002, which is subject to
pending court proceedings.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries Inc. supplies
paints, coatings, chemicals, optical products, specialty
materials, glass and fiberglass. The Company employs more than
30,000 people and has 125 manufacturing facilities and equity
affiliates in more than 20 countries. Sales in 2006 were US$11
billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Liability Totals $647.1M
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability,
as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$647.1 million, according to
a Company press release dated April 19, 2007.

American Standard Companies Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, the
Company recorded US$652.8 million as long-term asbestos-related
liability, compared with US$673 million as of Dec. 31, 2005.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007)

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos
receivable amounted to US$336.2 million, compared with US$336.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Headquartered in Piscataway, N.J., American Standard Companies
Inc. is a US $11.2 billion global manufacturer with market-
leading positions in three businesses: air conditioning systems
and services, bath and kitchen products, and vehicle control
systems. The Company employs about 62,000 people and has
manufacturing operations in 28 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $860.1M Recoverable in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., as of March 31, 2007, recorded US$860.1
million asbestos-related insurance recoverable, according to a
Company press release dated April 19, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$859 million
asbestos-related insurance recoverable. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 16, 2007)

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. is a
global supplier, serving manufacturers of automotive, light
commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, aerospace,
off-road and industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide
aftermarket. The Company employs 45,000 people in 34 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victims Seek JPY206M in Suit v. Japan Govt.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven former workers of asbestos companies in Sennan, Osaka,
Japan, sued the Japanese Government, demanding JPY206 million in
compensation, The Daily Yomiuri reports.

Filed with the Osaka District Court on April 18, 2007, the suit
is the third class action case brought by former workers or
residents living near the companies.

The plaintiffs claim that damage caused by asbestos was
exacerbated because the Govt. did not take appropriate
countermeasures to deal with the problem.

The number of plaintiffs now totals 24.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Japanese Victim Qualifies for Relief
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Japanese man who developed lung cancer after working near a
Kubota Corp. factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, has been
recognized as eligible for government aid in accordance with an
asbestos relief law, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

There are dozens of cases in which residents near Kubota's
former Kanzaki factory or employees who worked in the factory
and suffered from mesothelioma were identified as eligible for
the financial aid.

However, the Kansai Occupational Safety and Health Center, which
supports victims of asbestos-linked diseases, said it believes
the man is the first person with asbestos-related lung cancer to
be made eligible for the aid.

According to the Center, the man from Osaka Prefecture worked at
a factory near the Kanzaki factory in the 1950s and 1960s and
developed lung cancer about 10 years ago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Seeks Husband's Coworkers to Win Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Wilson, the widow of Horace Wilson, who died after
exposure to asbestos, appeals to his former colleagues for her
to win compensation, Evening Post reports.

Mr. Wilson, from Westbury-on-Trym, in the United Kingdom, died
in June 2006 from mesothelioma at the age of 76.

Mr. Wilson was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working as a
concrete fixer and general laborer for Bristol firm George
Wimpey & Co. Ltd. from 1969 to 1979.

Mr. Wilson was required to work on building sites for the firm,
now trading as Carillion Construction Contracts Ltd., where
buildings allegedly with asbestos were being demolished.

It is claimed this led Mr. Wilson into direct contact with
disturbed asbestos. His employers never provided him with any
respiratory equipment to protect him against asbestos.

Mrs. Wilson said, "My husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
April 15 and died within less than two months of his diagnosis."

In February 2007, HM Coroner for the district of Avon returned a
verdict of industrial disease.

Hayley Hill, from the Birmingham office of national law firm
Irwin Mitchell, represents Mrs. Wilson.

Ms. Hill said, "It is vital, in order for his family to obtain
some recompense for the debilitating illness from which he died,
that people who have information concerning the working
practices and contracts undertaken at George Wimpey & Co. Ltd.
between 1969 and 1979 come forward to assist us with our
enquiries."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oregon Appeal Court Favors Shipping Firms  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon upheld the decision of the
Circuit Court, Multnomah County, which granted summary judgment
in favor to SeaRiver Maritime Inc., Keystone Shipping Co.,
Central Gulf Lines Inc., in asbestos-related actions filed by
Dennis Buck, Larry Dellwo, Donald Dillman, and Larry Hess.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Schuman, Landau, and Ortega,
handed down the decision of Cases: A126553, A126554, A126555,
A126556, on March 14, 2007.

Plaintiffs are four ship repair workers who have asbestos-
related diseases that they attribute to conditions encountered
over several decades on various ships owned by one or another of
defendants: SeaRiver, Keystone, Central Gulf, and ACandS Inc.

Each plaintiff brought an action alleging a claim under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act as well as claims
under state law.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Trial Court
granted separately to each defendant. These consolidated appeals
follows, in which plaintiffs assigned error to the Trial Court's
ruling regarding the LHWCA.

The Appeals Court held that:

(1) Repair workers failed to present evidence that airborne
asbestos was a danger that expert and experienced ship repair
contractor would not have reasonably expected to encounter, and

(2) Repair workers failed to present evidence that presence of
asbestos was not known by contractors and would not be obvious
to or anticipated by contractors if reasonably competent in
performance of their work.

The Appeals Court ruled that the Trial Court did not err in
granting summary judgment in favor of SeaRiver, Central Gulf,
and Keystone.

Nancy B. Thorington argued the cause for appellants. On the
briefs were Elaine J. Brown, Scott Niebling, Gill Purcell, and
Brayton Purcell, LLP.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.249B Liabilities in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of March 31, 2007, recorded
US$1.249 billion long-term asbestos-related liabilities,
compared with US$1.262 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term insurance
recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.104
billion, compared with US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006.

In the 2007-1st quarter, the Company recognized a charge of
US$24 million representing an update to its estimated liability
for the resolution of Bendix related asbestos claims as of March
31, 2007, net of probable insurance recoveries.

In the 2006-1st quarter, the Company recognized a charge of
US$28 million for Bendix related asbestos claims filed and
defense costs incurred during the 2006-1st quarter, net of
probable insurance recoveries.

The Company faces personal injury actions related to asbestos.
The Company did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that
have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related
disease in most claimants.

Products with asbestos previously made by Honeywell or by
previously owned subsidiaries fall into two general categories:
refractory products and friction products.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s Honeywell Aerospace business segment makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. The Company's Specialty Materials segment
makes performance materials used in semiconductors, polymers for
electronics and fibers, and specialty friction materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $953M NARCO Receivable in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of March 31, 2007, recorded
US$953 million insurance receivable related to the liability for
settlement of pending and future asbestos claims of North
American Refractories Co., compared with US$955 million as of
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20,
2007.

From 1979 to 1986, the Company owned NARCO, which produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than 2 percent of NARCO'S products had asbestos.

When the NARCO business was sold in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued before the sale. NARCO
retained all liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002,
NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S
Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company.

As of March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, the Company estimated
US$1.3 billion as liability for settlement of pending and future
NARCO-related asbestos claims.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims are expected to be completed by the end of 2007. About
US$90 million of payments due under these settlements is due
upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Co.
sued the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme
Court of New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for
NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance
coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers.

About US$370 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
March 31, 2007.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New
Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s Honeywell Aerospace business segment makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. The Company's Specialty Materials segment
makes performance materials used in semiconductors, polymers for
electronics and fibers, and specialty friction materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 56,037 Bendix Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., for the three months ended March
31, 2007, recorded 56,037 asbestos-related claims filed against
its Bendix friction materials business, compared with 57,108
claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 20, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 682
claims filed and 1,753 claims resolved. For the year ended Dec.
31, 2006, the Company noted 4,391 claims filed and 26,785 claims
resolved.

Of the 56,037 pending claims for the three months ended March
31, 2007, 4,905 claims related to mesothelioma and 51,132
related to other claims.

Of the 57,108 pending claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
4,843 claims related to mesothelioma and 52,265 related to other
claims.

Bendix made automotive brake pads that had chrysotile asbestos
in an encapsulated form. There is a group of existing and
potential claimants consisting of individuals that allegedly
performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through March 31, 2007, the Company has resolved about
107,000 Bendix related asbestos claims including trials covering
124 plaintiffs, which resulted in 116 favorable verdicts. Trials
covering eight individuals resulted in adverse verdicts.
However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, three
are or shortly will be on appeal, and the remaining three claims
were settled.

About 45 percent about 56,000 pending claims at March 31, 2007
are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in
some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no
impairment. About 56,000 pending claims also include claims
filed in jurisdictions such as Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi
that historically allowed for consolidated filings.

During 2006, about 16,000 cases were dismissed. More than 85
percent of these dismissals occurred in Mississippi as a result
of judicial rulings relating to non-resident filings and venue.

At March 31, 2007, the Company estimated US$532 million
liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix asbestos
claims, compared with US$528 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has about US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage
remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix
asbestos claims, of which US$307 billion at March 31, 2007 are
reflected as receivables, compared with US$302 million at Dec.
31, 2006.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s Honeywell Aerospace business segment makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. The Company's Specialty Materials segment
makes performance materials used in semiconductors, polymers for
electronics and fibers, and specialty friction materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Have $1.806B Liability in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., for the three months ended March
31, 2007, recorded a combined asbestos-related liability of
US$1.806 billion for former unit North American Refractories Co.
and the Company's Bendix friction materials business, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2007.

Of the US$1.806 billion liability, US$532 million related to
Bendix and US$1.274 billion related to NARCO.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a total
of US$1.819 billion in asbestos-related liabilities for Bendix
and NARCO. Of which US$528 million related to Bendix and
US$1.291 related to NARCO. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23,
2007)

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
US$1.260 billion combined insurance recoveries for Bendix and
NARCO asbestos-related liabilities, in which US$307 million
related to Bendix and US$953 million related to NARCO.

The Company faces personal injury actions related to asbestos.
The Company did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that
have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related
disease in most claimants.

Products with asbestos previously made by Honeywell or by
previously owned subsidiaries fall into two general categories:
refractory products and friction products.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s Honeywell Aerospace business segment makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. The Company's Specialty Materials segment
makes performance materials used in semiconductors, polymers for
electronics and fibers, and specialty friction materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MassDEP Issues $133,425 Penalty for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
imposed a total penalty of US$133,425 to a company and three
individuals for mishandling asbestos in Chicopee, Wilbraham, and
Pittsfield, in Western Massachusetts, The Republican reports.

MassDEP spokeswoman Eva V. Tor said, "Unfortunately, this is not
uncommon. We often have a number of asbestos cases at a given
time, particularly with regard to renovation projects."

Michael J. Gorski, director of the MassDEP's Western regional
office in Springfield, Mass., said that MassDEP would continue
to target demolition and asbestos removal activities to ensure
compliance with these important public health regulations.

One of the incidents involved improper removal of material and
equipment from the former Uniroyal factory complex on Grove
Street in Chicopee, Mass.

The state assessed a US$41,000 penalty, but suspended all but
US$1,500 of it in a consent order reached with Walter F.
Mrozinski, president of Facemate Corp., the property owner.

Mr. Mrozinski had allowed workers to perform some salvage
operations, but they improperly removed asbestos-containing
materials and equipment from a building, Ms. Tor said.

Alberto Martinez was hit with a penalty of US$38,625 related to
broken asbestos materials found in a large disposal container on
Old Boston Road in Wilbraham, Ms. Tor said.

Kim Properties Holding LLC was penalized US$15,000 for asbestos
violations related to renovations at US Taekwondo Center in
Wilbraham, Ms. Tor said. Of that penalty, US$5,000 was suspended
for a one-year probationary period.

A penalty of US$38,800 was imposed against Christopher St. John,
relating to dumping of asbestos materials at a residential site
on Madison Avenue in Pittsfield, Ms. Tor added.

The Environmental Protection Department encouraged property
owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-containing
materials, notification requirements, proper removal, handling,
packaging, storage and disposal procedures or asbestos
regulations to contact the regional DEP office in Springfield,
Mass.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arkansas Hospital Cleanup Could Cost $600T
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to one expert, the cost of removing asbestos from the
Howard Memorial Hospital in Nashville, Ark., could be as high as
US$600,000, The Nashville News reports.

Within 30 days, Howard County should know what it would cost to
remove asbestos from the old hospital building. The asbestos
will have to be completely removed before the building is torn
down.

County Judge Max Tackett, at the Howard County Quorum Court's
meeting last April 16, 2007, said the survey would cost as much
as US$7,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $442.88M Liability in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability, as of March 31, 2007,
amounted to US$442,877,000, compared with US$459,567,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated April
23, 3007.

As of March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current
asbestos liability amounted to US$70 million.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$164,030,000, compared with
US$170,400,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$21 million, compared with US$52,500,00
as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company, as of March 31, 2007, made asbestos-related
payments, net of insurance recoveries, of US$21,180,000,
compared with (US$9,300,000) as of March 31, 2006.

Cash provided by operating activities was US$36.9 million in the
2007-1st quarter, which included the receipt of the 2005 Equitas
asbestos-related insurance settlement payment of US$31.5
million, compared with US$17 million last year.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co., a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products, serves customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company has about 12,000
employees in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and
Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Finds Hazards at New York Condominium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Department of Environmental Protection found that
The Sheffield's ceiling coating contains asbestos and ordered a
halt to ceiling work until an abatement plan could be
implemented, The New York Observer reports.

Located on West 57th Street, The Sheffield is undergoing a
renovation as part of a condo conversion.

Previous tests by a contractor hired by the developer, Kent
Swig, showed that the ceiling material did not have asbestos.

DEP spokesman, Ian Michaels, said that seven out of 12 tests on
April 17, 2007 contained at least one percent asbestos, which is
high enough that a licensed asbestos removal firm would have to
do any work on them.

Mr. Swig said that a various inspectors, from the DEP, the
state, his own contractors and those hired by his lenders, took
more than 150 samples of the ceilings and that those samples
showed no evidence of asbestos.

Mr. Michaels countered that the ceilings had enough asbestos
that a proper asbestos abatement program was supposed to be
doing any work on it, in case the asbestos was disturbed.

Mr. Swig has been ordered to hire an asbestos-licensed firm to
clean the building's common areas and also to use a licensed
abatement firm to continue work on the ceilings.

In addition, Mr. Swig has agreed to offer the current tenants
air-monitoring tests and cleaning services inside their
apartments, and may yet face fines, Mr. Michaels said.

The DEP had taken 10 samples from ceilings at The Sheffield
previously but none of them showed a presence of the carcinogen,
Mr. Michaels said.

Mr. Michaels said that when The Sheffield was built, the
contractors might have used different mixtures of substances in
different parts of the building.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Pipes Still Used in Indian State
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cement pipes are still used in the Indian State of
Haryana for water supply purposes, The Financial Express
reports.

State public health department sources told The Financial
Express, "The asbestos cement pipes, called AC pressure pipes,
are used mainly in rural water supply schemes."

Haryana has been using these water supply pipes despite a report
by a technical committee set up by the Union ministry of
industry back in 1995, which said at least 44 countries had
banned asbestos. The number of countries that have banned
asbestos has now risen to 103.

The study revealed that 15 percent of asbestos fiber being used
in India came from Indian mines, while 85 percent came from
other countries, mainly Canada.

Dalip Singh, Commissioner of Public Health in Haryana, said "he
was against use of asbestos pipes for water supply as asbestos
was a deadly carcinogen." He said, "Asbestos cement pipes, used
for transportation of potable water, was more of a threat as
water causes degradation of pipes and asbestos fiber gets
released in drinking water."

IJS Bhatia, Senior Medical Officer, Government Civil Hospital,
Mohali, said besides the ban by over 100 countries, the
International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization
and even World Trade Organization had justified the ban on
asbestos.

The Haryana government has already purchased asbestos water
supply pressure pipes worth about INR70 crore in 2007, while it
plans to make additional purchase of similar pipes worth another
about INR40 crore in the next couple of months.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Woman Wins Damages for Childhood Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thompsons Solicitors has successfully won compensation for a
woman who was exposed to asbestos dust as a youngster, according
to a Thompsons Solicitors press release dated April 10, 2007.

Thompsons' Southampton office won a six-figure sum for Cheryl
Marsh from Brighton after she was exposed to asbestos by
Islington Borough Council.

Ms. Marsh, 49 years old, was exposed as a teenager while playing
in the boiler rooms in the basement of her parents' council flat
in the Brecknock Estate, Islington.

Ms. Marsh was also exposed to asbestos later when employed by
Islington Borough Council Social Services Department where she
worked on a motorcycle scheme.

In 2004, Ms. Marsh was diagnosed from mesothelioma.

Ms. Marsh, who is a police community support officer for Sussex
Police, said: "I want to make more people aware of this disease.
It's not just old men who get mesothelioma. Young men and women
who have never worked in industry can also contract it too, with
the same devastating effects."

Thompsons Solicitors who specialize in asbestos cases dealt with
Ms. Marsh's claim for compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Bar PD Claims' Modification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the Bankruptcy Code's requirement that a party seeking
to amend a proof of claim first obtain leave from the Court,
certain claimants have sua sponte submitted post Bar Date
amendments and supplements to their previously filed asbestos
property damage claims, James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski
Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Del.,
tells the Court.  

Many of the purported amendments appear to be motivated by case
strategy, rather than excusable neglect that could otherwise
justify untimely amendment, Mr. O'Neill notes. In any event, the
amendments make it impossible for W.R. Grace & Co. and the other
Debtors and other interested parties to ascertain claimants'
positions with respect to their claims for purposes of
litigating claims and, therefore, contravenes the very purpose
of the Bar Date.

The concerns are particularly acute at this stage of the
Debtors' reorganization, more than four years after the Bar
Date, at a point when (i) the deadlines for filing dispositive
motions with respect to the issues of product identification,
statute of limitations, hazards, and Libby claimants have
passed; and (ii) parties are on the eve of oral argument, Mr.
O'Neill contends.

Any further amendments on the eve or during trial would
necessitate last-minute change and wasted estate resources, Mr.
O'Neill adds.  

Thus, in the interest of fairness and efficient judicial
administration, the Debtors ask the Court to:

(a) Enjoin parties from amending or supplementing their claims
with respect to any issue relating in any way to Debtors'
objections based on product identification, claims brought too
late, Libby claims and claims with no proof of hazard; and

(b) Require claimants to obtain leave before submitting any
amendment or supplement to their claims.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 128; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Mont.'s Request in Grace Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Montana has previously asked the Court to lift the
automatic stay so that the Debtors may be joined as third-party
defendants in about 120 state court actions currently pending
against Montana.  

The various State Actions relate to claims arising from the
mining and processing of vermiculite-containing asbestos within
the state. Most plaintiffs allege periods of employment with
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors and their predecessors
ranging from 1947 through 1993.

At least 21 of the 120 Actions were first brought separately
against the Debtors and were later amended, after the Debtors
filed bankruptcy, to include the state of Montana. The rest of
the Actions were filed against the state after the Petition
Date.

Montana has previously asserted that cause exists to lift the
automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy
Code.

The Bankruptcy Code does not provide a definition of "cause" and
there is no rigid test for determining whether sufficient cause
exists to modify an automatic stay, Judge Fitzgerald notes,
citing In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 152 B.R. 420, 424 (D.
Del. 1993).

Rather, "courts generally consider the policies underlying the
automatic stay in addition to the competing interests of the
debtor and the movant" when determining whether there is
sufficient cause to grant relief from the automatic stay.

In considering the competing interests of the Debtors and
Montana as they relate to the determination of cause, Montana
relied on the three factor test articulated in Matter of Rexene
Products Co., 141 B.R. 574, 576 (Bankr.D. Del. 1992), and in the
1993 Continental Airlines District Court Action, by which the
Court is to consider:

(1) Whether any great prejudice to either the bankrupt estate or
the debtor will result from continuation of the civil suit;

(2) Whether the hardship to the non-bankrupt party by
maintenance of the stay considerably outweighs the hardship to
the debtor; and

(3) The probability of the creditor prevailing on the merits.

Judge Judith Fitzgerald finds that lifting the stay and allowing
the continuation of the Montana claims in the state courts will
impose substantial prejudice on the Debtors and their estates
and will impede their estates' administration.

Judge Fitzgerald says it is undisputed that the Debtors filed
protection under bankruptcy to address in a single forum and
under uniform rules the thousands of asbestos claims it faced.
Allowing Montana to join the Debtors as a defendant in the State
Actions and avoiding the automatic stay circumvents the purpose
of filing for bankruptcy and interferes with the orderly
rehabilitation of the Debtors.  

Judge Fitzgerald adds that litigating the Montana actions would
force the Debtors to duplicate defense efforts outside of the
Chapter 11 process and unnecessarily deplete estate resources.  
The Debtors would be required to litigate the issues at the very
core of the Chapter 11 cases in various Montana courts,
repeating fact and expert witness testimony and bearing
additional discovery costs in up to 120 separate trials.

Granting Montana's request would be a distraction from the
reorganization process, Judge Fitzgerald holds. Discovery in the
bankruptcy case is proceeding on both estimation of personal
injury liabilities and liquidation of property damage claims.  
Trial dates are set. Litigation of the State Court Actions would
require the time and commitment of a number of Debtors' key
personnel, most of whom are crucial to the reorganization
process, Judge Fitzgerald notes.

Furthermore, Judge Fitzgerald points out that there is no
certainty that a judgment will be entered against Montana in the
State Actions. Thus, the Debtors would be required to
participate in trials before any alleged contribution or
indemnity claim against them is even ripe.  

Moreover, granting Montana's request creates the risk that the
outcomes reached in the State Actions could significantly differ
from the treatment of similar claims within the Chapter 11
proceeding. This result would offend the Bankruptcy Code's
principle that similarly situated creditors be treated
similarly, Judge Fitzgerald avers.

Montana presented no compelling evidence that the balance of the
hardships is in its favor, Judge Fitzgerald finds. Montana has
filed proofs of claim against the Debtors, therefore its
indemnification and contribution claims are preserved against
Debtors and will be resolved in due course in the bankruptcy
cases.  

There is no indication that the state court claims are in any
way unique or that, if proven, the Debtors' liability to Montana
will be distinguishable from liability for any of the other
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims asserted against them,
Judge Fitzgerald says. Montana is in no different position than
any other creditor claiming an injury by the Debtor entities
based on asbestos, Judge Fitzgerald rules.

Upon application of the three-factor test from Continental and
Rexene in conjunction with consideration of the policies
underlying the automatic stay, Judge Fitzgerald finds that
Montana failed to demonstrate that relief from the automatic
stay is appropriate. The prejudice to the Debtors, the estate,
and the other creditors is substantial and far outweighs any
hardship placed on Montana.  

Accordingly, Judge Fitzgerald denies Montana's lift stay
request.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 128; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Plaintiffs Appeal in Jones Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 5th District, Stark County,
dismissed an appeal filed by David Jones and other plaintiffs in
favor of the Defendants.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Patricia A. Delaney, John W.
Wise, and Julie A. Edwards, handed down the decision on Case No.
2006CA00195 on April 9, 2007.

On July 9, 2001, Plaintiffs-Appellants sued for injuries and
damages allegedly sustained due to their exposure to asbestos
products made and distributed by A-Best Products Co. and other
Defendant-Appellees. Appellants named 81 defendants in their
complaint. Some appellees brought cross-claims against the other
named defendants.

Throughout the pendency of this action, multiple defendants
filed Notices of Bankruptcy and Suggestions of Stay.

On Nov. 17, 2005, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas stated
that it had been advised that a number of defendants had filed
bankruptcy in this action. The trial court stayed the matter
pending the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings.

On May 26, 2006, appellants filed a Motion to Reactivate the
Case. Appellees did not file a response. The trial court denied
the Motion to Reactivate the Case on June 13, 2006. Appellants
now appeal.

In the Trial Court's Nov. 17, 2005 judgment entry, the Trial
court stated that it stayed the matter pending the resolution of
the bankruptcy proceedings. The judgment entry does not state
that the matter had been dismissed.

The Appeals Court found the decision of the trial court to deny
the motion to reactivate the matter did not affect a substantive
right that in effect determines the action and prevents a
judgment for appellants. Appellants may proceed with their
action once the bankruptcy stay has been lifted.

Because there is no final appealable order, the Appeals Court
dismissed the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common
Pleas.

Richard E. Reverman and Kelly W. Thye of Cincinnati, Ohio,
represented David Jones and the other plaintiffs-appellants.

Jeffrey M. Embleton and Samuel R. Martillotta of Cleveland,
Ohio, represented Pfizer Inc.

Reginald Kramer, Terri L. Nass, and Cara L. Galeano-Legarri of
Akron, Ohio, represented General Electric Co., and CBS Corp.,
f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corp., f/k/a
Westinghouse Electric Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradley Case Remanded in Plaintiff's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana, granted Frank Bradley's
motion to remand in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against
Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., individually and erroneously
alleged as successor to Avondale Shipyards Inc., Avondale
Industries Inc., Ingalls Shipbuilding, Peter Territo
(collectively "Avondale").

The suit was also filed against Commercial Union Insurance Co.,
the alleged insurer of the executive officers of Avondale.

U.S. District Judge A.J. McNamara handed down the decision of
Civil Action No. 07-1422 on April 12, 2007.

On Feb. 23, 2007, Mr. Bradley filed suit in Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, La., alleging that he was exposed to
asbestos while working as a marine electronics technician at
Avondale Shipyard from about 1967 to 1968, and this exposure to
asbestos caused him to contract mesothelioma.

Mr. Bradley alleged that Avondale and Mr. Territo failed to
provide him with a safe workplace through various negligent
acts, including but not limited to the failure to warn him of
the risks linked with exposure to and inhalation of asbestos.

On March 23, 2007, Avondale and Mr. Territo removed the matter.

Mr. Bradley now moved the court to remand, arguing that the
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court
agreed.

Accordingly, the District Court ruled that Mr. Bradley's motion
to remand be granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The case is remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

The District Court further ordered that Defendants' "Motion to
Include Statement Prescribed by 28 U.S.C.
1292(b)" be
denied.

Scott R. Bickford, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Spencer R. Doody,
Martzell & Bickford, New Orleans, LA, for Frank Bradley.

Brian C. Bossier, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Richard L.
Olivier, Blue Williams, L.L.P., Metairie, LA, for Northrop
Grumman Systems Corp.

Gordon Peter Wilson, Frederick Lewis Parks, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton,
Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Gary Allen Lee, Richard Marshall Perles,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Peter Territo.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records 85,884 Pending Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of March 31, 2007, recorded 85,884 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with 89,164
pending claims as of March 31, 2007, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 23, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 85,941 claims filed
against it, compared with 89,017 claims as of Dec. 31, 2005,
according to a Company report. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2,
2007)

As of March 31, 2007, the Company noted 1,095 new claims filed,
529 settlements, and 623 dismissals. As of March 31, 2006, the
Company noted 1,304 new claims filed, 308 settlements, and 849
dismissals.

Of the 85,884 pending claims as of March 31, 2007, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 28,000 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,000 claims were pending in
Texas, and about 4,000 claims were pending in Ohio.

Since the termination of the comprehensive master settlement
agreement on Jan. 24, 2005, the Company has been resolving
claims filed against it in the tort system. Substantially all of
the claims the Company resolves are concluded through
settlements.

The Company tried the Joseph Norris asbestos claim to verdict in
California, however, and received an adverse jury verdict on
Sept. 15, 2006. On Oct. 10, 2006, the court entered judgment on
this verdict against the Company in the amount of US$2.15
million, together with interest thereon at the rate of 10
percent per annum until paid.

The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Dec.
15, 2006. On Jan. 3, 2007, the Company appealed the judgment.
The appeal is pending.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co., a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products, serves customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company has about 12,000
employees in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and
Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $21.1M Costs for Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., in the three months ended March 31, 2007, incurred
US$21.1 million gross asbestos-related settlement and defense
costs, before insurance and tax effects, compared with US$15.2
million in the three months ended March 31, 2006, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 23, 2007.

Of the US$21.1 million incurred as of March 31, 2007, US$11.2
million related to settlement costs and US$9.9 million related
to defense costs. Of the US$15.2 million incurred as of March
31, 2007, US$5.8 million related to settlement costs and US$9.2
million related to defense costs.

On July 22, 2005, the Company entered into an agreement to
settle its insurance coverage claims for asbestos and other
liabilities against certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London
reinsured by Equitas for a total payment of US$33 million. Under
the agreement, US$1.5 million was paid to the Company in the
2005-3rd quarter. The balance of US$31.5 million was placed into
escrow for the payment of future asbestos claims and funds
remaining in escrow were paid to the Company on Jan. 4, 2007.

Effective March 1, 2006, the Company entered into two agreements
with Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and certain affiliated
companies ("Hartford") settling all outstanding claims under the
Company's primary policies with Hartford for a final payment of
US$1.3 million and establishing a coverage-in-place arrangement
for asbestos claims under the Company's excess policies with
Hartford, including a payment of US$2.6 million for claims
billed to Hartford through Sept. 1, 2005.

Effective April 10, 2006, the Company and Everest Reinsurance
Co. and Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. (collectively, "Everest")
reached a settlement agreement under which Everest's insurance
coverage obligations for asbestos claims under the three
historical Everest policies issued to the Company were released.
The Company received a US$3.8 million cash payment under this
settlement agreement on April 21, 2006.

On June 30, 2006, the Company and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
entered into an agreement, effective July 3, 2006, establishing
a coverage-in-place arrangement for asbestos claims under the
Company's excess policies with Fireman's Fund, including a
payment of US$2.3 million for claims billed to Fireman's Fund
through June 26, 2006, which was received by the Company in
August 2006.

Effective Sept. 7, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with Sentry Insurance, regarding an excess
policy issued by Sentry's predecessor, Dairyland Insurance Co.

Effective Dec. 20, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with Employers Insurance of Wausau (and
Nationwide Indemnity Co. in its capacity as claims administrator
for Wausau), establishing an arrangement for asbestos claims
under the Company's excess policies with Wausau, and providing
for initial payments totaling US$2.6 million for claims billed
to Wausau through Nov. 30, 2006.

Effective Dec. 22, 2006, the Company and Century Indemnity Co.
and ACE Property and Casualty Co. (collectively "ACE") entered
into an agreement which established a coverage-in-place
arrangement for asbestos claims under the Company's excess
policies with ACE.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co., a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products, serves customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets. The Company has about 12,000
employees in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and
Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lonna Morrison of Minnesota, on April 18, 2007, sued 72
defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
alleging she was exposed to asbestos fibers from her husband's
clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Morrison claims her husband, Curwood Olsen, was employed as
a mechanic and engineer at various locations across the country.
She claims Mr. Olsen would carry the asbestos dust on his
clothing home with him where it would again become airborne.

Ms. Morrison worked as a salesperson, buyer and manager at
various locations including Illinois. She claims she was also
exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects
including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and
remodeling.

The suit claims that Ms. Morrison was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Feb. 8, 2007 and she subsequently became aware
that her illness was wrongfully caused.

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

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

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

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

Ms. Morrison seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$300,000,
plus punitive damages.

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

Case No. 07 L 378 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aapex Contests OSHA's $57T Cleanup Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
A spokesman for the U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration said that Aapex Environmental Services
Inc. is contesting six health citations and a US$57,000 penalty,
The Post-Standard reports.

Aapex is accused of exposing employees to asbestos during a
botched cleanup at the former Agway building in DeWitt.

OSHA spokesman Ted Fitzgerald said that Aapex would now enter
into litigation with the Labor Department.

If a settlement cannot be reached, both parties will present
their cases to an administrative law judge with the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission, an independent board.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in New York Elementary School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Elementary School in Massena, N.Y., is closed due to
an asbestos test in a classroom that came back positive, News 10
Now reports.

Tests were conducted in three classrooms on April 21, 2007.

No asbestos was airborne, but a swipe test in one room came back
positive. However, a second quantitative test did not indicate
the presence of asbestos.

However, the superintendent, who received the Atlantic Testing
results on April 23, 2007, still closed the building so everyone
can be assured further tests come out negative.

Doug Huntley expects students to be out of school about two days
and says right now the school has emergency closing days to make
it up.

Asbestos has been found on a loading dock and in the boiler room
at the school in the past.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Exxon in Altimore Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, 14th District reversed a
trial court ruling in favor of Exxon Mobil Corp. in an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by Louise Altimore.

The Panel, comprised of Justices Anderson, Edelman, and Seymore,
handed down the decision of Case No. 14-04-01133-CV on April 19,
2007.

This case presented the issue of whether Exxon owed a duty to
Mrs. Altimore who was injured by exposure to asbestos brought
home on her husband's work clothing.

Ms. Altimore was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in April
2003. She sued Exxon and other defendants alleging her illness
resulted from asbestos exposure for which the defendants were
responsible.

By the time of trial, Exxon was the remaining defendant. Mike
Altimore, Mrs. Altimore's husband, was a lifetime Exxon
employee. Mrs. Altimore's complaint against Exxon is that: Exxon
negligently allowed Mr. Altimore to bring asbestos dust home on
his work clothes, Mrs. Altimore inhaled the asbestos dust while
laundering Mr. Altimore's asbestos laden work clothes, and
causing her to contract mesothelioma.
      
At the close of the evidence, the case was submitted to the jury
as a negligence case and they returned a verdict finding Exxon
acted negligently and with malice. The jury awarded Mrs.
Altimore US$992,901 in actual damages and US$992,901 in
exemplary damages.

The 405th District Court, Galveston County, Tex., Trial Court
entered judgment on the jury verdict for the amount of the
exemplary damages. Exxon's post-trial motions for new trial and
for remittitur and its motion to modify the judgment were
overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed.

Mrs. Altimore settled with the other defendants in an amount
exceeding the actual damages found by the jury in the verdict
against Exxon.

In eight issues on appeal, Exxon argued the trial court erred
when it entered a final judgment in favor of Mrs. Altimore.

Having found Exxon did not owe Mrs. Altimore a duty, the Appeals
Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and render
judgment that Mrs. Altimore take nothing on her claim against
Exxon.

Reagan W. Simpson, Aditi Dravid, Gary D. Elliston, Glenna M.
Kyle, Bryant Robert Bremer and Amy C. Eikel, represented Exxon
Mobil Corp.

Troy Damon Chandler, Daryl L. Moore and Denmon Heard,
represented Louise Altimore.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois' Liabilities Drop to $497.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as
of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$497.7 million, compared with
US$534.1 million as of March 31, 2006, according to a Company
press release dated April 25, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had US$538.6 million long-term
asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$572.1 million as
of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007)

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$149 million, compared with US$155
million as of March 31, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$149 million, compared with US$158 million as
of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007)

New claims filed during the 2007-1st quarter were fiver percent
lower than the 2006-1st quarter. Asbestos-related cash payments
to resolve cases and claims in the ordinary course during the
2007-1st quarter were US$41 million, equal to the 2006-1st
quarter.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's total pending asbestos-
related lawsuits and claims remained at about 18,000 and the
deferred amount payable for previously settled claims was
US$81.4 million.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace's Liability Stays at $1.7B in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s long-term asbestos-related liability, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$1.7 billion, the same for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release
dated April 25, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related insurance
amounted to US$500 million, the same for the period ended Dec.
31, 2006.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries
and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed for reorganization under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware in order to resolve the Company's
asbestos-related liabilities.

In January 2005, the Company filed an amended plan of
reorganization and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court.

Expenses, net of interest income, related to the Company's
Chapter 11 proceedings were US$17.8 million in the 2007-1st
quarter, compared with US$8.7 million for the 2006-1st quarter,
reflecting a higher level of activity in the bankruptcy
proceeding related to claims adjudication and estimation.

Most of the Company's non-core liabilities and contingencies,
including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations, are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners. With annual
sales of more than US$2.8 billion, the Company has about 6,500
employees and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $569M for Litigation in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$569 million, compared with US$500
million as of March 31, 2006, according to a Company press
release dated April 25, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
litigation reserve was US$577 million, compared with US$512
million as of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26,
2007)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$449 million, compared with US$345
million as of March 31, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
insurance reserve was US$440 million, compared with US$363
million for the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 26, 2007)

Net income in the March 2007 quarter benefited from US$18
million, or US$0.28 a share, of income from discontinued
operations, a result of the improved credit quality of the
Company's insurance receivable from Equitas Ltd., which provides
a significant portion of the Company's coverage for asbestos
claims.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. is a diversified,
global chemical company. The Company operates through four
divisions: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution,
Valvoline, and Ashland Water Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Liability Stays at $512.5M in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp., for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, recorded
an asbestos settlement liability of US%512.5 million, the same
as for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, according to a Company
press release dated April 25, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded an
asbestos-related liability of US$512.5 million. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 2, 2007)

For the quarter ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$18
million as effect of assumed issuance of asbestos settlement
shares, the same as for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.

For the quarters and the years ended Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31,
2005, the Company's effect of assumed issuance of asbestos
settlement shares was US$9 million. (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
2, 2007)

Based in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corp. makes food and
protective packaging materials and systems including brands like
Bubble Wrap cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, and Cryovac
food packaging products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim Seeks Up to GBP800T from Shipbuilder
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Thomas Shanks, of Monkseaton, England, U.K., could claim
up to GBP800,000 in damages in an asbestos-related action filed
against shipbuilders Swan Hunter in London's High Court, Today's
Chronicle reports.

In 2005, 59-year-old Mr. Shanks was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
two years after his son Michael died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
at 28.

Mr. Shanks had migrated to Australia in 1983, where he
eventually started a construction business. His son Michael, who
grew up in the country, became ill in 2001, and eventually died.

Mr. Shanks then returned to the UK to be with family and
friends. He was exposed to asbestos on an electrician
apprenticeship with Swan Hunter between 1963 and 1969.

The company has admitted liability but disputes the amount of
the claim.

In his written argument to the court, Matthias Kelly, QC, said,
"There is an abundance of evidence that he would have been able
to continue actively in his role well beyond his 65th birthday."

Mr. Shanks is also claiming damages for the cost of his
relocation back to Britain, including the costs of his new home
and flights from Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Files Suit v. 47 Companies in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston, W.Va., attorney Cindy Kiblinger filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit, on behalf of Paul and Evelyn Runion, against 47
companies in Kanawha Circuit Court on April 11, 2007, The West
Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Runion was exposed to asbestos dust
and other harmful dusts as a result of the products of the
defendants.

The nine-count suit specifically mentions Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., which produced dust masks that Mr. Runion
used.

The suit says the masks were marketed as something that would
protect the workers from ill effects of breathing dusts and
fumes.

However, Mr. Runion claims the masks did not fully protect him
and caused him to develop a severe asbestos-related disease.

The Runions seek damages to fully compensate them for their
injuries, as well as punitive damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-707 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dumped at Australian Town Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Surf Coast Shire in Australia, on April 24, 2007, revealed
that workers at the Council-run Anglesea landfill came across
asbestos material after a member of the public dropped it off,
Geelong Advertiser reports.

Council spokeswoman Libby Coker said the two sheets of asbestos
could not harm workers or landfill users with carcinogenic
fibers as it was not breaking apart.

Ms. Coker said, "Only a small amount of asbestos was dropped
off, so the council has decided not to investigate it. But we
are still wanting to raise awareness to the fact that asbestos
can be hazardous if people don't dispose if it properly."

However, Ms. Coker said the council would take an aggressive
approach to ensure those incidents do not happen again.

If people are found trying to dump asbestos at the landfill they
could face an AUD2,000 cost of removing the material after
WorkSafe and the Environment Protection Authority are contacted.

The council can also ban the person from the site.

The only council facility that accepts asbestos is in Fyansford.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Satterfield Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reinstated an asbestos-related
case filed by Amanda Satterfield and her father Doug Satterfield
against Breeding Insulation Company Inc. and Aluminum Company of
America (Alcoa).

The Panel, comprised of Judges Herschel Pickens Franks, D.
Michael Swiney, and Sharon G. Lee, handed down the decision of
Case No. E2006-00903-COA-R3-CV on April 19, 2007.

On Dec. 8, 2003, Ms. Satterfield filed a Complaint with the Knox
County Circuit Court against Breeding and Alcoa. The Complaint
charged that Ms. Satterfield contracted mesothelioma.

The Complaint averred that Mr. Satterfield began working at
Alcoa's facilities in Alcoa, Tenn., in the 1970s, and that he
was employed for Alcoa from May 1973 to September 1975, and
returned to Alcoa in September 1978 after serving in the Army
for three years. Upon his return to Alcoa, he worked as a
Reclamation Furnace Operator.

In 1980, Mr. Satterfield became a mechanical specialist,
conducting pipefitting and mechanical work involving the removal
of asbestos insulation.

In September 1979, Ms. Satterfield was prematurely born to Doug
and Donna Satterfield. During the child's hospital stay, Mr.
Satterfield visited her directly from work and stayed with her
every evening.

The Complaint further averred that as early as 1965 Alcoa knew
about insulation and maintenance workers' exposure to asbestos,
but never warned Mr. Satterfield of the risks of asbestos
exposure.

The case was transferred to the Blount County Circuit Court, and
Alcoa Answered on Feb. 11, 2004. The Answer asserted the
Complaint failed to state a claim or cause of action against
Alcoa upon which relief could be granted. The Answer also denied
that it caused any of Ms. Satterfield's injuries or damages.

On Jan. 1, 2005, Ms. Satterfield died and Mr. Satterfield asked
the Circuit Court to substitute him as the Party Plaintiff.

In December 2005, Alcoa filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

In January 2006, Mr. Satterfield filed a Motion to Strike and
also filed a Brief in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Trial Court dismissed the action for failure to state a
cause of action and Mr. Satterfield has appealed.

The Appeals Court reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court and
reinstated this action for further proceedings consistent with
this Opinion.

The cost of the appeal is assessed to Aluminum Company of
America.

Gregory F. Coleman of Knoxville, Tenn., represented Doug
Satterfield.

John A. Lucas, John T. Winemiller, and Thomas Hale, Knoxville,
Tenn., and John Charles Thomas, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond,
represented Aluminum Company of America.


                            *********


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  * * *