CAR_Public/070511.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 93

                            Headlines


ALLIED STEEL: Tommy Termite Files Suit Over Unsolicited Ads
ALVARION LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ohio ERISA Suit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Mutual Fund Investors' Complaint Junked
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Begins in Ill. ERISA Violations Lawsuit

BAXTER INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BIOGEN IDEC: Mass. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Ill. Court Dismisses Claim Over Lawnmowers
CAREER EDUCATION: Nixing of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed
CARFAX INC: Kans. Resident Objects to Vehicle History Suit Deal

CASH AMERICA: Court Mulls Motion to Arbitrate Payday Loans Suit
CBOCS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Stools That Collapse Unexpectedly
CHICAGO BRIDGE: May Certification Hearing Set in Securities Suit
CITIGROUP INC: "Specialists" File FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
COCA-COLA: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in Ga.

COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Emergency Lights With Faulty Circuit
CRUM & FORSTER: RICO, Antitrust Claims Dismissed in N.J. Suit
CUTERA INC: Paskowitz Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit

EBAY INC: Calif. Court Orders Consolidation of Antitrust Suits
FAMILY SERVICES: Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
FEDEX GROUND: Driver Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass.
HORACE MANN: Customer Files Calif. Lawsuit Over Claims Valuation
HSBC BANK: Settles "Puterman" Pension Fraud Litigation in Fla.

JANSSEN-ORTHO: Sued in Canada Over Lethal Content of Tylenol 3
KEANE INC: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Over Disposal to Caritor
KENNETH COLE: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Credit Card Purchases
MAYFIELD DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream on Undeclared Peanut Content
MULTIPLEX GROUP: Presents Arguments on Falsity of Investor Suit

ONEOK INC: Faces Energy Trading Lawsuit by Heartland Hospital
SARA LEE: Meat Plant Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit
SHARPCUTS INC: Stylist Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Argues Transfer of "Watson"
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ill. Lawyer Back in Court to Revive "Price"

TREMONT TOWING: Faces Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Suit Over Missing Employee Records


* Chinese Exporters of Melamine-Contaminated Gluten Face Charges


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Corp. Drop to 1,650 in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 26,034 Pending Claims in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $230.2M Liabilities in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $41.3M from Reversion of Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.392B Liabilities in 1Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Deals w/ Fel-Pro Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $701M Recoverable for T&N
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Liability Remains at $213.6M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial for Sempra Cleanup Case Set for June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Ind. Drop to 8,500 in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,178 Cases in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Review of Cleco Corp. Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves $3.926B for Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Chicago Bridge Increase to 1,942
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Remains at $18.7M in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.18M for Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Continue to Face 6,000 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 490 Cases W/ 7,000 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Drops to $466.8M in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Pays $3M for Claims, Expenses in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $341M Losses in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $159M for Liabilities in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $194M for Claims in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 1,635 New Claims in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper's Appeal Briefing to be Heard in '07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Action v. RJR Tobacco Still Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp. Engages in Calif., N.Y. Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Receives $23M for Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chem. Receives $5M for Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 72,510 in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Has 158 Pending Claims in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Notes 33 Cases for Trial in 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 69 Companies in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor Fined for CAA Violations in Fla.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Assigns Experts to Israel for Training
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker's Wife Sues 43 Firms in Texas Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manuals Can Be Used in Trials, Judge Rules
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Kin Settles $2.3M W/ 6 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith, 42 Firms Sued in Texas on May 1

  
                            *********


ALLIED STEEL: Tommy Termite Files Suit Over Unsolicited Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Termite Pest Management filed a class action against
Allied Steel Buildings in Madison County (Ill.) Circuit Court on
May 8 over the latter's sending of unsolicited faxes, Steve
Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reports.

The suit was originally filed on April 23 in small claims court,
but was amended to become a class-action complaint.  It claims
that Allied sent unsolicited fax advertisement to the company on
May 8, 2006, in violation of the Federal Consumer Protection
Act.  It is seeking $500 for every violation and triple damages
for the willful violation of the Act, Mr. Gonzales said in the
report.

The case is before Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry H. Darr II, Esq.
          Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, L.T.D.
          Suite 415
          307 Henry Street
          Alton, IL 62002-6326
          Phone: (618) 465-2311
          Fax: (618) 465-2318


ALVARION LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alvarion Ltd. is a defendant in several purported securities
fraud class actions filed in New York and California, according
to the company's April 30, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 19 and Feb. 2, 2007, purported securities class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, and on Feb. 13 and March 9, 2007, purported
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The four complaints are substantially identical.  Each complaint
names the company as a defendant.   

The first three complaints also name as defendants one of the
company's officers and two of its directors, while the fourth
complaint names two officers and only one director.  Each
complaint generally alleges violations of certain U.S. federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Alvarion ordinary shares between Nov. 3,
2004 and May 12, 2006.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning Alvarion's
business prospects, purportedly violating Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

The company anticipates that these four complaints will be
consolidated.  The company has not responded to the complaints,
and does not expect to respond until the court appoints a lead
plaintiff and the appointed lead plaintiff files a consolidated
amended complaint, which the company anticipates will occur in
the second or third quarter of 2007.

Alvarion Ltd. -- http://www.alvarion.com/-- is a provider of  
wireless broadband systems.  The company supplies carriers,
Internet service providers and private network operators with
Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access standard and
other wireless broadband solutions, as well as compact cellular
networks to developing countries and remote areas.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ohio ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a purported class action alleging violations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by American Electric
Power appealed the dismissal of a case they filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class actions were filed against AEP, certain
executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.

Defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc., American
Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V.
Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court entered judgment denying plaintiff's
motion for class certification and dismissing all claims without
prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.  

Parties await the scheduling of oral argument, according to the
Appalachian Power Co.'s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.  
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
         Stull, Stull and Brody
         6 East 45th Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230
         E-mail: ssbny@aol.com

         James Edward Arnold, Esq.
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-469-1400
         E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

              - and -         

         Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
         Strauss & Troy - 1
         The Federal Reserve Bldg., 150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
         Phone: 513-621-2120
         E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
         Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
         Issa Mikel, Esq.
         George S. Wang, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2000
         Fax: 212-455-2502
         Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Mutual Fund Investors' Complaint Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted a motion by defendants to dismiss a complaint filed by
American International Group, Inc. mutual fund purchasers and
granted plaintiffs' permission to file a new amended complaint.

The ruling is with respect to a class action that was filed on
April 7, 2006 against AIG and certain of its affiliates, on
behalf of those who purchased any of the mutual funds within the
Shelf Space Mutual Funds from the AIG Advisor Group between June
30, 2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive.

The Court has set May 24, 2007 as the last day for the
Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  

The Court dismissed the Complaint insofar as it relates to funds
other than the ones in which plaintiffs allege they actually
invested and for any claim arising prior to April 7, 2001.  

As a result, even a new amended complaint filed by the
Plaintiffs would be limited to those persons who purchased the
same funds as those purchased by Plaintiffs and for purchases on
or after April 7, 2001 unless persons who purchased any of the
other Shelf Space Mutual Funds between April 7, 2001 and June 8,
2005 through the AIG Advisor Group join the new amended
complaint.

The funds for which plaintiffs previously brought claims are:

     * AIM Value,
     * AIM Intermediate Government,
     * WM Balanced, Investment Company of America,
     * Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government,
     * Putnam California Tax Exempt Income,
     * AllianceBernstein Municipal Income California,
     * SunAmerica Growth Opportunities,
     * SunAmerica New Century, and
     * American Funds Income Fund of America

The Court also dismissed the complaint because it found that it
did not contain all of the factual detail required by the law.
Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint that addresses
the Court's concerns.

                       AIG Advisor Group

During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

The suit is "Martingano v. American International Group, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01625-JG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under John Gleeson
with referral to Joan M. Azrack.

Fore more information, contact:

          Henry Glavin, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          Toll Free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212-490-2022


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Begins in Ill. ERISA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in a lawsuit filed against Baxter
International Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations.

In October 2004, a purported class action was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois against Baxter and its current
chief executive officer and then current chief financial officer
and their predecessors for alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.  

Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants
by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each
of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.

Plaintiff alleges that Baxter common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during this period and seeks
unspecified damages and declaratory and equitable relief.  

In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.  

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but has allowed
Baxter to seek an interlocutory appeal of the decision, which it
has done.

Discovery has begun in this matter, according to the company's
May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Rogers v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-06476," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Allison, Esq.
         Robert D. Allison & Associates,  
         122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603  
         Phone: 427-4500
         E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink  
         20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
         Chicago, IL 60603,  
         Phone: (312) 263-0272
         Fax: (312) 263-2942
         E-mail: mmmulder@mmbmlaw.com  

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Matthew Robert Kipp, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com


BAXTER INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

In August 2002, six purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming
the company and its then chief executive officer and then chief
financial officer as defendants.

These lawsuits alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making misleading statements regarding the
company's financial guidance that allegedly caused Baxter common
stock to trade at inflated levels.   

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a
trial court order granting the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant
certiorari in March 2005.  

In February 2006, the trial court denied Baxter's motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  The court has twice denied
Plaintiffs' request for certification of a class action based on
the inadequacy of their class representatives, but allowed
Plaintiffs a final chance to find new ones, according to the
company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Asher, et al. v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case  
No. 1:02-cv-05608," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning,
with referral to Judge Arlander Keys.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:
       
         Matthew Robert Kipp Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com


BIOGEN IDEC: Mass. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported
securities fraud class action filed against Biogen Idec, Inc.,
according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

On March 2, 2005, the company, along with William H. Rastetter,
former executive chairman, and James C. Mullen, chief executive
officer, were named as defendants in a purported class action,
captioned, "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's publicly-traded securities between Feb. 18, 2004
and Feb. 25, 2005.  

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding potentially serious side
effects of TYSABRI in order to gain accelerated approval from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the product's
distribution and sale.

The plaintiff alleges that these materially false and misleading
statements harmed the purported class by artificially inflating
the company's stock price during the purported class period and
that company insiders benefited personally from the inflated
price by selling the company's stock.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

Substantially similar actions were also filed:

     -- "Grill v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al." and
     -- "Lobel v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.,"

Other purported class representatives brought the suits on March
10, 2005 and April 21, 2005, respectively, in the same court.
Those actions have been consolidated with the Brown case.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other amendments to the allegations,
adds as defendants:

     -- Peter N. Kellogg, chief financial officer;
     -- William R. Rohn, former chief operating officer;
     -- Burt A. Adelman, executive vice president of Portfolio
        Strategy; and
     -- Thomas J. Bucknum, former general counsel.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the company and all the other defendants who
had been served as of that date filed a motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.  A hearing on the motion to
dismiss was held on March 12, 2007.

The suit is "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-10400-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
         Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 646-733-5768
         Fax: 212-273-4445
         E-mail: shopkins@milbergweiss.com

              - and -
       
         David Pastor, Esq.
         Gilman and Pastor, LLP
         60 State Street, 37th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-742-9700
         Fax: 617-742-9701
         E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.

Representing the company is:

         James R. Carroll, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
         One Beacon Street, 31st Floor
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-573-4800
         Fax: 617-573-4822
         E-mail: jcarroll@skadden.com


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Ill. Court Dismisses Claim Over Lawnmowers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
dismissed an amended complaint in "Phillips et al. v. Sears
Roebuck and Co. et al.," which names Briggs & Stratton Corp. as
defendant, but permitted plaintiffs to refile a new complaint.

On June 3, 2004, eight individuals who claim to have purchased
lawnmowers in Illinois and Minnesota filed a lawsuit, captioned,
"Ronnie Phillips et al. v. Sears Roebuck Corp. et al., No. 04-L-
334," in the 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois
against Briggs & Stratton and other defendants alleging that the
horsepower labels on the products they purchased were
inaccurate.

The plaintiffs have amended their complaint several times and
currently seek an injunction, compensatory and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees under various federal and state laws
including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1994
through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-
stroke or four-stroke gasoline combustion engine up to 30
horsepower that was manufactured by the defendants.

On May 31, 2006, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (No. 06-
412-DRH).

The defendants subsequently filed cross claims against each
other for indemnification and contribution and filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 30, 2007, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety, but the order permits the plaintiffs to refile a
complaint after amending several claims.  An opinion of the
Court providing more detail concerning its order is expected but
has not yet been filed, according to Brigg's May 4, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007.

The suit is "Phillips et al v. Sears Roebuck and Company et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-00412-GPM-DGW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G.
Patrick Murphy with referral to Judge Donald G. Wilkerson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Samuel D. Heins, Esq.
         Heins Mills et al.
         80 South Eighth Street, Suite 3550 IDS Center
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-338-4605
         E-mail: heins@heinsmills.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joel A. Blanchet, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 5800
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-2000
         Fax: 312-861-2200
         E-mail: jblanchet@kirkland.com


CAREER EDUCATION: Nixing of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "In re: Career Education Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," are appealing the dismissal
of a third amended consolidated complaint in the case, which
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The case represents the consolidation into one suit of six
purported class actions filed between Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5,
2004, by and on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's
common stock, against the company, John M. Larson, a former
officer of CEC, and Patrick K. Pesch, a current officer of the
company.

The lawsuit alleged that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiffs further claimed that Messrs. Larson and Pesch were
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On March 29, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed with
prejudice the plaintiffs' third amended consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 24, 2007, according
to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re: Career Education Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan
Humphrey Lefkow.

Representing the company are:

         Karl Richard Barnickol, Esq.
         Mary Ellen Hennessy, Esq.
         Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq.
         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman
         525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600
         Chicago, Il 60661-3693
         Phone: (312) 902-5200


CARFAX INC: Kans. Resident Objects to Vehicle History Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Carfax, Inc. customer who resides in Lawrence, Kansas is
objecting to a proposed nationwide settlement of a class action
filed against the company in the Court of Common Pleas Trumbull
County, Ohio, The Lawrence Journal World reports.

According to a report in The New York Times, the objector is one
David P. Wolfe.  Mr. Wolfe said he bought a Honda Civic in Texas
relying on a Carfax report.  A Honda dealer told him later that
the car had been so badly damaged in a crash it was not safe to
drive.  Mr. Wolfe said he did not want the coupon that would
come with the settlement.

In general, the suit alleges that consumers are being deceived
by Carfax's claim that its vehicle history reports are based on
searches of its nationwide database, when in fact the database
does not include police accident data from 22 states and the
District of Columbia (Class Action Reporter, April 2, 2007).

                        Case Background

In 2004, the law firm of Federman & Sherwood filed the complaint
alleging violations of the Ohio Sales Practices Act and Common
Law (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2004).

Plaintiff claims that Carfax violated the consumer protection
laws of all fifty states by not properly disclosing terms and
conditions for, and limitations of, Carfax Vehicle History
Reports.

The complaint further alleges that Carfax engages in unfair,
misleading and/or deceptive sales practices in connection with
the automobile database services that it offers to the public.
The class period is from October 1998 to the present.

The suit involves a nationwide scheme devised and implemented by
defendants to market Carfax's Vehicle History Reports concerning
used automobiles in a manner which is unfair, false, deceptive
and materially misleading.

Carfax purports to conduct accident report searches for used
vehicles on a nationwide basis in order to determine for
consumers whether a specific used car has been involved in a
collision.

CarFax, however, failed to disclose to consumers that it does
not have the ability to access and search public accident
records in more than 23 states in the U.S.

In January, Carfax settled the lawsuit, denying all of
plaintiff's claims of wrongdoing (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
16, 2007).

Under the settlement, class members can claim:

     -- a Voucher good for $20.00 off a vehicle inspection by a
        designated third party within six months of final
        approval of the settlement,

     -- a Voucher good for two free Carfax Vehicle History
        Reports from Carfax within one year of final approval of
        the settlement,

     -- a Voucher for one free Carfax Vehicle History Report
        from Carfax within two years of final approval of the
        settlement, or

     -- a Voucher for 50% off an unlimited number of Carfax
        Vehicle History Reports (for personal, not commercial
        use) over 30 consecutive days within three years of
        final approval of the settlement.

A hearing on the motion for approval of the settlement is
scheduled for May 11 in Warren, Ohio.  Deadline to file claims
is May 27, 2007.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.westcarsettlement.com.

The suit is "West v. Carfax, Inc., Case No. 04-CV-1898," filed
in the Court of Common Pleas, Trumbull County, Ohio under Judge
Andrew D. Logan.

Representing plaintiffs are:

        William B. Federman, Esq.
        Federman & Sherwood
        120 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 2720
        Oklahoma City, OK 73102
        Phone: (405) 235-1560
        Fax: (405) 239-2112

             - and -

        Curtis J. Ambrosey, Esq.
        Ambrosey & Fredericka
        144 North Park Avenue, Suite 200
        Warren, Ohio 44481

Representing the defendants are:

        Christopher M. Mason, Esq.
        Nixon Peabody LLP
        437 Madison Avenue
        New York, New York 10022
        Phone: (212) 940-3017
        Fax: (866) 947-2229
        E-mail: cmason@nixonpeabody.com

             - and -
        
        Hugh E. McKay, Esq.
        Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
        925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1700
        Cleveland, Ohio 44115
        Phone: 216-443-2580
        Fax: 216-443-9011
        E-mail: hmckay@porterwright.com


CASH AMERICA: Court Mulls Motion to Arbitrate Payday Loans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court of Cobb County, Georgia has yet to rule on a
motion to stay and compel arbitration in a purported class
action over payday loans that was filed against Cash America
International Inc.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International,
Inc., Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors,
owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America.  

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Community State Bank
is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia
borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere
subterfuge."

Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the
"de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

The parties are currently in dispute over the scope of the
discovery requests made by the plaintiffs, and Cash America has
appealed a recent State Court discovery ruling on this issue.

Cash America is also seeking enforcement of the arbitration
provisions and has filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration
with the state court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 4,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com-
- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CBOCS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Stools That Collapse Unexpectedly
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBOCS Distribution Inc., of Lebanon, Tenn., in cooperation with
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a
voluntary recall of 2,600 units of Rooster Kitchen Stools.  

The firms said the stools can unexpectedly collapse during use,
causing a consumer to fall to the floor.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. has received two reports
of incidents in which the kitchen stool collapsed.  A 10 year-
old boy received bruises when the kitchen stool collapsed and he
fell.

The Rooster Kitchen Stool is about two feet tall and one foot in
diameter.  It has light brown wood and has a rooster painted on
the seat.  "Made in China" and item number 260161 are printed on
a sticker under the seat.

These stools were manufactured in China and were being sold at
Cracker Barrel Old Country Storer locations nationwide from
February 2007 through March 2007 for about $30.

Consumers must stop using these kitchen stools immediately and
return them to any Cracker Barrel Old Country Store for a full
refund.

To view the picture of this stool, visit:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07184.html

For additional information, contact Cracker Barrel at (800) 333-
9566, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.crackerbarrel.com


CHICAGO BRIDGE: May Certification Hearing Set in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
scheduled a May 29, 2007 hearing on a motion seeking class-
action status for the consolidated securities fraud suit against
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and its officers.

Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed the suit,
"Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case
No. 06 CV 1283," on Feb. 17, 2006 against the company,   
Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and Richard E. Goodrich.     

It was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from March 9, 2005 through Feb. 3, 2006 and were
damaged thereby.   

The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws and
alleges, among other things, that the company materially
overstated the company's financial results during the class
period by misapplying percentage-of-completion accounting and
did not follow the company's publicly stated revenue recognition
policies.   

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations and with similar, but not exactly the same,
class periods were filed.   

On April 18, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court.  On May
10, 2006, Judge John E. Sprizzo, issued an order consolidating
all related cases into one class action and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On June 20, 2006, Judge Sprizzo
issued order appointing co-lead counsel to oversee the
litigation.

On July 5, 2006, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed in the Welmon action in the Southern District of New York
consolidating all previously filed actions.

The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the court.

On March 2, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the company and the individual defendants
filed an opposition to class certification on April 2, 2007.

The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for class
certification on May 29, 2007, according to the company's May 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.   
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge   
John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Catherine A. Torell of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &  
         Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY   
         10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-mail:  
         ctorell@cmht.com;    

     (2) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,   
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (LIs), 58 South Service   
         Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-  
         7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (4) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275   
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:   
         212-907-0878, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:   
         ebelfi@labaton.com.


CITIGROUP INC: "Specialists" File FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging
Labor Code violations.

Lead plaintiffs Lucille M. Smith and Cesar Quinones bring this
action to recover unpaid compensation owed to plaintiffs and all
current and former employees of Citigroup who are similarly
situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201 et. seq.

The complaint alleges that for at least three years prior to the
filing of this complaint, Citigroup has willfully committed
widespread violations of the FLSA by, among other violations,
misclassifying employees in the positions of specialist, senior
specialist, and comparable positions with different titles, such
as associate, assistant manager, and assistant vice-president as
salaried exempt employees and failing to pay such employees for
overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours perr week at a rate
of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay.

Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claim on behalf of all persons who
worked for defendant as "Specialists" (or in comparable
positions with different titles, such as senior specialist,
associate, assistant manager and assistant vice-president) at
any time from three years prior to the filing of this complaint
to entry of judgment in this case.

The complaint alleges defendant is liable under the FLSA for
failing to properly compensate plaintiffs and the FLSA
collective, and as such, notice should be sent to past and
present "Specialists" who worked for defendant.

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

     (a) whether the defendant employed and/or jointly employed
         the plaintiffs within the meaning of the New York Labor
         Law;

     (b) what proof of hours worked sufficient where employers
         fail in their duty to maintain time records;

     (c) whether defendant failed and/or refused to pay
         plaintiffs premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40
         per workweek within the meaning of the New York Labor
         Law; and

     (d) whether defendant failed and/or refused to pay
         plaintiffs overtime pay for hours worked within the
         meaning of the New York Labor Law Article 19, Sections
         650 et. seq. and the supporting New York State
         Department of Labor Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part
         142.

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, pray for the following relief:

     -- that, at the earliest possible time, the plaintiffs be
        allowed to give notice of this collective action, or
        that the court issue such notice, to all persons who are
        presently, or have at any time during the three years
        immediately preceding the filing of this suit, up
        through and including the date of this court's issuance
        of court-supervise notice, been employed by the
        defendant Citigroup as a "Specialist."  The notice shall
        inform them that this civil action has been field, of
        the nature of the action, and of their right to join
        this lawsuit;

     -- certification of this action as a class action;

     -- designation of the plaintiffs as class representatives;

     -- unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages
        pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and the
        supporting United States Department of Labor
        regulations;

     -- overtime wages pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law Article 19,
        Sections 650 et. seq., and the supporting New York State
        Department of Labor regulations, plus pre-judgment
        interest;

     -- an injunction enjoining defendant from violating the
        foregoing laws and regulations in the future;

     -- attorneys' fees and costs of the action; and

     -- such other relief as the court shall deem just and
        proper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ed4

The suit is "Smith et al. v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
01791-JG-RML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson, with referral to
Judge Robert M. Levy.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-245-1000
          Fax: 212-977-4005
          E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com


COCA-COLA: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., and several current and former
officers and directors are seeking the dismissal of a purported
securities fraud class action filed against them in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit, "In re Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:06-CV-0275-TWT," was
originally filed as "Argento Trading Co., et al, vs. Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc. et al." on Feb. 7, 2006.

It alleges that the company engaged in "channel stuffing" with
customers.  In addition, the suit raises certain insider trading
claims.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the court dismissed the case, but with the
plaintiffs being given the right to file an amended complaint -
filed an amended complaint on March 12, 2007.  

On April 16, 2007, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
this lawsuit, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2007.

The suit is "Argento Trading Co. L.P. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00275-TWT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Lauren S. Antonino, James M.
Evangelista and Stuart Jay Guber of Motley Rice, LLC, Phone:
404-664-9168 and 404-881-9199, E-mail: lantonino@motleyrice.com,
jevangelista@motleyrice.com and sguber@motleyrice.com.


COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Emergency Lights With Faulty Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Lighting Inc. of Houston, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 3,200 units of Contractor's Choice FasTest High
Capacity Emergency Lighting Units.

According to the company, a circuit board in the light could
malfunction, preventing the lights from illuminating in the
event of a power failure.  This could result in a failure to
provide adequate lighting to guide building occupants to an exit
in the event of an emergency.

Cooper has not received any incident or injury reports.

This action involves the CC7NCSD Contractor's Choice FasTestT
High Capacity Emergency Lighting Unit, an emergency light
installed in commercial buildings.  The recalled lights have one
of the following model numbers written on the inside of the
removable front cover:

     CC7NCSD            CC7NCSD0            CC7NCSD0BK   
     CC7NCSD0TDM        CC7NCSD1MRT         CC7NCSD208SM  
     CC7NCSD214         CC7NCSD216          CC7NCSD216TDM
     CC7NCSD219         CC7NCSD245          CC7NCSD279SM   
     CC7NCSD279SMBK     CC7NCSD279SMSQ      CC7NCSD279SMTDM   
     CC7NCSD279SMV      CC7NCSD270TM        CC7NCSD279V   
     CC7NCSD208SMSQ     CC7NCSDAV           CC7NCSDSQ
     CC7NCSDBK          CC7NCSDMRT          CC7NCSDMRT2142TDM
     CC7NCSDMRT2142V    CC7NCSDMRTV         CC7NCSDSQ245     
     CC7NCSDMRT2142     CC7NCSDSQTDM        CC7NCSDTDM    
     CC7NCSD208SMSQ

Only products with date codes between 12-2005 and 03-2007 are
subject to the recall.  The date code appears on the circuit
board next to the battery pack and is depicted as MM-YYYY-WW.  
For example, a product manufactured in the third week of August
would have the date code "08-2006-03."

These emergency lights were manufactured in China and were being
sold at authorized distributors nationwide from February 2006
through March 2007 for about $200.  Authorized distributors
resell and install the lights for commercial end users in
facilities such as hotels and office buildings.

Cooper Lighting is contacting customers directly and is
providing a free replacement product.

Photo: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07546.html

For additional information, contact Cooper Lighting at (800)
954-7228, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday,
or go to the firm's Web site at http://www.cooperlighting.com


CRUM & FORSTER: RICO, Antitrust Claims Dismissed in N.J. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
with prejudice Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act and antitrust claims against Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.

The company and U.S. Fire, among numerous other insurance
company and insurance broker defendants, have been named as
defendants in a class action filed by policyholders alleging,
among other things, that the defendants used contingent
commission structure to deprive policyholders of free
competition in the market for insurance.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994 and the date of the
class certification engaged the services of any one of the
broker defendants and who entered into or renewed a contract of
insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

In October 2006, the court partially granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to plaintiffs'
filing an amended statement of their case.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed their "supplemental statement of
particularity" and amended case statement.  In response,
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.  

In April 2007, the plaintiff's RICO and antitrust claims again
were dismissed without prejudice.  

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com-- through  
its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of property/casualty
insurance products to businesses, including management
liability, automobile, and workers' compensation coverage.


CUTERA INC: Paskowitz Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates will amend its class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to assert
a new, longer Class Period from Jan. 31, 2007 through May 7,
2007.

The law firm filed its original April 18 complaint on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
Cutera, Inc. (NASDAQ: CUTR) from Jan. 31, 2007 through April 4,
2007.

The complaint accuses Cutera and certain of its top officers and
directors of violating the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions assuring the
investing public that increased sales efforts and other
corporate developments would lead to extraordinary growth in the
first quarter of 2007, and for the entire year (Class Action
Reporter, April 20, 2007).

Specifically, Cutera asserted on Jan. 31, 2007 that these
positive factors would lead to 25% revenue growth for the first
quarter of 2007 and for the full year, 33% growth in net income
for the first quarter of 2007, and 25% growth in net income for
the full year.

This announcement was followed shortly thereafter by unusually
large stock sales by Cutera's chief executive, defendant Kevin
P. Connors and Cutera's chief financial officer, defendant
Robert J. Santilli.

The Complaint alleges that Mr. Connors has a history of making
stock sales at high prices just prior to the release of adverse
corporate news.

On April 5, 2007 defendants shocked the market by announcing
that revenues and earnings for the first quarter of 2007 would
not increase 25%, as stated just weeks before, but rather would
materially decrease.

Defendants offered no cogent explanation for this reversal.  On
this news, Cutera shares dropped $11.72 per share on
extraordinary trading volume of 7.2 million shares.

But on May 7, 2007, after the close of trading, Cutera
announced, "The unsuccessful implementation of our junior sales
program, unusually high sales employee turnover, and
disappointing results from PSS and other national accounts," and
it forecast fiscal second quarter and 2007 sales below
expectations.

None of these adverse developments were adequately disclosed on
April 4, 2007 when, in announcing disappointing results, Mr.
Connors stated, "This quarter's shortfall was due primarily to
lower than expected productivity levels of our recent sales
expansion. We are implementing specific initiatives to address
this matter and remain confident in our ability to increase our
revenue growth."

On May 8, 2007, Cutera shares closed at $23.40, down $5.84, on
heavy volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          Paskowitz & Associates
          767 Third Avenue, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-486-6798
          Fax: 212-751-3175
          E-mail: classattorney@aol.com


DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations
of the state's labor laws.

In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed in the
Superior Court of California by one of its former employees that
worked for its California acute services program.  

The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages,
defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu
of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other
California labor code requirements.

DVA Renal is formerly Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  DaVita, Inc.
acquired it in 2005.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its May 3,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- is a provider of  
dialysis services in the U.S. for patients suffering from
chronic kidney failure, also known as end-stage renal disease.  
The company also provides acute inpatient dialysis services in
approximately 770 hospitals and related laboratory services.


DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a purported class action against DVA Renal
Healthcare, Inc. filed a demand to compel class arbitration in
the case, which was previously dismissed by U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana back in March.  

DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  It is
now a subsidiary of DaVita, Inc.

On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and related entities.  

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on
behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the
defendants for health care goods and services from on or about
January 1991 through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting
from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December
2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and
certain agencies of the U.S. Government.  

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.  In August
2006, the plaintiff proceeded with a demand to compel
arbitration.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.  In
November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class
arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its May 3,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co. v. Gambro A
B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge
Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

      -- Greg Murphy, Esq.
         Morain & Murphy
         6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200
         Baton Rouge, LA 70808
         Phone: 225-767-7151
         Fax: 225-767-8995
         E-mail: greg@mandmlawfirm.com

Representing the company is:

         G. William Jarman, Esq.
         Kean Miller, et al.
         P.O. Box 3513
         Baton Rouge, LA 70821
         Phone: 225-387-0999
         Fax: 225-388-9133


EBAY INC: Calif. Court Orders Consolidation of Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
ordered the consolidation of two purported antitrust class
actions that were filed against eBay, Inc. in April 2007, Ina
Steiner of AuctionBytes.com reports.

In consolidating the cases, "The court finds that, "Malone v.
eBay Inc., Case No. 07-01882-JF," and "Farmer, et al. v. Ebay,
Inc., Case No. C-07-02209," are related actions and such cases
are hereby consolidated into "Malone v. eBay Inc.," and are
referred to herein as the consolidated action."

The consolidated case is now know by the caption, "In Re eBay
Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," and is
pending before Judge Jeremy Fogel.

                 "Malone" Litigation Background

According to an earlier report by AuctionBytes.com, "Malone" is
an antitrust class action that was initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas but has been
refilled in California, where eBay is headquartered (Class
Action Reporter April 10, 2007).

The suit generally accuses eBay of illegally tying and steering
customers to use its wholly owned subsidiary, PayPal, Inc., to
monopolize payments and unjustly enriches itself.

The original complaint alleges "sellers are forced to accept a
payment procedure that imposes upon them the obligation to pay
needless and supracompetitive fees to defendant."  

The suit contends, "sellers are forced to accept eBay's payment
process as a condition of being able to use the eBay auction
process."

Lead plaintiff in the suit is Michael Malone of Texas, who sold
a pair of Sansui SP-2000 speakers on eBay for $200 in December
2005.  

Mr. Malone is representing all customer sellers of eBay who are
and have been required to honor all payment methods encompassed
by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases on eBay.com since
2002.

Specifically, the suit alleges:

     (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction
         market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line
         payment system that imposes needless and
         supracompetitive fees on them;

     (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market
         sufficient to restrain competition in respect of
         payment methods;

     (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous
         probability of achieving monopoly power in the market
         for on-line payment systems for use in on-line
         auctions; and

     (4) the amount of commerce is substantial.

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

     (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic
         markets;

     (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the
         tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the
         tied product market;

     (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on-
         line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize)
         the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-
         line auctions;

     (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial;

     (e) antitrust impact; and

     (f) whether the practices are ongoing.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the
class, prays for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein,
        declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of
        that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to
        the class;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Profession Code
        Section 16720 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Professions Code
        Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay was unjustly enriched;

     -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be
        proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered
        by the members of the class to their business and
        property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and
        interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of
        the Sherman Act and applicable California law;

     -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive
        behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance
        of the on-line payment services market) in violation of
        the Sherman Act;

     -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class
        such other relief that the court may consider necessary
        or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the
        markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and

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

                  "Farmer" Litigation Background

"Farmer" is a class-action complaint filed on April 23, 2007 by
Ann Farmer and Todd Van Pelt.  It alleges that eBay possesses
monopoly power in the online auction market, estimating it
controls over 90 percent of the market in part due to the
"network effect," according to a report by Ina Steiner of
AuctionBytes.com.

The complaint goes on to cite eBay's alleged anti-competitive
activities, saying the company acquires its competitors; forces
sellers to use PayPal; and blocks competitor Google from online
auctions.

It alleges that, as a result, actual and potential competition
has been restrained and that eBay sellers who accept PayPal
"have paid or are likely to pay artificially inflated and supra
competitive fees."

A copy of the "Malone" complaint filed in Texas is available
free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b41

The consolidated suit is "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael McShane, Esq.
         Audet & Partners LLP
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-568-2555
         Fax: 415-568-2556
         E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
         Phone: (415) 984-8947
         E-mail: tbrown@omm.com


FAMILY SERVICES: Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Services of Westchester, Inc. is named defendant in a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Sheron Jenkins, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and further former employees of
Family Services, alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, they are:

     (1) entitled to unpaid wages from defendants for work        
         performed for which they received no compensation at           
         all as well as for overtiem for which they did not
         receive overtime premium pay, as required by law; and

     (2) entitled to liquidated damages.

Plaintiffs further complained that they are entitled to back
wages from defendants for worked performed for which they
received no compensation at all as well as for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by
New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff seeks to prosecute her FLSA claims as a collective
action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly
employed by defendants at any time since May 4, 2004 to the
entry of judgment in this case, who were non-exempt employees
within the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid for hours
that they worked and did receive compensation at rates not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

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

     (a) whether defendants employed the Collective Action
         Members within the meaning of the FLSA;

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

     (c) whether defendants failed to pay the Collective Action
         Members for hours which they worked and received no
         compensation as well as overtime compensation for hours
         worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation
         of the FLSA and the regulations promulgated thereunder;

     (d) whether defendants' violations of the FLSA are willful
         as that term is used within the context of the FLSA;

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

     (f) whether defendants should be enjoined from such
         violations of the FLSA in the future.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court grant the
following relief:

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

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

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

     -- an injunction against the defendants and their officers,
        agents, successors, employees, representatives and any
        such and all persons acting in concert with them, as
        provided by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful
        practices, policies and patterns set forth herein;

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

     -- an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a
        result of the defendants' willful failure to pay wages
        and overtime compensation and illegal termination of
        plaintiff pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 and the New
        York Labor Law Section 663(1);

     -- an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest;

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

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

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ed8

The suit is "Jenkins v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03585-PKC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge P. Kevin
Castel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Berger & Gottlieb
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212)-228-9795
          Fax: (212)-982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com

          - and -

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          Law Office of William Coudert Rand
          711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-286-1425
          Fax: 212-599-7909
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


FEDEX GROUND: Driver Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. is named in a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Genaro Vargas brought this action on May 8, 2007 on
behalf of current and former pickup and delivery drivers for
FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery who have been eligible for
overtime but have been deprived of such pay based upon their
misclassification as independent contractors.

FedEx Ground has misclassified thousands of pick-up and delivery
drivers across the country as independent contractors.  Many of
these drivers are eligible for overtime pay, as they fall under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Under this exception, created
Aug. 10, 2005, trucks weighing less than 10,001 pounds are no
longer defined to be "motor private cariers," 49 U.S.C. Section
13105, and their drivers are thus entitled to overtime pay under
the FLSA.

Mr. Vargas brings this class action on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated FedEx Ground and Home Delivery drivers
who, since Aug. 10, 2005, have been truck drivers weighing less
than 10,001 pounds in those states that have adopted the federal
Motor Carrier Act Exemption and thus are eligible for overtime
under state law.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter the following relief:

     -- certification of this case as a class action pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- certification of subclasses of FedEx Ground drivers who
        performed work in states for which subclasses may
        contribute to the manageability of this litigation;

     -- restitution for all overtime pay owed to class members;

     -- statutory enhancement of damages as allowed by law; and

     -- any other relief to which the plaintiffs and class
        members may be entitled.

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

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

The suit is "Vargas v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-10876-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Richard G.
Stearns.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Pyle, Rome Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-367-7200
          Fax: 617-367-4820
          E-mail: harold@prle.com or sliss@prle.com


HORACE MANN: Customer Files Calif. Lawsuit Over Claims Valuation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co. and Audatex, d/b/a Autosource
Valuation, faces a purported class action alleging claims
valuation fraud in California court.

Julie Ashley filed the suit in the Superior Court of California
County of Sacramento on April 26, 2007 under Case No. 07AS01906,
alleging that Horace Mann uses co-defendant Audatex to find
cheap, out-of-state vehicles to use as a fraudulent source of
claims values.

Ms. Ashley claims that Horace Mann charged her top prices to
insure her car, then made a "lowball," non-negotiable offer
after she totaled it.

Among other things, Ms. Ashley claims that Horace Mann provided
her with a cooked-up list of 15 allegedly "comparable vehicles,"
only two of which were accompanied by VIN numbers, which is in
violation of California law.

She also claims that Horace Mann has "a pattern and practice of
using Audatex dba Autosource Valuation to create false and
fraudulent claims valuation."

The defendants are accused of breach of contract; common counts
of fraud, and intentional tort; violations of Insurance Code;
violations of Business & Professions Code; violations of Fair
Claims Settlement Regulations; and violations of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing.

The document also revealed that plaintiff seeks damages of
$250,000,000.00 as well as punitive and exemplary damages.

A copy of the court document is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1ed6

For more details, contact plaintiff's attorney:

         Robert C. Lorbeer
         35 Pebble River Cir
         Sacramento, CA 95831
         Phone: (916) 391-4777


HSBC BANK: Settles "Puterman" Pension Fraud Litigation in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Bank USA settled a federal class action by former investors
of the now-closed Pension Fund of America, which was shutdown
two years ago on fraud allegations, Jane Bussey of The
MiaimiHerald.com reports.

The suit is "Puterman, et al. v. Lehman Brothers, et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-21169-KMM," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 28, 2005.  
It was over a scheme that resulted to thousands of Latin
American investors losing money.

The report by Jane Bussey of The MiaimiHerald.com stated that
HSBC agreed to turn over some $12.8 million in investors' money
that was still on deposit in Pension Fund accounts at the bank,
along with $10.5 million.

The Securities and Exchange Commission shut down Pension Fund of
America in March 2005, alleging that the two South Florida
financiers who ran the funds duped investors by misrepresenting
fees and costs in order to pocket much of the proceeds upfront.

In February, the two financiers, Robert de la Riva and Luis M.
Cornide agreed to surrender the bulk of their property in order
to end fraud allegations pending against them.

The HSBC money, combined with funds that attorneys expect to
recover from sales of homes owned by Messrs. de la Riva and
Cornide, will allow attorneys to pay out anywhere between $23
million and $25 million to a group of 3,400 Latin Americans, a
court motion obtained by The MiaimiHerald.com stated.

U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore must still approve the
settlement.

Investors poured some $127 million into Pension Fund, which
offered life insurance and investments in mutual funds with
names such as Liberty Trust and Capital Trust.  Lawyers estimate
that some $67 million is still owed to individual and
institutional investors, including the Guatemalan Institute for
Military Social Security.

Victor M. Diaz, attorney for the class-action plaintiffs, told
The MiaimiHerald.com that he had spoken with a few investors who
were anxious to be reimbursed.

Despite the settlement, the class action is still pending
against other banks and brokerage firms that handled Pension
Fund of America accounts.  They include:

      -- Lehman Brothers, Inc.;
      -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.;
      -- Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.;
      -- SunTrust Bank, Inc.; and
      -- Oliva Investment Group, Inc.

These remains defendants have filed two motions to dismiss the
complaint.

The suit is "Puterman, et al. v. Lehman Brothers, et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-21169-KMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Victor Manuel Diaz, Jr., Esq.
         Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al
         City National Bank Building
         25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800
         Miami, FL 33130-1780
         Phone: 305-358-2800
         Fax: 305-358-2382
         E-mail: Vdiaz@podhurst.com

Representing HSBC is:

         Scott Allan Cole, Esq.
         Cole Scott & Kissane
         1390 Brickell Avenue, 3rd Floor
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-350-5346
         Fax: (305) 373-2294
         E-mail: SAC@csklegal.com


JANSSEN-ORTHO: Sued in Canada Over Lethal Content of Tylenol 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rochon Genova LLP commenced a class action in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on April 30, 2007 on
behalf of infants who ingested potentially lethal components of
Tylenol 3 through their mothers' breast milk.

The defendants named in the lawsuit are:

     * Janssen-Ortho Inc., and
     * Johnson & Johnson Corp.,

one of the world's most broadly based manufacturers of health
care products.

The claim alleges that the Defendants knew or ought to have
known of the serious risks to infants related to the use of
Tylenol 3 by nursing mothers, but failed to warn them of those
risks.  

It is further alleged that the Defendants failed to perform
adequate tests on their product and ignored available medical
and scientific information which demonstrated that codeine and
morphine (as a metabolite of codeine) are excreted through
breast milk, exposing nursing infants to the risk of serious
adverse effects including lethargy, poor feeding, constipation,
irritability, stupor, bradycardia, respiratory depression,
apnea, cyanosis and death.

"The claim emphasizes that the Defendants have a responsibility
to inform women that Tylenol 3 is potentially lethal to
breastfed infants", said Joel P. Rochon, a partner at Rochon
Genova LLP.

Rani Jamieson is one of the proposed representative plaintiffs,
whose son, Tariq, died at just 12 days old.  His cause of death
was found to be a result of complications from morphine/codeine
intoxication caused by ingesting Rani's breast milk after she
had used Tylenol 3 at or below a therapeutic dosage.

"This terrible tragedy should never have occurred and I am
determined to see that this does not happen to other children,"
Ms. Jamieson said.

She is hoping that this lawsuit will promote "awareness and
change" in the conduct of pharmaceutical companies.  "Bottom
line," she says, "based on everything I have seen, physicians
and consumers should have been warned that Tylenol 3 should not
be used by nursing mothers under any circumstance."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.

For more information, contact:

          Joel P. Rochon, Esq.
          Rochon Genova LLP
          121 Richmond St. W., Suite 900
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 2K1
          Phone:(416) 363-1867 or 1 (866) 881-2292 (Toll Free)
          Fax:(416) 363-0263
          Website: http://www.rochongenova.com/contact.aspx


KEANE INC: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Over Disposal to Caritor
------------------------------------------------------------
Keane, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
the settlement of two purported class actions:

     -- "Susan Nichols v. John F. Keane, et al.," which was
        filed on February 13, 2007 in Massachusetts Superior
        Court and amended on April 20, 2007; and

     -- "Henry C. Blaufox v. John F. Keane, Sr., et al.," which
        was filed on February 14, 2007 in the United States
        District Court, District of Massachusetts and amended on
        April 18, 2007.

Keane has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
Feb. 6, 2007 by and among Keane, Caritor and Renaissance
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Caritor,
providing for the acquisition of Keane by Caritor.

The "Blaufox v. Keane et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10278-
PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris -- seeks to bring
derivative and direct claims on behalf of Keane and a class of
Keane's shareholders, against certain of Keane's present and
former directors and executive officers (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 21, 2007).

Keane Inc. shareholder Susan Nichols, initiated the second
purported class action in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging
that Keane's directors breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the recently announced proposed acquisition of Keane by
Caritor Inc.

Both suits purport to bring claims for monetary and equitable
relief under the federal securities laws and state law,
allegedly arising out of Keane's past stock option practices and
the proposed acquisition of Keane by Caritor Inc.

The recent MOU outlines certain elements of a settlement that
will require final court approval that the proposed settlement
is fair and reasonable.

As acknowledged in the MOU, Keane has now provided and
distributed to Keane's shareholders supplemental proxy
disclosures requested by plaintiffs further explaining the
financial terms and circumstances leading up to the proposed
merger between Keane, Caritor, Inc. and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Caritor, Inc. and the vote by Keane's shareholders
thereon.

The proposed settlement provides, among other things, that any
cash payments for alleged mispricing of options disgorged to
Keane or its successor from current or former officers,
directors or employees as a result of an order of or
settlement with a prosecutorial or regulatory authority or such
legal proceedings for disgorgement, if any, as Keane or its
successor may choose to pursue shall be transferred after
receipt of such payments to Keane's shareholders who were
shareholders of record on the date of the consummation of the
proposed merger.

Any amounts distributed to such Keane shareholders would be
reduced by specified offsets for reimbursement of Keane's and
Caritor's out-of-pocket costs and expenses and any attorney's
fees and expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel.

The settlement will also include a dismissal of the class
actions with prejudice and a release of all claims by the
plaintiffs.

The MOU contains no admission of wrongdoing.  However, given the
potential cost and burden of continued litigation, Keane
believes the settlement is in its best interests and the best
interests of its shareholders.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street, 37th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134
          E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com or astewart@shulaw.com


KENNETH COLE: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Credit Card Purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. is facing a purported class
action filed in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Diego on April 17, 2007.

The putative class action alleges that the company's policies
and practices regarding the request of personal information
during credit card purchases violate the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act.  

The complaint seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. -- http://www.kennethcole.com/--  
designs, sources and markets a range of fashion footwear and
handbags.  Through license agreements, the company designs and
markets apparel and accessories under its Kenneth Cole New York,
Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted and Tribeca brand names.  In
addition, Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. through a license
agreement has the rights to use the Bongo trademark for
footwear, as well as Gentle Souls for footwear under a
trademark.  


MAYFIELD DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream on Undeclared Peanut Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mayfield Dairy Farms of Athens, Tenn., with the knowledge of the
Tennessee Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug
Administration, is voluntarily recalling 1.75-quart cartons of
Mayfield Turtle Tracks ice cream with a code date of 4/11/08 and
a UPC code of 75243-20120.  

The recall was initiated because the affected product contains
peanuts, which are not listed on the label.  Some individuals
with allergies to peanuts run the risk of a serious reaction if
they consume this product.  

The firm has not received any reports on allergic reactions.

Only 1.75-quart cartons with a code date of 4/11/08 and plant
code of 47225 are involved in the recall.  Consumers should look
for this information on the side of the lid of the carton.  The
UPC code is 75243-20120.

No other Mayfield Dairy Farms products are involved in this
recall.

The recalled product was produced at the Mayfield Dairy Farms
plant in Athens, Tennessee and distributed to retail stores in
Tennessee, Northwestern Georgia, Northern Alabama and
Southeastern Kentucky.

The company apologizes for any inconvenience to its customers.  
Consumers who purchased the product may return it to where it is
was purchased for a full refund or exchange.  Consumers with
questions can contact the company at 800-629-3435.


MULTIPLEX GROUP: Presents Arguments on Falsity of Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Raymond Antony Finkelstein has reserved a decision
on whether to dismiss an investors' suit filed against Multiplex
Group over the company's problematic Wembly Stadium project in
London, according to Maurice Dunlevy of The Australian.

The judge recently heard arguments by

Lawyers for Multiplex recently argued before the judge that the
suit contravened the Federal Court of Australia Act.  Tom
Bathurst QC said the suit filed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman on
behalf of 45 shareholders was not in the interest of claimants
because it tied them to Maurice Blackburn Cashman.  It also did
not have opt-out provisions that would allow them to choose to
discontinue their claim.

Mr. Bathurst said a substantial amount of any award would go to
both the claimants' lawyers and a separate funder of the action.

The suit claims shareholders were victims of Multiplex's failure
to keep the market properly informed about problems it was
having with the $1 billion project and the likely impact those
problems would have on the company's profits.

It alleges Multiplex was behind schedule and had incurred cost
overruns by August 2004, but did not announce the project would
be making a loss until May 2005.

In September 2002, Multiplex won a contract to rebuild Wembley
Stadium.  Cost blowouts and problems with contractors delayed
construction and caused hundreds of millions in losses.

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


ONEOK INC: Faces Energy Trading Lawsuit by Heartland Hospital
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new energy trading class action was filed against Oneok Inc.,
ONEOK Energy Marketing and Trading Co., L.P. (renamed ONEOK
Energy Services Co., L.P.), and Kansas Gas Marketing Co. as well
as 19 other defendants.

The suit is "Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al. v. ONEOK,
Inc., et al." filed in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County,
Missouri, in March 2007.

The action is alleged to be brought pursuant to the Missouri
Antitrust Law on behalf of all persons and entities in the State
of Missouri who made direct purchases of natural gas during the
period from Jan. 1, 2000, through Oct. 31, 2002.

The petition alleges that the defendants falsely reported
natural gas prices and engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the
energy trading market in violation of the Missouri Antitrust
Law.  The plaintiffs seek treble damages.


SARA LEE: Meat Plant Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging
Labor Code violations.

Lead plaintiffs -- Kenneth Sisk, Terrence Ward, Theorda Randle
and William Binder -- bring this lawsuit as a representative
action against Sara Lee pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current
and former production and support employees of Sara Lee's meat
processing facilities in Newbern, Tenn. and West Point, Miss.
for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The complaint alleges Sara Lee has failed to pay Plaintiffs
their minimum hourly rate of pay for all hours of work they
performed in addition to overtime as required by federal law.

The alleged uncompensated time includes, but is not limited to,
time spent preparing, donning, doffing, obtaining and sanitizing
sanitary and safety equipment, obtaining tools, equipment and
supplies necessary for the performance of their work, "working"
steels and all other activities in connection with these job
functions, and walking between work sites after the first
compensable work activity and before the last compensable work
activity.

These alleged unpaid work activities took place before and after
paid time, and during both paid breaks and unpaid lunch breaks.

The suit claims that at all times relevant to this Complaint,
upon information and belief, Sara Lee has only paid certain
employees at its Newbern, and West Point meat processing
facilities 10 minutes per day or less for "equipment cleaning"
time, despite the fact that Plaintiffs spend as much as 30
minutes or more per day performing uncompensated work activities
as described in this Complaint.

Under Sara Lee's wage compensation system, Plaintiffs and Class
members who are production employees are paid only during the
time that they are present on the actual production assembly
line under a system known as "gang time" or "line time."

Sara Lee also requires its employees to be present and working
at the production line for periods after their "gang time" (i.e.
the time when they stop getting paid) but they are not paid for
that time.

Plaintiffs pray for the following relief against Sara Lee:

     -- that this Court permits this action to go forward as a
        representative action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
        216(b) and approves notice of this action to all other
        similarly situated employees and former employees at
        Sara Lee's Newbern, TN and West Point, MS meat
        processing facilities;

     -- that this Court Order an accounting of lost wages for
        Plaintiffs;

     -- that this Court enjoin Defendant Sara Lee from
        continuing to commit unlawful practices related to
        wages; and

     -- that this Court award lost overtime wages, liquidated
        damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and
        attorneys' fees.

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

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

The suit is "Sisk et al. v. Sara Lee Corp., Case No. 1:07-cv-
01095-JDT-sta," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District Court of Tennessee, under Judge James D. Todd, with
referral to Judge S. Thomas Anderson.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Michael Hamilton, Esq.
          Provost Umphrey, LLP-Nashville
          2002 Richard Jones Road, C-103
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Phone: 615-242-0199
          Fax: 615-256-5922
          E-mail: mhamilton@provostumphrey.com


SHARPCUTS INC: Stylist Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sharpcuts Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging Labor
Code violations.

Plaintiff Rhonda McLendon bring this action for unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiff was an hourly paid stylist and performed related
activities for Sharpcuts in, among others, Duval County,
Florida.

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

Plaintiff claims that during her employment, she was not paid
time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per work week during one or more work weeks.

Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees, demand
judgment against defendants for:

     -- the payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half
        the regular rate of pay for the hours worked by them for
        which defendant did not properly compensate them;

     -- payment of minimum wage for all hours worked by
        plaintiff  for which defendants did not properly
        compensate her;

     -- liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
        incurred;

     -- declaratory relief; and

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

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

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

The suit is "McClendon v. Sharpcuts Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-00378-TJC-TEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, under Judge Timothy J. Corrigan,
with referral to Judge Thomas E. Morris.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407/420-1414
          Fax: 407/423-7928
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Argues Transfer of "Watson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court heard in April arguments by Philip Morris
Co. to move a suit filed in Arkansas from state to federal
court, Mark H. Anderson of MarketWatch reports.  A ruling is
expected before July, the report said.

The suit was filed by two Little Rock women, Lisa Watson and
Loretta Lawson in 2003 in Pulaski County Circuit Court in
Arkansas.  But Philip Morris asked to transfer the case to
federal court on grounds it involved the Federal Trade
Commission, which regulates cigarette testing and advertising
requirements.

The suit filed by the women alleged Philip Morris, now known as
Altria Group Inc., falsely advertised its Marlboro and Cambridge
brands as "light" cigarettes.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis agreed with
the transfer of the case to the federal court, prompting the
plaintiffs to appeal the ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit is "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284."  The
plaintiffs are asking the court to certify the case as class
action.

The plaintiffs' lawyer is:

          Steven E. Cauley, P.A.
          Cypress Plaza
          Suite 218
          2200 Rodney Parham Rd
          Little Rock, AR 72212-4155
          Fax: (501) 312-8505


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ill. Lawyer Back in Court to Revive "Price"
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis (Ill.) attorney Stephen Tillery argued in court early
in May to reinstate a $10.1 billion judgment against Philip
Morris Co. because new evidence has emerged in a separate
tobacco case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Tillery initially won on the claim that the company
defrauded Illinois customers regarding the tar and nicotine
content of its Marlboro Lights.  The award included $7.1 billion
in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages with
$1.8 billion in attorneys fees.

But in 2005, the state Supreme Court reversed a Madison County
judge's decision and dismissed the case on ground that the
Federal Trade Commission had authorized the "light" label of the
cigarettes.

After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Mr. Tillery's
appeal, Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas G. Byron dismissed
the claim in December 2006.  

In recent developments, Mr. Tillery presented new arguments
before the court basing on testimony and briefs filed by the
U.S. solicitor general in the suit, "Watson v. Philip Morris,"
now pending before the U.S. high court, that the trade
commission never approved or ordered tobacco companies to label
their products.

The Philip Morris party believes the case is closed and the
trial court has any authority to consider Mr. Tillery's
arguments.

After Judge Byron dismissed the claim, Mr. Tillery asked the
judge to reverse himself.  Judge Byron said he would not reverse
himself, but would formally ask the 5th District Appellate Court
to determine whether he is allowed to hear Mr. Tillery's
pleadings.

The suit is "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112," filed under Judge Nicholas
Byron.  

Class counsel is Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery, Mail: 10
Executive Woods Court, Belleville, IL 62226, Phone: (618) 277-
1180, Fax: (618) 222-6939 E-mail: contact@koreintillery.com.

Lawyers for the company are:

     (1) James R. Thompson, George C. Lombardi, Jeffrey M.
         Wagner, Julie A. Bauer and Stuart Altschuler of Winston
         & Strawn LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60601-
         9703, Phone: 312-558-5600

     (2) Michele Odorizzi, Joel D. Bertocchi, Michael K. Forde
         of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 190 South LaSalle
         Street, Chicago, IL 60603-3441, Phone: 312-782-0600

     (3) Larry Hepler, Beth A. Bauer of Burroughs, Hepler,
         Broom, Macdonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, 103 West
         Vandalia Street, Suite 300, Post Office Box 510,
         Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Phone: 618-656-0184

     (4) Kevin M. Forde, Kevin M. Forde, Ltd., 111 West
         Washington Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60602 Phone:
         312-641-1441


TREMONT TOWING: Faces Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tremont Towing, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
alleging Labor Code violations.

This action is brought on behalf of all weekly paid and/or
salaried employees and/or former employees of Tremont Towing who
are and who were subject to the payroll practices and procedures
and who were not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of
pay for all overtime hours worked beginning on or after May
2004.

Plaintiffs Alfred Johnson and Edwin F. Gonzalez, former
employees of Tremont Towing, bring this action for compensation
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended,
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiffs allege that in the course of their employment,
plaintiffs worked the number of hours required of them but was
not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week.

Plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants for:

     -- the wages and overtime payments due them for hours
        worked by them for which they have not been properly
        compensated;

     -- liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees;

     -- costs of suit; and

     -- for all proper relief including prejudmgent interest.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ed1

The suit is "Johnson v. Tremont Towing, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21207-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge James Lawrence King.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Charles Harold Bechert, III, Esq.
          750 E Sample Road
          Pompano Beach, FL 33064
          Phone: 954-941-8363
          Fax: 941-8337
          E-mail: Tripchb@aol.com


UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Suit Over Missing Employee Records
-----------------------------------------------------------
The American Federation of Government Employees, representing
employees throughout the Department of Homeland Security,
including the Transportation Security Administration, filed a
class action against the TSA.

The TSA, a unit of the Homeland Security Department, announced
last week that an external hard drive containing archived
employment records was missing.  The missing data included
names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and payroll and
bank account information for some 100,000 employees.

In "AFGE, et al. v. Kip Hawley and TSA," AFGE claims that by
failing to establish safeguards to ensure the security and
confidentiality of personnel records, TSA violated both the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and the Privacy
Act of 1974.

The ATSA explicitly mandates the TSA administrator to "ensure
the adequacy of security measures at airports," and the Privacy
Act directs that every federal agency have in place a security
system to prevent unauthorized release of personal records.

"TSA's reckless behavior is clearly in violation of the law,"
AFGE National President John Gage said. "TSA must be held liable
for this wanton disregard for employee privacy."

In the lawsuit, AFGE asks that TSA be ordered to create new
security procedures consistent with the ATSA and the Privacy
Act, specifically electronically monitoring any mobile equipment
that stores personnel data and encrypting personnel data.

"The maintenance and safeguarding of personnel data is vital to
the protection of security at our nation's airports," Mr. Gage
added.  "If the stolen information were to fall into the wrong
hands, false identity badges easily could be created in order to
gain access to secure areas.  This is the Department of Homeland
Security we are talking about.  The American people look to DHS
for security and protection.  A DHS agency that cannot even
shield its own employee data is not reassuring."

AFGE also asks for TSA to grant administrative leave to
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) who request it in order
to protect against or correct identity theft or financial
disruption caused by this incident, and that no retaliation
occurs against such employees who take said time off.

Additionally, AFGE asks the court to grant judgment for all
actual damages incurred as a result of TSA's Privacy Act
violations.

AFGE Locals 1, 1234 and 777, and TSOs Joseph Jones, Janette
Nagel, Cris Soulia and Don Thomas are named as plaintiffs in the
case.  The three locals represent TSOs across the nation.

AFGE has been the only union to represent TSOs since the
agency's inception, and recently was instrumental in getting
collective bargaining language passed in both the Senate and
House.

AFGE is the largest federal employee union representing 600,000
workers in the federal government and the government of the
District of Columbia, including the largest constituency of DHS
employees.

For more information, contact:

          Emily Ryan
          American Federation of Government Employees
          Phone: +1-202-639-6421


* Chinese Exporters of Melamine-Contaminated Gluten Face Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese authorities have detained the managers of two companies
that exported contaminated wheat gluten used in Menu Foods
Inc.'s pet food that spawned an outbreak of pet illnesses and
deaths across North America, The Mississauga News reports.

According to Louie Rosella of The Mississauga News, China's
government body responsible for overseeing food safety local
said, police had already brought charges against managers of
Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd. and
Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Co. Ltd., but their names and
the details of the charges have not been released.

Reports say the companies added melamine to the wheat gluten in
a bid to meet the contractual demand for the amount of protein
in the products.  It said doing so was against regulations.

Melamine, a non-toxic chemical used in fertilizer and plastics,
was identified as a contaminant by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in March.

The statement alleges the companies broke the law only when they
mislabeled the exported products to avoid inspection.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide
recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in
response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S.

The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams,
Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers
Wal-Mart, Safeway, Petsmart, and others.

Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the
nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with
similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated
products.

To see complete list of recalled products:
http://www.menufoods.com/recall

Menu Foods is facing several federal class actions in the U.S.
and Canada.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Corp. Drop to 1,650 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corp., as of March 31, 2007, was a party to about 1,650
pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about
10,229 claimants, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2007.

The claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets, both encapsulated
and otherwise, made or distributed by certain Company
subsidiaries for use in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a party to about 1,708
pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about
10,551 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 125
claims filed, 417 claims dismissed, and 30 claims settled. The
average settlement per claim amounted to US$20,958 and total
defense costs amounted to US$1,258,145.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 3,766
claims filed, 12,508 claims dismissed, and 123 claims settled.
The average settlement per claim amounted to US$5,613 and total
defense costs amounted to US$4,895,104.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to
distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other
manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company said it believes
that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none
of its gaskets were distributed or used.

Of the 10,229 claims pending at March 31, 2007, 156 set forth
specific amounts of damages. Out of the 156 claims, 128 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages, which
includes compensatory and punitive damages, and 28 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages, which
includes compensatory and punitive damages.

With respect to compensatory damages, 135 of the 156 claims
sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 21 sought between
US$1 million and US$5 million. Solely with respect to punitive
damages, 128 of the 156 claims sought between US$1 million and
US$2.5 million and 28 sought US$5 million.

Total settlement costs, exclusive of defense costs, for all
those cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have
been about US$4.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.

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

Headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corp. and its
consolidated subsidiaries manufacture products for commercial,
industrial, and consumer markets. The Company is engaged in five
business segments: Packaging Systems, Energy Products,
Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products, and Recreational
Accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 26,034 Pending Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc., as of March 31, 2007, recorded about 26,034
unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 980 were
premises claims and the rest were products claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded about 26,045
unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 980 were
premises claims and the rest were products claims. (Class Action
Reporter, April 13, 2007)

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

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

There were also about 1,900 unpaid claims, which have been
settled or are subject to the terms of a settlement agreement.  
As of March 31, 2007, there were about 528 claims which have
either been dismissed without payment or are in the process of
being dismissed without payment, but with plaintiffs retaining
the right to re-file should they be able to establish exposure
to an asbestos-containing product for which the Company bears
liability.

Between Jan. 1, 2007 and March 31, 2007, the Company received
about 323 new claims. During that same period, the Company spent
about US5.6 million to resolve and defend asbestos matters,
including US$3.4 million in settlement payments and about US$2.2
million for defense costs.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and
markets specialty chemicals and related services for business,
consumer, and industrial applications. The Company's principal
products are chemicals, water-soluble polymers, and specialty
resins.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $230.2M Liabilities in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$230.2 million, compared with
US$233.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$36.4 million, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
assets amounted to US$41.9 million, compared with US$87.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

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

In exchange, the Company released the underwriters from past,
present and future claims under those policies, agreed to the
cancellation of those policies, and agreed to indemnify the
underwriters from any claims asserted under those policies.

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

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

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

In exchange, the Company released the insurers from past,
present and future claims under those policies, agreed to the
cancellation of those policies, and agreed to indemnify the
insurers from any claims asserted under those policies.

Any funds remaining in the Second Trust after Dec. 31, 2008 may
be used by the Company to defend and resolve both asbestos-
related claims and non-asbestos related claims.

As of March 31, 2007, about US$85.1 million of the US$102.2
million had been placed into the Second Trust, and the Second
Trust had a balance of about US$25.4 million.

Effective Oct. 13, 2004, the Company reached a confidential
settlement agreement with the balance of its solvent excess
insurers whereby a significant portion of the costs incurred by
the Company with respect to future asbestos product liability
claims will be reimbursed.

As of March 31, 2007, defense costs and settlement payments for
qualifying asbestos products claims of about US$87 million have
been credited towards the range of US$330 million to US$370
million.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and
markets specialty chemicals and related services for business,
consumer, and industrial applications. The Company's principal
products are chemicals, water-soluble polymers, and specialty
resins.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $41.3M from Reversion of Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc., in January 2007, received US$41.3 million of
funds from the reversion of one of the trusts established in
2004 related to the settlement with asbestos claim insurers,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007.

During 2007, the Company projects reimbursements from the
remaining trust to average US$31 million, which will be used to
fund a substantial portion of the related estimated asbestos
claims for the year.

The Company also projects about US$9 million in defense costs
and legal fees to be paid and incurred during the year. The
combined cash impact of the trust liquidation and projected
reimbursements from the remaining trust should result in a
positive net cash inflow related to asbestos litigation matters
during 2007.

However, subsequent to 2007 and upon liquidation of the
remaining trust, the Company will be required to fund its
asbestos settlements and related defense costs and legal fees
from its cash from operations and other available financial
resources until its excess insurance policies are triggered
based on cumulative asbestos-related expenditures.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and
markets specialty chemicals and related services for business,
consumer, and industrial applications. The Company's principal
products are chemicals, water-soluble polymers, and specialty
resins.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.392B Liabilities in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp.'s asbestos-related liabilities, as of March
31, 2007, amounted to US$1.392 billion, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$1.391 billion.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$860.1 million
asbestos-related insurance recoverable. (Class Action Reporter,
April 27, 2007)

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul,
Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and
distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company
also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Deals w/ Fel-Pro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. still faces asbestos-related claims
regarding its Fel-Pro subsidiary, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2007.

Before Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in its
own name as a defendant in multiple lawsuits filed by claimants
alleging injury from exposure to asbestos due to its ownership
of certain assets involved in gasket making.

As of its Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, the Company faced about
61,500 pre-petition pending claims. Over 40,000 of these claims
were transferred to a federal court, where, before the
Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending.

Before the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company's Fel-Pro
subsidiary also was named as a defendant in product liability
cases involving asbestos, primarily involving gasket or packing
products. Fel-Pro faced about 34,000 pending claims as of the
Petition Date.

Over 32,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court,
where, before the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending.

All claims alleging exposure to the products of the Company and
of Fel-Pro have been stayed as a result of the Restructuring
Proceedings.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul,
Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and
distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company
also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $701M Recoverable for T&N
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., as of March 31, 2007, recorded an asbestos-
related insurance recoverable of US$701 million for it U.K.
subsidiary, T&N Ltd., and two U.S. subsidiaries, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the US$701 million insurance recoverable
asset includes an exchange rate premium of about US$87 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a US$699 million
asbestos-related insurance recoverable for the T&N Companies.
(Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007).

The T&N Companies face court actions in the U.S. alleging
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products.

T&N Ltd. is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation, to a
lesser extent, in the U.K. and France. As of the Company's Oct.
1, 2001 Petition Date, T&N Ltd. faced about 115,000 pending
personal injury claims. The two U.S. subsidiaries faced about
199,000 pending personal injury claims.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, the Company increased its
estimate of asbestos-related liability for the T&N Companies by
US$751 million and recorded a related insurance recoverable
asset of US$577 million.

The liability, about US$1.2 billion as of March 31, 2007,
represented the Company's estimate prior to the Restructuring
Proceedings for claims currently pending and those that were
reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012.

T&N Ltd., f/k/a T&N plc, during the year ended Dec. 31, 1996,
purchased for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a
GBP500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should
the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30,
1996, where the exposure occurred prior to that date, exceed
GBP690 million.

The Company, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, concluded that
the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would
exceed the trigger point and recorded an insurance recoverable
asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million.

One of the three reinsurers, European International Reinsurance
Company Ltd., in December 2001, filed suit in a London, England
court to challenge the validity of its insurance contract with
the T&N Companies.

As a result of this suit, a claim was made against the broker
(Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for breach of
its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in October 2003.
The parties were able to reach a settlement before the
conclusion of the trial. As a result of this settlement, the
Company recorded a US$38.9 million asbestos charge during 2003.

Under the terms of the settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5
percent of its one-third share of the reinsurance policy. By
separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an extra
17.25 percent of the EIR share of the reinsurance policy.

T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums paid
under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N Ltd. for
which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or
Sedgwick. A motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court's approval of
the settlement was filed on March 1, 2004.

After this motion, the other two reinsurers, Munchener
Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG and Centre Reinsurance
International Co., a subsidiary of the Zurich Financial Services
Group, notified the Company of their belief that the settlements
with EIR and Sedgwick may breach one or more provisions of the
reinsurance agreement.

The parties were unable to resolve the issues raised by the two
reinsurers and this prompted the U.K. Administrators to file an
action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the
settlements with EIR and Sedgwick do not breach provisions of
the reinsurance agreement. A hearing was conducted during July
2005 and judgment was handed down on Dec. 21, 2005.

The High Court held that the settlements did not breach the
reinsurance agreement. Munich Re and CRIC have not appealed the
judgment. As a result, the motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court's
approval was renoticed and the Bankruptcy Court approved the
settlement in November 2006.

The Company has reviewed the financial viability and legal
obligations of the three reinsurance companies involved and has
concluded that there is little risk that the reinsurers will not
be able to meet their obligations under the policy based upon
their financial condition. The U.S. claims costs applied against
this policy are converted at a fixed exchange rate of
US$1.69/GBP.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul,
Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and
distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company
also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Liability Remains at $213.6M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp.'s asbestos-related liability for its Abex
and Wagner businesses, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to
US$213.6 million, 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 May 1, 2007.

The liability, comprised of US$129.5 million in Abex liabilities
and US$84.1 million in Wagner liabilities, represented the
Company's estimate prior to the Restructuring Proceedings for
claims currently pending and those which were reasonably
estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012.

Two Company businesses formerly owned by Cooper Industries LLC,
historically known as Abex and Wagner, face court actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products. These claims mainly involve
vehicle safety and performance products.

As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Abex had about
66,000 pending claims and Wagner had about 33,000 pending
claims.

The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging
exposure to Wagner products arises from the 1998 stock purchase
from Cooper of the corporate successor by merger to Wagner
Electric Co. The purchased entity is now a wholly owned Company
unit and a Debtor in the Restructuring Proceedings.

The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging
exposure to Abex products arises from a contractual liability
entered into in 1994 by the predecessor to the Company whose
stock the Company purchased in 1998.

Under that contract and before the Restructuring Proceedings,
the Company, through the relevant subsidiary, was liable for
certain indemnity and defense payments incurred on behalf of an
entity known as Pneumo Abex Corp., the successor in interest to
Abex Corp. Effective as of the Petition Date, the Company has
ceased making such payments and is currently considering whether
to accept or reject the 1994 contractual liability.

As of the Petition Date, pending asbestos litigation of Abex, as
to the Company, and Wagner is stayed, and no party may take
action to pursue or collect on those asbestos claims absent
specific authorization of the Bankruptcy Court.

The Abex insurance recoverable was US$111.9 million as of March
31, 2007.

Wagner also maintained product liability insurance coverage for
some of the time that it manufactured products that contained
asbestos. This coverage is shared with other third-party
companies. The Wagner insurance recoverable was US$47.6 million
as of March 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The
Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons,
and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul,
Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and
distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company
also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial for Sempra Cleanup Case Set for June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy says that a trial in an asbestos-related cleanup
matter filed against it, subsidiary San Diego Gas & Electric
Co., and two employees is scheduled for June 2007, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007.

The County of San Diego filed and then withdrew litigation
against the Company and SDG&E that sought unspecified civil
penalties for alleged violations of environmental standards
applicable to the abatement, handling and disposal of asbestos-
containing materials during the 2001 dismantlement of a natural
gas storage facility.

In November 2006, a federal court dismissed all charges against
SDG&E and two employees in a federal criminal indictment
charging them with having violated these standards and for
related charges of conspiracy and having made false statements
to governmental authorities.

On Feb. 12, 2007, the court granted the federal government's
motion for reconsideration with respect to the false statement
count.

On Feb. 27, 2007, the San Diego U.S. Attorney's Office re-
indicted the previously dismissed case against SDG&E, its
employees and contractors.

Headquartered in San Diego, Sempra Energy distributes natural
gas to some 5.6 million customers and electricity to 1.4 million
customers through its Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) and San
Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Ind. Drop to 8,500 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc., for the three months ended March 31,
2007, recorded 8,500 claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007.

The significant decline in the number of claimants in 2006
reflects disposition of a large number of unwarranted filings in
Mississippi made immediately prior to the institution of tort
reform legislation in that state effective Jan. 1, 2003.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had 8,600
claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits, compared with 22,200
claimants for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, April 13, 2007)

At March 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related liability
amounted to US$54.3 million, compared with US$54.6 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

At March 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related insurance
receivable amounted to US$38.2 million, compared with US$38.1
million at Dec. 31, 2006.

Headquartered in West Paterson, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc.
produces the building-block chemicals from which it makes
engineered materials, specialty chemicals, and additives used in
treating water and in industrial processes. The Company also
sells its building-block chemicals -- acrylonitrile, melamine,
and sulfuric acid -- to third parties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,178 Cases in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group Inc., as of March 31, 2007, recorded 1,178
pending asbestos-related cases filed against subsidiary Central
Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 2, 2007.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,975
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 150 cases.

Central Hudson is unable to assess the validity of the remaining
asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate
liability relating to these cases.

Central Hudson, as of Jan. 15, 2007, faced 1,165 pending
asbestos-related cases filed against it. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 16, 2007)

Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group Inc.,
through subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., provides
electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York
State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and
electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory that
extends from New York City to Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Review of Cleco Corp. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos claimants, on April 19, 2007, filed a request for
review of an appeals court decision over the dismissal of two
asbestos lawsuits against Cleco Corp., according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007.

The Company has been named as a defendant by individuals who
claim injury due to exposure to asbestos while working at sites
in central Louisiana. Most of the claimants were workers who
participated in the construction of various generation
facilities, and some of the claimants had worked at Company-
owned locations.

With two exceptions, all filed, asbestos-related suits have been
settled. The trial court dismissed the two remaining suits.

However, the claimants appealed the trial court's dismissal. On
March 21, 2007, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's
dismissal.

On April 19, 2007, the claimants filed the review with the
Louisiana Supreme Court.

Based in Pineville, La., Cleco Corp., through Cleco Power LLC,
generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to 268,000
residential and business customers in 104 communities in
Louisiana. Cleco Power has a generating capacity of more than
1,350 MW from its interests in fossil-fueled power plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves $3.926B for Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies Inc.'s net asbestos-related reserves, at
and for the three months ended March 31, 2007, amounted to
US$3.926 billion, compared with US$4.280 billion at and 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 May 2, 2007.

Effective Feb. 26, 2007, The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc.
amended its articles of incorporation to change its name to The
Travelers Companies Inc. and amended its bylaws to reflect the
name change.

St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., at and for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a net of US$4.051 billion asbestos-
related reserves, compared with a net of US$4.364 billion at and
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March
9, 2007)

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first three months
of 2007 were US$125 million, compared with US$84 million in the
same period of 2006. The increase in paid losses in the 2007-1st
quarter was primarily the result of installment payments on
settlements reached in prior years.

As a result, about 63 percent of total net paid losses in the
first three months of 2007, 44 percent in the first three months
of 2006, related to policyholders with whom the Company has
entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's
liability.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies Inc.,
offers personal insurance and commercial property-casualty
insurance. The Company provides commercial auto, property,
workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial
liability coverage to companies in North America and the U.K.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Chicago Bridge Increase to 1,942
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., as of March 31, 2007, recorded about
1,942 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced 1,918 pending asbestos-
related claims filed against it, compared with 1,934 claims as
of Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007)

As of March 31, 2007, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,574
plaintiffs, and of those claims, about 2,632 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

The Company faces lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to
asbestos due to work it may have performed at various locations.
The Company has never made, distributed, or supplied asbestos
products.

As of March 31, 2007, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000.

With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability, if any.

At March 31, 2007, the Company had accrued US900,000 for
liability and related expenses.

Headquartered in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge &
Iron Co. N.V. is an engineering, procurement, and construction
company, specializing in projects for customers that produce,
process, store and distribute the world's natural resources. The
Company operates in more than 60 locations and with about 12,000
employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Remains at $18.7M in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as of
April 1, 2007, amounted to US$18,694,000, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007.

As of April 1, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$4,244,000, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

As of April 1, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos-related
insurance receivables amounted to US$18,503,000, the same as for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

As of April 1, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
insurance receivables amounted to US$4,244,000, the same as for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp. develops and makes
high-performance specialty materials, which serve a diverse
range of markets including: portable communication devices,
communication infrastructure, consumer products, computer and
office equipment, ground transportation, and aerospace and
defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.18M for Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc., for the three months ended March 31,
2007, had US$37,178,000 as gross loss and loss adjustment
expenses reserves for its asbestos exposures, compared with
US$37,171,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 3, 3007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company had
US$21,635,000 as net loss and LAE reserves for its asbestos
exposures, compared with US$21,381,000 for the year ended Dec.
31, 2006.

The Company's exposure to asbestos liability stems from marine
liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the
mid-1980s.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at March 31, 2007 and Dec.
31, 2006 are for:

-- The 2005-4th quarter settlements of two large claims
aggregating about US$28 million for excess insurance policy
limits exposed to class action suits against two insureds
involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos
products, each settlement is being paid over a two year period
that started in 2006;

-- The 2004 settlement of a large claim about US$25 million
exposed to a class action suit which settlement is being paid
over a seven year period that started in June 2005;

-- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
products that contained asbestos; and

-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
over time.

At March 31, 2007, ceded asbestos paid and unpaid losses
recoverable were US$21.2 million of which US$11.4 million were
due from Equitas and US$1.6 million were due from Ace
International.

In November 2006, the Company filed arbitration demands against
Equitas and Ace International for paid losses recoverable on
settled asbestos claims. The average ceded paid and unpaid
recoverable amounts relating to those arbitrations are US$2.7
million for Equitas and US$1.6 million for Ace International.

Headquartered in New York, The Navigators Group Inc.'s
subsidiaries write marine, liability, and other lines of
business. Navigators Insurance and Navigators Corporate
Underwriters write ocean and marine insurance. The Navigators
Agencies are involved in professional liability, especially
directors and officers coverage. Navigators Specialty provides
general liability for contractors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Continue to Face 6,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc. continues to be named as a defendant
in product liability actions brought on behalf of individuals
who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to airborne
asbestos fibers.

In particular, Company subsidiaries, Leslie, Spence, and Hoke,
collectively have been named as defendants or third-party
defendants in open asbestos related cases brought on behalf of
about 6,000 claimants.

In some instances, the Company also has been named individually
and as successor in interest to one or more of these units.
These cases have anywhere from 25 to 400 defendants and seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against all
defendants in the aggregate.

However, the complaints filed on behalf of claimants who do seek
specified compensatory and punitive damages seek millions or
tens of millions of dollars in damages against the aggregate of
defendants.

Of about 6,000 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but
about 900 have brought their claims in Mississippi. Over the
past two years, the Mississippi the courts have rendered
decisions and the state legislature has passed legislation aimed
at curbing certain abusive practices by plaintiff attorneys
under which large numbers of unrelated plaintiffs would be
grouped in the same case against hundreds of defendants.

As a result of these changes, many of these "mass filings" have
been dismissed and the number of Mississippi claimants against
Company subsidiaries is now about 5,200 whereas it previously
had been as high as 21,000.

The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of
about 25 different states with California, Texas, New York,
Massachusetts and Connecticut having the most significant
percentage of the claims.

Any components containing asbestos formerly used in Leslie,
Spence and Hoke products were entirely internal to the product
and, the Company said it believes, would not give rise to
ambient asbestos dust during normal operation or during normal
inspection and repair procedures.

To date, the Company's insurers have been paying most of the
costs associated with the defense and settlement of these
actions, particular with respect to Spence and Hoke for which
insurance has paid all defense and settlement costs to date.

With regard to Leslie, the Company's current cost sharing
understanding with Leslie's insurers results in Leslie being
responsible for 29 percent of its defense and settlement costs.

Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International Inc. makes
instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including
precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for
hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems. The Company
sells its products, through about 1,900 distributors, to more
than 11,000 aerospace, energy, chemical, pharmaceutical, and
industrial customers in nearly 100 countries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 490 Cases W/ 7,000 Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. faces about 490 pending asbestos-related
cases, involving a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their
spouses, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007.

The Company faced about 500 pending asbestos-related cases,
involving a total of about 10,400 plaintiffs and their spouses.
(Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007)

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

The claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. The Company
does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the
plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-
related claims.

At March 31, 2007, the Company has accrued US$2.4 million for
recovery of lead pigment and asbestos litigation costs which was
collected in April 2007.

Headquartered in Dallas, NL Industries Inc., through minority
owned subsidiary, Kronos Worlwide Inc., supplies titanium
dioxide (TiO2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity, and
brightness of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics.
Valhi Inc. owns 83 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Drops to $466.8M in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liability, as
of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$466.8 million, compared with
US$479.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company
press release filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
liability amounted to US$80.2 million, compared with US$88.8
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$376.4 million, compared with US$396.7
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$60.8 million, compared with US$71.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

New asbestos claims continue to be filed at historically low
rates in 2007. In the 2007-1st quarter, 1,900 new claims were
filed, a decline of about 35 percent, compared with the 2006-
1stt quarter, and a level consistent with the final three
quarters of 2006.

During the 2007-1st quarter, the Company recorded asbestos-
related expenses of US$12.9 million, consisting of payments of
US$6.1 million for legal fees and other expenses and a non-cash
charge of US$6.8 million to update management's 10-year estimate
of the asbestos liability of its subsidiaries.

At the end of the 2007-1st quarter, the total recorded liability
for current and future claims was US$547 million, while US$437.2
million of solvent insurance remained available for the payment
of asbestos claims and expenses.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries Inc. produces
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Pays $3M for Claims, Expenses in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s payments for asbestos claims and
expenses, net of insurance receipts, were US$3 million in the
2007-1st quarter, compared with US$21.4 million in the 2006-1st
quarter, according to a Company press release filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007.

Net cash outflows declined because settlement payments and legal
fees were lower while collections of insurance were higher
because of receipts in connection with an insurance settlement
reached in 2006.

Net income in the 2007-1st quarter was US$12.3 million, or
US$0.56 a share, a decline from 2006, when net income was
US$14.8 million, or US$0.69 a share.

However, net income in 2007 was reduced by asbestos-related
expenses of US$12.9 million, before tax, compared with US$4.9
million, before tax, a year ago. Expenses increased in 2007
because the Company's asbestos insurance is now fully allocated
to settled and estimated future claims.

As a result, all legal expenses associated with asbestos as well
as non-cash adjustments required to maintain a 10-year estimate
of the asbestos liability are now recorded as charges to income.

Before asbestos-related expenses and other selected items,
income in the 2007-1st quarter was US$21 million, or US$0.95 a
share, a 12 percent improvement over the 2006-1st quarter, when
income was US$18.2 million, or US$0.85 a share.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries Inc. produces
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $341M Losses in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., for the three months ended March
31, 2007, recorded US$341,031,000 as net unpaid loss and
allocated loss adjustment expenses, compared with US$367,183,000
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 May 3, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
US$429,596,000 as gross unpaid losses and ALAE, compared with
US$461,078,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings
Corp., through its subsidiaries, offers commercial property and
casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer
force located across the U.S. The Company is 100 percent owned
by Fairfax Inc., which is owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings
Ltd.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $159M for Liabilities in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co., as of March 31, 2007, recorded US$159 million for
asbestos/respirator mask liabilities, compared with US$181
million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 3, 2007.

The Company's asbestos/respirator mask receivables, as of March
31, 2007, amounted to US$365 million, compared with US$380
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company is a named co-defendant in
lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent about
14,500 individual claimants, a decrease from about 40,200
individual claimants with actions pending at March 31, 2006.

Most of the suits and claims resolved by and pending against the
Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator
products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants
for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts found in
products made by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

The remaining claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products made by the
Company, which are often unspecified, and by other defendants,
or occasionally at Company premises.

Many of the resolved suits and claims involved unimpaired
claimants who were recruited by plaintiffs' lawyers through mass
chest x-ray screenings. The Company experienced a significant
decline in the number of claims filed in 2006 and through the
2007-1st quarter from prior years by apparently unimpaired
claimants.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. has six operating
segments: display and graphics; health care; safety, security,
and protection; electro and communications; industrial and
transportation; and consumer and office. Brands include
Scotchgard fabric protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite
scouring products, and Scotch tapes. Sales outside the U.S.
account for about two-thirds of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $194M for Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc.,
as of March 31, 2007, accrued US$194 million for pending and
future asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2007.

The accrual balance of US$194 million includes US$115 million
for unasserted claims and US$6 million for committed settlements
that will be paid over time.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, Crown Cork accrued US$198 million for
pending and future asbestos-related claims. (Class Action
Reporter, April 13, 2007)

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, Crown Cork
received about 1,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about
1,000 claims for a total of US$2 million and had about 79,000
claims outstanding at the end of the period.

Crown Cork faces lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons
alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S.
company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company
sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

Before 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork
became self-insured.

In April 2007, the State of Georgia enacted legislation that
limits the asbestos-related liabilities under state law of
companies like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these
liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to
companies that had been involved with asbestos.

The new legislation, which applies to future and, with the
exception of Georgia and South Carolina, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.

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

The Company seeks to reduce its asbestos-related costs through
prudent case management. Asbestos-related payments were US$26
for the full year of 2006 and US$4 for the first three months of
2007. The Company expects to pay about US$25 for the full year
of 2007.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings Inc. produces
consumer packaging. The Company's product portfolio includes
aerosol cans and a wide variety of metal caps, crowns, and
closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative novelty
containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also makes can
making equipment and replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 1,635 New Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
during the three months ended March 31, 2007, received about
1,635 new asbestos-related claims, compared with 2,220 claims
during the three months ended March 31, 2006, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007.

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

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

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life have included
negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos.

As reported in the 2006 Annual Report filed with the SEC,
Metropolitan Life received about 7,870 asbestos-related claims
in 2006.

During 1998, Metropolitan Life paid US$878 million in premiums
for excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The
excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provide
for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion, which is in excess
of a $400 million self-insured retention.

The foregone loss reimbursements were about US$51.6 million with
respect to claims for the period of 2002 through 2005 and about
US$5.5 million with respect to 2006 claims and are estimated, as
of March 31, 2007, to be about US$75.2 million in the aggregate,
including future years.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife Inc. and its subsidiaries,
including Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., provides insurance
and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S.
and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The
Company offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and
homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products and services to corporations
and other institutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper's Appeal Briefing to be Heard in '07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of Cooper Industries LLC's appeal, over an asbestos-
related insurance action filed against PepsiAmericas Inc. and
other parties, is expected to take place during the first half
of fiscal year 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2007.

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

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

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

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

During the 2006-2nd quarter, the Trustee's motion to dismiss, in
which the Company had joined, was granted and three counts
against the Company based on the use of Trust funds were
dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts against the
Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue
these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust.

The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the
remaining counts against it. The Company's motion was granted
during the 2006-3rd quarter and all remaining counts against the
Company were dismissed with prejudice.

Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all
rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company
and the Trustee.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, PepsiAmericas Inc. operates as a
Pepsi bottler. The Company also distributes Dr Pepper, Lipton
Iced Teas, Welch's fruit drinks, Schweppes, Starbucks
Frappuccino, and bottled water. The Company operates in 19 U.S.
states and holds about 19 percent of the U.S. market for Pepsi
products. PepsiCo Inc. owns about 44 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Action v. RJR Tobacco Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
continues to face a smoking-related asbestos lawsuit filed by
Leonard Whiteley for his deceased wife, Leslie, in California
court, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007.

On March 20, 2000, in Whiteley v. Raybestos-Manhattan Inc. (a
case filed in April 1999, and pending in Superior Court, San
Francisco County, Calif.), a jury awarded Mr. Whiteley US$1.72
million in compensatory damages and US$20 million in punitive
damages.

RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris Inc. were each assigned US$10
million of the punitive damages award. The defendants appealed
the final judgment to the California Court of Appeals.

On April 7, 2004, the court of appeals reversed the judgment and
remanded the case for a new trial. On April 28, 2006, Mr.
Whiteley filed a consolidated amended complaint for
survival/loss of consortium/wrongful death.

Mr. Whiteley alleged that use of the defendants' products, along
with exposure to asbestos, caused Mrs. Whiteley to develop lung
cancer and ultimately die.

With the filing of the consolidated complaint, the case name
became Whiteley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Jury selection
began on Jan. 22, 2007. Opening statements occurred on Feb. 26,
2007.

On May 2, 2007, the jury awarded Mr. Whiteley US$2.46 million in
compensatory damages jointly against RJR Tobacco and Philip
Morris. The jury also found that Mr. Whiteley is potentially
entitled to punitive damages against RJR Tobacco.

According to the SEC filing dated May 4, 2007, the jury will
return on May 7, 2007, to hear argument and consider the amount
of punitive damages to be awarded, if any.

As of the date of this filing, no final judgment has been
entered in this case.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., Reynolds American Inc. was
created to combine the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations
of Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of British American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly owned operating subsidiary of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. (RJR). RJR is now a Company
subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp. Engages in Calif., N.Y. Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corp. is involved in two asbestos-related actions: Cannon
Electric Inc. et al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Co. et al.
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, CA., Case No. BC 290354,
and Pacific Employers Insurance Co. et al., v. ITT Industries
Inc., et al., Supreme Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No.
03600463.

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

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

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

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

The terms of the settlement will provide the Company with
substantial coverage from Utica for asbestos liabilities. The
Company will continue to seek coverage from its other insurers
for these liabilities.

The Company and Goulds have been joined as defendants with
numerous other industrial companies in product liability suits
alleging injury due to asbestos. These claims stem from products
sold before 1985 that contained a part made by a third party,
e.g., a gasket, which allegedly contained asbestos.

The asbestos was encapsulated in the gasket or other material
and was non-friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that
former ITT companies were distributors for other manufacturers'
products that may have contained asbestos.

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

During 2006, the Company and Goulds resolved about 8,200 claims,
16,000 in 2005, and 4,200 in 2004.

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

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corp. has three
segments: defense electronics, fluid technology, and motion and
flow control. The Company also provides repair and maintenance
services for the products it makes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Receives $23M for Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co., in the 2007-1st quarter, received about US$23
million cash for asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007.

Several Company subsidiaries, particularly DII Industries and
Kellogg Brown & Root, had been named as defendants in asbestos-
and silica-related lawsuits. Effective Dec. 31, 2004, the
Company resolved all open and future claims in the prepackaged
Chapter 11 proceedings of DII Industries, Kellogg Brown & Root,
and the Company's other affected subsidiaries, which were filed
on Dec. 16, 2003, when the plan of reorganization became final
and nonappealable.

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

Under the terms of its insurance settlements, the Company would
receive cash proceeds with a nominal amount of about US$1.5
billion and with a then present value of about US$1.4 billion
for the Company's asbestos- and silica-related insurance
receivables.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company will
receive cash payments of the remaining amounts, totaling US$238
million at March 31, 2007, or US$218 million on a present value
basis, in several installments through 2010.

Of the $218 million recorded at March 31, 2007, US$39 million
was classified as current.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations. At March 31,
2007, the Company has not recorded any liability associated with
these indemnifications.

Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Co.'s Energy Services
Group provides production optimization, drilling evaluation,
fluid services, and oilfield drilling software and consulting.
The Company works in oilfields from the North Sea to the Middle
East as well as in Southeast Asia and Africa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chem. Receives $5M for Claims in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corp., early in the 2007-2nd quarter, received
US$5 million, as initial settlement for asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007.

An inactive Company subsidiary acquired in 1978 sold certain
products containing asbestos, and is a defendant in lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets
other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received in
2005 and in the 2007-2nd quarter.

To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without
payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the
subsidiary.

It is projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the
next 50 years for these claims is about US$12.7 million,
excluding costs of defense.

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

An insurer that is now insolvent provided a significant portion
of this primary insurance coverage, and the other primary
insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted.

The subsidiary has challenged the applicability of these limits
to the claims being brought against the subsidiary.

In response to this challenge, two of these carriers entered
into separate settlement and release agreements with the
subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the 2007-1st
quarter for US$20 million.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5,000,000, the first of which was
received early in the 2007-2nd quarter.

Headquartered in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corp.
develops, produces, and markets chemical specialty products and
a provides chemical management services for various heavy
industrial and manufacturing applications around the globe, with
significant sales to the steel and automotive industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 72,510 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corp.'s pending asbestos-related claims, as of March 31,
2007, dropped to about 72,510, from about 73,310 as of Dec. 31,
2006 and about 98,300 as of March 31, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007.

The Company faces lawsuits claiming various personal injuries
related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred from exposure caused by various products made by
Westinghouse, a predecessor, before the 1970s. Westinghouse was
neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.

The Company is named as one of a large number of defendants in
both state and federal cases. In most asbestos suits, the
plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products
is the basis of a claim.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial
ships.

Of the claims pending as of March 31, 2007, about 48,690 were
pending in state courts, 21,150 in federal courts and,
additionally, about 2,670 were third party claims pending in
state courts.

During the 2007-1st quarter, the Company received about 1,450
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 2,250
claims.

The Company's total costs for 2006 for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax
benefits were about US$5.7 million, compared with US$37.2
million in 2005.

Headquartered in N.Y., CBS Corp. is comprised of the following
segments: Television (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS
Network, television stations and its television production and
syndication operations; Showtime Networks; and CSTV Networks),
Radio (CBS Radio), Outdoor (CBS Outdoor) and Publishing (Simon &
Schuster).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Has 158 Pending Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp., as of April 1, 2007, recorded about 158 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against, compared with 148 pending
claims at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 4, 2007.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos.
Rather, the Company made some limited products, which had
asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The
Company stopped making these products in 1987.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims. In the 2007-1st quarter, the Company was able to have
about nine claims dismissed and settled three claims.

For the full year 2006, about 77 claims were dismissed and 16
were settled. The Company's insurance carriers have paid most of
the costs, including the costs associated with the small number
of cases that have been settled.

Those settlements totaled about US$300,000 in the 2007-1st
quarter and US$5.1 million in all of 2006.

To date, the Company's primary insurance carriers have provided
for substantially all of the settlement and defense costs
associated with its asbestos-related claims. However, as claims
continued, the Company and its primary insurance carriers
determined that it would be appropriate to enter into a cost
sharing agreement to clearly define the cost sharing
relationship among such carriers and the Company.

A definitive cost sharing agreement was finalized on Sept. 28,
2006. Under the definitive agreement, the primary insurance
carriers will continue to pay essentially all resolution and
defense costs associated with these claims until the coverage is
exhausted.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp. develops and makes
high-performance specialty materials, which serve a diverse
range of markets including: portable communication devices,
communication infrastructure, consumer products, computer and
office equipment, ground transportation, and aerospace and
defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Notes 33 Cases for Trial in 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden CDT Inc. says that it is a party to asbestos-related
personal injury cases, 33 of which are set for trial in 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007.

At April 30, 2007, the Company was aware of about 152 cases.

The Company recorded 24 asbestos-related personal injury suits
set for trial during 2007. (Class Action Reporter, March 16,
2007)

The Company faces legal proceedings and administrative actions
that are incidental to its operations in which the claimant
alleges injury from exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber,
generally contained in a small number of products made by the
Company's predecessors.

Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in these cases seek
compensatory, special and punitive damages.

Through April 30, 2007, the Company has been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 187 similar cases
without any going to trial, and with only 12 of these involving
any payment to the claimant.

The Company has insurance that it says it believes should cover
a significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne
by the Company in these types of cases.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Belden CDT Inc. makes cable and wire
products for use in the broadcasting, computer, entertainment,
security, instrumentation, and networking industries. Company
products include fiber optic, coaxial, and multi-conductor
cables, as well as lead and hookup wire and connectivity and
management products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
M&F Worldwide Corp., as of March 31, 2007, incurred or expected
to incur about US$1 million of unindemnified asbestos-related
costs, as to which it either has received or expects to receive
about US$800,000 in insurance reimbursements.

The Company is indemnified by third parties with respect to
certain of its contingent liabilities, like certain asbestos and
environmental matters. In 1995, the Company, two subsidiaries,
and a subsidiary of Mafco Consolidated Group Inc. entered into a
transfer agreement.

Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex Corp., then a Company
subsidiary, retained the assets and liabilities relating to the
Company's former Abex NWL Aerospace Division, as well as certain
contingent liabilities and the related assets, including its
historical insurance and indemnification arrangements. Pneumo
Abex transferred substantially all of its other assets and
liabilities to an MCG subsidiary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
asbestos-containing products were manufactured. The subsidiary
commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these insurers
in order to confirm the availability of this coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers and payments by PepsiAmericas,
the Cooper subsidiary and Cooper Industries under their
indemnities, Pneumo Abex is receiving reimbursement each month
for substantially all of its monthly expenditures for asbestos-
related claims.

Headquartered in New York, M&F Worldwide Corp.'s Mafco Worldwide
flavorings firm makes licorice extract. The Company's primary
flavoring brand is Magnasweet, but the Company also sells Right
Dress, gardening mulch that is a byproduct of processing
licorice root. The Company has expanded into the security
printing business through its acquisition of Clarke American
Checks from Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 69 Companies in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Morris, through Pittsburgh attorney David Chervenick, sued
69 companies in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed on behalf of
Sandra Ellen Phares, on April 20, 2007 in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Ms. Morris is the administratix of Ms. Phares' estate. The suit
claims Ms. Phares was made ill by asbestos-containing dust her
father brought home from work with him.

Ms. Phares is the daughter of Richard Phares, who worked at
Union Carbide Corp. in Institute, W.Va., South Charleston,
W.Va., and Marietta, Ohio.

The suit claims Ms. Phares was exposed to asbestos dust by being
in the same household as her father, riding in the family
vehicles, and being involved with the laundry. She then
contracted asbestosis and mesothelioma.

In the 14-count action, Ms. Morris claims Ms. Phares died from
her lung diseases.

The suit says the companies were all negligent in some way by
producing, manufacturing, selling or using asbestos-related
products.

Ms. Morris seeks compensation for the damages Ms. Phares
suffered.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-786 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor Fined for CAA Violations in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Hale, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was convicted and
sentenced on May 7, 2007 over criminal violations of the Clean
Air Act asbestos regulations resulting from the 2006 planned
renovation of the Highland House West apartment complex in
Wilton Manors, Fla., into condominiums, LawFuel.com reports.

R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, Ricky Langlois, Special Agent in Charge, Environmental
Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division, Miami Field
Office, and Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne, announced the
ruling.

Mr. Hale pleaded guilty and was sentenced before U.S. District
Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas, in Fort Lauderdale, for
failing to provide notification required by the CAA Work
Practice Standards, regarding his intention to engage in
renovation and other activities, prior to removal of regulated
asbestos containing material.

Mr. Hale, at the time was co-manager and a 50 percent ownership
participant in Rockland Properties LLC, which purchased the
Highland House West for re-development.

The federal CAA regulates the emission of hazardous air
pollutants, including asbestos. The National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants include work practice standards
that are binding on all persons engaged in demolition and
renovation work who own, lease, operate, control, or supervise
demolition or renovation operations at facilities with a
requisite amount of asbestos present.

The detailed work practices are designed to limit risks to human
health and the environment associated with asbestos by detailing
acceptable removal and disposal procedures, as well as mandating
special training for workers conducting the removal, and the use
of protective gear and air quality monitoring systems during the
process.

According to court records, Rockland Properties acquired the
Highland House West project in July 2005 with the intention of
redeveloping the 14-unit building into condominiums. A similar
project, in an adjacent 24-unit building, had been initiated by
Rockland in February 2002.

Asbestos was discovered in "popcorn" ceiling material in the 24-
unit building in about March 2005, and Mr. Hale actually paid
for the removal of the asbestos containing material.

A Phase I Environmental Assessment was conducted on the Highland
House West units in July 2005, but was inadequate to satisfy the
CAA requirement for a thorough asbestos survey. In fact, 12
units were later found by the Broward County Environmental
Protection Department Asbestos Coordinator to have regulated
asbestos containing material in the popcorn surface of their
ceilings.

Mr. Hale hired painters to scrape the material from the ceilings
as part of the renovation project, with some of the material
being improperly placed in open dumpsters on-site.

Judge Dimitrouleas sentenced Mr. Hale to a one year term of
probation and ordered him to pay a US$50,000 criminal fine. In
addition, Mr. Hale must complete a training program in the
proper identification and handling of solid and hazardous
substances and wastes, including asbestos, within 90 days of his
sentencing.

Mr. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the EPA and
the Broward County Sheriff's Office.

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jodi A. Mazer prosecuted the
case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Assigns Experts to Israel for Training
----------------------------------------------------------------
A team of asbestos experts coordinated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has returned from an asbestos mission in
Israel, according to an EPA press release dated May 8, 2007.

EPA risk expert Chuck Nace and asbestos inspector David Eppler
traveled to Tel Aviv to conduct a workshop for the Ministry of
the Environment, U.S. State Department, and local non-
governmental organizations in Israel.

The goal of the visit and workshop was to help the Israeli
government address severe asbestos contamination in certain
areas of the country.

Regional Administrator Alan J. Steinberg said, "This trip was an
opportunity for the EPA to use its technical knowledge and
experience to help Israel avoid environmental problems that
could potentially harm local residents. This mission gave our
experts the opportunity to learn from and share with our Israeli
colleagues."

To better understand Israel's asbestos problems, Mr. Nace and
Mr. Eppler first traveled to Nahariyya, a town in northern
Israel close to the Lebanese border. Nahariyya is home to a
former cement manufacturing plant that operated between 1952 and
1997.

The plant produced cement products that contained asbestos, and
these products were then used as construction materials
throughout Israel, and waste products were used as fill material
in the surrounding community.

After returning from Nahariyya, the EPA experts gave a two-day
technical asbestos workshop attended by Israeli governmental and
non-governmental environmental professionals covering a variety
of important topics.

During the workshop, EPA gave an overview of the U.S.
government's asbestos responsibilities; survey and sampling
methods for asbestos in soil, air, and solid materials; and
discussed the U.S.'s asbestos response in Libby, Mont.,
including how the U.S. government determined the need for
cleanup, set cleanup goals, addressed asbestos within buildings,
and involved the affected community.

As a result of the EPA visit, EPA and the Israeli government
have agreed to on-going collaboration.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker's Wife Sues 43 Firms in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Delafosse's widow, Lula Delafosse, sued A.O. Smith Corp.
and 42 other major corporations, for distributing products with
asbestos throughout Jefferson County, on May 2, 2007 in the
Jefferson County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

This is the fifth case of its kind in the last two months.

Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey will represent Mrs.
Delafosse.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, will preside over
the case. The suit names corporations from aerospace giant
Lockheed Martin Corp. to iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc. for
manufacturing and distributing asbestos laced products.

The suit stated that Mr. Delafosse, a lung cancer patient, was
about 87 years of age when he passed away.

Medical records attached to the suit state Mr. Delafosse, a
World War II veteran, had significant occupational exposure to
asbestos, probably while working at John Dallinger Steel Inc.
from 1941 to 1942 and 1955 to 1983.

The document also says Mr. Delafosse was an avid cigar smoker.

The petition says the 43 defendants entangled in Mr. Delafosse's
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."

Mrs. Delafosse sues 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.

Case No. E179-226 does not state why Mr. Delafosse did not sue
while he was alive.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manuals Can Be Used in Trials, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
N.Y. Supreme Court Justice Karen S. Smith, on March 5, 2007,
ruled that training manuals from Ford Co., and other companies,
can be submitted at trial as admissions of Ford that its
asbestos-containing brakes are hazardous and can cause cancer,
according to a Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP press release
dated May 7, 2007.

This ruling was handed down in case #05/115887 CARLOS CEPEDA v.
AC&S INC., et al., filed at the Supreme Court in New York
County, a case involving some complex asbestos litigation filed
in New York City by Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP.

The Ford training manuals' references to the asbestos hazards
contradict Ford's litigation position that asbestos-containing
brakes are safe.

Before the ruling was issued, Ford argued the its training
manuals should not be admitted into evidence at trial because
the warnings, with regard to the dangers of asbestoses
containing brakes and asbestos-containing brake parts, were
involuntarily included solely to meet the requirements of the
Occupation Safety and Health Administration.

Justice Smith rejected this argument in light of the fact that
Ford disseminated its training materials to the public at large,
whereas the OSHA requirements were only applicable to the
employer-employee setting.

Furthermore, Justice Smith observed that the warnings contained
in Ford's training manuals, in many respects, exceeded the
relevant OSHA requirements.

Justice Smith also noted that nowhere in Ford's training
materials does it state that its warning about asbestos-
containing brake parts have been given solely for the purposes
of complying with government regulations.

The training materials at issue are part of Ford's nationwide
training program for independent Ford dealership employees,
vocational instructors, and automotive students.

Ford offers its training materials to these groups as well as
the public at large through the sale of publications, videos,
and web-based training.

In these materials, whenever Ford addresses asbestos in brakes,
it warns of the asbestos hazards to health and often warns that
asbestos from brakes can cause diseases including cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Kin Settles $2.3M W/ 6 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd P.C. announces a US$2.3 million
settlement reached with six defendants on behalf of the family
of electrician Charlie Piazza who died from workplace exposure
to asbestos, according to Baron & Budd press release dated May
4, 2007.

The settlement was reached on April 27, 2007, one day before
opening statements in Judge Charlotte Woodlard's San Francisco
Superior Court.

Mr. Piazza was exposed to asbestos products made by Houston-
based Union Carbide Corp.; Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific Corp.;
San Carlos, Calif.- based Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Inc.; Orange,
Calif.-based Hamilton Materials Inc.; Oakland, Calif.-based
Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc.; and Valley Forge, Penn.-based
CertainTeed Corp.

The settlement for the family of Mr. Piazza of Santa Clara,
Calif., was negotiated by attorney Eric Brown from Baron &
Budd's Beverly Hills office, Patrick DeBlase, a partner in
Beverly Hills' Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP, and Anthony Vieira
of Los Angeles' Law Offices of Anthony E. Vieira.

Mr. Piazza followed his father's footsteps by working as an
electrician and construction subcontractor in the Santa Clara
area for more than 40 years. He was the sole provider for his
wife, Patsy, and their minor grandson.

In March 2005, Mr. Piazza went to the doctor after experiencing
a variety of health problems that were diagnosed as symptoms of
mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs caused
by asbestos exposure. He died in May 2005 at the age of 62, less
than six weeks after his diagnosis.

Attorneys for Mr. Piazza's family were prepared to show jurors
how Mr. Piazza was exposed to various asbestos products made by
the defendant companies from 1964 to 1995.

Documents in the case showed that the defendants knew about the
dangers of asbestos for years, but failed to protect Mr. Piazza
from being exposed and failed to warn him about the deadly side
effects of his exposure.


ASBESTOS LITGATION: A.O. Smith, 42 Firms Sued in Texas on May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine and Elizabeth Gros, the executrix of the Andrew Gros
estate, sued the A.O. Smith Corp. and 42 other major
corporations, for distributing products with asbestos throughout
Jefferson County, on May 1, 2007 with the Jefferson County
District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey will represent Mr.
Gros' family. This is the fourth case of its kind filed by
Blevins in 30 days.

Elaine and Elizabeth Gros blame an assortment of corporations,
like aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. and iron supplier
Zurn Industries Inc., for manufacturing and distributing
asbestos laced products.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. A179-219.

Medical records attached to the suit state Mr. Gros had
significant occupational exposure to asbestos, probably while
working as carpenter and a petrochemical superintendent
beginning in 1949.

The document also says Mr. Gros was a "heavy" cigarette smoker.

The petition says the 43 defendants entangled in Mr. Gros' 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."

The Gros family 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.


                            *********


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  * * *