CAR_Public/070504.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 4, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 88

                            Headlines


AMGEN INC: Sued in Calif. Over Unapproved Drug Endorsements
APOTHECURE INC: Recalls Injectable Colchicine Linked to Deaths
ATLANTIC ALLCARE: Ex-Worker Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Organic Farmers' Suit Denied Certification
BOEING CO: Ill. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit

BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
BOEING CO: Investment Plan Members Seek Certification of Lawsuit
CARDINAL DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Kids' Rings on High Lead Content
CHEMTURA CORP: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
CHEMTURA CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire in Ga.

CIGNA CORP: $93M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
CSK AUTO: Ariz. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaints
DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suit in Ontario Over Coal-Fired Power Plants
DUKE ENERGY: Limited Discovery Ongoing in Air Pollution Case
DUKE ENERGY: Still Faces Katrina-Related Litigation in Miss.

EXELON CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill. by ComEd Worker
EXELON CORP: Savings Plan Members' Claim for Losses Dismissed
ISRAEL: N.Y. Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over 2002 Gaza Bombing
K2 INC: Shareholders File Lawsuit in Calif. Over Jarden Merger
LIBERIA: Ex-PAL Leader Threatens to Sue Over 1979 Rice Riot

LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Working to Implement ADA Suit Agreements
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Merger Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Multiple Flash Memory Antitrust Suits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Ida. Consolidated Securities Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Multiple SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits

MICROSOFT CORP: $75.5M Atty. Fee in Antitrust Suit Deal Opposed
OL' ROY DISTRIBUTORS: Faces Nev. Consumer Fraud Complaint
OMNICOM GROUP: N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Granted Certification
ORIENTAL TRADING: High Lead Content of Necklaces Prompts Recall
PACIFICORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Klamath River Pollution

PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Recalls Kids' Airwalk Compel Clog Shoes
PEMCO AVIATION: Parties Settle Ala. Racial Bias, Harassment Case
PYR ENERGY: Faces Colo. Litigation Over Samson Investment Offer
REFCO INC: Judge Lynch Junks Claims Against Bond Underwriters
RESCARE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Labor Laws Violations

ST. LAWRENCE: Granted Leave to Appeal Beauport Suit in Canada
STUBHUB INC: Faces Security Breach Lawsuit in California
SWIFT BEEF: Appeals $2.3M Judgment in S.D. Cattle Pricing Suit
TARGET: Recalls Bamboo Collection Games on High Lead Content
TIVO INC: Calif. Court Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement

TOP TANKERS: N.Y. Court Considers Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
UBS FINANCIAL: Colo. Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
UNITED PARCEL: Franchise Store Owners Sue Over Shipping Rates
WD-40 CO: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
WEST VIRGINIA: Teachers Threaten Lawsuit Against Board of Educ.

ZORAN CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses N.Y. Securities Suit


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CertainTeed Records 2,000 New Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.063B Liabilities in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Refinery Worker Sues 43 Firms in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Northern Has 1,941 Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation's Reserves Remain at $48M in 1Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United States Steel Has 310 Actions in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Records $110M Claims Charge in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Records $150M Current Obligations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. AB Electrolux Rise to 1,701 in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has 110,133 Claims in 1Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery of ASD Suit Extended to Nov. 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Records 120,200 Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed from Most Miss. Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Automation Still Has Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $2.7M Cleanup Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Ind. Stay at 114,000 in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Receives $1.057B Tax Refund in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 31,440 Claims in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Records $1.388B Claims Reserves in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $43.1M Assets, Liabilities

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuit Links Mesothelioma to Talc Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Charges Developer for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov. Perdue Signs Bill to Limit Ga. Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker's Kin Sues Oil Firms in Texas Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Penalizes Parkway for Exposing Workers

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court OKs Shafer Lawsuit for Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pensioner Seeks Ex-Colleagues' Help in Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Work-Related Cancers Kill 200,000, WHO Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Injury Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $133M Liability in 1Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 112,747 Open Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $1.2B Claims Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $17M Defense Costs in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $484M Receivable in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.36B for Claims in 1Q07


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit
AMGEN INC: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.


                            *********

AMGEN INC: Sued in Calif. Over Unapproved Drug Endorsements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. is facing a class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California that accuses the
company of securities violations and of pushing its drugs Epogen
and Aranesp for unapproved, off-label uses, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Lead plaintiff Gary Jaffe claims the drugs were approved to
treat anemia caused by cancer chemotherapy, but not anemia
caused by the cancer itself, but nonetheless, Amgen sold
"several hundred million dollars worth of drugs each year" for
that.

He also claims that Amgen, which bills itself as the largest
biotech firm in the world, failed to disclose that an October
2006 study showed that more cancer patients treated with Aranesp
died than those treated with a placebo.

Amgen stock dropped after a publication called "The Cancer
Letter" reported the results of that study on Feb. 16 this year,
and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered in March that
a warning be posted on the drugs.

The plaintiff also sued Amgen chief executive eKevin Sharer and
nine other top officers.

Questions of law and fact that the class raises include:

     (a) whether the 1934 Act was violated by defendants;

     (b) whether defendants omitted and/or misrepresented
         material facts, in order to make the statements made,
         in light of the circumstances under which they were
         made, not misleading;

     (c) whether defendants' statements knew or recklessly
         disregarded that their statements were false and
         misleading;

     (d) whether defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
         their statements were false and misleading;

     (e) whether the prices of Amgen publicly traded securities
         were artificially inflated; and

     (f) the extent of damages sustained by class members and
         the appropriate measure of damages.

Plaintiff prays for judgment:

     -- declaring this action is a proper class action;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the members of the class damages
        and interests;

     -- awarding plaintiff's reasonable costs, including
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e6d

The suit is "Gary Jaffe et al. v. Amgen Inc., et al., Case No.
CV07-02865SJO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10490 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 209-2468
          Fax: (310) 209-2087

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East, 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 687-7230
          Fax: (212) 682-3010

          - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: (212) 682-3025
          Fax: (212) 682-3010


APOTHECURE INC: Recalls Injectable Colchicine Linked to Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------
ApotheCure Inc., a Dallas-based compounding pharmacy that
distributes its drugs across the country, in cooperation with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is issuing an immediate
drug recall at the request of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy
for all strengths, sizes and lots of compounded Injectable
Colchicine sold in the last year.

The company says Colchicine is an unpredictable drug, and when
not used properly or without adequate testing can cause grave
results.

Recent deaths have been reported in connection with compounded
Injectable Colchicine 0.5mg/ml, 4ml vials, lot number
20070122@26.

Pharmacies and households are advised to immediately and
promptly report quantities and lot numbers of ApotheCure
compounded Colchicine they have so the company can issue a call
tag to retrieve the product and credit accounts.  The company
will provide in-store credit on the accounts to be used on
future purchases.

Please return the enclosed card immediately providing the
requested information.

For any questions or concerns, please call 800-969-6601.


ATLANTIC ALLCARE: Ex-Worker Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Allcare, Inc. is facing a purported class action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Former employee Blanca Vega filed the suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2007.  Ms.
Vega, who seeks a trial by jury, named as defendants in the
case:

      -- Atlantic Allcare;
      -- Kathleen K. Kee; and
      -- Charles Farthing, IV.

According to the complaint, plaintiff was paid an average of
$9.20 per hour for the hours that she worked for the defendants,
but was never paid overtime wages as required by FLSA for any
hours that she worked for the defendants in excess of forty
hours weekly.

The complaint also states that defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay plaintiff the overtime wages as
required by law.

Plaintiff is seeking double damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees from defendants.  She also seeks court costs, interests,
and any other relief that the court finds reasonable under the
circumstances.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1e68

The suit is "Vega v. Atlantic Allcare, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21143-JEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Jose E. Martinez.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
         300 71st Street, Suite 605
         Miami Beach, FL 33141
         Phone: 305-865-6766
         Fax: 305-865-7167
         E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Organic Farmers' Suit Denied Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeals denied class certification to
a case alleging that Monsanto Canada Inc. and Bayer CropScience
Inc. destroyed the ability of Saskatchewan farmers to produce
organic canola because the farmers' crops were contaminated with
genetically modified (GM) canola originating with either
companies, the Saskatoonhomepage.ca reports.

Canola pollen drifts on the wind, so that pollen from a field of
GM canola can drift into a field of organic canola and pollinate
some of the plants there.  When those plants mature, their seeds
will contain the same modified GM genes as the plants that did
the pollinating.

The farmers are claiming damages for lost markets.  The case
alleges that once trace amounts of GM seeds are found in a crop,
it cannot be certified and sold as organic (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

Monsanto sells the herbicide called Roundup and Bayer sells a
different herbicide called Liberty Link.  Both companies sell
canola seeds that are genetically modified to resist their
respective herbicides.  When farmers spray their fields, the
herbicides kill weeds, but not the canola.  According to trial
evidence, 70 per cent of all canola grown in Western Canada in
2003 was in fields where Roundup or Liberty Link was used.

The first step in the case was a request to designate it as a
class action on behalf of all organic grain farmers in
Saskatchewan.  The judge, Madam Justice G. A. Smith, refused to
grant the request for a variety of reasons, but the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal agreed to hear an appeal of her decision.

Two aspects of Justice Smith's judgment were being questioned.
The first was that she noted that both companies had
acknowledged cross-pollination was both foreseeable and
inevitable.  So, the companies knew that their GM plants would
contaminate the fields of organic farmers.

The second aspect concerns one of the many grounds that Justice
Smith gave for dismissing the case.  She said the statement of
claim did not disclose a cause of action, and one reason was
that no physical damage was done to the organic fields by GM
contamination.

Justice Smith pointed out the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
had declared the GM canolas were safe for use.  According to
her, "In effect, the alleged damage is not of physical harm to
the plaintiffs' crops, but arises from the alleged inability to
meet the requirements of organic certifiers or of foreign
markets for organic canola.  There is no allegation that GM
canola is unhealthy or causes detrimental physical problems to
humans or plant life."  She also noted that the claim was "for
pure economic loss of a category not previously recognized by
Canadian courts."

In their request for an appeal, the farmers argued that Justice
Smith set excessively exacting standards.  This, said the judge
who gave the green light to the appeal, "strike(s) me as an
arguable proposition."

But the justices ruled there is no basis to certify a class
action lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer CropScience.

However, the Court of Appeal says the claims of trespass,
nuisance and negligence did not provide a plausible case of
liability.

The organic farmers have until August 2 to decide whether they
want to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Marc Loiselle of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) says
"that is something that we are seriously and likely considering
to do.  We will have to make a decision on that."


BOEING CO: Ill. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
dismissed a suit alleging Boeing Co. violated Employment
Retirement Income Security Act in relation to computations of
its Pension Value Plan for Employees.

On June 23, 2006, two employees and two former employees of
Boeing filed a purported class action on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated participants in the Plan, against:

     -- Boeing Co.,
     -- McDonnell Douglas Corp., and
     -- the Pension Value Plan for Employees of The Boeing Co.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 23, 2006 by:

     -- Larry Wheeler of Edwardsville;
     -- David and Maral Keeton of Wildwood, Missouri; and
     -- Vincent Parisi of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri.

Plaintiffs allege that as of Jan. 1, 1999 and all times
thereafter, the Plan's benefit formula used to compute the
accrued benefit violates the accrual rules of ERISA and that
plaintiffs are entitled to a recalculation of their benefits
along with other equitable relief.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that their retirement benefits
are less than the accrued benefit to which they are legally
entitled, since the plan failed to properly apply accrual and
vesting rules imposed by ERISA.  The conduct mentioned is
widespread, affecting hundreds of plan participants, according
to the complaint.

Plaintiffs also claim that the plan violates ERISA's anti-back
loading provisions by making benefits accrue very slowly over
time until the participants nears the normal retirement age so
that a participant's vested pension rights have very little
value until they complete a very long period of service.

In addition, plaintiffs argue that under ERISA a defined benefit
plan must allow a participant to accrue, i.e. earn benefits no
less that ratably over a working career so as to prevent
employers from using creative plan designs to avoid the
protection afforded by ERISA's vesting rules.

The company believes the allegations claimed by plaintiffs lack
merit and have filed a motion to dismiss all claims.

                         Relief Sought

Furthermore, plaintiffs claim they are entitled to appropriate
equitable relief to redress the plan's violations of ERISA and
to enforce provisions, and incidental monetary relief
mechanically flowing from injunctive relief in the form of a
common fund equal to the difference between what they were paid
under the alleged unlawful method of computing their pension
benefits.

The suit asked the court for a declaration that the pension
plan's method of computing benefits is unlawful, a judgment for
them and against the company and a permanent injunction
preventing the plan from calculating pension benefits in
violation of ERISA.

Plaintiffs also asked the creation of a common fund equal to the
amount of pension benefits due, pre and post judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the common fund/benefit
doctrine or any other applicable laws and any other relief the
court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

On March 13, 2007, the court granted Boeing's motion and
dismissed the suit with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to vacate the judgment which Boeing has opposed.

The suit is, "Wheeler et al. v. Pension Value Plan for Employees
of The Boeing Co. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00500-DRH-PMF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
under Judge David R. Herndon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Schlichter Bogard
          Phone: 314-621-6115 and 618-632-3329
          Fax: 314-621-7151
          E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com
                  jschlichter@uselaws.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Lisa Demet Martin, Esq.
          Bryan Cave
          St. Louis, 211 North
          Broadway, One Metropolitan Square
          Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: 314-259-2000
          Fax: 314-259-2020

          - and -

          Christopher J. Rillo, Esq.
          Groom Law Group
          Chartered, 1701 Pennsylvania Ave.
          NW Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-857-0620
          Fax: 202-659-4503
          E-mail: crillo@groom.com


BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for Middle District of
Tennessee alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action asserting allegations that Boeing is obligated to provide
vested lifetime retiree medical benefits to plaintiffs and all
class members.

Plaintiffs alleged that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA.

The lawsuit alleged that the collective bargaining agreements
and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide vested lifetime
retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs and to all class
members.

On Sept. 15, 2006, Boeing filed a lawsuit in the Northern
District of Illinois against the International UAW and two
retiree medical plan participants seeking a declaratory judgment
confirming that the company has the legal right to make changes
to these medical benefits.

The company reported no development in the case at its April 24
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Mayfield et al. v. Boeing Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00883," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Representing the plaintiffs is Deborah Godwin of Godwin, Morris,
Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC, 50 N. Front Street, Suite 800,
Memphis, TN 38173-0290, Phone: (901) 528-1702, E-mail:
dgodwin@gmlblaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Charles Edward Young, Jr. of
Kramer, Rayson, Leake, Rodgers & Morgan, LLP, 800 S. Gay Street,
Suite 2500, Knoxville, TN 37901-0629, Phone: (865) 525-5134,
Fax: (865) 522-5723, E-mail: ceyoung@kramer-rayson.com.


BOEING CO: Investment Plan Members Seek Certification of Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing Co. Voluntary
Investment Plan filed a motion to certify as a class action a
suit they filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2006, alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  In it plaintiffs are
seeking to represent a class of similarly situated participants
and beneficiaries in the Boeing Co. Voluntary Investment Plan.
They allege that fees and expenses incurred by the Plan were and
are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred solely for the
benefit of the Plan and its participants, and undisclosed to
participants.

The plaintiffs further allege that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
seek injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
Boeing has opposed.


CARDINAL DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Kids' Rings on High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation
Cardinal Distributing Co. Inc., of Baltimore, Md., is
voluntarily recalling about 200 units of Children's Rings with
Dice or Horseshoes.

The company says that the rings contain high levels of lead, a
chemical that is toxic if ingested by young children and can
cause adverse health effects.  These rings were subject to the
July 2004 recall of 150 million pieces of children's metal
jewelry.  The firm placed the recalled rings that it had pulled
from stores back into circulation.

No reports of injuries have been received yet.

The recalled rings are silver with either dice or horseshoes on
top.  The numbers on some of the dice are painted in various
colors.  Others are not painted.  The horseshoes have either
pink and green or purple and yellow painted polka dots.

These rings were manufactured in India and are sold in vending
machines located in malls, discount, department and grocery
stores in the Baltimore, Maryland area from August 2004 through
March 2007 for about 25 cents.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled rings away from
children and throw the rings away.

For more information, contact Cardinal Distributing Co. Inc. at
(800) 368-2062 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.vendingdepot.com.


CHEMTURA CORP: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on Chemtura Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
former officers and directors (Crompton Individual Defendants),
and certain former directors of the company's predecessor Witco
Corp.

Filed on July 20, 2004, the suit was brought by plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all purchasers or
acquirers of the company's stock between October 1998 and
October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the
company to issue false and misleading statements that violated
the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial
results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-
fixing conspiracy.

The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who
acquired their securities in the Crompton Corp.-Witco merger
pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained
misstated financial results.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and the
Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Crompton Individual
Defendants.

The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they
allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the
Crompton-Witco merger.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on Sept. 17, 2004, which is now fully briefed
and pending.  The former directors of Witco Corp. filed a motion
to dismiss in February 2005, which is pending.

On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the company and
the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the
related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss by the company and Crompton
Individual Defendants.

The company reported no development on the matter in its March
9, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:03-cv-01293-EBB, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Ellen Bree Burns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Nancy A. Kulesa, Jeffrey S. Nobel and Andrew M. Schatz
        Schatz & Nobel
        One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
        Hartford, CT 06103
        Phone: 860-493-6292
        Fax: 860-493-6290
        E-mail: nancy@snlaw.net, jnobel@snlaw.net and
        firm@snlaw.net

Representing the defendants are:

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

         Andrew J. Frackman, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10033
         Phone: 212-326-2000
         Fax: 212-326-2061
         E-mail: afrackman@omm.com

              - and -

         Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard
         One Canterbury Green
         Stamford, CT 06901-2047
         Phone: 203-977-7383
         Fax: 203-977-7301
         E-mail: tdgoldberg@dbh.com


CHEMTURA CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire in Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. remains a defendant in several purported class
actions in connection with the May 25, 2004 fire that struck its
Conyers, Georgia warehouse.

The company and certain of its former officers and employees
were named as defendants in five putative state class actions
filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia pertaining to the fire.

These suits seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages
allegedly suffered as a result of the fire (Class Action
Reporter, May 1, 2006).

Of the five putative state class actions, plaintiffs in two
cases voluntarily dismissed theirs, leaving three such lawsuits
remaining.

These remaining putative state class actions, as well as the
putative class action pending in federal district court seek
recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly arising
from the fire.

Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in Rockdale
County, Georgia and the Martin case in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  The Martin case also
seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain settlements, as
well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.

The company reported no development on the matter in its March
9, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a producer of
specialty chemicals and polymer products, and a supplier of home
pool and spa chemicals in the U.S.


CIGNA CORP: $93M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has given final approval to a $93 million settlement of the
class action "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:02-cv-08088-MMB," Greg Wright of MarketWatch reports.

In 2002, CIGNA and some of its officers and directors faced
numerous securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaints charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market.

According to the complaint, the company issued numerous press
releases, and filed financial reports with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, regarding its performance during the
class period which represented that the company was experiencing
strong growth, that its operating income for 2002 is expected to
be $1.1 billion and that its liabilities on its discontinued
reinsurance operations were not expected to be material to its
liquidity.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
CIGNA had been under-reserving for its reinsurance obligations,
particularly for its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death
benefits, by (at least) hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition, according to the complaint, the statements were
materially false and misleading because CIGNA was experiencing
declining demand for its offerings, particularly in its Employee
Health Care, Life and Disability segment, and its income
guidance for 2002 was lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

The complaint also alleges the defendants failed to disclose
computer integration problems and customer service problems
within the company's Health Care, Life and Disability segments
that forced CIGNA to grant substantial margin concessions in
order to retain aggrieved customers causing the company to
revise third quarter and full year 2002 earnings estimates.

The suit further alleges that defendants engaged in the conduct
alleged therein because CIGNA was planning to, and on Oct. 16,
2002 did issue $250 million of 6-3/8% notes and that the
offering would have been negatively affected if the truth
regarding CIGNA's business and financial condition was known.

                           Settlement

In 2006, the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System,
Attorney General Tom Corbett, and governor's general counsel,
Barbara Adams, announced a $93 million settlement on behalf of a
class of all purchasers of the common stock of CIGNA Corp. from
Nov. 2, 2001 through Oct. 24, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
12, 2006).

Under that settlement, Cigna's insurers will deposit and
apportion -- on behalf of individual defendants -- $6 million of
the $93 million class-action settlement.  The insurers have
agreed to make a payment of not more than $720,000 for
plaintiff's attorney's fees.

The Retirement System served as lead plaintiff in the suit and
vigorously prosecuted this case for the benefit of the class
during the past four years.

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

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

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

          - and -

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

Representing defendants are:

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

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


CSK AUTO: Ariz. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action that
was filed against CSK Auto Corp. in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona filed an amended complaint after the
court granted the company's request to dismiss the complaint.

On June 9 and 20, 2006, two shareholder class actions were filed
against the company and certain current and former officers, one
of whom is also a director.

The cases are:

      -- "Communications Workers of America Plan for Employees
         Pensions and Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corporation, et
         al., No. Civ. 06-1503 PHX DGC;" and

      -- "Wilfred Fortier v. CSK Auto Corporation, et al., No.
         Civ. 06-1580 PHX DGC."

The cases were consolidated on Sept. 18, 2006, with the
Communications Workers case as the lead case.  The consolidated
actions have been brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's stock between March 20, 2003 and
April 13, 2006, inclusive.

The consolidated complaint, filed on Nov. 30, 2006, alleged that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
violations of the federal securities laws.

On March 28, 2007, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss, with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint on April 26, 2007, alleging violations of
the same federal securities laws and adding additional factual
allegations.

The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants the
company and three individuals:

      -- Maynard Jenkins, chairman of the board and chief
         executive officer;

      -- Martin Fraser, former president and chief operating
         officer; and

      -- Don Watson; former chief financial officer and former
         chief administrative officer.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that defendants
issued false statements before and during the class period about
the company's income, earnings and internal controls, allegedly
causing the company's stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices during the class period.  It seeks recovery of damages in
an unspecified amount.

The suit is "Communication Workers of America Plan for
Employees' Pensions and Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corp., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01503-DGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge David G. Campbell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

Representing the defendants are

         Donald Wayne Bivens, Esq.
         Snell & Wilmer
         400 E. Van Buren
         Phoenix, AZ 85004
         Phone: 602-382-6549
         Fax: 602-382-6070
         E-mail: dbivens@swlaw.com

              - and -

         Gareth T. Evans, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 S. Grand Ave., 51st Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7734
         Fax: 213-229-6734
         E-mail: gevans@gibsondunn.com


DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suit in Ontario Over Coal-Fired Power Plants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., formerly PSI Energy, Inc., was named
as a defendant in a class action that was filed in Superior
Court in Ontario, Canada.

The suit was brought against Duke Energy Indiana and
approximately 20 other utility and power generation companies
alleging various claims relating to environmental emissions from
coal-fired power generation facilities in the U.S. and Canada
and damages of approximately $50 billion, with continuing
damages in the amount of approximately $4 billion annually.

Duke Energy Indiana understands that the lawsuit also claims
entitlement to punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of
$1 billion.

Duke Energy Indiana has not yet been served in this lawsuit;
however, if served, Duke Energy Indiana intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously in court, according to Duke Energy Indiana,
Inc.'s March 30 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.duke-energy.com/.


DUKE ENERGY: Limited Discovery Ongoing in Air Pollution Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery is ongoing in a purported class action
alleging violations of the Clean Air Act by Duke Energy Ohio,
Inc., formerly the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.  The suit is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.

A citizen of the Village of Moscow, Ohio, the town adjacent to
the company's Zimmer Station filed the suit in November 2004.
The case seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against
the company for alleged violations of the CAA, the Ohio State
Implementation Plan, and Ohio laws against nuisance and common
law nuisance.

The plaintiffs have filed a number of additional notices of
intent to sue and two lawsuits raising claims similar to those
in the original claim.

One lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the
remaining two have been consolidated.  On Dec. 28, 2006, the
District Court certified this case as a class action.

Limited discovery on class definition continues, according to
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.'s April 2, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Case No.
1:04-cv-00781-SJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Susan J. Dlott.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Alley and John Charles Greiner, Esqs.
         Graydon Head & Ritchey
         2500 Chamber Center Drive, P.O. Box 17070, Suite 300
         Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017
         Phone: 859-282-8800
         E-mail: palley@graydon.com and jgreiner@graydon.com

Representing the company are:

         Louis Francis Gilligan, Esq.
         Keating Muething & Klekamp
         One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6523
         E-mail: lgilligan@kmklaw.com

              - and -

         Ariane Johnson
         Cinergy Services, Inc.
         1000 East Main Street
         Plainfield, IN 46168


DUKE ENERGY: Still Faces Katrina-Related Litigation in Miss.
------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., formerly PSI Energy, Inc., remains a
defendant in the purported class action, "Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co."

On April 19, 2006, the company was named in the third amended
complaint of the purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy Indiana, along with numerous
other utilities, oil companies, coal companies and chemical
companies, is liable for damages relating to losses suffered by
victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy Indiana's, and others',
greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency and
intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Cinergy, the parent of Duke Energy Indiana, was
served with this lawsuit and subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss.

Prior to a ruling on that motion, in December 2006 plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to
set forth additional claims, add additional parties and to
substitute proper parties for improperly named defendants.

Specifically, plaintiffs seek to replace holding companies, such
as Cinergy, with their operating company subsidiaries, such as
Duke Energy Indiana, according to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.'s
March 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry, Esqs.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
                 mmayberry@geraldmaples.com

              - and -

         Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles, Esqs.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
                 smwiles@smithfawer.com


EXELON CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill. by ComEd Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp.'s Cash Balance Pension Plan is facing a purported
class action filed by a former employee of Commonwealth Edison
Co. on July 11, 2006 in the Federal District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the Plan, which covers certain
management employees of Exelon's subsidiaries, calculated lump
sum distributions in a manner that does not comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory relief from the Plan on behalf of participants who
received lump sum distributions since 2001 and injunctive relief
with respect to future lump sum distributions.

It remains to be determined whether this case will proceed as a
class action and how many Plan participants may be part of the
proposed class, if a class is certified, according to the
company's April 25 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The lawsuit is not expected to have a
material financial impact on Exelon.

The suit is "Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case
No. 1:06-cv-03723," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge William T. Hart.

Representing plaintiff Thomas Fry is:

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Korein Tillery
          205 N. Michigan Plaza
          Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 641-9750
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

Representing the defendant is:

          William F. Conlon, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: wconlon@sidley.com


EXELON CORP: Savings Plan Members' Claim for Losses Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted a motion to strike plaintiffs' claim for investment
losses in a suit against Exelon Corp. Employee Savings Plan,
Plan #003.

On Sept. 11, 2006, five individuals claiming to be participants
in the Exelon Corp. Employee Savings Plan, Plan #003, filed a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint names as defendants Exelon, its director of
Employee Benefit Plans and Programs, the Employee Savings Plan
Investment Committee, the Compensation and the Risk Oversight
Committees of Exelon's Board of Directors and members of those
committees.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among
other things, permitting fees and expenses to be incurred by the
Savings Plan that allegedly were unreasonable and for purposes
other than to benefit the Savings Plan and participants, and
failing to disclose purported "revenue sharing" arrangements
among the Savings Plan's service providers.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and monetary relief
on behalf of the Savings Plan and participants, including
alleged investment losses.  On Feb. 21, 2007 the district court
granted the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim
for investment losses.


ISRAEL: N.Y. Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over 2002 Gaza Bombing
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III dismissed a lawsuit
filed by a legal rights advocacy group that blamed a former
director of Israel's General Security Service for a July 2002
bombing that killed 15 people in an apartment building in Gaza
City, English General News reports.

Lawyers for Israel's internal security minister, Avi Dichter,
presented on May 31,2006, arguments on a class action filed over
a bomb attack on a Gaza city neighborhood in 2002, according to
the JTA Daily (Class Action Reporter, July 7, 2006).

The minister is facing a suit filed by the Center for
Constitutional Rights on behalf of Palestinian survivors and
families of those killed in the attack in July 2002.  The attack
killed Salah Shehada, a top Hamas terrorist, and 14 other
people, including children.  As the Shin Bet at the time, Mr.
Dichter is accused of helping plan the attack.

During the May 31 hearing, Mr. Dichter's lawyers argued that the
minister is immune from prosecution as a foreign official.

Judge Pauley said the U.S. State Department also argued for
dismissal of the lawsuit based in part on foreign policy
concerns.  The lawsuit "threatened to involve the courts in
policing armed conflicts across the globe, exceeding the role of
the courts, and intruding on the executive branch's control over
foreign affairs," according to the report.

The suit is asking unspecified damages for what it calls a
"targeted assassination."  It was brought the lawsuit under
federal laws giving the court jurisdiction for human rights
violations and war crimes.

The suit is "Matar v. Dichter (S.D.N.Y., 05 Civ. 10270" filed
before Judge Pauley in the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, Courtroom 11D.

Plaintiffs are represented by: Center for Constitutional Rights
attorneys Maria LaHood, Jennifer Green and Kelly McAnnany; CCR
Cooperating Counsel Judith Brown Chomsky and Michael Poulshock;
and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.  Web site:
http://www.ccr-ny.org.


K2 INC: Shareholders File Lawsuit in Calif. Over Jarden Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
K2 Inc. and members of its board of directors, including two of
whom who are executive officers of K2, were named defendants in
a putative shareholder class action filed in California Superior
Court for the County of San Diego concerning the sale of K2
pursuant to a merger agreement executed on April 24, 2007
between K2 and Jarden Corp.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that K2's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed merger
and that the consideration payable to K2's shareholders in the
merger is unfair and inadequate.

Jarden announced it has signed a definitive merger agreement to
acquire K2, under the terms of which, Jarden will pay $10.85 per
share of K2 common stock in cash and will issue 0.1086 of a
share of Jarden common stock (subject to adjustment as provided
in the merger agreement) for each share of K2 common stock
outstanding as of the closing (Troubled Company Reporter, April
30, 2007).

The cash and Jarden stock to be issued in the transaction has a
combined value of approximately $15.50 per K2 share, based on
the closing price of Jarden common stock on the date of signing
the merger agreement.  The total enterprise value of the
transaction, including the assumption or repayment of
indebtedness, is approximately $1.2 billion.  The transaction is
expected to close in the third quarter of this year.

The plaintiff is asking, among other things, that the
transaction contemplated in the merger agreement be enjoined or,
if the merger is completed, that it be rescinded.

K2 believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to respond
accordingly.

                       About Jarden Corp.

Headquartered in Rye, New York, Jarden Corporation (NYSE: JAH) -
- http://www.jarden.com/-- manufactures and distributes niche
consumer products used in and around the home.  The company's
primary segments include Consumer Solutions, Branded
Consumables, and Outdoor.

                          About K2 Inc.

Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, K2 Inc. (NYSE: KTO) --
http://www.k2inc.net/-- designs manufactures and distributes
sporting equipment, apparel and accessories.


LIBERIA: Ex-PAL Leader Threatens to Sue Over 1979 Rice Riot
-----------------------------------------------------------
The former leader of the Progressive Alliance of Liberia has
forewarned the government that he would file a class action on
behalf of the families and relatives of those killed in the
April 14, 1979 rice riot, Matthias Daffa of Star Radio reports.

Gabriel Baccus Matthews has invited family heads to a May 11
conference.  Mr. Matthews has also invited former security
personnel who may wish to provide testimony before the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission.

On that fateful Saturday, April 14, 1979, hundreds of Monrovians
turned out to protest the increase in the prices of rice.  The
police, called out by the government, confronted the protesters.
Several people got killed and roughly every store in Monrovia
was looted.  Mr. Matthews was arrested and later released.

Now, after 28 years, he is planning to file a suit to secure
compensation for these families.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Working to Implement ADA Suit Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc. is attempting to settle all Americans
with Disabilities Act claims filed against it in a purported
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, according to the company's April 26, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

On Jan. 12, 2001, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against each of the
company's existing hospitals alleging non-compliance with the
accessibility guidelines of ADA.

On April 20, 2007, the plaintiff amended the lawsuit to add
hospitals that the company subsequently acquired, including the
former Province Facilities, Wythe County Community Hospital and
Danville Regional Medical Center and dismiss divested
facilities.

The lawsuit does not seek any monetary damages, but seeks
injunctive relief requiring facility modification, where
necessary, to meet ADA guidelines, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs.

The company is currently unable to estimate the costs that could
be associated with modifying these facilities because these
costs are negotiated and determined on a facility-by-facility
basis and, therefore, have varied and will continue to vary
significantly among facilities.

In January 2002, the court certified the class action and issued
a scheduling order that requires the parties to complete
discovery and inspection for approximately six facilities per
year.

The company is vigorously defending the lawsuit, recognizing its
obligation to correct any deficiencies in order to comply with
the ADA.

Noncompliance with the requirements of the ADA could result in
the imposition of fines against the company by the federal
government or the payment of damages.

As of April 23, 2007, the plaintiffs have conducted inspections
at 27 of the company's hospitals including the now divested
Smith County and recently closed Guyan Valley Hospital.

To date, the court has approved the settlement agreements
between the parties relating to 13 of the company's facilities.
The company is now moving forward in implementing facility
modifications in accordance with the terms of the settlement.

The company has completed corrective work on three facilities
for a cost of $1.0 million.  It currently anticipates that the
costs associated with the ten other facilities that have court
approved settlement agreements will range from $5.1 million to
$7.0 million.

The suit is "Access Now, Inc. v. Lifepoint Hospitals, et al.,
Case No. 4:01-cv-00002," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge James H. Jarvis.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Linda F. Burnsed and Stanley M. Chernau, Esqs.
         Chernau, Chaffin & Burnsed, PLLC
         One American Center, 3100 West End Avenue, Suite 550
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Phone: 615-460-7478
         Fax: 615-460-7484
         E-mail: schernau@ccblaw.net

              - and -

         Charles D. Ferguson, Esq.
         3001 S.W. 3rd Avenue
         Miami, FL 33129
         Phone: 305-285-2000
         Fax: 305-285-5555
         E-mail: ferguson@delao-marko.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Andrew S. Naylor and Paula D. Walker, Esqs.
         Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis
         P.O. Box 198966, 511 Union Street, Suite 2700
         Nashville, TN 37219-8966
         Phone: 615-244-6380
         Fax: 615-2446804
         Web site: http://www.wallerlaw.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated complaint was filed in purported class
actions against Micron Technology, Inc. and Lexar Media, Inc.
that are pending in the Superior Court for the State of
California, Alameda County.

In March 2006, following the company's announcement of a
definitive agreement to acquire Lexar in a stock-for-stock
merger, four purported class-action complaints were filed on
behalf of shareholders of Lexar against Lexar and its directors.
Two of the complaints also name the company as a defendant.

The complaints allege that the defendants breached, or aided and
abetted the breach of, fiduciary duties owed to Lexar
shareholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing,
failing to engage in efforts to obtain the highest price
reasonably available, and failing to properly value Lexar in
connection with a merger transaction between Lexar and the
company.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing, or an order of rescission reversing, the merger,
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to block the merger.  On May 31, 2006, the
Court denied the motion.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Oct. 10, 2006,
according to the company's April 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 1, 2007.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Multiple Flash Memory Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other suppliers of flash
memory products, was named as a defendant in a number of
purported antitrust class actions over the sale of flash memory,
according to the company's April 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 1, 2007.

In the first calendar quarter of 2007, at least 15 purported
class actions were filed against the company and other suppliers
of flash memory products.

Thirteen of these were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  These cases assert claims on
behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that
purchased Flash memory directly or indirectly from various Flash
memory suppliers during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 through the
date the various cases were filed.

The complaints generally allege price fixing in violation of
federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and seek monetary damages, restitution, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Ida. Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho, according to the company's April 10,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 1, 2007.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001 to Feb. 13,
2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

The suit is "City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn
Winmill.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         Gordon Law Offices
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Phone: (208) 345-7100
         Fax: 1-208-345-0050
         E-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2529
         Fax: 208-883-2699
         E-mail: dgreene@wsgr.com

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq.
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600
         E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Multiple SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, remains a defendant in a number of
purported antitrust class actions over the sale of SRAM,
according to the company's April 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 1, 2007.

A number of purported class actions have been filed against the
company and other SRAM suppliers.  Six cases have been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals
and entities that purchased SRAM directly from various SRAM
suppliers during the period from Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31,
2005.

Additionally, at least 72 cases have been filed in various U.S.
District Courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class
of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased SRAM
and/or products containing SRAM from various SRAM suppliers
during the time period from Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws
and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest
and attorneys' fees.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICROSOFT CORP: $75.5M Atty. Fee in Antitrust Suit Deal Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys defending Microsoft Corp. in an Iowa antitrust class
action plan to challenge the $75.5 million in fees and expenses
sought by plaintiffs' attorneys, The Associated Press reports.

In April, Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg
granted preliminary approval to a $179,950,000 settlement of the
suit (Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2007).

Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will provide up to
$179,950,000 in cash payments to consumers and in vouchers to
volume licensees and/or Iowa state or local governmental
entities that can be used towards the purchase of computers,
peripheral computer hardware, and software.

Microsoft attorney Rich Wallis said the company had agreed to
pay attorney fees of up to $75 million under the $179.95 million
agreement.  He said he was surprised when lawyers Roxanne Conlin
of Des Moines and Richard Hagstrom of Minneapolis said at an
April 19 preliminary settlement hearing that their request would
exceed that by $500,000.

Mr. Wallis said the decision to challenge attorney fees came as
the company fights the same group of attorneys over fees in a
similar case in Wisconsin, which was settled before trial.

According to the report, attorneys received about $48 million in
fees in Minnesota and are seeking $24.1 million in fees and
expenses in Wisconsin for just a few weeks work.

Mr. Wallis contends that Microsoft attorneys, looking through
billing documents in the Wisconsin case, became concerned that
they might be getting billed twice for the same work.

"They don't get to work an hour and bill that hour to Iowa,
Wisconsin and Minnesota," he said. "Based on what little we've
seen in Wisconsin, we felt the need to step back and see what
the plaintiffs are really claiming in each of these cases for
attorney's fees."

Microsoft is now seeking documentation from the law firms of Ms.
Conlin and Mr. Hagstrom in both Wisconsin and Iowa cases,
according to Mr. Wallis.

In court documents filed in the Wisconsin case, Microsoft called
the fee request "grossly excessive by any measure.

But Mr. Hagstrom said that Mr. Wallis knows the law firms have
not billed the same time in more than one state.

"It's ludicrous. He knows that's false and defamatory," Hagstrom
said.  "We have a written agreement. They've agreed to pay $75
million.  That's what we're asking for and no more."

According to Ms. Conlin, the additional $500,000 sought in the
Iowa case was billing for a company that had prepared a database
for their case.  She said she hoped the issue would be resolved
without the need to dig through seven years of billing records.

She said 150 lawyers worked thousands of hours and the firms
invested $50 million in the Iowa case.

"Consumers in Iowa are getting $180 million.  It took us seven
years and tens of thousands of hours, all of which was done on
contingency," she said.

Ms. Conlin said she had little involvement in the Wisconsin case
and was seeking compensation for just a few hours work there.

                        Case Background

Plaintiffs in the suit generally claim that Microsoft harmed
class members by:

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;

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

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security
         breaches.

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

     (i) personal computer operating system software, and

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

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

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.  The settlement also
applies to Iowa state and local governments that obtained
certain Microsoft software between July 1, 2002 and June 30,
2006, for use in Iowa, and not for resale.

A final approval hearing is set Aug. 31, 2007.  Claims filing
deadline is Dec. 14, 2007.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

          - and -

          Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP
          500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN55415
          Phone: 800-899-5291
          Fax: 612-336-9100
          E-mail: mfeinber@zelle.com
          Website: http://www.zelle.com

Representing Microsoft is:

          David B. Tulchin, Esq.
          Sullivan & Cromwell
          125 Broad Street
          New York, New York 10004-2498
          Phone: +1-212-558-3749
          Fax: +1-212-558-3588
          E-mail: tulchind@sullcrom.com


OL' ROY DISTRIBUTORS: Faces Nev. Consumer Fraud Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Nevada resident Margaret Picus filed a class action complaint in
the 8th Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada for
violations of applicable consumer fraud statutes, for unjust
information and belief against:

     -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;
     -- Menu Foods, Inc.;
     -- Del Monte Foods Co.;
     -- Sunshine Mills, Inc.; and
     -- ChemNutra Inc.

Ms. Picus accuses the companies of deceptively advertising that
"Ol' Roy" pet food was made in the U.S.A., and contained
components that were imported from outside of the U.S.

The suit alleges that the Ol' Roy brand pet food products that
were imported, manufactured and sold by defendants were
comprised of components that were manufactured outside of the
U.S., including but not limited to China.

At all relevant times, prior to March 16, defendants allegedly
failed to disclose and concealed the fact that Ol' Roy brand pet
food products contained ingredients or components that were
manufactured and/or made in China and failed to exercise
necessary skill and care required to determine the accuracy of
this statement.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Nevada
Rules of Civil Procedure as a nationwide class action on her own
and on behalf of all individuals in the U.S. who purchased one
or more Ol' Roy brand pet food products prior to March 16, 2007.

The Ol' Roy brand pet food products, which are the subject of
the complaint, are the following specific products:

     (a) Pouch with Beef
     (b) Pouch with Chicken
     (c) Pouch with Fillet Mignon
     (d) Pouch with Chicken Teriyaki
     (e) Pouch with Beef/Noodle/Vegetable
     (f) Pouch with Lamd/Rice/Gravy
     (g) Pouch with Stew
     (h) Pouch with Turkey
     (i) Can SI Beef
     (j) Can SI Chicken
     (k) Ol' Roy Beef Flavor Jerky Strips Dog Treats
     (l) Ol' Roy County Stew Hearty Cuts in Gravy Dog Food
     (m) Ol' Roy with Beef Hearty Cuts in Gravy Dog Food
     (n) Ol' Rpy with Beef Hearty Strips in Gravy Dog Food
     (o) 4-Flavor Large Biscuits
     (p) Peanut Butter Biscuits

Questions of law and fact raised by the purported class are:

     (i) whether defendants made deceptive representations or
         designations of geographic origin in connection with
         Ol'roy brand pet food products;

    (ii) whether the representations or designations of
         geographic origin in connection with Ol' Roy brand pet
         food products violated 15 U.S.C. Section 45a;

   (iii) whether Ol' roy brand pet food products were
         represented on the package labeling to have been "MADE
         IN USA";

    (iv) whether all, or virtually all, of the Ol' Roy brand pet
         food products were "Made in USA";

     (v) whether defendants were unjustly enriched through the
         distribution and/or sale of Ol' Roy brand pet food
         products as "Made in USA";

    (vi) whether defendants concealed the true origin of Ol' Roy
         brand pet food products and omitted the fact that Ol'
         Roy brand pet food products contained components that
         were manufactured and made, in whole or in part,
         outside the U.S.;

   (vii) whether the members of the class sustained damage as a
         result of the defendants' conduct;

  (viii) whether the defendants unfairly or unlawfully received
         and/or retained revenue acquired through the scheme
         alleged;

    (ix) whether the defendants engaged in a uniform corporate
         policy of marketing Ol' Roy brand pet food products as
         "Made in USA";

     (x) whether the applicable statute of limitations was
         tolled by virtue of defendant's concealment and fraud;
         and

    (xi) whether the defendants committed fraud in the
         marketing, distribution and/or sale of Ol' Roy brand
         pet food products and whether defendants participated
         in such fraud.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment in their favor
and against defendants as follows:

     -- certify this action as a class action;

     -- award damages and/or restitution in an amount to proven
        at trial;

     -- order declaratory relief finding that defendants have
        engaged in deceptive trade practices or practices in
        violation of federal and state laws;

     -- order injunctive relief enjoining defendants and their
        officers, directors, agents, distributors, servants,
        employees, attorneys, and all others in active concert
        or participation with defendants, or any of them,
        jointly and severally, during the pendency of this
        action and permanently thereafter from falsely
        representing the origin of the products;

     -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the
        maximum rate allowed by law and costs of suit;

     -- award plaintiff attorneys' fees and all litigation
        expenses as allowable by law.  Alternatively, for all
        attorneys' fees and all litigation expenses to be
        awarded pursuant to the substantial benefit doctrine or
        other authority requiring defendants to pay plaintiff's
        attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.  Alternatively,
        for attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses to be
        paid under the common fund doctrine or any other
        provision of law; and

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

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e70

The suit is "Margaret Picus et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et
al., Case No. A540315," filed in the 8th Judicial District Court
in Clark County, Nevada.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert B. Gerard, Esq.
          Lawrence T. Osuch, Esq.
          Gerard & Osuch, LLP
          2840 South Jones Blvd., D-4
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Phone: (702) 251-0093
          Fax: (702) 251-0094

          - and -

          Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 551-1223
          Fax: (858) 551-1232


OMNICOM GROUP: N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Granted Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class-action complaint against
Omnicon Group, its chief executive John Wren and other
executives, alleging they misrepresented the company's finances
to pump the stock price and defraud investors during the class
period of Feb. 20, 2001 through June 11, 2002, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were
filed against the company and certain senior executives in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The actions have since been consolidated under the caption "In
re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483
(RCC)," on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

     (1) the company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth;

     (2) the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
         internet investments made by the company's Communicade
         Group, which the company contributed to Seneca
         Investments LLC in 2001; and

     (3) the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys' fees.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on March 28, 2005,
the court dismissed portions (1) and (3) of the complaint.  The
court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate merits
of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.

Defendants have answered the complaint, and moved to have the
proposed class certified and the defendants have opposed that
motion, which is now fully briefed (Class Action Reporter, March
14, 2007).

On March 22, the Honorable Richard Conway Casey passed away.
Prior to his death, he has completed a substantial portion of
the work on this case.  And on April 30, Judge Keenan granted in
its entirety lead plaintiffs motion for class certification.

Additionally, the court ordered plaintiffs to propose a plan for
providing notice, as described in the complaint.

A copy of the judge's order is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e6a

The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge John Keenan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          Douglas M. McKeige, Esq.
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
          Phone: (212) 554-1400 and (212) 554-1481

          - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100 and 631-367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and
                  srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          David Harold Braff, Esq.
          Stacey Rubin Friedman
          Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          NY, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000
          Fax: 212-558-3333 and 212-558-3588
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com and
                  friedmans@sullcrom.com


ORIENTAL TRADING: High Lead Content of Necklaces Prompts Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Oriental Trading Co. Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska, is recalling
roughly 132,000 of Children's Religious Fish Necklaces.

The children's necklaces involved in the recall contain high
levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.

The company has not received neither incident nor injury
reports.

The recalled necklaces have a silver fish pendant that hangs
from a black cord were manufactured in China and exclusively
sold at Oriental Trading Co. Inc. Web site and catalog from
January 2005 through January 2007 for about 70 cents.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07172.html

Consumers should immediately take the recalled necklaces away
from children and discard it and contact Oriental Trading Co.
Inc. for information on how to receive a full refund or credit.

For additional information, contact Oriental Trading Co. Inc. at
(800) 723-6155 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.orientaltrading.com


PACIFICORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Klamath River Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Klamath River tribal leaders, commercial fishermen
and recreational business owners, filed a suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
PacifiCorp, contending that two of its dams in Northern
California are the cause of massive blooms of toxic algae that
are decimating the salmon fishery and causing an extreme
potential health hazard to humans.

"These dams are having a devastating impact on the economies and
cultures of Native Americans and others who depend on the
Klamath River," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of Kennedy & Madonna
of Hurley, New York, co-counsel in the case.

One of the main claims of the suit is that the "ceremonies and
substance fishing for Yurok and Karuk tribes are under siege
because of the deadly toxins created by PacifiCorp's dams," said
Joseph W. Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame,
California, Mr. Kennedy's co-counsel.

The lawsuit contends the reservoirs behind the Iron Gate and
Copco dams in Northern California near the Oregon border are a
toxic nuisance and that Portland-based PacifiCorp should be
enjoined from operating them in a way that causes the annual
toxic blooms because of improper intake and release of water.

"PacifiCorp's operation of the dams raises water temperatures in
the reservoirs well above natural levels" resulting in the
algae's growth "so much so that a layer of toxic scum now covers
the reservoirs from July through October," the suit said.

The suit was filed on behalf of Yurok and Karuk tribal leaders,
commercial salmon fishermen, river recreation business owners
and the Klamath Riverkeeper group.

The suit said that for at least the last six years, PacifiCorp
has been aware of the toxic algae blooms but has failed to
correct the situation.

According to co-counsel Daniel G. Cooper of Lawyers for Clean
Water Inc. of San Francisco, "The algae's effects go far beyond
the annual toxic blooms -- it poses a threat to the fishery and
human health, because it generates a potent liver toxin and
tumor promoter known as a microcystin."

Regina Chichizola of the Klamath Riverkeeper said the dams "are
creating and releasing toxic algae in concentrations 4,000 times
what is safe for contact according to the World Health
Organization.

For the local tribes and many business owners, these dams are
robbing river and coastal communities of their livelihoods and
causing potential health problems for the local population."

One of the plaintiffs is Michael T. Hudson, a Berkeley resident
who fishes out of Half Moon Bay and is president of the Small
Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association.  He called the
situation "a major environmental emergency, as evidenced by the
fact that just last year low returns of Klamath salmon prompted
fisheries managers to ban nearly all commercial salmon fishing
along 700 miles of coastline from Monterey Bay to Coos Bay,
Oregon."

PacifiCorp, whose hydroelectric operations provide power to
customers in Oregon and California, was acquired by MidAmerican
Energy in 2006.  MidAmerican is controlled, in turn, by Warren
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway investment group.

According to plaintiff Leaf Hillman, a ceremonial leader from
the Karuk Tribe, tribal members and fishermen transported two
Native American dugout canoes to Omaha where Berkshire Hathaway
shareholders are meeting May 4-5.

"We hope to talk to the shareholders and gain the company's and
Warren Buffett's support to do the right thing and correct the
situation," Mr. Hillman said.  "Warren Buffett is a decent man
who will understand our plight and as the new owner of the dam,
we ask that he consider our petition."

For more information, contact:

          Morrow Cater
          Klamath Media Coordinator
          Phone: 415-453-0430

          Don Thornton, Esq.
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
          Phone: 650-697-6000

          Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Esq.
          Kennedy & Madonna
          Phone: 845-331-7514

          Regina Chichizola
          Klamath Riverkeeper,
          541-951-0126

          - and -

          Daniel G. Cooper, Esq.
          Lawyers for Clean Water,
          Phone: 310-829-1229 X224


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Recalls Kids' Airwalk Compel Clog Shoes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Payless ShoeSource, Inc., of Topeka, Kans., announces the recall
of approximately 690,000 units of Children's Airwalk Compel
Shoes.

Payless said that plastic rivets used to attach the strap to the
shoe could detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

The company has received one report of a child who began to
choke on a detached rivet.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall only involves Airwalk Compel clog shoes sold in
prewalk sizes 3 through toddler size 10.  The flexible shoes
have air ventilation holes on the top and side and plastic
rivets with the Airwalk logo attached to the strap.  Airwalk and
the shoe size are printed on the sole of the shoe.  No other
sizes, styles or models are included in this recall.

These shoes were manufactured in China and were sold at Payless
ShoeSource and Pamida stores nationwide and
http://www.Payless.comfrom August 2006 through early April 2007
for about $13.

Consumers should take the shoes away from young children
immediately and return them to the store where purchased for a
refund or exchange.

To view picture of the product, visit:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07171.html

For additional information, call Payless at (800) 654-0697
between 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, 9:30
a.m. and 6 p.m. Sunday.  Consumers can also visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.payless.com


PEMCO AVIATION: Parties Settle Ala. Racial Bias, Harassment Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama against the Pemco
Aviation Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Pemco Aeroplex, have
reached a settlement for the matter.

In December 1999, the company and Pemco Aeroplex were served
with the suit, alleging unlawful employment practices of race
discrimination and racial harassment by the company's managers,
supervisors and other employees.

The suit is seeking declaratory, injunctive relief and other
compensatory and punitive damages.  It sought damages in the
amount of $75.0 million.

On July 27, 2000, the U.S. District Court determined that the
group would not be certified as a class since the plaintiffs
withdrew their request for class certification.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subsequently entered
the case purporting a parallel class action.  The court denied
consolidation of the cases for trial purposes, but provided for
consolidated discovery.

On June 28, 2002, a jury determined that there was no hostile
work environment in the original case and granted verdicts for
the company with regard to all 22 plaintiffs.  Nine plaintiffs
elected to settle with the company prior to the trial.

On Dec. 13, 2002, the court granted the company summary judgment
in the EEOC case.  That judgment was appealed to the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals by the EEOC.  The panel reinstated the
case to federal district court.

On Oct. 27, 2004, the company petitioned the 11th Circuit to
rehear the case en banc.  The petition was denied on Dec. 23,
2004.

The company filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court on March 23, 2005, which was denied on Oct.
3, 2005.  The case was remanded to federal district court in
Birmingham, Alabama for trial, and trial was scheduled for May
14, 2007.

In continuing mediation efforts, the company has reached an
agreement to settle the case with the EEOC for $0.4 million.
The settlement is currently pending court approval, which is
anticipated to occur by May 2007.

The suit is "Thomas, et al. v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:99-cv-03280-WMA," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge William M.
Acker, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Adedapo T. Agboola, Esq.
         Bender & Agboola, LLC
         711 18th Street
         North Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-322-2500
         Fax: 205-324-2120

         Cheryl A. Kidd, Esq.
         Simon & Associates
         1150 Financial Center, 505 North 20th Street
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-324-2727
         Fax: 205-324-2605

              - and -

         Tyrone Quarles, Esq.
         UAB Office Of Counsel
         820 Administration Building, 1530 3rd Avenue
         South Birmingham, AL 35294-0108
         Phone: 205-934-3474
         Fax: 205-975-6079
         E-mail: chill@uab.edu


PYR ENERGY: Faces Colo. Litigation Over Samson Investment Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
PYR Energy Corp. was named as a defendant in a purported class
action in relation to an offer by Samson Investment Co. to
acquire the company.

On April 2, 2007, Lawrence Paskowitz filed a class-action
complaint with the District Court, City and County of Denver,
Colorado against PYR Energy and its directors, David B.
Kilpatrick, Bryce W. Rhodes, and Dennis M. Swenson, under Case
No. 2007 CV 3276.

The complaint alleges that the company's directors breached
their duties of loyalty and care owed to PYR's stockholders
because, according to the Plaintiff, the company and its
directors have sought to obstruct an offer made by Samson
Investment to acquire the company and pursued their own
financial interest to the detriment of the company's
shareholders.

Plaintiff contends that:

      -- PYR's issuance of 59,000 stock options at $1.01 per
         share to three PYR officers purposely caused an
         immediate dilution of Samson's ownership;

      -- PYR's adoption of a shareholders rights plan was a
         means of preventing any entity from acquiring control
         of PYR;

      -- the sale of PYR's assets known as the Ryckman Creek
         Field on Feb. 2, 2007 were sold for a price
         substantially lower than the price Samson would have
         paid for it; and

      -- the directors have caused significant delay and engaged
         in corporate machinations designed to frustrate
         Samson's offer while failing to investigate and pursue
         potential alternative proposals.

In the complaint, Mr. Paskowitz has demanded the following:

      -- judgment for declaring the instant action to be a
         proper class action;

      -- judgment ordering PYR to carry out their fiduciary
         duties to Mr. Paskowitz and the common stockholders and
         requiring PYR to respond in good faith to any bona fide
         potential buyer of PYR;

      -- judgment ordering PYR's Shareholder Rights Plan be
         temporarily and permanently enjoined; and

      -- judgment awarding the costs and disbursements of the
         action, including a reasonable allowance for Mr.
         Paskowitz's attorney's and experts' fees.

Colorado-based PYR Energy Corp. -- http://www.pyrenergy.com/--  
is an independent oil and gas exploration and production company
that is engaged in the exploration, development and acquisition
of crude oil and natural gas reserves.


REFCO INC: Judge Lynch Junks Claims Against Bond Underwriters
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch dismissed on April 30 a suit
against three bond underwriters and an ex-chief financial
officer of Refco Inc. in a class action over the collapse of the
company, Reuters reports.

The judge dismissed the suit against "The Bond Underwriter":

     * Credit Suisse Securities,
     * Banc of America, and
     * Deutsche Bank Securities,

which were among 15 banks that underwrote Refco's initial public
offering in August 2005.  He also granted a motion to dismiss
claims against Robert Trosten, Refco's chief financial officer
from 2001 to 2004.

Claims remains against Phillip Bennett, Refco's former chief
executive officer; Tone Grant, former president; William Sexton,
former chief operating officer; Gerald Sherer, former chief
financial officer; and other executives, including Joseph
Murphy, Philip Silverman, General Counsel Dennis Klejna and
outside auditor Grant Thornton LLP.

People and entities affiliated with Thomas H. Lee Partners, a
private equity firm that helped Refco with a leveraged buyout;
and three former Refco outside directors who were members of its
audit committee, remain defendants in the suit.

                        Case Background

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

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

In Feb. 2006, U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch appointed New
York law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and
Wilmington, Delaware-based Grant & Eisenhofer as counsel to the
lead plaintiffs.  RH Capital Associates LLC and Pacific
Investment Management Co. (Pimco) were lead plaintiffs in the
class action.

An amended complaint against Refco is available for free at:

         http://researcharchives.com/t/s?78e

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

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          John P. Coffey, Esq.
          John C. Browne, Esq.
          Noam N. Mandel, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP
          1285 Ave. of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400
          Fax: (212) 554-1444

          - and -

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


RESCARE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Labor Laws Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin E. Hooks & Associates, LLC, of Savannah, Ga., Lee &
Braziel, LLP, of Dallas, and the Law Offices of Benjamin H.
Terry, P.C., of Peachtree City, Ga., filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
against ResCare, Inc.

The lawsuit accuses ResCare of violating federal labor law by
not paying workers for travel time to and from job assignments,
according to a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

The law firms will seek to have the case certified as a
collective action intended to recover back wages for eligible
current and former employees who have provided services to
Defendants' medically home-bound clients at the residences of
those clients since March 2004.

The complaint alleges that "[t]he pay policy and/or practice of
Defendants expressly provides that Defendants shall not
compensate employees for travel time between job sites during a
day, even though that travel time is compensable travel that is
all in a day's work.  In fact, Plaintiffs were given specific
instructions by Defendants that they could not submit time
sheets reflecting time spent for travel between job sites during
the day."

Named plaintiff Chiquita Geddis, of Woodbury, Ga., said,
"Earning $8.00 per hour for backbreaking work that few people
will do is difficult enough, but to have our take-home pay
reduced because we were not paid for travel time seems wrong.
On a daily or weekly basis, the lost wages may not seem like
much, but add them up over three years, and it's significant.
No one told us that travel time was on the clock.  It's
upsetting to find out that news this way."

The other named plaintiffs are Yekether Barnes, of Manchester,
Ga., Felicia Holt, of Concord, Ga., and Deborah Harris, of Gay,
Ga.

Attorney Kevin Hooks, of Kevin E. Hooks & Associates, LLC, of
Savannah, Ga., said, "Many employees of ResCare and its
subsidiaries work in rural areas, and some drive long distances
from house to house to deliver services.  The law is clear that
workers must be paid for travel when it's an integral part of
the job.  Companies like ResCare rely on personnel who typically
work out of their homes, and report to a regional or divisional
offices periodically, generally to pick up schedules and
paychecks.  Employees who work on this basis too often are not
informed of their rights when it comes to 'wage and hour' law."

Attorney J. Derek Braziel, of Lee & Braziel, LLP, in Dallas,
said, "Like other companies in this sector, ResCare and its
subsidiaries have grown quickly, in part, because managed care
providers, such as Medicare, have forced shorter hospital stays
and increased funding of post-discharge, in-home services.
ResCare also has been an acquirer of smaller companies, and now
has numerous subsidiaries.  Rapid growth of this sort and the
ramping up of staff can cause serious labor issues that lead to
FLSA claims.  We are continuing our investigation of this
matter."

The suit is "Geddis et al. v. Southern Home Care Services, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00036-JTC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T.
Camp.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kevin E. Hooks, Esq.
          Kevin E. Hooks & Associates, LLC
          41 Park of Commerce Way, Suite 107
          Savannah, GA 365201
          Phone: 912-233-8105
          Fax: 912-233-8101
          E-mail: khooks@kehlaw.com

          - and -

          Benjamin H. Terry, Esq.
          Office of Benjamin H. Terry
          312 Crosstown Rd., Suite 355
          Peachtree City, GA 30269
          Phone: 770-394-1502
          E-mail: btlawyer@mindspring.com


ST. LAWRENCE: Granted Leave to Appeal Beauport Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Lawrence Cement Group has been granted leave to appeal a
judgment rendered on October 31, 2006 by the Quebec Court of
Appeal that holds the company liable for damages in the context
of a class action brought by the residents of Beauport, Quebec.

The company has recorded a pre-tax provision of $13.8 million as
a result of this judgment, as reported in its 2006 annual
report.

In November 2006, St. Lawrence acknowledged with reservations
the decision rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which
partially upheld its challenge of the May 2003 Superior Court
judgment in the class action filed by residents and property
owners of Beauport (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2006).

Plaintiffs alleged having suffered undue inconveniences and loss
of property value from the operations of the St. Lawrence Cement
plant in this municipality from 1991 to 1997.

On October 31, 2006, the Quebec Court of Appeal held that St.
Lawrence Cement was liable for damages in the context of a class
action brought in relation to the company's operations at its
Beauport plant from 1991 to 1997.

In December 2006, believing that it has reasonable grounds to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, applied for leave to
appeal the Oct. 31, 2006 judgment (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
7, 2006).

The company believes that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is
flawed in several respects and that it raises legal issues of
great importance in relation to class actions and industrial
operations in Quebec and throughout Canada.  In the Company's
view, the Supreme Court's guidance is required on these issues.

St. Lawrence Cement Group is pleased with the Supreme Court's
recent ruling of accepting to examine the important issues of
environmental law and class actions raised by the Beauport case,
which are of concern to the company and to the industry as a
whole.

St. Lawrence Cement Group is a leading producer and supplier of
products and services for the construction industry, namely
cement, concrete, aggregates and construction.  The company
operates in Canada and on the eastern seaboard of the United
States, and employs a total of 3,200 people.

For more details, contact:

          Aurelie Sabatie
          Corporate Communications, St. Lawrence Cement Group
          Phone: 514-340-1555, ext. 210
          Fax: 514-342 8154


STUBHUB INC: Faces Security Breach Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Ebay Inc.'s ticket platform subsidiary StubHub Inc. was sued in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
in February 2007.

The case was a purported class action alleging that StubHub
violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act by
allegedly printing receipts containing more than the last five
digits of a credit card number or the expiration date.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys fees.

The suit is "Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01328-PSG-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California before Philip S. Gutierrez
with referral to Judge Suzanne H. Segal.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Farris E. Ain, Esq.
          Robert S. Ackley, Esq.
          Herbert Hafif Law Offices
          269 W. Bonita Ave.
          Claremont, CA 91711-4784
          Phone: 909-624-1671
          E-mail: farris.ain@hafif.com


SWIFT BEEF: Appeals $2.3M Judgment in S.D. Cattle Pricing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Beef Co., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of S&C
Holdco 3, Inc., is appealing a $2.3M judgment in a South Dakota
class action alleging violation of the Packers and Stockyards
Act.

On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against ConAgra Beef Co.
(which was acquired by S&C Holdco, and renamed Swift Beef Co.),
Tyson Foods, Inc., Excel Co., and Farmland National Beef Packing
Co., L.P. in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota seeking
certification of a class of all persons who sold cattle to the
defendants for cash, or on a basis affected by the cash price
for cattle, during the period from April 2, 2001 through May 11,
2001 and for some period up to two weeks thereafter.

Three named plaintiffs filed the case on behalf of a nationwide
class that they estimate is comprised of hundreds or thousands
of members.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without
correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef
price information generated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to purchase cattle offered for sale by the
plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by
the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period.

Plaintiffs seek an estimated $9.2 million in actual damages
against Swift Beef under various causes of action, including
restitution based on equitable principles of unjust enrichment.
They also seek attorneys' fees and expenses.

On April 12, 2006, the jury returned a verdict against three of
the four defendants, including a $2.3 million verdict against
Swift Beef.  The court issued a final order of judgment on Feb.
14, 2007.

Swift Beef has begun the process of appealing the judgment,
according to S&C Holdco's April 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Feb. 25, 2007.

S&C Holdco 3, Inc. is a holding company for and the parent
company of U.S. meat processing giant Swift & Co.


TARGET: Recalls Bamboo Collection Games on High Lead Content
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target, of Minneapolis, Minn., is recalling about 5,000 Anima -
Bamboo Collection Games.

According to Target, the toys in the bamboo game sets could
contain lead paint, which is toxic if ingested by young children
and can cause adverse health effects.

This recall involves Anima-Bamboo Collection Games.  The games
contain 38 bamboo pads, four ghosts, and one dice.  The
product's packaging is an orange box with the words "Anima" and
"BAMBOO Collection Games" are printed on each side.

HaPe International Ltd., of Ningbo, China manufactured the toys
involved in the recall and these were being sold at Target
stores nationwide from December 2006 through April 2007 for $10.

Although no incidents or injuries have been reported at the
moment, consumers should still immediately take the game away
from children and return them to the nearest Target store for
full refund, including applicable sales tax.

Photo of Anima - Bamboo Collection Games:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07173.html

For more details, call Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7 a.m.
and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.target.com.


TIVO INC: Calif. Court Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco gave final approval to a settlement reached in a
consumer class action filed against TiVo, Inc. in relation to
gift subscriptions that it sold

Filed on Dec. 22, 2005, the action, "Nolz, et al. v. TiVo,
Inc.," was brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the company's gift subscriptions, which were allegedly sold
to consumers in violation of a California law that allegedly
makes it unlawful to sell gift certificates in California
containing an expiration date.

In November 2006, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs.  On March 23, 2007, the Court
entered final judgment in the lawsuit approving the company's
settlement agreement with plaintiffs that included no admission
or findings of any violations and dismissed the action,
according to the company's April 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2007.

TiVo, Inc. -- http://www.tivo.com-- is a provider of technology
and services for digital video recorders.


TOP TANKERS: N.Y. Court Considers Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the appointment of a
lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against Top Tankers, Inc.

Initially, the company and certain of its executive officers and
directors were named as defendants in a putative securities
fraud class action.  The suit is alleging violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

As of the company's April 20, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006, none of the defendants has been served in
this action, which has been consolidated with nine additional
putative class actions.

The court is currently considering a motion for the appointment
of a lead plaintiff.

The first identified complaint is "Bhojwani v. Pistiolis et al.
Case No. 1:06-cv-13761-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C.
Casey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-9330
         Fax: (212) 983-9331
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

         Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Phone: (201) 567-7377

              - and -

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn, Gauthier Swick, LLC
         650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: (504) 455-1400

Representing the defendants is:

         Justina Louise Geraci, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 295-6380
         Fax: (212) 230-8888
         E-mail: justina.geraci@wilmerhale.com


UBS FINANCIAL: Colo. Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Financial Services Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado accusing it of
illegally transferring investors' money into accounts that pay
below-market interest.

Lead plaintiff Amy Straily brings this action as a class action
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons who have accounts with UBS
Financial of less than $1 million and where UBS Financial has
automatically deposited un-invested cash with UBS Bank.

According to the complaint, while purporting to have
discretionary authority as a financial or investment advisor,
UBS Financial automatically deposits un-invested cash in certain
accounts (such as IRAs) in belowmarket interest bearing accounts
with UBS Bank USA, an affiliate of UBS Financial that was formed
in late 2003, instead of in savings or money market accounts
yielding substantially higher interest, or other cash
equivalents.

Plaintiff contends that by placing such funds with UBS Bank, UBS
Financial in its capacity as a financial or investment advisor
has breached fiduciary duties and the duty of good faith and
fair dealing to its customers by favoring its (and its
affiliates') interests, through the receipt of profits by paying
a below-market rate, over the paramount interests of its own
customers, who are entitled to market-rate interest on un-
invested cash.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether UBS Financial breached its fiduciary duties;
         and/or

     (b) whether UBS breached its duties of good faith and fair
         dealing.

Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants and each of them
jointly and severally as follows:

     -- that the Court certify this action as a class action and
        appoint Plaintiff as the representative and her counsel
        as Lead Counsel pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure;

     -- that Plaintiff and Class members recover damages,
        punitive damages, and costs;

     -- that the Court award equitable relief, as appropriate;

     -- that Plaintiff and Class members recover moratory
        interest, pre- and post-judgment interest; attorney
        fees; and

     -- such other and further relief as the Court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e71

The suit is "Straily v. UBS Financial Services Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-00884-REB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Robert E. Blackburn.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Richard B. Podoll, Esq.
          Podoll & Podoll, P.C.
          5619 DTC Parkway, #1100
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111-4537
          Phone: 303-861-4000
          Fax: 303-861-4004
          E-mail: rich@podoll.net


UNITED PARCEL: Franchise Store Owners Sue Over Shipping Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP commenced a
proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against United Parcel Service,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, claiming the shipping giant
routinely uses an inaccurate measurement system that causes
thousands of franchise store owners to be back-charged for
higher shipping rates.

According to the complaint, franchise owners measure packages in
the store, charge the customer and ship the package to UPS where
the company re-measures the package using what the suit claims
is inaccurate techniques and back-charges the franchisee for the
difference.

In the complaint, franchisees argue that since the re-
measurement process occurs at UPS facilities, they have no
ability to argue the revised measurements, nor do they have the
ability to reassess the customer for the additional charges.

According to attorneys representing the proposed class, the
problem is widespread costing the 4,000 franchise owners
millions of dollars in back charges.

Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
says that his clients are most upset with their inability to
dispute additional charges.

"The packages are reassessed in an external location where
owners can't see the process or results," he said.  "This
reminds me of the old trick of the butcher placing his thumb on
the scale. Back then though at least you could see the scale."

The accuracy of the laser technology UPS uses to measure
packages has long been suspect, the compliant notes, citing
complaints by trade associations that represent franchise
owners.

The laser measuring system used at UPS has not been approved by
any state Weights and Measures Departments, the complaint notes,
and any calibration or adjustments are completely under the
control of UPS.

"Our investigation has show that this may be a very widespread
problem at UPS, not just with franchises, but also with the
shipper's largest corporate customers who compute charges in-
house before shipping to UPS," Berman added.  "Adding a few
bucks to each package can quickly add up to millions."

The suit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Persepolis
Enterprise.  If certified as a class action, the suit would
represent the named plaintiff on behalf of all franchises
worldwide that operate under the UPS Store, Mail Box Etc. and
companies that are account-holders with UPS.

The complaint states several counts against UPS including breach
of contract, fraud and unjust enrichment.  Within those claims
UPS violated the contractual agreement between the company and
individual franchises stating that UPS had no right to charge
for alleged mismeasurements.  UPS also failed to use accurate,
properly calibrated and tested machines as promised in its
obligations to franchise owners.

The suit is seeking damages for all UPS Stores nationwide as
well as six digit account holders, primarily corporate accounts.
A small sampling of the plaintiff's additional charges range
from $3.52 - $31.43 per package and that is only a very small
number of the thousands of charges it has incurred.

"UPS has an obligation to its franchise owners to deal fairly
and in good faith," said Berman.

According to the compliant UPS is one of the most recognized
brands in the world and has become the largest package delivery
company.  The company's focus is enabling commerce worldwide and
has grown into a $42.6 billion business since its founding in
1907.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether UPS uses a laser measuring system;

     (b) whether the system is inaccurate;

     (c) whether UPS has systematically adjusted bills or
         accounts based on this system;

     (d) whether "adjustment" to bills based on that system are
         lawful; and

     (e) the amount of damages owing to the class.

Plaintiffs pray as follows:

     -- for judgment against defendant on their claims together
        with an award of all damages available under such laws;

     -- for judgment against defendant on their claims of unjust
        enrichment to the defendant, including restitution of
        defendant's wrongful profits, revenues, and benefits to
        the extent, and in the amount, deemed appropriate by the
        court, as well as such other relief as the court deems
        proper to remedy defendant's unjust enrichment; and

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

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e6b

The suit is "Persepolis Enterprise v. United Parcel Service,
Inc. (Delaware corporation) et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02379-JCS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com and tony@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          425 Second Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Phone: 415-896-6300
          Fax: 415-896-6301
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com and shanas@hbsslaw.com


WD-40 CO: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported consumer fraud
class action pending against WD-40 Co. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud
in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners.
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed
by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2006.

The amended complaint is seeking class-action status.  It
alleges that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes
Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl
cleaners (ATBCs) are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully
omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging
effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic
and rubber.

The complaint seeks to remedy such allegedly wrongful conduct:

      -- by requiring the company to identify all consumers who
         have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be
         ordered by the court; and

      -- by the granting of other equitable relief, interest,
         attorneys' fees and costs.

Though a new named plaintiff brought this case, it is legally
and factually identical to a similar case that was dismissed by
the San Diego Superior Court in April 2005.

The company reported no development on the matter in its April
9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2007.

The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W-
AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California under Judge Thomas J. Whelan with referral to
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert L. Kenny, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny
         401 West A Street, Suite 2300
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 234-1616
         Fax: (619) 234-1650

Representing the company is:

         Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
         Baker and McKenzie
         101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
         San Diego, CA 92101-8213
         Phone: (619) 236-1441
         Fax: (619) 236-0429


WEST VIRGINIA: Teachers Threaten Lawsuit Against Board of Educ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several teachers and school faculty have announced they plan to
file a lawsuit against the West Virginia Board of Education, NBC
25 reports.

West Virginia Board of Education will most likely face a lawsuit
in 30 days if teachers from Eastern Panhandle don't get just
compensation.

In fact, the beginning teachers in Berkeley County said they
make an average less than $29,000 a year, which, by law, should
be much higher.

Kitty Cauffman, a former school administrator, said that with
the neighboring counties and being part of the metropolitan
area, the standard of living is so much higher.

Based on the law that the Board of Education has ignored for
more than 16 years, teachers' salary must complement to the
rising cost of living in growing counties.

The State Board didn't seem to heed their appeal for a higher
salary during their protest about two months ago and now, they
seek for restitution.  These petitioners, including the
principals, bus drivers, secretaries and maintenance workers,
said they will go to court in exactly 30 days should the Board
of Ed not comply with the law.


ZORAN CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the purported securities fraud class
action, "Zucker v. Zoran Corp., et al.," has voluntarily
dismissed its case.

On Aug. 10, 2006, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Zoran and certain of its officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The court selected Middlesex Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and
approved lead plaintiff's selection of counsel for the class.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Feb. 1, 2007 and a
second amended complaint on Feb. 20, 2007.

On March 8, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  On
March 20, 2007, lead plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily
dismissing the action with prejudice as to the lead plaintiff.

The first identified complaint is "Murray Zucker, et al. v.
Zoran Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-04843," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge William H. Alsup.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Stull, Stull & Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310.209.2468

         Stull, Stull & Brody
         6 East 45th Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 310.209.2468
         Fax: 310.209.2087
         E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

              - and -

         Weiss & Lurie
         The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600
         New York, NY 10126
         Phone: 212.682.3025
         Fax: 212.682.3010
         E-mail: info@wyca.com


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CertainTeed Records 2,000 New Claims in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain's subsidiary, CertainTeed Corp.,
during the 2007-1st quarter, had about 2,000 new asbestos-
related claims, which is equivalent to the number of claims
settled during the period.

About 76,000 claims remained outstanding at the end of March
2007, similar to the situation at the end of December 2006,
according to a Company press release dated April 26, 2007.

At the end of March 2007, the average cost of claims settled in
the past 12 months or in the process of being settled came to
around US$3,200, slightly increasing compared with December 2006
(US$3,000).

Headquartered in Courbevoie, France, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain
produces glass and controls more than 1,000 firms in five
sectors: Building Distribution, Construction products, Flat
Glass, Packaging, and High-Production Materials. The Company
makes 30 billion glass containers annually and provides
insulation for 20 percent of U.S. homes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.063B Liabilities in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities,
as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$1.063 billion, compared
with US$1.079 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a
Company press release dated April 26, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
insurance receivables amounted to US$725 million, which is the
same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Co. is a diversified
chemical company that offers products and services to customers
in 180 countries. The Company has annual sales of US$49 billion
and employs 43,000 people worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Refinery Worker Sues 43 Firms in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey, on behalf of refinery
worker Paul Martin, sued A.O. Smith Corp. and 42 other companies
for distributing asbestos-containing products, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

Mr. Martin's petition was filed on April 24, 2007 with the
Jefferson County District Court in Texas. Judge Milton
Shuffield, 136th District Court, has been assigned to Case No.
D179-167.

The petition says Mr. Martin was a lifelong smoker. This is the
third case of its type filed by Mr. Blevins in the last 30 days.

Mr. Martin is blaming an assortment of corporations, like
Lockheed Martin Corp. and Zurn Industries Inc. for manufacturing
and distributing asbestos-laced products. Medical records
attached to his suit state that he had a significant
occupational exposure to asbestos, probably while working as a
welder/inspector for a refinery from 1966 to 1990.

The document also says Mr. Martin, a colon cancer patient, has
been a cigarette smoker for most of his adult life.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Northern Has 1,941 Claims in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., for the three months ended
March 31, 2007, recorded 1,941 pending asbestos-related claims
filed against it, compared with 2,153 claims for the three
months ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 24, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 139
claims filed and 173 claims that were settled, dismissed, or
otherwise resolved. For the three months ended March 31, 2006,
the Company noted 211 claims filed and 179 claims that were
settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.

The Company faces personal injury claims by employees and non-
employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest
exposure for Company employees was due to work conducted in and
around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out
between the years of 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company paid US$5
million for asbestos-related matters, compared with US$4 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2006.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company's accrued
obligations for both asserted and unasserted asbestos matters
amounted to US$301 million, compared with US$322 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2006.

Of the March 31, 2007 obligation, US$247 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$54 million was related to asserted
claims. At March 31, 2007, US$21 million was included in current
liabilities.

Based in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged mainly in the freight rail
transportation business. Subsidiary BNSF Railway Co. operates a
rail network with about 32,000 route miles in 28 states in two
Canadian provinces. BNSF Railway transports products and
commodities including consumer products, industrial products,
coal and agricultural products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation's Reserves Remain at $48M in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp.'s subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company LLC,
reserved at March 31, 2007 about US$48 million for asbestos-
related bodily injury claims, the same as for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25,
2007.

As of March 31, 2007, about US$12 million of this amount relates
to 138 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$36 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2030
based on actuarial assumptions and analysis.

In the 2005-2nd quarter, Generation engaged independent
actuaries to determine if a reasonable estimate of future losses
could be calculated associated with asbestos-related personal
injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by
Generation or were previously owned by Company subsidiaries
Commonwealth Edison Co. and PECO Energy Co.

Generation recorded an undiscounted US$43 million pre-tax charge
for its estimated portion of all estimated future asbestos-
related personal injury claims estimated to be presented through
2030.

The US$43 million pre-tax charge was recorded as part of
operating and maintenance expense in Generation's Consolidated
Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income in 2005 and
reduced net income by US$27 million after tax.

Headquartered in Chicago, Exelon Corp. distributes electricity
to 5.4 million customers in northern Illinois and in
southeastern Pennsylvania through Commonwealth Edison Co. and
PECO Energy Co., which also distributes natural gas to 480,000
customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United States Steel Has 310 Actions in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corp., as of March 31, 2007, faced about 310
active asbestos-related cases involving about 3,300 plaintiffs,
compared with about 300 cases with about 3,700 plaintiffs as of
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25,
2007.

Almost 3,000, or about 91 percent, of these claims are pending
in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.

During the 2007-1st quarter, the Company paid about US$1.4
million in settlements. These settlements, along with review of
case docket information for certain states, and voluntary and
involuntary dismissals, resulted in the disposition of about 600
claims. New case filings added about 200 claims.

During 2006, the Company paid about US$8 million in settlements.
These settlements, along with review of case docket information
for certain states, and voluntary and involuntary dismissals,
resulted in the disposition of about 5,150 claims. New case
filings added about 450 claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is a
defendant in cases in which a total of about 150 plaintiffs
allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.

In many of those cases in which claims have been asserted
against the Company, the plaintiffs have been unable to
establish any causal relationship to the Company or its products
or premises.

In addition, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all, that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos, or that an alleged exposure was in any way related to
the Company or its products or premises.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corp. is an
integrated steelmaker with mills in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Slovakia. The
Company produces sheet and semifinished steel, tubular and plate
steel, and tin products. The Company agreed to acquire Lone Star
Technologies Inc. for US$2.1 billion in 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Records $110M Claims Charge in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc., in the 2007-1st quarter, recorded a charge of
US$110 million, pretax and after-tax, including a mark-to-market
charge of US$101 million reflecting the increase in the
Company's common stock from Dec. 31, 2006 to March 31, 2007 and
a US$9 million charge to adjust the estimated fair value of
certain other components of a proposed asbestos settlement.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against
Corning and Pittsburgh Corning Corp., which might arise from PCC
products or operations.

The proposed settlement, if approved, will require Corning to
relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity
interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V., a Belgian
corporation, and contribute 25 million shares of Corning common
stock.

The Company also agreed to make cash payments with a value of
US$131 million, in March 2003, over six years from the effective
date of the settlement and to assign insurance policy proceeds
from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance
at the time of the settlement.

As a result of the proposed asbestos settlement, any changes in
the estimated fair value of the components of the proposed
settlement agreement will be recognized in the Company's
quarterly results until the date of the contribution to the
settlement trust.

Beginning with the 2003-1st quarter, the Company has recorded
total net charges of US$927 million to reflect the estimated
fair value of its asbestos liability.

Headquartered in Corning, N.Y., Corning Inc. makes specialty
glass and ceramics. Products include glass substrates for LCD
televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates
and filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber,
cable, hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks;
optical biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics
and specialty glass solutions for a number of industries
including semiconductor, aerospace, defense, astronomy and
metrology.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Records $150M Current Obligations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd.'s current asbestos-related obligations as of March 31,
2007 amounted to US$150 million, the same as for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos-related
obligations amounted to US$262 million, compared with US$282
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos obligations stood at US$217
million as of June 30, 2006, compared with US$1.128 billion as
of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
obligations stood at US$340 million. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 4, 2006)

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd. operates through
two major divisions: power technologies and automation
technologies. The power technologies division provides the power
supply industry with equipment and services for transmission,
distribution, and automation. The automation technologies unit
offers equipment used to monitor and control processes in plants
and utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. AB Electrolux Rise to 1,701 in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
AB Electrolux, as of March 31, 2007, recorded a total of 1,701
pending asbestos-related cases, representing about 2,670
plaintiffs, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2007.

A total of 262 new cases with about 265 plaintiffs were filed
and 249 pending cases with about 5,300 plaintiffs were resolved
during the 2007-1st quarter. About 640 of the plaintiffs relate
to cases pending in the state of Mississippi.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced 1,688 pending asbestos-
related cases, representing about 7,700 plaintiffs. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007)

Litigation and claims related to asbestos are pending against
the Company in the United States. Almost all of the cases refer
to externally supplied components used in industrial products
made by discontinued operations before the 1970s.

Many of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs who have made
identical allegations against many other defendants who are not
part of the Company.

More suits may be filed against Electrolux in the future.

Headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, AB Electrolux makes washing
machines, stoves, refrigerators, and freezers under the AEG,
Electrolux, Eureka, Frigidaire, and Zanussi names. The Company
also makes vacuum cleaners under Electrolux and Eureka brands.
The Company's products are sold in about 90 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has 110,133 Claims in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc., as of March 31, 2007, recorded
110,133 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it,
compared with 109,764 claims for the year ended 2006, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 849
new claims filed, 184 claims settled, and 296 claims dismissed.
For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 4,446 new
claims filed, 12,564 claims dismissed, and 847 claims settled.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
asbestos-related personal injury claims arising from its
historical sales of boilers and railroad brake shoes. In these
asbestos-related suits, the Company is usually named as one of a
large group of defendants.

Many of these suits involve multiple claimants, do not
specifically identify the injury or disease for which damages
are sought, and do not allege a connection between any Company
product and a claimed injury or disease.

As a result, numerous suits have been placed, and may remain on,
inactive or deferred dockets, which some jurisdictions have
established.

From receipt of its first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
to March 31, 2007, the Company has resolved 58,315 claims. The
total amount of all settlements paid by the Company, excluding
insurance recoveries, and by its insurance carriers is about
US$90.1 million, for an average payment per resolved claim of
US$1,545.

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, the average
payment per claim resolved was US$11,148, compared with US$1,509
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

At March 31, 2007, the total asbestos liability was estimated at
US$660.1 million, compared with US$665.8 million at Dec. 31,
2006.

The asbestos indemnity liability decreased by US$5.7 million
during the first three months of 2007 due to claims payments
made during the first quarter.

Headquartered in Piscataway, N.J., American Standard Companies
Inc. makes air conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. The Company makes vehicle-braking
systems through subsidiary WABCO.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery of ASD Suit Extended to Nov. 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery of an asbestos lawsuit, filed by American Standard
Companies Inc. against certain insurance carriers, is extended
through Nov. 12, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
April 27, 2007.

The Company filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various of its primary
and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for
environmental claims (NJ Litigation).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to add
to the NJ Litigation 16 more insurers and 117 new insurance
policies. The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation.

The Company and the defendants in the NJ Litigation have engaged
in their first mediation session on Jan. 18, 2006 and have
engaged in active discussions since that time.

With the addition of the parties and policies, the NJ Litigation
would resolve the coverage issues with respect to about 94
percent of the recorded receivable.

In February 2005, the Company settled with Equitas for US$84.5
million to buy-out the participants of certain underwriters in
pre-1993 Lloyd's, London policies included in the Company's
insurance coverage.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, US$64.9 million remained in a trust,
excluding interest, which expired Jan. 3, 2007. Under the
settlement, the balance of the funds was disbursed to the
Company on Jan. 4, 2007.

Of the US$64.9 million, about US$44.2 million relates to
historical asbestos claim settlements and current legal expenses
incurred and the balance represents amounts relating to future
legal costs to be incurred.

At March 31, 2007, the asbestos receivable was US$432.2 million,
compared with US$385.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The asbestos receivable decreased by US$43.6 million during the
first three months of 2007.

Headquartered in Piscataway, N.J., American Standard Companies
Inc. makes air conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. The Company makes vehicle-braking
systems through subsidiary WABCO.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Records 120,200 Claims in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., for the three months ended March
31, 2007, recorded 120,200 asbestos-related claims filed against
it, compared with 124,000 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 27, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 700
new claims filed and 4,500 claims settled or dismissed. For the
same period, the Company made asbestos-related payments of US$3
million.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 3,900 new
claims filed and 5,400 claims settled or dismissed. For the same
period, the Company made asbestos-related payments of US$19
million.

The Company faces lawsuits alleging asbestos-related personal
injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to certain
asbestos products made by the Company or present in certain of
its facilities. These suits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 44,600 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal or by entering into a
settlement. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related
liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs,
totaled about US$276 million through March 31, 2007 and US$272
million through Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company had recorded liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$125
million at March 31, 2007 and at Dec. 31, 2006. The portion of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims was
US$60 million at March 31, 2007 and US$63 million at Dec. 31,
2006.

The Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and
related defense costs was US$65 million at March 31, 2007 and
US$62 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007 and as of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had
recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$66
million and the Company expects that about 50 percent of
asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable up to its
accessible policy limits through the period covered by the
estimated liability.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
makes tires and operates about 95 plants worldwide. The Company
has nearly 1,800 retail tire and auto centers. The Company also
makes Dunlop tires for sale in North America and Europe through
its alliance with Japan's Sumitomo.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed from Most Miss. Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co. Inc., as of April 27, 2007, has been dismissed from
most of the asbestos cases filed in Mississippi against the
Company, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2007.

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

As of April 27, 2007, the Company has been dismissed from four
of the cases in Illinois.

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the
Company purchased from third parties.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims.
It has not made any provision in its financial statements for
the asbestos litigation.

Headquartered in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co. Inc. designs and
manufactures high-strength forged and cast metal components for
aerospace and industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile
components, landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace
products generate more than 80 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Automation Still Has Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos used in certain Company products, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 27, 2007.

There are thousands of claimants in suits that name the Company
as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.
However, most of the complaints do not identify any of the
Company's products or specify which of these claimants were
exposed to asbestos attributable to Company products.

In addition, when Company products appear to be identified, in
some cases they are from divested businesses, and the Company is
indemnified for most of the costs. However, the Company has
agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with
products made or sold by its Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses before
their divestiture by the Company, which occurred on Jan. 31,
2007. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

The Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court on Feb. 12, 2004 to enforce the insurance policies against
Nationwide Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance, the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to the
Company's former Allen-Bradley subsidiary.

As a result, the insurance carriers have paid some past defense
and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay the majority of
future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos
claims, subject to policy limits.

In conjunction with the sale of its Dodge mechanical and
Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses,
the Company agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Co. for all
damages related to certain legal, legacy environmental and
asbestos matters of these businesses arising before Jan. 31,
2007.

The Company estimates that the potential future payments it
could incur under these indemnifications may average US$32.5
million, of which US$26.8 million has been accrued as of March
31, 2007.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation Inc. is an
industrial automation company operating through two segments:
control systems and power systems. The former makes motor
starters and contactors, relays, timers, signaling devices, and
variable speed drives. The latter offers power transmission
products, bushings, clutches, motor brakes, conveyor pulleys,
couplings, bearings, and mechanical drives.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $2.7M Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners LP, as of March 31, 2007, recorded
US$2.7 million in current liabilities to address remediation of
asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2007.

The US$2.7 million was also to address remediation of
contaminated sites, management of hazardous waste material
disposal, and outstanding air quality measures for certain of
the Company's liquids and natural gas assets.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$4.1 million in
current liabilities to address remediation of asbestos
containing materials (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007).

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$4.1 million in
long-term asbestos and environmental liabilities, compared with
US$3.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Headquartered in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners LP, f/k/a
Lakehead Pipe Line Partners, owns the 1,900-mile portion of the
world's longest liquid petroleum pipeline. Enbridge Energy
Management LLC owns an 18 percent stake in the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Ind. Stay at 114,000 in 1Q07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Open asbestos-related claims against PPG Industries Inc. remain
at about 114,000 as of March 31, 2007, the same as 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
30, 2007.

For over 30 years, the Company has been a defendant in suits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations
by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products made
and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp. The Company and
Corning Inc. are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. The Company
has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for
any injuries caused by PC products.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
located in Pittsburgh.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying
confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization.
Several parties in interest, including the Company, filed
motions for reconsideration and to alter or amend the Dec. 21,
2006 ruling. Final written submissions were filed on Jan. 26,
2007. Oral argument on the motions was held on March 5, 2007.

Upon reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its
Dec. 21, 2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the
plan or may amend the decision in a manner that may provide
further guidance on how the plan could be modified and become
confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court's view.

In addition, and in response to additional motions to lift the
stay filed on behalf of other premises claimants, the Bankruptcy
Court issued a series of orders in December 2006 lifting the
stay, effective Jan. 31, 2007, with respect to 496 more premises
claims.

Asbestos claims other than premises claims remain subject to the
stay, although the claimants who were party to the action
resulting in a jury verdict against the Company in January 2000
have moved to lift the stay with respect to their claims.

That motion is to be argued before the Bankruptcy Court in the
2007-2nd quarter.

Based in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries Inc. supplies paints,
sealants, glass, and chemicals. The Company operates more than
100 manufacturing facilities worldwide and also operates 450
paint retail centers in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Receives $1.057B Tax Refund in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corp., in the 2007-1st quarter, received a US$1.057 billion
federal tax refund as a result of tax deductions generated by
the payments made in 2006 to the asbestos trust created under
the Company's confirmed plan of reorganization, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30, 2007.

This refund, along with cash on hand, was used to repay the
outstanding borrowing of US$1.065 billion under the tax bridge
facility.

Headquartered in Chicago, USG Corp.'s North American Gypsum
division makes SHEETROCK brand gypsum products and joint
compound and DUROCK brand cement board. The Company's Worldwide
Ceiling division offers interior ceiling grid systems and
acoustic tile. The Company's Building Products Distribution
division distributes building products through L&W Supply.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 31,440 Claims in 1Q07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., at March 31, 2007, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos-induced illness involving
claims by about 31,440 plaintiffs, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about
31,417 plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007).

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 23,705 of
those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense verdicts,
four were tried to plaintiff verdicts (three of which were
satisfied and one of which is subject to appeal), and 422 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc.'s
main business is the design, manufacture and sale of arc,
cutting and other welding, brazing and soldering products. The
Company manages its operations by geographic location and has
two reportable segments, North America and Europe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Records $1.388B Claims Reserves in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp., at March 31, 2007, reserved US$1.388
billion for asbestos claims, compared with US$1.452 billion at
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2007.

The Company recorded US$64 million as net paid asbestos-related
losses in 2007. In 2006, the Company recorded US$102 million as
net paid (recovered) losses.

At March 31, 2007, the Company said that it had 1,341
policyholders, compared with 1,356 policyholders at Dec. 31,
2006.

In 1985, 47 asbestos producers and their insurers, including The
Continental Insurance Co., executed the Wellington Agreement.
The agreement was intended to resolve all issues and litigation
related to coverage for asbestos exposures. Under this
agreement, signatory insurers committed scheduled policy limits
and made the limits available to pay asbestos claims based upon
coverage blocks designated by the policyholders in 1985, subject
to extension by policyholders. CIC was a signatory insurer to
the Wellington Agreement.

Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides
commercial coverage, with standard offerings like workers'
compensation, general and professional liability, and other
products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells
specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other
professionals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $43.1M Assets, Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.'s net asbestos-related assets and liabilities, for
the three months ended March 31, 2007, amounted to US$43.1
million, compared with US$2.7 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated April
30, 2007.

For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
US$37.1 million net asbestos-related assets and liabilities,
compared with US$61.3 million for the 12 months ended Dec. 31,
2005 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007).

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. manufactures
and markets chemical specialties globally for making a variety
of products for home, office and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuit Links Mesothelioma to Talc Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York attorneys Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg LLP, on May 1,
2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Donald
Lozo, from a Jefferson County, N.Y., hamlet, who died from
mesothelioma, according to a Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg LLP
press release dated May 1, 2007.

The Lozo suit was filed in New York State Supreme Court, 5th
Judicial District, Onondaga County, Syracuse -- the Court in
which the region's asbestos litigation is consolidated,
according to Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP.

According to attorney Robert I. Komitor, a partner of the firm,
"It's a statistical improbability for the rare asbestos-related
cancer to occur in a town of less than 400 persons."

Mr. Lozo, who died in August 2005 at the age of 67, was exposed
to asbestos from talc, as was his late sister, Catherine, and
late mother, Mary, who also died of asbestos-related cancer.

Mr. Lozo worked for more than a decade at the Carbola Talc Mine,
Natural Bridge, according to Court documents filed by his New
York mesothelioma attorneys.

Natural Bridge had a population of about 392 persons according
to the 2000 Census and zero mesothelioma deaths would be
expected. Yet, In the Lozo family there now has been three
deaths from asbestos-related cancer. Additionally, published
studies have independently confirmed a total of at least 15
mesothelioma deaths among talc workers in New York State, Mr.
Lozo's mesothelioma attorney said.

The Lozo family's mesothelioma tragedy allegedly began in the
1930s when Alfred Lozo, husband of Mary and father of Donald and
Catherine, began working at the Carbola Mine. For decades, the
elder Mr. Lozo would return from work at the mine with talc dust
on his clothing and in the family car.

Mary, Donald and Catherine were constantly exposed to this
asbestos-laden talc dust, which also made its way into the Lozo
residence when it was released from the talc operation into the
air, according to Patrick J. Timmins, another attorney working
on the Lozo case.

"Talc mine workers had no reason to think that the mineral was
dangerous. Catherine Lozo Gerber, who filed her own lawsuit
after she developed mesothelioma, testified before her death in
a deposition that her father sometimes took her to work - not
knowing that he was exposing his daughter to cancer-causing
dust," Mr. Timmins said.

Mr. Lozo also was allegedly exposed to contaminated talc when he
worked in the mill at Carbola Mine in the 1950s and early 1960s.
He also was allegedly exposed to asbestos used in industrial
products while working as a member of Iron Workers Union, Local
60 beginning in the mid 1960s.

Mr. Timmins said the Carbola Chemical Co. is one of the entities
believed to be responsible for mining and milling operations
during the years in which Alfred and Donald Lozo worked at the
Natural Bridge facility.

Lisa Gerber, Catherine Lozo Gerber's daughter, is executrix for
Mr. Lozo's and Catherine Lozo Gerber's estates, according to
court documents filed by the New York mesothelioma attorneys.

Under Court rules, after the defendants are served, the Hon.
James W. McCarthy will establish a schedule for the mesothelioma
lawsuit, to include dates for exchanging evidence, motions, and,
the trial, Mr. Timmins said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Charges Developer for Cleanup Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Federal Government has charged developer Matt Abbott of
violating the Clean Air Act by illegally removing asbestos from
the 16-story University Tower in Kansas City, Mo.,
KansasCity.com reports.

The misdemeanor carries a potential penalty of up to one year in
prison and a US$100,000 fine if Mr. Abbott is convicted.

The case is thought to be the first time the federal government
has criminally charged anyone in the Kansas City area with
illegally removing asbestos, said Don Ledford, a spokesman for
the U.S. attorney's office.

Asbestos violations have been handled almost exclusively as
civil cases. A court date has not been set.

Mr. Abbott bought University Tower about two years ago. In June
2006, a Kansas City health inspector received an anonymous tip
that Mr. Abbott was removing asbestos from the 12th floor of the
building.

Officials in the city's health department ordered Mr. Abbott to
pay a US$100,000 fine. The fine was appealed to the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, and the case has not been
resolved.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov. Perdue Signs Bill to Limit Ga. Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under a bill signed into law by Georgia State Gov. Sonny Perdue
on May 1, 2007, only those who have become sick through exposure
to asbestos would be able to sue companies that used the
material, The Associated Press reports.

The new law would require a person filing a claim in Georgia to
demonstrate that they have some physical impairment from
exposure to asbestos. Under the law, others who were exposed to
asbestos would not be able to sue until they became ill. The law
would extend time limitations for filing such lawsuits.

A RAND Corp. study found that more than 730,000 asbestos suits
had been filed through 2002. At least 8,400 defendants have paid
more than US$70 billion, the study found.

Critics argue that asbestos exposure has spawned an avalanche of
junk suits that have bankrupted businesses. However, others
contend greedy corporations knowingly exposed workers to
asbestos and that long-term health effects may take years to
emerge.

Sen. John Wiles, R-Marietta, said, "This would allow people that
are truly sick to move to the front of the line."

Sen. Wiles said the law had the support of the state's business
community and the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association.

Bill Clark, a spokesman for the trial lawyers, said the group
supported the medical standard but said the law had some of the
same constitutional flaws as an earlier Georgia law that was
tossed out by the state's top court in 2006.

The Georgia Supreme Court said that law applied retroactively to
cases filed before it was passed in 2005. Mr. Clark said he
expected the new law would be challenged in court.

A spokesman for Georgia-Pacific Corp., which is defending itself
against a number of asbestos claims, said the constitutional
problems had been fixed in the new law.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker's Kin Sue Oil Firms in Texas Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The children of Traville Franks, a deceased petrochemical
worker, are suing Georgia-Pacific Corp., Chevron Phillips
Chemical Co., Conoco Phillips Co., Montello Inc., and Bates Well
Service Inc. for their father's exposure to asbestos, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Sarah, Charlie, Foster and David Franks, along with Judy Smith,
filed their petition with the Jefferson County District Court on
April 18, 2007.

The suit says Mr. Franks died on April 25, 2005. He worked at
numerous oil fields and chemical plants between 1954 and 1980.
The plaintiffs' petition also says that Mr. Franks, who died of
lung cancer at age 79, was a cigarette smoker.

"As a result of his exposure to asbestos dust and/or fibers
while employed by defendant, decedent contracted asbestos-
related lung cancer which ultimately took his life," the suit
said, adding the defendants were negligent for manufacturing,
selling, designing, supplying, distributing, mining, milling,
relabeling and processing asbestos materials and machines laced
with asbestos.

Aside for faulting the defendants for negligence and liability,
the suit also says the oil companies conspired among themselves
and with other asbestos manufacturers to with hold medical and
scientific information concerning asbestos.

The plaintiffs are suing for physical pain, mental anguish,
medical expenses incurred, loss of earning capacity, and
physical impairment and disfigurement.

Mr. Franks worked as an oil company laborer for 26 years.

Attorney Ian Cloud, of the law firm Heard, Robbins, Cloud &
Lubel, represents the Franks family.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. A179-175


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Penalizes Parkway for Exposing Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parkway Village Equities Corp.'s failure to protect its
employees against asbestos hazards has resulted in a total
penalty of US$117,000 from the U.S. Labor Department's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, according to an
OSHA press release dated May 1, 2007.

The Queens, N.Y.-based Parkway Village was cited for nine
alleged violations of health and safety standards following an
OSHA inspection that began Nov. 1, 2006, in response to a
complaint.

Parkway employees whose duties routinely required them to enter
crawlspaces known to contain asbestos or presumed asbestos-
containing material were not provided with required safeguards.

Specifically, OSHA found that Parkway did not monitor the
employees' exposure levels; inform them of the presence,
location and quantities of asbestos; institute a training
program; and label asbestos-containing material.

As a result of these conditions, OSHA issued Parkway four
willful citations, carrying US$112,000 in proposed fines.

"There's no good reason for needlessly exposing these employees
to the hazards of asbestos, particularly since Parkway knew
these work areas contained asbestos and also knew what it had to
do to protect its employees," said Richard Mendelson, OSHA's
area director for Queens and Manhattan.

Parkway was also issued five serious citations and fined an
extra US$5,000 for failing to provide appropriate hand, face and
eye protection; respirator safety deficiencies, a lack of quick-
drenching eyewashes; the absence of a hazard communication
program; and failing to properly label and dispose of asbestos-
contaminated material.

Parkway has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and
fines to request and participate in an informal conference with
OSHA or to contest them before the independent Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court OKs Shafer Lawsuit Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
New York Supreme Court Judge Helen Freedman, on April 30, 2007,
ruled that the asbestos exposure lawsuit of Leonard Shafer, a
former Elizabeth, N.J., resident, will move to trial in New York
City, PRWeb reports.

Mr. Shafer died at the age of 73 from mesothelioma. His wife,
Evelyn, now a Manhattan resident, is continuing the suit, which
is based upon Mr. Shafer's exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn
Navy Yard in the 1950s.

Mr. Shafer is represented by Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP in
the Case, 03/108297, filed in New York County.

In an opinion dated April 5, 2007, Judge Freedman, who presides
over the New York City Asbestos Litigation, denied a motion for
summary judgment filed by a cable manufacturer, The Okonite Co.

Mr. Shafer was exposed to asbestos-containing Okonite cable
while working as an electrician at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.
Evidence submitted by Shafer's trial attorneys to the Court
proves that, as early as Jan. 10, 1941, Okonite was approved to
sell asbestos-containing armored cable to the Navy.

At the time of the approvals in 1941, cable manufacturers were
required, under Navy Specifications, to include asbestos in heat
and flame resistant, armored cable. However, military records
establish that, in September 1941, cable manufacturers were
given a choice whether to use asbestos or glass fiber.

Despite the asbestos hazards to health, Okonite continued to
sell to the Navy asbestos-containing armored cable.

Documentary evidence submitted by the mesothelioma trial
attorneys suggested that Okonite continued to sell asbestos
containing cable and continued to use asbestos material in
conjunction with their shipboard cable, at least up through 1956
when Mr. Shafer left the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

As an additional ground for denying Okonite's summary judgment
motion, Judge Freedman noted that the Okonite cables were packed
in asbestos containing packing material, which caused additional
exposure to Mr. Shafer.

The Shafer asbestos exposure suit is scheduled for trial in June
2007 against Okonite and John Crane Inc., the manufacturer of
the asbestos packing material used with the cable.

The Shafer case paves the way for litigants to proceed against
Okonite for asbestos exposures into the 1950s.

Carmen St. George, a trial attorney of Levy Phillips &
Konisberg, said, "Mr. Shafer's death from mesothelioma could
have been avoided if these companies would have acted
responsibly and warned about the health hazards of asbestos.
Justice Freedman's ruling properly places the factual issues
surrounding Mr. Shafer's asbestos exposure where it belongs --
in the hands of the jury."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pensioner Seeks Ex-Colleagues' Help in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma sufferer Margaret Colman from County Durham in U.K.
is hoping former work colleagues will come forward and help her
with her compensation claim, The Northern Echo reports.

Mrs. Colman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006. She
believes she may have been exposed to asbestos dust during
repairs to overhead pipes on the factory floor at the former
Birtley Iron Co., in Birtley, near Gateshead.

Mrs. Colman worked for the firm between July 1953 and December
1962.

Mrs. Colman, who was formerly known as Margaret Hubble and then
Margaret Proctor, often went to the factory floor to take
invoices to departments when she worked as secretary.

The 68-year-old has called on the services of law firm Irwin
Mitchell to search for witnesses to support a compensation
claim.

Neil Wilkinson, a partner at Irwin Mitchell in Newcastle, asked
people to come forward.

Bob Stephenson, of the North-East Asbestos Support Group, which
provides support to asbestos sufferers, said proving liability
could be difficult, particularly because of the length of time
since Mrs. Colman had left her job.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Work-Related Cancers Kill 200,000, WHO Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The World Health Organization, on April 27, 2007, said that at
least 200,000 people die every year from workplace-related
cancers like those caused by inhaling asbestos fibers or tobacco
smoke, CBC News reports.

Every 10th lung cancer death is closely related to risks in the
workplace, WHO said ahead of the World Day for Safety and Health
at Work.

WHO stated that lung cancer, bladder cancer and mesothelioma are
among the most common occupational cancers.

"The tragedy of occupational cancer resulting from asbestos,
benzene and other carcinogens is that it takes so long for
science to be translated into protective action," Dr. Maria
Neira, WHO's director of public health and environment, said in
a statement.

About 125 million people worldwide are exposed to asbestos at
work and at least 90,000 people die each year from asbestos-
related diseases, according to WHO.

In Canada, 1,097 workplace deaths were recorded in 2005, up from
928 deaths the previous year, according to the Association of
Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada.

Asbestos-related deaths accounted for almost a third of all
workplace fatalities, the Canadian Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety said.

WHO's suggestions to prevent death and suffering from
occupational cancer include:

-- Stop the use of asbestos',
-- Introduce benzene-free organic solvents,
-- Ban tobacco use in the workplace,
-- Provide protective clothes for people working in the sun

Most cancer deaths caused by occupational exposures occur in the
developed world, resulting from wide use of carcinogens 20 to 30
years ago, WHO said.

WHO added jobs involving the use of carcinogens like chrysotile
asbestos and pesticides, tire production and dye manufacturing
are moving to developing countries with less stringent
enforcement of occupational health standards.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Co. has been named a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos
at its manufacturing sites, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 1, 2007.

More recently, certain plaintiffs have claimed exposure to an
asbestos-containing plastic, which the Company made in limited
amounts between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s.

To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related suits and has reduced its number of pending
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has also obtained insurance coverage that applies to
a portion of certain of the Company's defense costs and payments
of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related
suits.

Headquartered in Kingston, Tenn., Eastman Chemical Co. produces
chemicals, fibers, and plastics. Among the Company's operating
segments are its CASPI, Specialty Plastics, and Fibers. The
Company's Performance Polymers makes polyethylene terephthalate.
The last segment makes Performance Chemicals and Intermediates.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $133M Liability in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp.'s current asbestos-related liabilities, at
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$133 million, compared with US$129
million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 1, 2007.

At March 31, 2007, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$1.063 billion, compared with US$1.079
billion at Dec. 31, 2006.

At March 31, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
insurance receivables amounted to US$725 million, the same as
for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed in state courts during the past three decades.
These suits allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on Company premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former
subsidiary, Amchem Products Inc.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Company's products.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corp., a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into polyethylene
and polypropelene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 112,747 Open Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp., at March 31, 2007, recorded 112,747
unresolved asbestos-related claims filed against it and a former
unit Amchem Products Inc., compared with 143,806 claims at March
31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007.

The Dow Chemical Co., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 111,887
asbestos-related claims filed against subsidiary Union Carbide
Corp. and former Union Carbide unit Amchem, compared with
146,325 claims at Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
23, 2007)

For the period ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 3,085
claims filed, 2,225 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved, 38,901 claims against both the Company and Amchem, and
73,846 individual claimants at March 31, 2007.

For the period ended March 31, 2006, the Company noted 5,402
claims filed, 7,921 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved, 38,901 claims against both the Company and Amchem, and
96,027 individual claimants.

The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed in state courts during the past three decades.
These suits allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims relate to products that the Company sold in
the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on Company premises, and the Company's responsibility
for asbestos suits filed against Amchem.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure,
or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual suits on behalf of hundreds or even
thousands of claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not
expressly identified as to the Company, Amchem or any other
particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged
with respect to a specific disease or injury.

There are no personal injury cases in which the Company or
Amchem are the sole named defendants.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corp., a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into polyethylene
and polypropelene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $1.2B Claims Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp.'s asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims, at March 31, 2007, amounted to US$1.2 billion,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007.

About 28 percent of the recorded liability related to pending
claims and about 72 percent related to future claims.

In November 2006, the Company requested Analysis, Research &
Planning Corp. to review the Company's historical asbestos claim
and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of
updating its January 2005 study.

In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data
through Oct. 31, 2006 and concluded that the experience from
2004 through 2006 was sufficient for the purpose of forecasting
future filings and values of asbestos claims filed against the
Company and its former unit Amchem Products Inc., and could be
used in place of previous assumptions to update its January 2005
study.

The resulting study, completed by ARPC in December 2006, stated
that the undiscounted cost of resolving pending and future
asbestos-related claims against the Company and Amchem,
excluding future defense and processing costs, through 2021 was
estimated to be between about US$1.2 billion and US$1.5 billion.

Based on ARPC's December 2006 study and the Company's own review
of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, the Company
decreased its asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims to US$1.2 billion at Dec. 31, 2006 which covers the 15-
year period ending in 2021 (excluding future defense and
processing costs). The reduction was US$177 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, about 25 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and about 75 percent related to future
claims.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corp., a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into polyethylene
and polypropelene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $17M Defense Costs in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp., for the three months ended March 31, 2007,
recorded US$17 million in asbestos-related defense costs,
compared with US$14 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
US$16 million in asbestos-related resolution costs, compared
with US$27 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corp., a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into polyethylene
and polypropelene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $484M Receivable in 1Q07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp.'s receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability amounted to US$484 million at
March 31, 2007, compared with US$495 million at Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to
US$1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product
liability coverage.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights
to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds.

This suit was filed against insurers that are not signatories to
the 1985 Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have
agreements in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly
resolution and collection of insurance policies and to resolve
issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

While the suit is continuing, through the end of the 2007-1st
quarter, the Company had reached settlements with several of the
carriers involved in this litigation.

At March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related
to its asbestos liability, the Company had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers for
reimbursement.

At March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$35 million as
receivables for defense costs and US$265 million as receivables
for resolution costs, totaling US$300 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$34 million as
receivables for defense costs and US$266 million as receivables
for resolution costs, totaling US$300 million.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corp., a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Co., produces building-block chemicals like
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into polyethylene
and polypropelene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.36B for Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp.'s reserves for asbestos claims, at March 31,
2007, amounted to US$1.36 billion, net of insurance recoverables
of US$812 million, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's reserves for asbestos claims
amounted to US$1.38 billion, net of insurance recoverables of
US$823 million.

About 63 percent of the Company's total net asbestos and
environmental reserves at March 31, 2007 were for incurred but
not reported losses, compared with 67 percent at Dec. 31, 2006.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corp. provides
insurance products to more than 17 million households through a
distribution network that utilizes a total of about 14,800
agencies and financial specialists in the U.S. and Canada.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of investors of Allot Communications Ltd. who purchased the
common stock of Allot pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus for its initial public
offering on Nov. 15, 2006.

The suit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933.  The deadline to file a motion seeking to be appointed
lead plaintiff is July 2, 2007.

The Complaint charges that Allot and certain of its officers,
directors and underwriters violated the Securities Act of 1933.
Allot is a designer, developer, marketer, and seller of
broadband service optimization solutions.  The company's
solutions provide broadband service providers and enterprises
with real-time visibility into, and control of, network traffic.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were negligently
prepared and, as a result:

     -- contained untrue statements of material facts;

     -- omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
        statements made therein not misleading; and

     -- were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
        regulations governing their preparation.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Registration Statement and Prospectus included
representations that the company would achieve its goal in
becoming the leader in its industry through its ability to
market and sell its products to end-customers through its
channel partners.

In fact, according to the Complaint, the Registration Statement
and Prospectus failed to disclose that Allot was experiencing
declining sales in its indirect distribution channels, such as
enterprise, education and smaller ISP customers, in North
America.

On April 2, 2007, Allot issued a press release announcing that
revenues and earnings for the first quarter of 2007 and the 2007
fiscal year would be lower than its previous guidance -- given
less than two months ago.

The company attributed the lower guidance to "weakness in sales
from some of the company's distributors, principally in the
Americas, which are focused on sales to enterprise, education,
and smaller ISPs."

In response to the announcement about the company's revised
guidance, on April 2, 2007, the price of Allot stock declined
precipitously falling from $9.15 per share to $7.11 per share --
approximately 40% below the IPO price -- on heavy trading
volume.

Lead plaintiff filing is July 2, 2007.

For more information, contact Jack Fruchter, Esq. or Larry
Levit, Esq. of of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone: (212) 279-
5050 or toll free at (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail
at jfruchter@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.com.


AMGEN INC: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a securities class action on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Amgen Inc.
(AMGN) during the period between May 4, 2005 and March 9, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Amgen publicly traded securities during the Class Period.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, located in Los Angeles.

The plaintiff is represented by Stull, Stull & Brody, a law firm
with extensive experience in securities fraud class actions.
Lead plaintiff filing is June 18, 2007.

The complaint charges Amgen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Amgen makes and sells Epogen and Aranesp, both drugs which
encourage the creation of oxygen carrying red blood cells.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
marketed Aranesp and Epogen to doctors for off-label uses. As a
result, Amgen sold several hundred million dollars worth of
drugs each year for these off-label uses.

In October 2006, a group of researchers halted a clinical study
of cancer patients being treated with Aranesp because more
deaths occurred in patients taking Aranesp than in those taking
a placebo.  Defendants did not disclose these results to
investors.

On Feb. 16, 2007, a publication called The Cancer Letter
published an article about the study and on March 9, 2007, the
FDA mandated a "black box" warning regarding the off-label use
of Aranesp and Epogen.  The news caused Amgen's stock price to
decline.

For more information, contact plaintiff's counsel, Howard T.
Longman or Timothy J. Burke of Stull, Stull & Brody --
http://www.ssbny.com-- at (800) 337-4983 or (888) 388-4605, or
via e-mail at TSVI@aol.com or TBurke@ssbla.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


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, and Mary Grace Durana, 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  * * *