CAR_Public/070518.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 18, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 98

                            Headlines


ADELINES INC: Recalls Biscuit Sandwiches with Undeclared Milk
CALIFORNIA: San Mateo's $1.9M Strip Search Suit Settlement OK'd
CALIFORNIA: Motion to Dismiss FLSA Suit Against San Diego Denied
CANADA: Former Montreal School Students Sue Teacher for Abuse
CATERPILLAR INC: "Winnett" Pension Suit Allowed to Go Forward

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Court Mulls Appeal in Tex. ERISA Litigation
CHA-CHA-CHA: Employees File Suit in Fla. to Claim Unpaid Wages
CBOT HOLDINGS: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit by LMERS Over Merger
CHICAGO TITLE: Faces Mich. Suit for Title Insurance Overcharging
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Lawsuit in Fla. Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Parties Settle N.J. Securities Suit for $90T
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Suit Nixing
COUNTRYWIDE MUTUAL: Claims in Suit Over Courier Fees Withdrawn
DELL INC: N.Y. State Files Suit Over "Poor" Customer Service
DELPHI CORP: Provides Discovery to Lead Plaintiffs in MDL-1725

DOLE FOOD: Reaches Settlement for Antitrust Lawsuits in Florida
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: 7th Circuit Reverses Ruling in "Gillespie"
FLORIDA EAST COAST: Shareholder Files Suit Over $3.5B Sale
GE CONSUMER: Recalls Leak-Prone Dishwashers Posing Fire Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Couple Files Calif. Suit Over Pontiac GTO Defect

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Faulty Speedometers
IKEA: Recalls Jars of Herring that May Contain Glass Pieces
INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Employees Sue for Alleged Racial Bias
INTRA COASTAL: Former Worker Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.

LOUISIANA HOSPITALS: Suit Against Tenet Remanded to State Court
MARSHALLS & OCEAN STATE: Sued for Printing Credit Card Data
MASTERCARD INT'L: Appeal Filed on Currency Conversion Fee Deal
MASTERCARD INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Antitrust Lawsuit
MASTERCARD INT'L: June 12 Hearing Set for Appeal in "Kendall"

MASTERCARD INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of MDL-1720 Complaint in N.Y.
MICROSOFT CORP: RICO Suit Over Best Buy-MSN Deal Reinstated
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Mass. FLSA Litigation Still in Arbitration
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Gardening Gloves With High Lead Content
OLD KENT: Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Credit Report Fees

ONEIDA LTD: Keller LLP Amends Complaints of ERISA Violations
ONEOK INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Legget" Litigation
OWENS CORNING: IRC Seeks Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit in Ohio
PINKBERRY: Calif. Lawsuit Claims "Frozen Yogurt" is Fake
RADIOSHACK CORP: Tex. Suit Alleges Mismanagement of 401(k) Plans

SCOUT MEDIA: Internet Site Publishers Claim Fraud in Wash. Suit
STATEWIDE JANITORIAL: Fla. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime
UNOCAL CORP: Faces Calif. Suits Over Reformulated Gasoline
UTAH: National Youth Law Center Agrees to End "David C." Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Truckers' Ark. Discrimination Suit Certified

* S. Korean Civic Group Calls for Ways to Curb Price Fixing
* California Legislators Reject AB 1505 Class Litigation Bill


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. Dalmine Rise to 54 in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Pepco Remain at 180 in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Int'l. Reserves $192.8M in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Faces Actions in La., Tex. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Gains $272M Tax Refund in April

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX Corp., Units Face Claims in 28 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Enters Coverage-in-Place Deal w/ AIG
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Still Faces Insurance Action in Conn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Corp. Accrues $2M for Cases in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Has 31,607 Abex Claims at 1Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. EnPro Ind. Remain at 106,500 in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $437M Reserve for Future Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $547M Total Liability in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Faces Suit in Los Angeles
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $40M Liability in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $7M Rockwell Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 40,125 in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Ins. Reserves $23.6M for Coverage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Action Extended to Oct. 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Tyco Int'l. Stay at 15,500

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Remain at 350 in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Harsco Increase to 26,496 in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Win $37M Award in Suit v. Keasbey
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oklahoman Files Lawsuit v. 84 Firms in Ill.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Reaches $20T Settlement With Consultant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Urged to Spur Quigley's Ch. 11 Exit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sioux City Inks $7,500 Settlement With Firm
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Faces Property Damage, Injury Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Property Damage Claims v. Grace Drop to 519

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Notes $917M Coverage from 55 Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Estimates Mont. Liabilities at $255M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Employees Still Face Suit in Montana
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Still Faces Action in N.J. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $299.2M Losses, Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Records $64.1M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Drop to 230
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Corp. Still Faces About 375 Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Corp. Has 34,798 Claims in 1Q


                            *********


ADELINES INC: Recalls Biscuit Sandwiches with Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adelines, Inc. of Nashville, Tenn. is recalling these biscuit
sandwiches: Adeline's Steak and Cheese; Adelines Steak, Egg and
Cheese; Adelines Bacon; and Adelines Bacon, Egg and Cheese.

These products contain undeclared milk.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

These products were distributed from lunch trucks and vending
machines in Nashville, Tennessee from May 4 through May 11,
2007.  

The products are individually wrapped in clear plastic wrap
bearing these labels:

     Adeline's Steak and Cheese, approx. wt 6 oz;
     Adelines Steak, Egg and Cheese, approx. wt 7 oz;
     Adelines Bacon, approximate wt 4 oz; and
     Adelines Bacon, Egg and Cheese, approx. wt. 5.5 oz.

There have been no reported illnesses to date.

The omission was found during a routine U.S. Food and Drug
Administration inspection.  Distribution of these products has
been suspended while we redesign the labels to include all
ingredients.

Consumers who have questions or purchased the product may
contact Candy Popplewell at (615) 650-6555 for information and
return instructions.


CALIFORNIA: San Mateo's $1.9M Strip Search Suit Settlement OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the U.S. District Court in
Northern California approved a $1.9M settlement to be shared
among 1,200 women who filed a class action against San Mateo
County, Palo Alto Daily News.

According to the plaintiffs' attorney Mark Merin, the Fourth
Amendment rights of these women were violated when they were
wrongfully strip-searched in San Mateo County Jail.

In opposing class action status, San Mateo County had argued
that each woman should be required to prove she was searched
without justification.  However, Judge Armstrong disagreed
pointing out that the county's witnesses acknowledged the
searches were conducted under a common policy, which didn't
require evidence an inmate was hiding contraband to be strip-
searched.

The settlement agreed last October stipulates that women
arrested by the county from Feb. 3, 2002, to Dec. 2, 2003, can
claim up to $1.15 million of the money.  The rest will go to
attorneys' fees and other expenses.  Claims filing deadline is
Oct. 5, 2007.

The county did not have to admit to any wrongdoing under the
settlement.

After these women took legal action, San Mateo county changed
its strip-search procedures and started practicing the
"individualized reasonable suspicion."

The suit is named "Gallagher v. County of San Mateo et al., Case
No. 4:04-cv-00448-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court in
Northern California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are:

          Micha Star Liberty, Esq.
          Andrus Liberty & Anderson
          78 First Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-896-1000
          Fax: 415-896.2249
          E-mail: micha@libertylawoffice.com

                    - and -

          Mark E. Merin, Esq.
          Law Office of Mark E. Merin
          2001 P Street, Suite 100
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916-443-6911
          Fax: 916-447-8336
          E-mail: mark@markmerin.com

Defendant's attorneys are:

          Aimee B. Armsby, Esq.
          San Mateo County Counsel
          400 County Center 6th Floor
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Phone: (650) 363-4768
          Fax: (650) 363-4034
          E-mail: aarmsby@co.sanmateo.ca.us

                    - and -

          Terence J. Cassidy, Esq.
          Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant
          350 University Avenue, Suite 200
          Sacramento, CA 95865
          Phone: 916-929-1481
          Fax: 916-927-3706
          E-mail: tcassidy@pswdlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Motion to Dismiss FLSA Suit Against San Diego Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied a motion to dismiss the purported class action, "Abbe, et
al. v. the City of San Diego."

Oon May 15, 2007, Judge Dana M. Sabraw, found the allegations in
support of the police officers' core claims:

     -- that the City willfully and repeatedly violated the Fair
        Labor Standards Act;

     -- that the City should pay penalties for failure to take
        timely remedial action; and

     -- that the City breached its contract with the police
        officers

were sufficient to proceed to trial and thus denied the city's
motion to dismiss.

Judge Sabraw asked that an additional claim of FLSA violations
relating to compensatory time off be restated and re-filed,
which the law firm Jackson/DeMarco/Tidus/Petersen/Peckenpaugh,
plans to do in a timely manner as allowed.  Within the Order,
Judge Sabraw also dismissed some secondary Constitutional and
state labor law claims.

Gregory G. Petersen, chair of the litigation group, stated,
"This case is about three major issues:

     (1) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

     (2) the City's failure to acknowledge these violations and
         failure to take timely remedial action; and

     (3) a consistent pattern of breaching the contractual
         obligations to these police officers as set forth in
         the City's written employment agreement.  The Court has
         determined that these core claims are viable."

Mr. Petersen continued, "The City Attorney's frequent and
misleading statements in press releases and as a talk show guest
stand in stark contrast to the actual Court rulings.  His
insistence that the City will see this through trial in late-
2008 will only result in significant additional legal costs to
the City.  

"Additionally, Mr. Aguirre's self-promoting comments in his most
recent press release to the effect that the Court's ruling
'saved' the City over $8 million, in his calculations, only
serve to mislead the public.  In fact, the claims that were
dismissed only represented a small fraction of the potential
liability for the core FLSA and breach of contract claims for
unpaid wages, penalties and interest, which could exceed $100
million.  

"Rather than trying to further inflate his public persona, Mr.
Aguirre would be well advised to encourage the City to implement
corrective measures that would stop the steady accumulation of
additional claims, penalties and interest against the City.  
That would amount to a true cost savings for the City."

Christopher Nissen, Senior Associate Attorney for J/D/T/P/P,
commented, "The claims that were dismissed were included as
alternate remedies, in addition to the FLSA and breach of
contract claims, and were designed to expand on the areas of law
that may have given rise to additional relief.  These claims
were designed to test their viability in a vague and undeveloped
area of employment law.  The Court recognized these were areas
of first impression and ruled accordingly.  Having had the
opportunity to review the Order, we understand and respect the
Court's decision."

The suit is "Abbe, et al v. San Diego City of, Case No. 3:05-cv-
01629-DMS-RBB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Dana M. Sabraw with
referral to Judge Ruben B. Brooks.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Gregory Glenn Petersen, Esq.
         Jackson DeMarco Titus Petersen Peckenpaugh
         2030 Main Street, Suite 1200
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Phone: (949) 752-8585
         Fax: (949) 752-8585
         E-mail: greg@lawnet.com

Representing the defendant is:

         George F. Schaefer, Esq.
         Law Offices of George F Schaefer
         1200 Third Ave., Ste. 1100
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 533-5861
         Fax: (619) 533-5856
         E-mail: GSchaefer@sandiego.gov


CANADA: Former Montreal School Students Sue Teacher for Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court approved on May 4 a class action
against Renwick Spence, a former Montreal West High School
teacher who was recently convicted of sexually abusing those he
taught, The Gazette reports.

The suit covers students who attended Montreal West High School
from the late 1960s to the early 1980s.  It alleges Mr. Spence
abused his position of authority, inviting the minors to his
Morin Heights home, giving them alcohol then abusing them
physically, mentally and sexually.

The lawsuit also names English Montreal School Board (EMSB),
formerly known as Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal,
as defendant, claiming it knew about the exploitations but did
not do anything about it.

The EMSB moved for the lawsuit's dismissal saying Mr. Spence
wasn't actually teaching at the time the offenses occurred.  But
Superior Court Justice Michel Caron found enough evidence for
litigation.

Although the suit mentions only eight victims, it claims there
are more.  A plaintiff known only as Sebastian represents it,
seeking $1 million in damages.  The amount for the others is
still to be determined.

Sebastian claims Mr. Spence sexually abused him three times in
1979, causing him both psychological and emotional damage.  As a
result of the incident, his life became a waste.

When he was able to bring his life back, he decided to report
the abuse to the Surete du Quebec in 2004.

Mr. Spence, now 78, retired in 1985, used to teach biology for
30 years.

The pre-sentencing argument is set June 8.


CATERPILLAR INC: "Winnett" Pension Suit Allowed to Go Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee has allowed to go ahead a lawsuit filed
against Caterpillar Inc. accusing the company of denying
retirees and their surviving spouses the lifetime medical
insurance they earned after years of working at Caterpillar.

On March 28, 2006, two Caterpillar retirees and a surviving wife
of a deceased retiree brought the suit in April alleging that
Caterpillar has denied them retiree medical benefits that were
offered for years under their union contracts (Class Action
Reporter, April 4, 2006).

The complaint asserts that the company's labor contracts and
benefit plans provided retiree's health care coverage "continued
for his or her lifetime at no cost."  The plaintiffs request the
court certify a class of former company retirees and surviving
spouses who retired before the adoption of a March 1998
contract.

Caterpillar has charged retirees for portions of their medical
insurance premiums and also charged retirees and surviving
spouses of retirees increased payments on prescription drugs and
medical procedures. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of more
than 4,000 retirees and surviving spouses who have been charged.

The plaintiffs sued Caterpillar on behalf of a class of all
retirees and surviving spouses of retirees who were represented
by the union and who retired on or after January 1, 1992 and
before March 16, 1998. The plaintiffs brought their claims under
ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.
ss. 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3) and the LMRA, the Labor Management
Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C ss. 185 (a).

Caterpillar filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint,
advancing a variety of arguments against the plaintiffs' claims.
On May 17, the court denied Caterpillar's motion to dismiss and
ordered that the lawsuit against Caterpillar go forward.

In the judge's Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Trauger
rejected each of the defendant's arguments.  She held that the
plaintiffs have stated a claim under the LMRA and ERISA and are
entitled to proceed with their lawsuit, summarizing the
plaintiff's claim as follows:

"The plaintiffs claim that the defendant breached its promise to
pay lifetime retiree health benefits at no cost when, in 2004,
without the retirees' consent, Caterpillar began charging
retirees and their surviving spouses for a portion of their
medical care."

After reviewing the alleged facts and relevant law, the court
stated, "To summarize, in interpreting the language of the
relevant documents, the court finds evidence that Caterpillar
intended to confer lifetime vested retiree medical benefits upon
the plaintiffs."

The judge ordered that the case will now proceed with the
discovery and class certification phases.

The suit is "Winnett et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 3:06-
cv-00235," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          3319 West End Avenue, Suite 600
          Nashville, TN 37203-1074
          Phone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com

          Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
          Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          One Nashville Place
          150 4th Avenue, N, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219-2423
          Phone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: kbarnett@lchb.com

          - and -

          Alexandra Coulter Cross, Esq.
          Harwell, Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner
          315 Deaderick Street
          1800 First American Center
          Nashville, TN 37238
          Phone: (615) 256-0500
          E-mail: acc@h3gm.com

Representing defendant is:

          Lawrence Slade Eastwood, Jr., Esq.
          Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
          Commerce Center
          211 Commerce Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 726-5600
          E-mail: leastwood@bakerdonelson.com


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Court Mulls Appeal in Tex. ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal regarding the granting of a motion for summary
judgment in favor of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. in a purported
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

In May 2002, three class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston on behalf of
participants in various company-sponsored employee benefits
plans.  Two of the lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice.

In the remaining lawsuit, the company and certain current and
former members of its benefits committee are defendants.  That
suit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to various employee benefits plans, directly or indirectly
sponsored by the company, in violation of ERISA by permitting
the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the company
when it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for
such securities became artificially inflated because of alleged
securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.  

The complaint sought monetary damages for losses suffered on
behalf of the plans and a putative class of plan participants
whose accounts held CenterPoint Energy or Reliant Resources,
Inc. securities, as well as restitution.

In January 2006, the federal district judge granted a motion for
summary judgment filed by the company and the individual
defendants.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the ruling to the
5th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company'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 "Boca Raton Police &, et al. v. Reliant Resources,
et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01810," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division under
Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jacks C. Nickens, Esq.
         Nickens Keeton et al
         600 Travis, Ste. 7500
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-571-9191
         Fax: 713-571-9652

         Niki L. O'Neel, Esq.
         Alan Schulman, Esq.
         David R. Stickney, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz et al
         12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 150
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Phone: 858-793-0070
      
              - and -

         Peter A. Pease, Esq.
         Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
         Wendy Hope, Esq.
         Zoberman, Berman DeValerio & Pease
         One Liberty Square,
         Boston, MA 09109
         Phone: 617-542-8300
         Fax: 617-542-1194.

Representing the company is:

         James Edward Maloney, Esq.
         Baker & Botts
         910 Louisiana, Ste 3000
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-229-1255
         Fax: 713-229-7755


CHA-CHA-CHA: Employees File Suit in Fla. to Claim Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cha-Cha-Cha, Inc. is facing a class action filed on May 11, 2007
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Alvaro Cittolin filed this action to recover unpaid
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and the Florida Constitution.

He brings this action on behalf of all similarly-situated
current and former employees of the restaurant -- such as
waiters, busboys, food runners, and employees who earned tips --
and who were not paid the statutory minimum wage, contrary to
the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(a).

Mr. Cittolin claims his employers willfully refused to properly
compensate him for minimum wage in violation of the FLSA, as the
"tip credit" was invalid.

The complaint alleges defendants failed to comply with the
requirements imposed by 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m) for utilizing
the "tip credit" by, among other things, not properly and
promptly informing the plaintiff about the tip credit and by
allowing individuals who were not regularly and customarily
tipped employees to take part of the tips.

He further claims defendants knew and/or showed a reckless
disregard for the provisions of the FLSA concerning the payment
of minimum wages.

Pursuant to Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution,
plaintiff, was entitled to be compensated at no less than the
state mandated minimum wage for all hours worked.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his
favor and against defendants:

     -- declaring that defendants violated Article X of the
        Florida Constitution, insofar as failing to pay
        plaintiff at or above the Florida minimum wage;

     -- awarding plaintiff all unpaid minimum wages due or
        payable;

     -- awarding plaintiff all back wages due and owing;

     -- awarding plaintiff liquidated damages in the amount
        equal to his back wages;

     -- awarding plaintiff attorney's fees and costs expenses
        pursuant to the FLSA and to Article X, Sec. 24, Fla.
        Const.;

     -- finding that defendants willfully violated Article X,
        Sec. 24, Fla. Const. and ordering them to pay a $1,000
        fine to the State of Florida for each such willful
        violation;

     -- awarding plaintiff post-judgment interest; and

     -- all other and further relief this court deems just and
        proper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f4e

The suit is "Cittolin v. Cha-Cha-Cha, Inc. et al., Case No.
9:07-cv-80416-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Peter Joseph Marshall Bober, Esq.
          Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
          Bober & Bober
          1930 Tyler Street
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Phone: 954-922-2298
          Fax: 925-7816
          E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com or samara@boberlaw.com


CBOT HOLDINGS: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit by LMERS Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of the Chancery of the state of Delaware in and for
New Castle County has yet to rule on a motion seeking the
dismissal of the purported class action, "Louisiana Municipal
Employees' Retirement System v. CBOT Holdings, Inc., et al. Case
No. 2803."

The Louisiana Municipal Employees' Retirement System (LMERS)
filed the suit on March 16, 2007 against the Chicago Board of
Trade (CBOT) and its board of directors, challenging a proposed
$8.9 billion merger with Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings,
Inc. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007).

Specifically named as defendants in the suit are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to a report by Shanny Basar of Financial News Online
U.S., the court has allowed LMERS to undertake limited
discovery.  In turn, CBOT filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit
on April 9, 2007, which are still pending.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1d1e

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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


CHICAGO TITLE: Faces Mich. Suit for Title Insurance Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Title Insurance Co. is facing a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Michigan
accusing the company of overcharging for title insurance.

The suit, filed on May 14, 2007 by Sam Tharia of Rives Junction,
Mich., generally alleges that although defendant is required to
impose a predetermined premium rates for title insurance, it
routinely and systematically charges customers well in excess of
these rates -- thereby collecting unlawful profit to the
detriment of the plaintiff and the class of persons he seeks to
represent.

The complaint defines the class as persons in the states of
Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Washington, who in connection
with a mortgage refinancing, paid a title insurance premium for
a "Chicago Title" title insurance policy the amount of which
exceeded the rate on file in those states and/or exceeded a
lower, reissue rate for which such persons qualified.

It alleges:

     * violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of
       1974 (RESPA);

     * violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the
       substantially similar laws of other class states; and

     * unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs' prayer for relief are:

      -- Granting class action status to the case;

      -- Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel designation for Mr.
         Tharia and his Counsel;

      -- Entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class
         and against defendant;

      -- Awarding to plaintiff and class members their
         individual damages and attorney's fees and allowing
         costs, including interest thereon;

      -- Awarding plaintiff and class members treble damages,
         and their attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to RESPA;  

      -- Granting the declaratory relief sought herein and all
         other appropriate relief; and

      -- Granting all such further relief as the court deems
         just and appropriate.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f5b

The suit is "Tharia v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., Case No.
2:07-cv-12091-RHC-MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Robert H. Cleland with
referral to Judge Mona K. Majzoub.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas M. Wardrop
         Wardrop & Wardrop
         300 Ottawa Avenue, N.W. Suite 150
         Grand Rapids, MI 49503
         Phone: 616-459-1225
         Fax: 616-459-7273
         E-mail: Mac@wardroplaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Lawsuit in Fla. Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Inc. of South Dade is facing a class-action
complaint filed on May 14 at the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff, Mary Allen, a former health services employee of
Community Health, brings 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).

The complaint alleges defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-209, because Ms. Allen performed services for
defendant for which no provision were made to properly
compensate her for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a
work week.

Ms. Allen claims that during her employment at the facility, 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.

She further claims that as a result of defendant's intentional,
willful and unlawful acts by refusing to properly pay Ms. Allen
her regular rate of pay for each hour worked in one or more
weeks of employment, she has suffered damages plus incurring
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for:

     -- payment of the proper regular rate of pay for all hours
        worked for Community Health and for which she wasn't
        properly compensated;

     -- liquidated damages;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred;

     -- declaratory relief; and

     -- any and all further relief that the court determines to
        just and appropriate.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f50

The suit is "Allen v. Community Health of South Dade, Inc., Case
No. 1:07-cv-21245-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Shelby Highsmith.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954-318-0268
          Fax: 954-333-3515
          E-mail: kelly@cellerlegal.com


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Parties Settle N.J. Securities Suit for $90T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against
Conexant Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey have reached a $90,000 settlement in the
matter.

Between December 2004 and January 2005, the company and certain
current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in several class actions seeking monetary damages
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased company common
stock during a specified class period.

These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material
adverse facts.

The California cases have now been consolidated with the New
Jersey cases so that all of the class actions are being heard in
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same judge.

On Sept. 1, 2005, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the case.  On Nov. 23, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to file a second amended complaint, which was filed on
Dec. 5, 2005.  

The defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the case on
Feb. 6, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 24,
2006, and defendants' reply was filed on June 14, 2006.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint.  Two of the three claims were dismissed with
prejudice, while the third claim was dismissed without
prejudice.  

On Jan. 10, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation and tolling
agreement with the court stating that plaintiffs will not file
an appeal of the ruling dismissing two claims with prejudice.

Defendants agreed to give plaintiffs' counsel until March 16,
2007 to file an amended complaint with respect to the third
claim.

On April 9, 2007, the Company and the named plaintiff agreed to
settle the case as to all defendants for $90,000, to be paid by
the company within 30 days of the execution of a written
agreement.

The suit is "Witriol v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-06219-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
         Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP
         Park 80 Plaza West One
         Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
         Phone: (201) 845-9600
         E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Katrina Blumenkrants, Esq.
         Joseph J. Depalma Esq.
         Lite Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
         Phone: (973) 623-3000
         E-mail: kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com
                 jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

        Gregory B. Reilly, Esq.
        Deborah A. Silodor, Esq.
        Lowenstein Sandler, PC
        65 Livingston Avenue
        Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
        Phone: (973) 597-2500 and (973) 597-2500
        E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com
                dsilodor@lowenstein.com


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Suit Nixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a notice to appeal a dismissal of a purported class
action against Conexant Systems, Inc. that alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
company's May 4, 2007 regulatory filing.

On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and
former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan
Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit.  It was filed
on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's
401(k) Plan during a specified class period.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants
in the Plan.  The defendants believe these charges are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.  On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
case.

The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 30,
2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on Feb. 17, 2006.

On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed this case and ordered it
closed.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006.

As of the end of October 2006, the appellate issues had been
fully briefed by the parties.  The appellate argument was held
on April 19, 2007.

The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway, West Haddonfield, NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.   

Representing the defendants is Gregory B. Reilly of Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone:
(973) 597-2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com.


COUNTRYWIDE MUTUAL: Claims in Suit Over Courier Fees Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Marks of the Lakin Law firm abandoned three accusations
against Countrywide Homes Loans that are pending before Madison
County Circuit Judge Dave Hylla, Steve Korris of the Madison
County Record reports.

At a March 27 hearing, Marks said he would not pursue charges of
duress, coercion and breach of contract against the company.  
This was after he admitted he has not brought a claim under
federal real estate law in a suit over courier fees previously
charged by the company.  The complaint now only asserts counts
of consumer fraud and unjust enrichment.

Countrywide has asked for summary judgment in its favor.  As of
May 1, Judge Hylla had not reached a decision, according to the
report.


DELL INC: N.Y. State Files Suit Over "Poor" Customer Service
----------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Dell Inc., the
second-largest personal-computer maker, claiming it engaged in
deceptive customer practices, Connie Guglielmo of Bloomberg.com
reports.

The class action was prompted when 700 dissatisfied Dell
consumers came to Mr. Cuomo's office to complain.

In the press conference held this week, the attorney general
said Dell's customer service means no service at all.

Among other claims, the state specifically alleges:

     -- Dell didn't provide adequate customer service to those
        who purchased an extended warranty and onsite services;

     -- the company misleads consumers with its financing offers
        and fails to honor warranties, service contracts and  
        rebates;

     -- customers also get a "runaround" when trying to
        receive a promised rebate on PCs and are subject to a
        "telephonic version of hot potato" after enduring long
        wait times for technical support; and

     -- customers are disconnected before they reach the elusive
        representative who presumably is able or willing to help
        them.

The suit particularly states that Dell Financial Services LP, a
joint venture between Dell and CIT Bank, lures consumers with
promises of "no interest" loans and then denies about 85 percent
of applicants, offering them "regular" financing instead.  The
regular plans offer interest rates in excess of 16 percent.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is presently
investigating Dell's accounting, which was found to have errors
in its financial results last March.

Mr. Cuomo said he filed the lawsuit after conversation with
Dell's executives failed to resolve the issue.

The case is "New York v. Dell, Case No. 07-3778," filed in New
York Supreme Court, Albany County.

For more information, contact the attorney general's assistant:

          Amy Schallop, Esq.
          Office of the New York State Attorney General
          The Capitol
          Albany, NY 12224-0341
          Phone: (518) 474-7330
          Consumer help line: 1-800-771-7755


DELPHI CORP: Provides Discovery to Lead Plaintiffs in MDL-1725
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Corp is providing certain discovery to the lead
plaintiffs in the action "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER,"
which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, according to the company's May 7, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.  

The company along with Delphi Trust I, Delphi Trust II, current
and former directors of the company, certain current and former
officers and employees of the company or its subsidiaries, and
others were named as defendants in several class actions that
were filed beginning in March 2005 following the its announced
intention to restate certain of its financial statements.

                         ERISA Litigation

One group of putative class actions, which are purportedly
brought on behalf of participants in certain of the company's
and its subsidiaries' defined contribution employee benefit
pension plans that invested in Delphi common stock, is brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions allege, among others, that the
plans suffered losses as a result of alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

On Oct. 21, 2005, the ERISA Actions were consolidated before one
judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The ERISA Actions were subsequently transferred to
the Multidistrict Litigation.

On March 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint with a putative class period of May 28, 1999 to Nov.
1, 2005.  

The company, which was previously named as a defendant in the
ERISA Actions, was not named as a defendant in the Amended ERISA
Action.

Plaintiffs are not currently asserting claims against or seeking
relief from the company in the Amended ERISA Action due to the
company's bankruptcy filing.

Plaintiffs are not currently asserting claims against or seeking
relief from the company in the Amended ERISA Action due to the
company's Chapter 11 Filing, but have stated that they plan to
proceed with claims against the company in the ongoing
bankruptcy cases, and will seek to name the company as a
defendant in the Amended ERISA Action if the bankruptcy stay is
modified or lifted to permit such action.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Amended ERISA
Action.  No hearing on the motions to dismiss has yet been
scheduled.

                    Securities Fraud Lawsuit

A second group of putative class actions variously alleges,
among other things, that the company and certain of its current
and former directors and officers and others made materially
false and misleading statements in violation of federal
securities laws.

On Sept. 23, 2005, these securities actions were consolidated
before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of the company,
including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust
II, during a putative class period of March 7, 2000 through
March 3, 2005.

The amended securities action names several new defendants,
including Delphi Trust II, certain former directors, and
underwriters and other third parties, and includes securities
claims regarding additional offerings of Delphi securities.

The securities actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (and a related securities
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida concerning Delphi Trust I) were subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan as part of the Multidistrict Litigation.

The action is stayed against the company pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code, but is continuing against the other defendants.
The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended
securities action.

No hearing on the motions to dismiss has yet been scheduled.  On
Nov. 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file an amended securities fraud complaint.

The defendants filed their responses on Dec. 15, 2006, and the
plaintiffs filed their reply on Jan. 2, 2007.  The U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has not yet ruled on
this motion.

On Feb. 15, 2007, the District Court partially granted the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay of discovery provided by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allowing the
plaintiffs to obtain certain discovery from the defendants.

On April 16, 2007, the parties agreed and the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order for limited modification of the automatic stay,
pursuant to which Delphi is providing certain discovery to the
lead plaintiffs.

                       Derivative Lawsuit   

The third group of lawsuits is comprised of shareholder
derivative actions against certain current and former directors
and officers of the company.

A total of four complaints were filed: two in the federal court
(one in the Eastern District of Michigan and another in the
Southern District of New York) and two in Michigan state court
(Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac, Michigan).

These suits alleged that certain current and former directors
and officers of the Company breached a variety of duties owed by
them to Delphi in connection with matters related to the
company's restatement of its financial results.

The federal cases were consolidated with the securities and
ERISA class actions before Judge Gerald E. Rosen in the Eastern
District of Michigan, described above.

Following the filing on Oct. 8, 2005 of the Debtors' petitions
for reorganization relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code, all the derivative cases were administratively closed.

The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

         Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
         Keller Rohrback
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-1900
         Fax: 206-623-3384
         E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com

              - and -

         Sara L. Madsen, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal
         100 S. Washington Ave., Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: slmadsen@locklaw.com

Representing the company are:

         Stuart Baskin, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-848-4000
         Fax: 212-848-7179
         E-mail: sbaskin@shearman.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Papelian, Esq.
         Delphi Corporation Legal Staff,
         5825 Delphi Drive
         Troy, MI 48098-2815
         Phone: 248-813-2000
         E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com


DOLE FOOD: Reaches Settlement for Antitrust Lawsuits in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Company, Inc. entered into settlement agreements
resolving two consolidated putative U.S. antitrust class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against Dole and three other banana companies.

A number of class actions were filed against the company and
three competitors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 14, 2007).

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of entities that directly or
indirectly purchased bananas from the defendants and have now
been consolidated into two separate class actions:

     -- one by direct purchasers (customers); and
     -- another by indirect purchasers (those who purchased
        bananas from customers).

Both consolidated class actions allege that the defendants
conspired to artificially raise or maintain prices and control
or restrict output of bananas.

The settlement agreements and their terms are subject to various
court approvals and required notices.

Michael Carter, Dole's Executive Vice President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary, said, "Dole has always stated that
these lawsuits were without merit and Dole's view has not
changed. Once there is final court approval, these settlement
agreements will bring to an end this litigation against Dole and
will not have any material effect on the Company's financial
condition or results.""

Mr. Carter also commented that, "As we have disclosed in our SEC
filings, the European Commission's investigation of alleged
violations of European Union competition (antitrust) laws by
banana and pineapple importers and distributors operating within
the European Economic Area is continuing and we are cooperating
with the EC. The settlement agreements Dole is announcing today
will not be affected by the EC investigation."

The suit is "Jockers, et al. v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, et al.,
Case No. 0:05-cv-61335-AJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas J. Ciarlone, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-239-4340
          Fax: 239-4310

          - and -

          Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
          Sharp McQueen PA
          6900 College Boulevard, Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Phone: 913-661-9931
          Fax: 913-661-9935

Representing defendants are:

          Martin Leonard Steinberg, Esq.
          Hunton & Williams
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-810-2500
          Fax: 810-2460
          E-mail: msteinberg@hunton.com

          William Todd Thomas, Esq.
          Boies Schiller & Flexner
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-356-0011
          Fax: 356-0022
          E-mail: tthomas@bsfllp.com

          - and -

          Lawrence P. Bernis, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis
          777 S Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-680-8413
          Fax: 213-680-8500


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: 7th Circuit Reverses Ruling in "Gillespie"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit reversed a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to grant a motion for summary judgment in favor of the
defendant in the case, "Gillespie, et al v. Equifax Inc."

The suit -- filed on Jan. 10, 2005 by Heather Gillespie and
Angela Cinson -- alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act against Equifax Information Services, L.L.C.  It generally
accuses Equifax of failing to "clearly and accurately" disclose
consumers' credit histories.

According to the 7th Circuit's opinion, Ms. Gillespie and Ms.
Cinson each defaulted on a credit account and this failure was
noted in their respective credit files.

Ms. Gillespie opened a credit account with Direct Merchants Bank
in 1999 but the account became delinquent in 2001.  Ms. Cinson
opened an account with Sears in 1993 with a resulting
delinquency in 1996 or 1997.  Merchants and Sears sold the
delinquent accounts to a collection agency, Sherman
Acquisitions Co.

And, of course, the delinquency information also found its way
to the credit reporting agencies including Equifax, and then
into plaintiffs' credit files.

Outside creditors provide information to Equifax that
Equifax places in the consumer's credit file.  Creditors report
both positive and negative information about the consumer.
Equifax lists the date of the consumer's last activity for the
reported account in the Date of Last Activity field.

If the account is delinquent, with no subsequent activity, then
the Date of Last Activity reflects the date of delinquency.  If
the consumer has been paying the account, the Date of Last
Activity reflects the last payment.

In the case of a previously delinquent account in which the
consumer has started to make subsequent payments, the last
payment by the consumer replaces the delinquency date in the
Date of Last Activity field.

Equifax also provides a secondary disclosure referenc-
ing the Date of Last Activity field entitled "Facts You
Should Know." The disclosure states:

"Payment history on your credit file is supplied by credit
grantors with whom you have credit.  This includes both open
accounts and accounts that have already been closed.  Payment in
full does not move your payment history.  The length of time
information remains in your credit file is shown below:

Collection Accounts: Remain for 7 years.

Credit Accounts: Accounts paid as agreed remain for up to 10
years.  Accounts not paid as agreed remain for 7 years.

(The time periods listed above are measured from the date in
your credit file shown in the "date of last activity" field
accompanying the particular credit or collection account.)"


FLORIDA EAST COAST: Shareholder Files Suit Over $3.5B Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
A Nevada investor filed a suit in Palm Beach County Circuit
Court last week against Florida East Coast Industries for
accepting a cheap bid from Fortress Investment Group of New
York, Jeff Ostrowski of Palm Beach Post reports.

Satuloff Brothers Nevada Inc., which presently owns 16,000
shares of FEC in Jacksonville worth about $13.4 million, filed
the complaint on May 10 after Fortress' bid for FEC was declared
on May 8.

The defendants are Fortress, FEC, FEC Chief Executive Adolfo
Henriques and FEC's directors, including Miami-based developers
Armando Codina and Jorge Perez.  

Based on the suit, Mr. Henriques will make $12 million simply
for staying with the company during the merger.

Satuloff contends the FEC should have lobbied for a higher price
from other bidders instead of hastily accepting Fortress' $3.5
billion offer.

The complaint says the proposed price of $84 per share for FEC
stock is an unfair and inadequate consideration to be paid to
the class members.  

The lawsuit is pushing for a class-action status and injunctive
relief.

Satuloff is not the only one after the FEC.  The Arkansas-based
law firm of Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams has issued a press
release asking shareholders to contact their lawyers.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          C. Oliver Burt, III, Esq.
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          Esperante Building, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900
          West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
          Phone: 561-835-9400
          Fax: 561-835-0322
          Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com

                    - and -

          
          Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          Esperante Building
          222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 900
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 835-9400
          Fax: (561) 835-0322


GE CONSUMER: Recalls Leak-Prone Dishwashers Posing Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
GE Consumer & Industrial, of Louisville, Ky., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling nearly 2.5 million units of GE Dishwashers.

According to the company, the liquid rinse-aid can leak from its
dispenser onto the dishwasher's internal wiring which can cause
an electrical short and overheating, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

GE has received 191 reports of overheated wiring including 56
reports of property damage.  There were 12 reports of fires that
escaped the dishwasher.  Fire damage was limited to the
dishwasher or the adjacent area.  

No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes GE built-in dishwashers sold under the
following brand names: Eterna, GE, GE Profile, GE Monogram,
Hotpoint, and Sears-Kenmore.  The dishwashers were sold in
white, black, almond, bisque and stainless steel.  The brand
name is printed on the dishwasher's front control panel.  The
model and serial numbers can be found inside the dishwasher tub
on the front left side of the dishwasher.

The picture of the recalled dishwasher as well as the complete
list of serial numbers involved in the recall can be found at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07190.html

These dishwashers were manufactured in the U.S. and were being
sold at Department and appliance stores from September 1997
through December 2001 for about $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers
and contact General Electric for a free repair, a $150 rebate
towards the purchase of a new GE dishwasher, or a $300 rebate
towards the purchase of a new GE Profile or GE Monogram
dishwasher.

For additional information, contact General Electric toll-free
at (877) 607-6395 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Monday through
Saturday. Consumers also can visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.geappliances.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Couple Files Calif. Suit Over Pontiac GTO Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is facing a purported federal class action
alleging that the company's 2004 and 2005 Pontiac GTOs have a
defect that causes tires to wear unevenly.

William and Melody O'Connor, the owners of a 2005 Pontiac GTO
that was bought in April 25, 2005 from Weaver Auto & Truck
Center, filed the suit on May 10, 2007 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California.

According to the complaint, the couple brought the suit for the
benefit and protection of all current and former owners and
lessees of model year 2004 and 2005 Pontiac GTOs purchased or
leased in the State of California.  They sought to obtain
damages, restitution, and injunctive and other relief from the
defendant.

Generally, the complaint alleges that the tires on the vehicles
wear unevenly and prematurely, and are prone to failure because
the tires are oversized for the vehicles, causing the inside
front tires to graze the struts during normal operation and use,
resulting in uneven and premature tire wear and failure.

Through the suit, plaintiffs are specifically seeking relief
under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business &
Professions Code, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil
Code Section 1790, and the California Commercial Code Section
2313.

Relief sought by the plaintiffs include:

      -- an order certifying the case as a class action, and     
         appointment of plaintiffs and their counsel as
         representatives of the class;

      -- Restitution and disgorgement to the extent permitted by
         applicable law, together with interest thereon from the
         date of payment, to the victims of such violations;  

      -- actual damages for injuries suffered by plaintiffs and
         the class;

      -- civil penalties and punitive damages to the extent
         permitted by applicable law;

      -- tTo the extent that GM has continued to market and sell
         the vehicles in the manner challenged in this action an
         order requiring GM to Immediately cease its wrongful
         conduct, as well as enjoining GM from continuing to
         conduct business via the unlawful and unfair business
         acts and practices complained herein, an order
         requiring GM to engage in corrective notice campaign,
         and an order requiring GM to refund to plaintiffs and
         all class members the funds paid to GM for the
         defective product;

      -- feasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of prosecuting
         this action;

      -- statutory pre-judgment and post-judgment interests; and
     
      -- such other and additional relief as this court may deem
         just and proper.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f6d

The suit is "O'Connor v. General Motors Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00892-FCD-GGH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California under Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. with
referral to Judge Gregory G. Hollows.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Mark F. Anderson, Esq.
         Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron & Ogilvie LLP
         445 Bush Street, 6th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: (415) 861-2265
         Fax: (415) 861-3151
         E-mail: mark@kabolaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Faulty Speedometers
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is facing a purported federal class action
over allegedly faulty speedometers on certain of its vehicles
manufactured between 2003 through 2007.

The suit filed by Roy Falk, Lee Kratzer, and Barbara McRae on
March 27, 2007 is currently pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The suit is "Falk et al. v. General Motors Corp., Case No. 3:07-
cv-01731-JL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge James Larson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
         Levy, Ram & Olson LLP
         639 Front Street, 4th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-1913
         Phone: 415-433-4949
         Fax: 415-433-7311
         E-mail: mfr@lrolaw.com

         Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
         The Mason Law Firm, LLP
         1120 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4019
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-362-5770
         Fax: 917-591-5227
         E-mail: abarnett@masonlawdc.com

              - and -

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

Representing the defendant is:

         Jacqueline Maria Jauregui, Esq.
         Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP
         801 South Figueroa Street, 19th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: (213) 426-6900
         Fax: (213) 426-6921
         E-mail: jacqueline.jauregui@sdma.com


IKEA: Recalls Jars of Herring that May Contain Glass Pieces
-----------------------------------------------------------
IKEA wants customers who have purchased an IKEA FOOD labeled jar
of marinated herring with a Best Before Date 13-02-2008 or
earlier to return it to their local IKEA store for a full
refund.

IKEA has received two reports where customers have found a large
piece of glass in IKEA FOOD labeled jars of marinated herring.

There has been no report of injuries.

Safety is always a priority at IKEA, and as a precautionary
measure IKEA is recalling IKEA FOOD labeled jars of marinated
herring with a Best Before Date 13-02-2008 or earlier.  The Best
Before Date (DD-MM-YYYY) is to be found on the label directly
above the bar code.  Country of origin is Finland.

IKEA FOOD labeled marinated herring is sold at the Swedish Food
Markets at IKEA stores.  Only IKEA FOOD labeled jars of
marinated herring with a Best Before Date 13-02-2008 or earlier
are involved in the recall -- no other jars of marinated herring
sold at IKEA stores are affected.

For more information contact:

          Mona Astra Liss, IKEA Corporate PR
          E-mail: sslm@memo.ikea.com
          Phone: (610) 834-0180, Ext. 5852
          IKEA Web site at http://www.IKEA.com


INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. remains a defendant in several lawsuits, including
some class actions in "Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) and
AMD International Sales & Service, Ltd. v. Intel Corporation and
Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, and Related Consumer Class Actions" in
its regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In June 2005, AMD filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware alleging that Intel and Intel's
Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of
the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions
Code, including providing secret and discriminatory discounts
and rebates and intentionally interfering with prospective
business advantages of AMD.

AMD's complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits in the
Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against Intel's
Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's
Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55
million, plus various other costs and fees.

At least 78 separate class actions, generally repeating AMD's
allegations and asserting various consumer injuries, including
that consumers in various states have been injured by paying
higher prices for Intel microprocessors, have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, and the District of Delaware,
as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state
courts.

All the federal class actions have been consolidated by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware.

All California class actions have been consolidated to the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.

Intel disputes AMD's claims and the class-action claims, and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously, 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.

Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com/-- is a semiconductor  
chipmaker, developing advanced integrated digital technology
platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the
computing and communications industries.  Intel's products
include chips, boards and other semiconductor products that are
the building blocks integral to computers, servers, handheld
devices, and networking and communications products.  Its
component-level products consist of integrated circuits used to
process information, including microprocessors, chipsets and
flash memory.


INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Employees Sue for Alleged Racial Bias
----------------------------------------------------------
African-American employees of the International House of
Pancakes, Inc. lodged a class-action complaint on May 14 at the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
accusing the company of subjecting black workers to vile and
intolerable racist comments and behavior.

The complaint alleges defendants, individually and through its
officers, agents and employees, conspired and acted on said
conspiracy to impair the rights of plaintiffs and other
similarly situated African-American citizens to make and enforce
contracts, particularly employment, based upon race.

Lead plaintiffs Bobby O. Matthews and Barbara N. McGee claim
defendants removed their terms, conditions and privileges of
employment to retaliate, in whole or in part, against employees
who complained of racially discriminatory treatment.

The suit contends plaintiffs are entitled to back pay, full
reinstatement of employment, seniority and benefits or front pay
and benefits in lieu thereof.

Plaintiffs pray that the court enter judgment in their favor and
against defendants for:

     -- restoration of employment,
     
     -- compensatory damages,

     -- back pay, benefits, front pay and punitive damages,

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interests,

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees,

     -- court costs and other costs of these proceedings, and

     -- any other remedy, equitable or otherwise, to which
        plaintiffs may be entitled under the facts and law
        applicable

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f59

The suit is "Matthews et al. v. International House of Pancakes,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02869-LMA-KWR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge
Lance M. Africk with referral to Judge Karen Wells Roby.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Douglas Daniel Brown, Esq.
          Douglas D. Brown, Attorney at Law
          310 N W Railroad Avenue
          P. O. Box 217
          Hammond, LA 70404-0217
          Phone: 985-542-0444
          E-mail: dbrown@dougbrownlaw.com


INTRA COASTAL: Former Worker Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intra Coastal Renovators, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed on May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Don Lyon, a former employee, bring this collective
action to recover compensation and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

Plaintiff claims that during his employment as a non-exempt
employee under the FLSA, defendant required him to work in
excess of 40 hours per work week, and willfully refused to
properly compensate him for all such work pursuant to the FLSA.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for all damages and
relief under the FLSA, including liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, in addition to all other relief the
court deems just and proper.

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

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f6c

The suit is "Lyon v. Intra Coastal Renovators, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:07-cv-60667-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of Florida under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Chad Evan Levy, Esq.
          Levy & Levy
          1792 Bell Tower Lane
          Weston, FL 33326
          Phone: 954-384-9779
          Fax: 954-384-9976
          E-mail: CLevy@cglllaw.com


LOUISIANA HOSPITALS: Suit Against Tenet Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed a
district court's remand order in a suit filed against Touro
Infirmary and SHONO, Inc., d/b/a Specialty Hospital of New
Orleans, over its handling of patients in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina.  

The suit has been consolidated with that filed by Elmira
Preston, Rose Lefrance Preston, Sheryl Preston, Deborah Mazie
against:

     * Tenet Healthsystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., d.b.a.
       Memorial Medical Center;

     * Lifecare Hospital of New Orleans LLC, d.b.a. Lifecare
       Hospital; and

     * Lifecare Management Services, L.L.C.

On August 4, 2006, Cheryl Weems, individually and on behalf of
her deceased mother and all others similarly situated, filed a
class action petition against Touro and SHONO in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana.  

Ms. Weems's claims involve injuries and/or deaths allegedly
caused by defects and unreasonably dangerous conditions at the
medical facilities of Touro and SHONO.  She said the hospitals
failed to provide adequate transportation away from the premises
after Hurricane Katrina made landfall.

In the petition, Weems proposes to certify:

     -- All persons, except Defendants' employees, who sustained
        injury and/or damage, including but not limited to,
        personal injury or wrongful death, as a result of
        unreasonable dangerous conditions and/or defects in
        and/or on the premises of TOURO and SHONO on or about
        August 29, 2005; and/or

     -- as a result of the failure of TOURO and SHONO
        to attain, maintain, and/or provide an adequate means of
        transportation to timely and/or safely move persons off
        its premises in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

On August 29, 2006, SHONO removed the action to U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act.  Neither Ms. Weems nor Touro contests
that SHONO satisfied the threshold requirements for removal.  
Instead, Ms. Weems and Touro moved to remand the case under the
local controversy exception.  On December 14, 2006, the district
court granted their motion to remand.

The district court's opinion reads in pertinent part that:

     The court concludes that the controversy in this case is
     truly local inasmuch as it affects the New Orleans area to
     the exclusion of all others.  The alleged injuries occurred
     in Louisiana, and the two defendants are Louisiana
     corporations.  Further, the best evidence that is available
     at this time indicates that more than two-thirds of the
     proposed plaintiff class are citizens of Louisiana. . . .

     As to the citizenship of those who may be filing wrongful
     death or survival actions, SHONO does not challenge Touro's
     contention that seven patients died.  Assuming that all of
     their representatives are not citizens of Louisiana, the
     number of Louisiana class members would still exceed two-
     thirds of the class.

SHONO sought permission to appeal, and on February 14, 2007, the
court granted permission.  The Appeals Court addresses whether
Ms. Weems and SHONO presented sufficient evidence to establish
the two-thirds citizenship requirement under the local
controversy exception.

In a ruling filed April 30, 2007 the Appeals Court ruled:

The CAFA exceptions are "designed to draw a delicate balance
between making a federal forum available to genuinely national
litigation and allowing the state courts to retain cases when
the controversy is strongly linked to that state" (Hart v. FedEx
Ground Package Sys., Inc.).  

Although styled as the local controversy exception, the term
"local" is a misnomer in the context of the statutory
requirements-the key feature of any judicial inquiry under this
CAFA exception must focus on the two-thirds fraction and not
whether the surrounding facts implicate a local or national
controversy.  

The medical records alone cannot form an adequate basis for the
district court to make a credible estimate that two-thirds of
the proposed class were citizens of Louisiana on August 4, 2006.
The medical records only provide the court with residency
information for the proposed class and fail to demonstrate their
intent to be domiciled in New Orleans.

Ms. Weems and Touro neglected to submit evidence of intent for
any member of the proposed class, which vitiated the district
court's ability even to extrapolate a citizenship determination.  
The court concluded that the evidence adduced by Ms. Weems and
Touro is insufficient to allow a credible estimate to be made
that at least two-thirds of the proposed class members were
domiciled in Louisiana at the time of filing the class action.

For these reasons, the Court reversed the district court's order
to remand this class action back to state court.

A copy of the court opinion is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f74


MARSHALLS & OCEAN STATE: Sued for Printing Credit Card Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed on behalf of some Rhode Island shoppers
claims that Marshalls and Ocean State Job Lot violated a credit
law by printing credit card expiration dates on their receipts,
NBC 10 Providence reports.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, which took effect
in December, provides it is illegal for business establishments
such as stores and restaurants to print the entire credit card
number on the receipt.

Another provision in the said law states that stores or
restaurants are not allowed to print the credit card expiration
date on the receipt.

According to NBC 10's Audrey Laganas, the law is designed to
protect consumers from identity theft.

The plaintiffs' lawyer claims printing the entire credit card
number as well as the expiry date on the receipt makes the
consumer susceptible to identity theft.

Ocean State Job Lot said they have not seen the lawsuit.  

Representing the shoppers is:

          Peter Wasylyk, Esq.
          Law Office of Peter Wasylyk
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Phone: (401) 831-773


MASTERCARD INT'L: Appeal Filed on Currency Conversion Fee Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
An oral argument on an appeal with regards to the settlement of
a consolidated federal class action about the use of certain
payment cards for foreign transactions, "In re Foreign Currency
Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409)," is scheduled to
take place no earlier than the week of July 9, 2007.

A number of federal putative class actions that allege, among
other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion "fee," were filed
against:

          -- MasterCard International, Inc.,
          -- Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
          -- Visa International Corp.,
          -- several member banks including:

               * Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.,
               * Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.,
               * Bank of America, N.A. (USA),
               * MBNA, and
               * Citicorp Diners Club Inc.

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint (MDL Complaint) adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA
America Bank, N.A. as defendants.

This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

      -- an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;" and

      -- two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to            
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to
         facilitate and encourage institution-and collection-of
         second tier currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid
$72,480 to be used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the
MDL action.  

On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge William H. Pauley, III, granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreements.  The
settlement agreements are subject to final approval by Judge
Pauley, and resolution of all appeals.

The hearing on final approval of the settlement agreements has
been scheduled for Nov. 2, 2007.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state
court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Oral argument is scheduled to take place no earlier than the
week of July 9, 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 "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


MASTERCARD INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action alleging MasterCard International, Inc.
violated California unfair competition law (Section 17200) and
the California Cartwright Act is in discovery phase.

The case was brought on April 29, 2005 in California state court
on behalf of a putative class of consumers.

MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint and the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
Cartwright claims but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair competition claims.

MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint on June 19, 2006 and
the parties are proceeding with discovery, 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.

Purchase, New York-based MasterCard International, Inc. --
http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/-- is a global payment  
solutions company that provides a variety of services in support
of the credit, debit and related payment programs of nearly
25,000 financial institutions.


MASTERCARD INT'L: June 12 Hearing Set for Appeal in "Kendall"
-------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International, Inc. filed its opposition brief to
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California of the class action
"Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
04276-JSW."

On Oct. 8, 2004, a purported class action was filed by a group
of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against MasterCard International, Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks
in California.

The suit alleges, among other things, that MasterCard's, and
Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard
(and Visa) setting interchange and engaging in "joint marketing
activities," which plaintiffs allege include the purported
negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants.
MasterCard moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for
failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for
summary judgment with respect to certain of the claims.

On July 25, 2005, the court issued an order granting
MasterCard's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice, which plaintiffs have appealed.

Oral argument on the appeal will take place on June 12, 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 "Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Joseph Archer, Esq.
         Archer & Hansen
         3110 Bohemian Highway
         Occidental, CA 95465
         Phone: 707-874-3438
         Fax: 707-874-3438
         E-mail: archerdic@aol.com

              - and -

         James Archer Kopcke, Esq.
         Golden & Kopcke, LLP
         22 Battery Street, Suite 610
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-399-9995
         Fax: 415-398-5890
         E-mail: jameskopcke@yahoo.com

Representing the company are:

         Jay Neil Fastow, Esq.
         Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8644
         Fax: 212-310-8007
         E-mail: jay.fastow@weil.com

         Gianluca Morello, Esq.
         Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A.,
         501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Phone: (813) 769-7867
         E-mail: gianluca.morello@fowlerwhite.com
      
              - and -

         Wesley Railey Powell, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-309-1013
         Fax: 212-309-1100
         E-mail: wpowell@hunton.com


MASTERCARD INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of MDL-1720 Complaint in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a
supplemental complaint filed in relation to the case, "In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP, MDL-01720."

The case is a consolidation of interchange fee-related lawsuits
that is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a group
of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against
MasterCard International, Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa
International Services Association and a number of member banks
alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also
constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 40 similar complaints filed on behalf of merchants
against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member
banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.  
Majority of the 40 suits are styled as class actions although
six complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings.  

On Apr. 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a first amended class action complaint.  Taken together, the
claims in the first amended class action complaint and in the
six complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are
generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these
claims:

      -- that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange
         fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions)
         violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

      -- that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced
         various rules, including the no surcharge rule and
         purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section
         1 or 2 of the Sherman Act;

      -- that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the
         acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit
         cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and

      -- that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
         bundled transaction fees.

In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law,
some of these complaints contain certain state unfair
competition law claims based upon the same conduct described
above.

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages
in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints.

The parties are awaiting a decision.  Fact discovery is
proceeding and is scheduled to be completed by Nov. 30, 2007,
with briefing on case dispositive motions scheduled to be
completed by Nov. 24, 2008.

On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that the IPO and certain
purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and its
member financial institutions in connection with the IPO:

      -- violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their
         effect allegedly may be to substantially lessen
         competition,

      -- violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they
         allegedly constitute an unlawful combination in
         restraint of trade and
      
      -- constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member
         banks are allegedly attempting to release without
         adequate consideration from the member banks
         MasterCard's right to assess the member banks for
         MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these
         interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust
         litigations pending against it.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing
and unwinding the IPO.  

On September 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the
claims contained in the supplemental complaint.  The parties are
awaiting a decision, 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 "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Judge James
Orenstein.  

Representing the plaintiffs:

         Darla Jo Boggs, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneappolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com  

         Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: chrisb@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Jason S. Cowart Esq.
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-661-1100
         Fax: 212-661-8665
         E-mail: jasoncowart@yahoo.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: RICO Suit Over Best Buy-MSN Deal Reinstated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided en banc to
reinstate a lawsuit claiming racketeering violations against
Microsoft Corp. and Best Buy Co. Inc. for signing up customers
to MSN accounts without their knowledge.

The suit was filed by James Odom, who claimed defendants entered
into an agreement under which "Microsoft invested $200 million
in Best Buy and agreed to promote Best Buy's online store
through its MSN service."  In return, "Best Buy agreed to
promote MSN service and other Microsoft products in its stores
and advertising."

Best Buy employees allegedly distributed different Microsoft
trial compact discs that it scans for information if the
customer was paying by debit or credit card.  Mr. Odom alleged
that what this scanning actually did was send the information to
Microsoft.  Microsoft would then, without the customer's
knowledge or permission, activate an MSN account in the
customer's name.

If the customer did not cancel the account before the expiration
of the free trial period, Microsoft allegedly would start
billing the debit or credit card number.  Odom further alleged
that when customers called to dispute these charges, Microsoft
directed some of them to "seek relief from their debit or credit
card issuers."

Microsoft, joined by Best Buy, moved to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege an associated-in-fact
enterprise, and under Rule 9(b) for failure to plead wire fraud
with particularity.

The district court dismissed an amended complaint on both
grounds without leave to amend.  It held that an associated-in-
fact enterprise had not been alleged within the meaning of RICO
under Rule 12(b)(6), and that wire fraud had not been pled with
particularity under Rule 9(b).  Plaintiffs then voluntarily
dismissed their non-RICO claims in order to allow entry of final
judgment.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their RICO
claims.

In an opinion filed May 4, 2007, the Appeals Court ruled that
plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence of an
associated-in-fact enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. SS
1961(4) and 1962(c).  It also hold that plaintiffs have alleged
wire fraud with sufficient particularity to satisfy Rule 9(b).   
It therefore reversed the decision of the district court and
remanded the suit for further proceedings.

A copy of the court opinion is available for free at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f73

The case is "Odom v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 04-35468 D.C. No.
CV-03-02976-MJP," on Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Counsels for plaintiff-appellant are: Beth Terrell, Tousley
Brain Stephens P.L.L.C., Seattle, Washington; Daniel C. Girard
(argued), Girard Gibbs and De Bartolomeo LLP, San Francisco,
California; Anthony K. Lee, San Francisco, California.

Counsels for defendant-appellee Microsoft Corp. are: Charles C.
Sweedler & Charles B. Casper, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &
Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jonathan M. Palmer, Heller
Ehrman, Seattle, Washington; Michael J. Shepard (argued), Heller
Ehrman, San Francisco, California.

Counsel for defendant-appellee Best Buy Co. are: Stacy S.
Schwartz, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Los Angeles,
California; James Richard Murray, Gordon Murray Tilden,
Seattle, Washington; J. Kevin Snyder, Dykema Gossett,
Los Angeles, California.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Mass. FLSA Litigation Still in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
purported class action accusing it of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The matter is now moving forward as an
arbitration proceeding.

In May 2005, a former employee of the Boston, Massachusetts
Morton's steakhouse filed a nationwide class action complaint in
federal court in the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts, alleging that the sharing of tips with other
restaurant employees violates FLSA.

The plaintiffs have not stated the estimated amount of damages
they seek and, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to state the estimated damages sought by the
plaintiffs.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint and compel
arbitration.  While the motion was pending, the plaintiff filed
a nationwide collective action demand for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association.  The demand for arbitration
alleges the same facts as the lawsuit filed in federal court.  

The Company's motion to dismiss was granted and the matter is
moving forward as an arbitration proceeding.  On Jan. 13, 2006,
a second claimant, a former employee of the Portland and Phoenix
restaurants was added.  There are currently two named claimants.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007.

The suit is "Johnson v. Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case
No. 1:05-cv-11058-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf with referral
to Judge Marianne B. Bowler.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq.
         Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
         18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-367-7200
         Fax: 617-367-4820
         E-mail: sliss@prle.com

Representing the defendants are:

         David J. Kerman, Esq.
         Heather L. Stepler, Esq.
         Jackson Lewis, LLP
         75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
         Boston, MA 02327
         Phone: 617-367-0025
         Fax: 617-367-2155
         E-mail: kermand@jacksonlewis.com
                 steplerh@jacksonlewis.com


MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Gardening Gloves With High Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
MTD Products Inc. of Valley City, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalled
about 80 units of Budding Gardener Complete Gardening Set.

The firms said stamp-painted logo on the backside of the
gardening gloves contains high levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if
ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

MTD has not received any incident or injury reports.

The Budding Gardener Complete Gardening Set included a wheel
barrel, sprinkling can, pair of gardening gloves, hand tools and
seeds.  The gloves are yellow on one side and white with rubber
dots on the other side.  The gloves have a picture of four
children in a field, with "The Budding Gardners" written in red
around the picture.

The gardening sets were manufactured in China and were being
sold at the Troy-Bilt (an MTD brand) Web site,
http://www.troybilt.comfrom February 2006 through January 2007  
for about $50 for the set.

Consumers should take these gloves away from children
immediately, and contact the firm to exchange the gloves for a
free kids-size gardener's apron.  

Troy-Bilt is directly contacting consumers who purchased these
gloves.

Photo of the children's gardening gloves can be found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07549.html

For additional information, our call Troy-Bilt toll-free at
(888) 848-6038 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.troybilt.com


OLD KENT: Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Credit Report Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for Fifth Third Bancorp, which had merged with Old Kent
Financial Corp., filed a motion to dismiss a class action filed
against the latter.

Attorney Joe Whyte brought the motion before Madison County
Circuit Judge Dave Hylla on March 27, it emerged in a report by
Steve Korris of the St. Clair Record.

The Lakin firm filed the suit for Michael Stevens, William
Stevens and Helen Stevens in 2003, four years after they closed
a loan with Old Kent.

The suit alleges that in 1999, Old Kent Mortgage charged three
borrowers $100 for a credit report, paid less than that for the
report, and improperly retained the difference.


ONEIDA LTD: Keller LLP Amends Complaints of ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed an amended class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court Northern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the Oneida Ltd. Employee Stock Ownership Plan for violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The amended complaint focuses on the investment in Oneida stock
by the plan between May 28, 2003 and March 20, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the Plan's administrators
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to the
Plan participants.  The alleged breach occurred when the
fiduciaries failed to prudently manage the Plan's assets by,
among other things, maintaining Oneida stock as the sole plan
investment at a time when the stock was not a suitable and
appropriate investment option for the retirement plan.

A scheduling conference has been set before the Honorable
Gustave J. DiBianco, U.S. Magistrate Judge, for September 27,
2007.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Britt L. Tinglum, Esq.
          Derek Loeser, Esq.
          Lynn Sarko, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, Washington 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Toll Free: 800-776-6044
          Fax: 206-623-3384
          E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
          Web Site: http://www.erisafraud.com


ONEOK INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Legget" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Samuel P. Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corp.,
et al., Case No. 13847," which names ONEOK, Inc. as one of the
defendants, are appealing the dismissal of their case, which was
originally filed in the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the 25th
Judicial District at Somerville.

The suit was filed in January 2005 against ONEOK, Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiary, ONEOK Energy Services Company (formerly
ONEOK Energy Marketing and Trading Company, L.P.) and several
other energy trading companies on January 28, 2005.   

It seeks a class certification of residential and business
classes in Tennessee for recovery of damages and injunctive
relief based upon allegations of a purported conspiracy to
manipulate the price of gas in Tennessee through the reporting
of false prices to the publishers of natural gas price indexes
and other misconduct.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Tennessee Court
of Appeals on April 4, 2007, appealing the motion to dismiss
granted by the trial court, 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.

ONEOK, Inc. -- http://www.oneok.com/-- purchases, gathers,  
processes, transports, stores and distributes natural gas.


OWENS CORNING: IRC Seeks Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the Owens Corning Investment Review Committee (IRC)
are seeking the dismissal of a purported federal class action
filed against them in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

On Sept. 1, 2006, various members of IRC were named as
defendants in the lawsuit, captioned, "Brown v. Owens Corning
Investment Review Committee, et al."

Owens Corning is not named in the lawsuit but such individuals
would have a contingent indemnification claim against the
company.

The suit, brought by former employees of Owens Corning, was
brought under ERISA alleging that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to certain pension benefit plans and to class
members in connection with investments in an Owens Corning
company common stock fund.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the defendants on
March 5, 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 "Brown et al. v. Owens Corning Investment Review
Committee et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-02125-JZ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge
Jack Zouhary.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Cornish F. Hitchcock, Esq.
         McTigue & Porter
         Ste. 350, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20015
         Phone: 202-364-6900
         Fax: 202-364-9960
         E-mail: conh@mctiguelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Janine T. Avila, Esq.
         Connelly, Jackson & Collier
         Ste. 1600, 405 Madison Avenue
         Toledo, OH 43604
         Phone: 419-243-2100
         Fax: 419-243-7119
         E-mail: javila@cjc-law.com


PINKBERRY: Calif. Lawsuit Claims "Frozen Yogurt" is Fake
--------------------------------------------------------
Pinkberry and 4Sunkids Inc. are facing a class action in the
Superior Court of California accusing it of defrauding consumers
and violating "every one" of California's laws regulating frozen
yogurt by advertising and selling as frozen yogurt a "frozen
dessert made from a powder base, mixed with water and/or milk,"
The CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs claim the defendants, based in Long Beach and Los
Angeles, prey upon health-conscious California consumers by
selling bogus goods.

They demand an injunction and punitive damages for fraud, false
advertising, unfair competition, negligent misrepresentation and
violations of state laws.

Pinkberry -- http://www.pinkberry.com-- is a chain of frozen  
yogurt stores primarily located in Los Angeles, California.

4SunKids, Inc. is the Nation's largest franchise of Pinkberry,
the innovative company that has brought style and panache to the
world of frozen desserts with its upscale, modern decor and
unique concept.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          Gallo and Associates  
          5757 West Century Boulevard, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 338-1114
          Fax: (310) 338-1199


RADIOSHACK CORP: Tex. Suit Alleges Mismanagement of 401(k) Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. and its executives face a class-action
complaint filed on May 14 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas accusing them of investing more than
80% of employees' 401(k) assets in RadioShack stock without
disclosing information needed for the workers to make informed
decisions.

The complaint accuses RadioShack of not monitoring the mutual
funds in its 401(k) plans, which have been heavily concentrated
with RadioShack's own publicly traded stock.

Lead plaintiff RadioShack employee Jeffrey V. Cormier brings
this action for plan-wide relief under the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001
et seq., alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to the plans and
the participants by failing to manage the plans' investments in
RadioShack Stock prudently and loyally by:

     (a) continuing to offer RadioShack Stock as a Plan
         investment option for participant contributions;

     (b) investing Company Matching Contributions exclusively in
         RadioShack Stock; and

     (c) maintaining the plans' pre-existing over concentration
         in RadioShack Stock when the stock was no longer a
         prudent investment for the plans.

The lawsuit also states that RadioShack failed to replace the
mutual funds in the plans with better performing or more cost-
effective investment funds.

Plaintiff is seeking restoration of losses to the plans,
restitution and monetary relief for plaintiffs and attorney fees

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d7f

The suit is "Cormier v. Radio Shack Corp. et al., Case No. 4:07-
cv-00285," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Terry R. Means.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
          Ajamie LLP
          711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713/860-1600
          Fax: 713/860-1699
          E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com

          - and -

          Ronald S Kravitz, Esq.
          Kim Zeldin, Esq.
          Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP
          199 Fremont St., 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415/489-7700
          Fax: 415/489-7701


SCOUT MEDIA: Internet Site Publishers Claim Fraud in Wash. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Publishers of Internet sites devoted to high school sports filed
a class action against Scout Media, Fox Interactive Media and
three individuals, accusing them of unfair and deceptive trade,
securities violations and criminal profiteering.

Plaintiffs Bucknuts, Inside Tx, The Bootleg and OU Insider
brought the action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of a class of all persons,
companies, or other entities that owned or provided content for
a website in the Scout Internet Network and were parties to a
Network Affiliate Agreement with Scout.com (or its predecessors)
between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007.

They also bring this action on behalf of other Magazine
Publishers in a class defined as all persons, companies, or
other entities that owned or provide content for a magazine in
the Scout Magazine Network and were parties to a Magazine
Content, License, Publishing, and Marketing Agreement with Scout
Publishing between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007.

The complaint alleges that in early 2001, defendants began
approaching several independent internet publishers to solicit
them to join a network of websites to be operated by Scout.com.

According to the suit, the Internet Publishers Class consists of
approximately 300 persons, companies, or other entities that
owned or provided content for a website in the Scout Internet
Network and were parties to an Affiliate Agreement with
Scout.com between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007.

These Affiliate Agreements are accordingly substantially
identical, under which the Internet Publishers and Scout.com
worked together to establish and maintain a network of website
dedicated to high school, college and professional athletes.  
The Internet Publishers were required to provide certain insider
content for their websites and Scout.com was required to
maintain the network of websites and provide certain national
content that would be available on all of the websites.

The Affiliate Agreements place uniform obligations on Scout.com
to pay a percentage of resulting subscription, advertising, e-
commerce, and syndication revenue to the Internet Publishers.

The complaint alleges that Scout Media, which is the sole owner
of Scout.com and Scout Publishing, have engaged in the following
unlawful acts to benefit themselves:

     (a) defendants caused Scout.com and Scout Publishing to
         take action that did not properly compensate the
         Internet and Magazine publishers and have deceived
         those publishers regarding the amounts that they were
         owed; and

     (b) defendants induced each Internet Publisher to sign
         agreements with Scout.com by falsely promising that the
         Internet Publishers would have a 10% ownership interest
         in Scout Media.

Common questions of law and fact common that the purported class
raise, include:

     (i) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for allocating subscription revenue under
         Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

    (ii) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for allocating advertising revenue under
         Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

   (iii) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for allocating syndication revenue under
         Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

    (iv) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for e-commerce under Affiliate Agreement that    
         constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice;

     (v) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement
         a method for allocating subscription revenue under
         Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

    (vi) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement
         a method for allocating newsstand revenue under
         Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

   (vii) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement
         a method for allocating advertising revenue under
         Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice; and

  (viii) whether defendants committed fraud or unfair or
         deceptive trade practices when they promised the
         Internet Publishers a 10% interest in Scout Media, but
         failed to disclose the material facts that that 10%
         interest had already been significantly diluted and
         subject to further dilution.

Contemporaneously with the filing of this action, plaintiffs
have filed a consolidated class-action complaint with the
American Arbitration Association against Scout.com, Scout
Publishing, Scout Media and Fox Interactive.

In that arbitration, plaintiffs allege among other things that
respondents violated Washington law by:

     (a) implementing accounting systems that did not properly
         compensate internet and magazine publishers and
         deceived those publishers regarding amounts that they
         were owed;

     (b) inducing each internet publisher to sign an Affiliate
         Agreement with Scout.com by falsely promising that the
         Internet Publishers would have a 10% ownership interest
         in Scout Media; and

     (c) failing to satisfy performance obligations in their
         Agreements.

Plaintiffs ask the court to:

     -- certify the Internet Publisher Class;

     -- certify the Magazine Publisher Class;

     -- appoint plaintiffs to be class representatives;

     -- appoint plaintiffs' counsel to be the class counsel;

     -- award damages to plaintiffs and each class member;

     -- award three times the damages sustained to plaintiffs
        and each class member;

     -- enjoin defendants from engaging in further unlawful
        activity;

     -- award prejudgment and postjudgment interest to the
        Internet and Magazine Publishers;

     -- award plaintiffs and each class member the costs of this
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- grant to plaintiffs and each class member such further
        relief to which they are entitled to.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f66

The suit is "Bucknuts LLC et al. v. Scout Media Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00737-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington under Judge Ricardo S.
Martinez.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey M. Thomas, Esq.
          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP
          1001 4TH AVE, STE 4000
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          E-mail: jthomas@gordontilden.com


STATEWIDE JANITORIAL: Fla. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide Janitorial Services, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed on May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, alleging Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff Gerson Rodrigues dos Santos, a Statewide Janitorial
employee, brings this action on behalf of himself and other
current and former employees of defendants similarly situated
for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

This suit is filed on behalf of all non-exempt Statewide
Janitorial non-exempt laborers who have worked in excess of 40
hours during one or more work weeks on or after May 2004 and did
not receive any time and a half of their regular rate of pay for
all the hours they worked over 40 in one or more work weeks.

The complaint alleges defendants did not pay time and a half
wages for all of the overtime hours worked by plaintiff and the
other employees similarly situated to him.

It contends that plaintiff is entitled to be paid time and one-
half of his regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours per work week.  By reason of the said intentional,
willful and unlawful acts of defendants, all plaintiffs have
suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for the payments
of all overtime hours at one and one-half their regular rate of
pay due them for the hours worked by them for which they have
not been properly compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for all proper relief
including prejudgment interest.

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

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f6b

The suit is "Dos Santos v. Statewide Janitorial Services, Inc.
et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-60664-JEM," filed in the U.S. District
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Jose E.
Martinez.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


UNOCAL CORP: Faces Calif. Suits Over Reformulated Gasoline
----------------------------------------------------------
Unocal Corp., an acquisition of Chevron Corp., is a defendant in
several lawsuits related to reformulated gasoline (RFG),
according to the Chevron's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.

Initially, 14 purported class actions were brought by consumers
of RFG alleging that Unocal Corp. misled the California Air
Resources Board into adopting standards for composition of RFG
that overlapped with Unocal's undisclosed and pending patents.

Eleven lawsuits are now consolidated in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, where a class action has
been certified, and three are consolidated in a state court
action that has been stayed.

Unocal is alleged to have monopolized, conspired and engaged in
unfair methods of competition, resulting in injury to consumers
of RFG.

Plaintiffs in both consolidated actions seek unspecified actual
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest on behalf of
an alleged class of consumers who purchased "summertime" RFG in
California from January 1995 through August 2005.

Chevron Corp. -- http://www.chevrontexaco.com/-- manages its  
investments in subsidiaries and affiliates, and provides
administrative, financial, management and technology support to
the U.S. and foreign subsidiaries that engage in fully
integrated petroleum operations, chemicals operations, mining
operations of coal and other minerals, power generation and
energy services.


UTAH: National Youth Law Center Agrees to End "David C." Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Utah attorneys and the National Youth Law Center signed an
agreement to terminate a lawsuit over complaints that foster
children in Utah's custody were abused and neglected, Julie Rose
of KCPW reports.

The agreement is still subject for a district court judge's
approval on June 28.

The suit was filed in 1993, two years after a child advocate
reported to the National Center for Youth Law that Utah's foster
youth were being mistreated.  

The case was filed on behalf of a young boy David C., who, along
with his two brothers, were taken into the state's Division of
Child and Family Services custody.  Nine months after placement,
the boy's older brother was killed in the boys' foster home.

According to Department of Human Services Spokesperson Carol
Sisco, the budget for the Division of Child and Family Services
tripled since the filing of the suit.  The state also decided to
implement about 93 improvements to the division with substantial
financial help from the state Legislature.

Even if they already came to an agreement, the department would
still be reporting to the National Youth Law Center and the
Child Welfare Oversight committee at the Legislature.

There are currently about 2,600 children in Utah's custody.


WAL-MART STORES: Truckers' Ark. Discrimination Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William R. Wilson Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas granted class status to a lawsuit
filed against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., accusing the retailer of
discriminating against black applicants for jobs driving Wal-
Mart trucks, The Pine Bluff Commercial reports.

Filed in 2004, Daryal T. Nelson of Coldwater, Miss., alleged
that Wal-Mart rejects and discourages black applicants for
truck-driving jobs at the chain's distribution centers in
Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
and Virginia (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2004).

The suit had a document from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission attached to it, saying that it found "reasonable
cause" to believe that Mr. Nelson, a 22-year veteran of driving
trucks, was discriminated against.  The EEOC said Wal-Mart hired
some white drivers with more serious driving violations and less
experience than black applicants.

In his ruling earlier, Judge Wilson said drivers at Wal-Mart
were recruited largely through word-of-mouth and applicants
would be screened by a committee of drivers.  The judge noted
none of the committees at Wal-Mart's various hiring sites had a
majority of African Americans and some had no blacks, despite a
company rule that the panels be 50 percent diverse.

According to the judge's ruling, the American Trucking
Association found that 15 percent of truckers were black from
Jan. 1, 2000, through Sept. 29, 2005.  In the same period, 4
percent to 6 percent of Wal-Mart truckers were black.

The ruling opens the class to all black applicants in the
continental U.S. who were turned down for Wal-Mart trucking jobs
since Sept. 22, 2001, and all blacks who contend they were
prevented from applying due to Wal-Mart practices.

Any plaintiffs seeking punitive damages would have to do so in a
separate lawsuit after the class action is tried, the ruling
said.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said the company may fight
Wilson's ruling and says the allegation of discrimination is
wrong.

The suit is "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00171-WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP
          Post Office Box 25438
          Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: hbates@cauleybowman.com

          - and -

          Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Esq.
          Welch and Kitchens, LLC
          Post Office Box 3685
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3685
          Phone: (501) 978-3030
          E-mail: tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com

Representing defendants are:

          Richard H. Deane, Esq.
          Jones Day - Atlanta
          1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 581-8502
          E-mail: rhdeane@jonesday.com

          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          Michael J. Gray, Esq.
          Jones Day - Chicago
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 269-4306 or (312) 269-4096
          E-mail: lcdinardo@jonesday.com or mjgray@jonesday.com

          - and -

          Philip E. Kaplan, Esq.
          Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A.
          Metro Centre Mall
          415 Main Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3801
          Phone: (501) 372-0400
          E-mail: pkaplan@kbmlaw.net


* S. Korean Civic Group Calls for Ways to Curb Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
South Korea's Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice is
calling for the introduction of class actions and a punitive
compensation system for consumer damages to hold top companies
accountable for widespread price fixing in the country.

The civic group believes consumers have lost a total of KRW4.74
($513 billion) from price fixing by the nation's 14 key business
groups since 2003.  The amount is about 15 percent of sales
revenues of goods found to have been subject to price fixing,
according to a May 5 Editorial that appeared in the Korea Times.

The Fair Trade Commission has reportedly fined violators only
KRW427.9 billion ($463 million), which is less than 10 percent
of the consumer damages, and referred just 15 of 35 violations
to the state prosecution for legal action.  

Twenty-seven of the violators belong to South Korea's top 30
conglomerates.  Top violators include LG Group (10 cases),
Samsung Group (four), SK Telecom (three), Lotte Shopping Co.
(three), and CJ Corp. (three), and Doosan Group (one).

Most price-fixing cases involve consumer products as flour,
gasoline, tires, detergents and ice creams, according to the
article.


* California Legislators Reject AB 1505 Class Litigation Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
California lawmakers rejected AB 1505, a bill aimed at curbing
class actions in the state, Cheryl Miller of The Recorder
reports.

Introduced just this year, the bill is intended to give judges
clear statutory rules for handling these cases and greatly
reduce the legal uncertainty that makes these lawsuits expensive
and time-consuming (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007).

The bill, defeated in committee, would have repealed the state's
135-year-old class litigation statute and replaced it with more
defendant-friendly regulations, modeled after Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

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

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

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

Commenting on the recent decision, John Sullivan, president of
the bill's sponsor, the Civil Justice Association of California
(CJAC), called vote of the Assembly Judiciary Committee "the
least surprising result" and said his organization's corporate
members are weighing what to do next.

The new rules would have allowed defendants to appeal a court's
class certification decision.  Defendants, with the court's
permission, would also have been allowed to contact each class
member to offer a pre-trial settlement.

In addition, class proponents would have been stuck with the tab
for notifying class members, rather than the current scheme
where defendants must typically pay the cost of securing the
names and addresses of potential plaintiffs.

Robert Phillips Jr., a Reed Smith partner representing CJAC,
said the bill's changes would aid courts "cluttered" with class
actions by discouraging all but the most meritorious cases.
"We have a system now that encourages protracted litigation
[and] discourages early resolution," Mr. Phillips pointed out.

The bill drew a brief written endorsement from the Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's Office of Planning and Research, a rare
happening -- particularly when the legislation is not directly
sponsored by the administration and has little chance of passage
in the Legislature.

AB 1505 "builds on the foundation laid in the federal rules and
thereby strengthens California law," wrote Brent Jamison, deputy
director of legislation for the Office of Planning and Research.

However, lawyers and consumer group representatives testified
that the bill was only a ploy to shift class action law into
corporate defendants' favor.

Don Ernst, a long-time board member of the Consumer Attorneys of
California labeled the bill "anti-consumer" and said that its
corporate supporters, including the American Insurance
Association, the state Chamber of Commerce, eBay and Hewlett-
Packard "are always trying to close the courthouse door, both
through legislation and initiatives."


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Claims v. Dalmine Rise to 54 in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of March 31, 2007,
recorded 54 asbestos-related claims, of which three claims are
covered by insurance, according to a Company report, on Form 6-
K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
7, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, Italy-based Dalmine had 32 pending
asbestos-related injury claims, of which three are covered by
insurance. (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007)

In addition to 13 previously known civil proceedings for work-
related injuries from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing
processes during the period from 1960 to 1980, 18 asbestos-
related out-of-court claims and 1 civil party claim, 21 new
asbestos-related out-of-court claims and one asbestos civil
proceeding have been notified to Dalmine in 2007.

No claims were dismissed or settled.

To date, aggregate settlement costs amounted to EUR3.8 million.
Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection
with the claims above that are not yet settled is about EUR20.4
million, or US$ 27.2 million, of which EUR7.8 million, or
USS$10.4 million, relate to the claims and proceedings notified
to Dalmine in 2007.

Luxembourg-based Tenaris S.A. manufactures and distributes
seamless steel pipe products. The Company also produces welded
steel pipes for gas pipelines in South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Pepco Remain at 180 in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending asbestos-related cases against Pepco Holdings Inc., as
of March 31, 2007, remain at 180 in the State Courts of
Maryland, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

As of Jan. 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 180 asbestos-
related cases pending against it in the State Courts of
Maryland. (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007)

In 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints filed in
the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore
City and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing,
consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not
providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on Company property.

Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added the
Company to their complaints. While the pleadings are not
entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2
million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive
damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have
been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss,
numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary
judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases
successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the
plaintiff or by the court.

Of the 180 pending cases, about 85 cases were filed after Dec.
19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and
indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale
Agreement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant has agreed
to assume this contractual obligation.

Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes
electricity to more than 1.8 million customers and natural gas
to 121,000 customers through its utility units. Non-regulated
operations include independent power production, wholesale and
retail energy marketing, and energy management services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Int'l. Reserves $192.8M in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp.'s asbestosis and environmental
claim reserves, at March 31, 2007, amounted to a gross of
US$192.8 million, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5,
2007.

At March 31, 2007, the Company's A&E claim reserves amounted to
a net of US$154.6 million.

The Company's A&E claim reserves, at Dec. 31, 2006, amounted to
a gross of US$194.9 million, or a net of US$157.8 million.

Chicago-based Old Republic International Corp. is an insurance
holding company operating in three primary areas: Old Republic
General Insurance offers general insurance including commercial
property and liability; Mortgage Guaranty unit offers mortgage
guaranty insurance; and Title Insurance Groups specialize in
title insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Faces Actions in La., Tex. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International Inc. and several of its affiliates are
parties to asbestos-related actions in Texas and Louisiana
Courts.

In the proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. v. J. Ray McDermott
Inc., et al., filed by about 88 plaintiffs against about 215
defendants, including Company affiliate J. Ray McDermott Inc.
and Delta Hudson Engineering Corp., another affiliate, the Court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims on Jan. 10, 2007, without
prejudice to their right to refile.

The Antoine suit was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court,
Jefferson Parish, La.

On Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al v.
McDermott Inc., et al., 21 plaintiffs originally named in the
Antoine matter sued JRMI, MI, and about 30 other employer
defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally
alleging exposure to welding fumes, solvents, dyes, industrial
paints and noise.

The Boudreaux suit was originally filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of Texas and, on May 2, 2007, the
suit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

On Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v.
McDermott Inc., et al., 43 plaintiffs originally named in the
Antoine Louisiana State Court action sued JRMI, MI and about 65
other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants,
alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal
injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise.

The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount in
both cases and attorneys' fees in the new Antoine case.

The suit was filed in the 164th Judicial District Court for
Harris County, Tex.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Gains $272M Tax Refund in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International Inc.'s affiliate, McDermott Inc., on
April 12, 2007, received US$272 million as asbestos-related
federal income tax refund from the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

This federal tax refund resulted from carrying back to prior tax
years the tax loss generated in 2006, primarily as a result of
the US$955 million of asbestos-related payments made in 2006 in
connection with the settlement of asbestos-related claims made
in Babcock & Wilcox's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

A number of these prior tax years are open and, therefore,
certain adjustments may still occur before final settlement of
these tax years.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX Corp., Units Face Claims in 28 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corp. and five of its subsidiaries face lawsuits claiming
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly from exposure to
products made with components that had asbestos, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

Claims have been filed in 28 states including: Alabama,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Components with asbestos were acquired from third party
suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.

To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
by insurance.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance has been settled for reasonable amounts.
One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corp. makes pump products,
dispensing equipment, and other engineered products. The
Company's fluid and metering segment includes industrial pumps,
injectors, compressors, and flow meters that move chemicals,
fuels, and similar fluids.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Enters Coverage-in-Place Deal w/ AIG
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. and the AIG Companies, effective April 27, 2007,
entered into a coverage-in-place agreement for asbestos claims
under the Company's excess policies with AIG, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

The agreement includes payment of US$3.4 million for claims
billed to AIG through Feb. 20, 2007, which is due in several
installments through Oct. 5, 2007.

The agreement with AIG also includes provisions for mutual
releases, indemnification of AIG and claims handling procedures.

Effective April 24, 2007, the Company and Employers Reinsurance
Co. reached a settlement agreement under which ERC's insurance
coverage obligations for asbestos claims under the two
historical ERC policies issued to Crane Co. were released. The
agreement with ERC also includes provisions for mutual releases
and indemnification of ERC. A cash payment of US$10 million
under this agreement is due to the Company on or before May 15,
2007.

The Company anticipates that one or more additional agreements
with other excess insurers, such as coverage-in-place
agreements, may be executed in 2007.

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

Effective Dec. 20, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with Employers Insurance of Wausau (and
Nationwide Indemnity Co. in its capacity as claims administrator
for Wausau) ("Wausau"), establishing an arrangement for asbestos
claims under the Company's excess policies with Wausau, and
providing for initial payments totaling US$2.6 million for
claims billed to Wausau through Nov. 30, 2006. The Company has
received this amount. This agreement includes provisions for
mutual releases, indemnification of Wausau and claims handling
procedures.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. makes industrial products,
including fluid handling equipment, aerospace and electronic
components, engineered materials, merchandising systems, and
controls. The Company serves the power generation,
transportation, defense, commercial construction, food and
beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Still Faces Insurance Action in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to face an asbestos-related insurance
lawsuit, filed on Jan. 21, 2005, by five of its insurers within
two corporate insurer groups, in which Everest Reinsurance Co.
and Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. are two of the plaintiffs.

Filed in Connecticut state court, the suit sought injunctive
relief against the Company and declaratory relief against the
Company and dozens of the Company's other insurers.

The suit also sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief
restraining the Company from participating in any further
settlement discussions with representatives of asbestos
plaintiffs or agreeing to any settlement unless the Company
permitted the plaintiff insurers to both participate in such
discussions and have a meaningful opportunity to consider
whether to consent to any proposed settlement, or unless the
Company elected to waive coverage under the insurers' policies.

The plaintiffs also sought expedited discovery on the Company's
proposed global settlement.

On April 8, 2005, the insurer plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint raising five counts against the Company.

The Amended Complaint seeks:

(i) Declaratory relief regarding the Company's rights to
coverage, if any, under the policies;

(ii) Declaratory relief regarding the Company's alleged breaches
of the policies in connection with an alleged increase in
asbestos claim counts;

(iii) A declaration of no coverage in connection with allegedly
time-barred claims;

(iv) Declaratory relief against the Company and the other
insurer defendants for allocation of damages that may be covered
under the insurance policies; and

(v) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

On April 18, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the claims for
injunctive relief on the grounds that the Court had no
jurisdiction to consider the claims because they were
speculative and unripe. On Oct. 19, 2005, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss, ruling that the injunctive claims
were not unripe.

Nonetheless, the Court noted that the Company later could seek
summary judgment in connection with the injunctive claims if
discovery shows them to be without factual basis.

Effective April 10, 2006, the Company and Everest reached a
settlement agreement under which Everest's insurance coverage
obligations for asbestos claims under the three historical
Everest policies issued to the Company were released in exchange
for a US$3.8 million cash payment, which was received by the
Company on April 21, 2006.

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

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. makes industrial products,
including fluid handling equipment, aerospace and electronic
components, engineered materials, merchandising systems, and
controls. The Company serves the power generation,
transportation, defense, commercial construction, food and
beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Corp. Accrues $2M for Cases in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp., as of March 31, 2007, accrued about US$2 million
relating to "premises" asbestos cases that are not subject to
prior owners or operators, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 7, 2007.

The Company has been named as a "premises defendant" in asbestos
exposure cases, typically a claim by a non-employee of exposure
to asbestos while at a facility.

These cases have involved multiple plaintiffs bringing actions
against multiple defendants, and the complaint has not indicated
which plaintiffs were making claims against which defendants,
where or how the alleged injuries occurred or what injuries each
plaintiff claimed.

Where the alleged exposure occurred before the Company's
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, the Company
tenders it to the prior owner. None of the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owner
accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the
cases and payment of any amounts due to the claimants.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
1,309 unresolved claims at the end of the period, 13 cases
tendered during period, and 71 resolved during period.

For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company recorded
1,347 unresolved claims at the end of the period, 822 cases
tendered during period, and 51 resolved during period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of March 31, 2007, the Company had an accrued
liability of US$12.5 million relating to these cases and a
corresponding receivable of US$12.5 million relating to the
Company's indemnity protection with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. For
the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 51
claims filed during period, two claims resolved during period,
and 91 unresolved at the end of period.

For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company recorded
three claims filed during period, four claims resolved during
period, and 33 unresolved at end of period.

The Company has paid gross settlement costs for asbestos
exposure cases that are not subject to indemnification of about
US$100,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2007, and
US$5,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2006.

Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corp. manufactures differentiated
chemical products. The Company also manufactures inorganic and
commodity chemical products. The Company's products are used in
a wide range of applications, including those in the adhesives,
aerospace, automotive, construction products, durable and non-
durable consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging,
paints and coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic
fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Has 31,607 Abex Claims at 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd., at March 31, 2007, recorded 31,607
Pneumo Abex Corp. asbestos-related claims that are the
responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corp., according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 31,300 Abex asbestos-
related claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul.
(Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007)

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul. These discontinued businesses,
including the Abex product line obtained from Pneumo-Abex in
1994, were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock
of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase
and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998.

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any
potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a
1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between Cooper and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that
Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to
the Company. As of May 7, 2007 Federal-Mogul had not rejected
the 1998 Agreement, which includes the indemnification to the
Company.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2007, a total of 142,247
Abex Claims were filed, of which 110,640 claims have been
resolved.

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, 718 claims were
filed and 411 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the
average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$1,990
before insurance. A total of US$112.2 million was spent on
defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31,
2007.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50
percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is
currently at a lower percentage, about 30 percent, due to
exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with
certain excess insurers.

The revised proposed settlement agreement has been incorporated
into Federal-Mogul's 4th Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization,
which was filed on Nov. 21, 2006.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware approved the adequacy of Federal-Mogul's Supplemental
Disclosure Statement describing the 4th Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization.

If the Plan is confirmed, Federal-Mogul could emerge from
bankruptcy in mid-year 2007.

Houston-based Cooper Industries Ltd. makes electrical products,
tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's
electrical products include electrical and circuit protection
devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical
power and distribution products for use by utility companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. EnPro Ind. Remain at 106,500 in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending asbestos-related cases against EnPro Industries Inc., as
of March 31, 2007, remain at 106,500, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 106,500 open asbestos-
related cases, compared with 120,500 cases as of Dec. 31, 2005.
(Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007)

As of March 31, 2006, the Company recorded 119,400 asbestos-
related claims filed against it.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company noted 1,900 new actions filed,
compared with 2,900 actions filed as of March 31, 2006.

Certain Company subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., face actions filed
in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Among the products at
issue in these actions are industrial sealing products,
including gaskets and packing products.

The damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some
cases plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. To
date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any
punitive damage awards, although there can be no assurance that
they will not be required to do so in the future.

Since the first asbestos-related suits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed about 900,000
asbestos claims to conclusion and, together with their insurers,
have paid about US$1.2 billion in settlements and judgments and
almost US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims
of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six
percent have been claims of plaintiffs with lung or other
cancers, and more than 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs
alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant
impairment of the respiratory system.

Of the 106,500 open cases at March 31, 2007, the Company is
aware of about 8,700, or 8.1 percent, that involve claimants
alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer or some other cancer.

The number of new actions filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in 2006 (7,700) was significantly lower than the
number filed in 2005 (15,300) and 2004 (17,400).

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer
bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and
heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $437M Reserve for Future Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, at March 31, 2007, had available US$437 million of
insurance and trust coverage that will be available to cover
future asbestos claim and certain expense payments.

At March 31, 2007, Garlock had US$56 million of otherwise
available insurance that the Company classifies as insolvent.
Garlock collected about US$5 million from insolvent carriers in
2006, bringing total collections from insolvent carriers from
2002 through 2006 to about US$38.4 million.

During the 2006-4th quarter, the Company reached an agreement
with a significant group of related U.S. insurers. These
insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of the matter.
This payment delay accounted for US$50.1 million of the
Company's insurance receivables at March 31, 2007.

The agreement provides for the payment of the full amount of the
insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual payments
to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the agreement, Garlock
received US$12 million during the 2007-1st quarter.

In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer
that resolved two suits and an arbitration proceeding. Under the
settlement, Garlock received US$4 million in December 2006 and
will receive another US$17 million in the future. As part of the
agreement, Garlock agreed to forgo US$19 million of nominal
insurance.

During the 2005-1st quarter, the Company reached agreement with
two of Garlock's U.S. insurers. The insurers agreed to pay
Garlock a total of US$21 million in three equal bi-annual
payments of US$7 million. The first payment was received in May
2005, the second payment is due in May 2007 and the third
payment is due in May 2009. The payments are guaranteed by the
parent company of the settling insurers.

In the 2004-2nd quarter, the Company reached agreement with
Equitas, the London-based entity responsible for the pre-1993
Lloyds' of London policies in the Company's insurance block,
concerning settlement of its exposure to the Company's
subsidiaries' asbestos claims.

As a result of the settlement, US$88 million was placed in an
independent trust. In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached
agreement with a group of London market carriers (other than
Equitas) and one of its U.S. carriers that has some policies
reinsured through the London market.

As a result of the settlement, US$55.5 million was placed in an
independent trust. At March 31, 2007, the market value of the
funds remaining in the two trusts was US$51.8 million, which was
included in the US$437 million of insurance and trust coverage
available to pay future asbestos-related claims and expenses.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer
bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and
heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $547M Total Liability in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s total asbestos-related liability, at
March 31, 2007m amounted to US$547 million, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

This amount includes US$89.8 million for advanced-stage cases
and settled claims and accrued legal and other fees, and
US$457.2 million for early-stage and unasserted claims. The
recorded amounts include US$80.2 million classified in current
liabilities and US$466.8 million classified in non-current
liabilities.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company had remaining solvent
insurance and trust coverage of US$437 million, which is
reflected on its balance sheet as a receivable (US$76.1 million
classified in current assets and US$376.4 million classified in
non-current assets) and which it believes will be available for
the payment of asbestos-related claims.

Included in the receivable is US$248 million in insured claims
and expenses that Company subsidiaries have paid out in excess
of amounts recovered from insurance. These amounts are
recoverable under its insurance policies and have been billed to
the insurance carriers. The remaining US$189 million will be
available for pending and future claims.

In the 2007-1st quarter, subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC began two trials. The two suits settled during trial before
the juries had reached a verdict. In 2006, Garlock began 10
trials involving 11 plaintiffs. Garlock received jury verdicts
in its favor in Oakland, Calif.; Easton, Pa.; and Louisville,
Ky. In Pennsylvania, three other suits involving four plaintiffs
settled during trial before the juries reached verdict.

Garlock also settled cases in Massachusetts, California and
Texas during trial. In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury
awarded the plaintiff US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was
significantly less than the US$1.75 million award against
Garlock in the previous trial, which Garlock successfully
appealed. Garlock has also appealed the new verdict.

In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in
Philadelphia after the juries were selected but before the
trials began because there was insufficient evidence of exposure
to Garlock products.

In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals,
in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict
that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial.
The case subsequently settled. On the other hand, the Maryland
Court of Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from a 2005 Baltimore
verdict, and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment
interest, in the 2006-4th quarter.

In a separate Baltimore case in the 2006-4th quarter, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from
another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was
also denied and Garlock will pay that verdict in the 2007-2nd
quarter. At March 31, 2007, four Garlock appeals, including the
Maryland appeal, were pending from adverse verdicts totaling
US$5.2 million, down from more than US$41 million at Dec. 31,
2005.

In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the
form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the
verdicts. The Company is required to provide cash collateral to
secure the full amount of the bonds, which can restrict the use
of a significant amount of the Company's cash for the periods of
such appeals. At March 31, 2007, the Company had $2.4 million of
cash collateral relating to appeal bonds recorded as restricted
cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Garlock reduced new settlement commitments from US$180 million
in 2000 to US$94 million in 2001, US$86 million in 2002, US$86
million in 2003, US$84 million in 2004, US$79 million in 2005
and US$84 million in 2006. About US$15 million of the 2006
amount was committed in settlements in 2006 to pay verdicts that
had been rendered in the years 2003 to 2005.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer
bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and
heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Faces Suit in Los Angeles
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group faces an asbestos-related
complaint for personal injury due to exposure to asbestos, filed
in the Superior Court County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC60406,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

In the suit filed on Oct. 26, 2006, the plaintiff claims to have
worked for three of the Company's contractors on pipeline
projects from 1958 to 1999 and Palos Verdes Water Co., a water
utility acquired by the Company in 1970.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and other defendants are
responsible for his asbestos related injuries. A trial date has
been set for May 14, 2007.

The plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of US$27.5
million. The Company's insurance carrier has accepted the
defense of the claim, reserving certain rights along with one of
the contractor's insurance company.

On April 20, 2007, the Court sustained the Company's demur
without leave to amend all Plaintiff's claims alleging products
liability and intentional torts.

The only remaining claim is for premise owner contractor
liability, a negligence claim, alleging misconduct that may
allow for punitive damages.

The Company said it believes that Plaintiff did not state any
legal claim against the Company. The Plaintiff has offered the
Company a full release from all claims and damages for
US$1,200,000.

San Jose, Calif.-based California Water Service Group is a
holding company with five wholly owned subsidiaries that provide
water utility and other related services in California,
Washington, New Mexico, and Hawaii. These subsidiaries are:
California Water Service Co., Washington Water Service Co., New
Mexico Water Service Company Inc., and Hawaii Water Service
Company Inc. The Company operates primarily in one business
segment providing water utility services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $40M Liability in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities, as
of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$40 million, compared with
US$46 million as of Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$10 million, compared with US$11
million as of Sept. 30, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
recoveries amounted to US$27 million, compared with US$30
million as of Sept. 30, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
recoveries amounted to US$7 million, compared with US$8 million
as of Sept. 30, 2006.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving light
vehicle, commercial truck, trailer and specialty original
equipment makers and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $7M Rockwell Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc., at March 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006,
recorded a US$7 million liability for defense costs related to
Rockwell Automation Inc. asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products. Liability for these
claims was transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-
off of the automotive business to Meritor from Rockwell in 1997.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past
experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants
will never identify any of Rockwell's products.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these
claims with no payment to claimants.

In the 2006-4th quarter, the Company engaged Bates White to
assist with determining whether it would be possible to estimate
the cost of resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy
asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be
expected to be, filed against the Company.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving light
vehicle, commercial truck, trailer and specialty original
equipment makers and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 40,125 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s subsidiary Maremont Corp., at March 31,
2007, had about 40,125 pending asbestos-related claims, compared
with 51,895 pending claims at Sept. 30, 2006, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

Maremont had about 44,049 pending asbestos-related claims at
Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2007)

Maremont made friction products with asbestos from 1953 through
1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin acquired
Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are
defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal
injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

At March 31, 2007, Maremont's asbestos-related reserves amounted
to US$43 million, compared with US$50 million at Dec. 31, 2006.
At March 31, 2007, Maremont's asbestos-related recoveries
amounted to US$27 million, compared with US$31 million at Dec.
31, 2006.

Bates White LLC provided an estimate of the reasonably possible
range of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury
claims over the next three to four years of US$28 million to
US$38 million. Maremont determined that as of March 31, 2007,
the most likely and probable liability for pending and future
claims over the next four years is US$36 million.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving light
vehicle, commercial truck, trailer and specialty original
equipment makers and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Ins. Reserves $23.6M for Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's reserves for unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses include US$23.6 million of gross
reserves and US$23.5 million of net reserves at March 31, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2007.

Alleghany Insurance is a subsidiary of Alleghany Corp.

Alleghany Insurance's reserves for unpaid losses and LAE
includes US$23.8 million of gross reserves and US$23.7 million
of net reserves at Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, March
16, 2007)

The reserves are for liability coverage related to asbestos and
environmental impairment claims that arose from reinsurance
assumed by an affiliate, Capitol Indemnity Corp., between 1969
and 1976.

Capitol Indemnity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capitol
Transamerica Corp., exited this business in 1976. CATA, an
Alleghany Insurance subsidiary, assumed Capitol Indemnity's
claims.

New York-based Alleghany Corp.'s operating subsidiaries include
Capitol Transamerica, which provides property/casualty,
fidelity, and surety insurance, and Darwin Professional
Underwriters (55 percent owned), which writes specialty
property/casualty insurance. The Company's RSUI Group is a
leading underwriter of wholesale specialty insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Action Extended to Oct. 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. says that the stay of actions on asbestos, in a
suit where the Company and W.R. Grace & Co. are involved, has
been extended through Oct. 1, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 8, 2007.

In April 2001, Grace's subsidiary Grace Canada Inc. had obtained
an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. 01-CL-4081) recognizing
the Chapter 11 actions in the U.S. involving Grace Canada's U.S.
parent corporation and other U.S. affiliates of Grace Canada,
and enjoining all new actions and staying all current
proceedings against Grace Canada related to asbestos under the
Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has
been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, the court ordered
an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving
asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the
Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all
of the Canadian actions.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Tyco Int'l. Stay at 15,500
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of March 30, 2007, recorded about
15,500 asbestos liability cases pending against it and its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2007.

As of Dec. 29, 2006, the Company recorded about 15,500 asbestos
liability cases pending against it and its subsidiaries. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007)

The Company and some of its subsidiaries are named defendants in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing materials. Most of these cases have been filed
against subsidiaries in Healthcare and Engineered Products and
Services.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property.

Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of heat-
resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the past
distribution of industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-
containing gaskets or packing. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by
the courts.

Princeton, N.J.-based Tyco International Ltd. is a manufacturing
conglomerate organized into four business segments: Fire and
Security, Electronics, Healthcare, and Engineered Products and
Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Remain at 350 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corp., as of March 31, 2007, recorded about 350
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006 and Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
about 350 asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it. (Class
Action Reporter, March 23, 2007)

The Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. These suits also name many other
corporate defendants.

All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been
concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through
settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material
to the Company.

At March 31, 2007, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$19 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$22 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, March 23,
2007)

Glen Allen, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corp. is a global packaging
company that delivers high-value packaging solutions, dispensing
and spraying systems, and other products to companies in the
food and beverage, media and entertainment, personal care,
cosmetic, home and garden, and healthcare industries. The
Company also has market-leading positions in its Consumer and
Office Products and Specialty Chemicals businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Harsco Increase to 26,496 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corp., as of March 31, 2007, recorded 26,496 pending
asbestos-related personal injury claims filed against it,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 26,440 pending
asbestos-related personal injury claims filed against it. (Class
Action Reporter, March 9, 2007)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants, about 90
or more in most cases, in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that contained asbestos.

The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product,
which may have contained asbestos, would have been purchased
from a supplier.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the
individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

Of the 26,496 pending cases, 26,109 were pending in the New York
Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other
claims, totaling 387, are filed in various counties in a number
of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts
(including New York), and those complaints generally assert
lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or
do not state any amount claimed.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment before trial in 17,008 cases.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 189 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

The Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal and
settlement costs and expenses relating to the asbestos
litigation to date.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corp.'s mill services unit,
MultiServ, offers metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap
management, and other services for steel and nonferrous metals
producers. Other units are: Access Services businesses, SGB
Group and Patent Construction Systems, and GasServ division.
Other units make railway track, industrial grating, and heat
exchangers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. continues to face various personal
injury claims, including claims by employees of 3rd-party
contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and benzene.

These employees had worked at refineries (previously owned by
predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas,
California, and Oklahoma.

Litigation charges and adjustments reduced income before income
taxes US$34 million during 2007-1st quarter and increased income
before income taxes US$8 million for the 2006-1st quarter.

The Woodlands, Tex.-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is engaged in
the exploration, development, production, gathering, processing
and marketing of natural gas, crude oil, condensate and natural
gas liquids. The Company also engages in the hard minerals
business through non-operated joint ventures and royalty
arrangements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Win $37M Award in Suit v. Keasbey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., on May 11, 2007, won Phase II
of a reverse-bifurcated lung cancer trial against Robert A.
Keasbey Co., which was a former insulation contractor that
distributed asbestos products in the New York metropolitan area,
LawFuel.com reports.

James C. Long, Jr., trial team attorney and lead counsel said,
"Our clients suffered greatly. We are pleased that the jury was
receptive to the evidence that established the substantive role
that exposure to asbestos plays in the development of lung
cancer and other debilitating diseases."

On March 22, 2007, the jury, in Phase I of the trial, awarded
US$26 million in damages to Bonita Martin, the widow of
boilermaker Edward Martin, and US$11 million to Nicole Eyring,
the daughter of Robert Lettiere, a steamfitter (Martin Index
#100016/99 and Lettieire #113583/05, New York Supreme Court,
Manhattan).

Mr. Martin and Mr. Lettiere died of lung cancer, and at issue
before the jury in Phase I, was whether asbestos was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the disease. The jury
determined that the occupational exposures to asbestos of both
men were "substantial factors" in causing their lung cancer,
rejecting the defense that the sole cause of their lung cancers
was smoking.

Phase II of the trial commenced on April 23, 2007 before the
same jury. At issue was whether Keasbey exposed both men to
asbestos while installing asbestos insulation at various New
York City area powerhouses; whether they did so negligently, and
whether that negligence was a substantial factor in causing
their lung cancers.

Additionally, the jury was asked to determine whether Keasbey
acted "recklessly." The jury answered all questions in Weitz &
Luxenberg's favor, assigning 40 percent responsibility to
Keasbey in the Martin case and 15 percent responsibility in the
Lettiere case.

Because the jury found Keasbey to be "reckless," Keasbey is also
responsible for the shares of liability assigned to Philip
Morris and RJ Reynolds (totaling 20 percent) in the Martin case
and to Philip Morris (15 percent) in the Lettiere case, and will
also pay the shares of other companies that were not sued and
were assigned a percent of fault by the jury.

The Weitz & Luxenberg trial team included Mr. Long, Douglas D.
von Oiste, Jerry Kristal and Patti Burshtyn, with extensive
legal research and trial support on the case conducted by
Christopher Romanelli, Stephen Riegel, Tom Comerford and Jessica
Russell.

The judge was the Honorable Shirley Kornreich.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oklahoman Files Lawsuit v. 84 Firms in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rawlings of Oklahoma, on May 10, 2007, sued 84 defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., alleging she
was exposed to airborne asbestos the clothes of her father and
husband, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Rawlings claims her husband, Luke, was employed as a welder
at various locations across the country including McCombe, Ill.
Her father, Harold Winton, worked as a mechanic.

Mrs. Rawlings claims her father and husband would carry the
asbestos dust on their clothing home with him where it would
again become airborne.

Mrs. Rawlings was employed as a postal worker and teacher at
various locations including Illinois. She claims she was also
exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects
including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and
remodeling.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Mrs. Rawlings was diagnosed with mesothelioma
and subsequently became aware that her illness was wrongfully
caused, the suit claims.

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Rawlings seeks compensatory damages in excess of
US$300,000, plus punitive damages.

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

Case No. 07 L 440 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Reaches $20T Settlement With Consultant
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a US$20,000
settlement with Timothy Chu Construction Consulting Services,
which is paying for violating federal regulations governing
asbestos removal from buildings in Hayward, Calif., in 2000.

Settlements were previously reached with the building owner,
Cheng, Chow and Chu, Inc, for US$149,000 and the construction
company, Sincere Construction, for US$1,500.

The asbestos removal was also the subject of a criminal
investigation, which resulted in a plea agreement under which
the building owner Clifford Cheng served four months under house
arrest and paid a US$5,000 criminal penalty.

"This case was particularly important because of the large
amounts of asbestos and the delay in mitigating the problem,"
said Deborah Jordan, director of the Air Division in the EPA's
Pacific Southwest region.

In August 2000, Cheng, Chow and Chu hired Sincere Construction
to remove regulated asbestos-containing materials like acoustic
ceiling, tiles, linoleum, insulation, fire-proofing, and stucco
from the former Hayward Chiropractic College located on Maple
Court and Main Street in Hayward.

Timothy Chu Construction Consulting Services was hired to
oversee the work. Ultimately, more than 31,000 square feet of
asbestos-containing material was removed from the building.

In September 2000, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
investigators inspected the facility and saw workers using
wheelbarrows to dump dry construction debris in open containers,
creating clouds of dust and leaving wheelbarrow tracks. Sampling
showed the debris was friable asbestos.

EPA and Bay Area Air District investigators uncovered asbestos
emission and disposal violations in the building. Investigators
verified that the asbestos was not kept wet and emissions to the
outside air were apparent.

In addition, neither Sincere Construction nor Timothy Chu
Construction Consulting Services was a certified asbestos
contractor as required by law.

Despite repeated inspections, the asbestos remained unabated
until Oct. 20, 2000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Urged to Spur Quigley's Ch. 11 Exit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos victims' lawyers are pressuring Pfizer Inc. to speed up
the Chapter 11 exit of Quigley Co., a defunct unit whose
bankruptcy is shielding the drug maker from asbestos lawsuits,
Comtex Business reports.

An ad hoc group, which represents some asbestos victims has
asked a judge to put Quigley's bankruptcy in the hands of an
outside trustee, or at least clear the way to asbestos suits
against Pfizer.

On Sept. 3, 2004, Quigley filed for Chapter 11 protection in New
York, with a pre-negotiated deal to settle liabilities stemming
from sales of heat-resistant materials made by Quigley in the
1970s.

A ruling last summer has cast doubt on the deal Pfizer cut with
official representatives of asbestos claimants and meant that
the agreed-to Chapter 11 plan could not be confirmed.

The group has said that if a Chapter 11 trustee was out of the
question for Quigley, the court should at least drop the
restriction that has protected Pfizer from asbestos lawsuits.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a researched-based pharmaceuticals
firm, with products like Viagra, Celebrex, Zoloft, and Lipitor.
Subsidiaries include Embrex, Warner-Lambert, and Parke-Davis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sioux City Inks $7,500 Settlement With Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sioux City, Iowa, has reached a US$7,500 settlement with Old
Republic Surety Co., on a lawsuit over an asbestos-laden pile of
rubble in the former Stockyards, Sioux City Journal.com reports.

City legal staff negotiated the settlement with Old Republic,
which had issued a construction bond for Pat Sachau Excavation
Inc., the company contracted to demolish the fire-damaged
portion of the Livestock Exchange Building in 1998.

The debris pile with asbestos was discovered in 2004 when the
City demolished the remainder of the Livestock Exchange
Building.

The City sued Sachau Excavation and Canal Capital Corp., of
Hauppague, N.Y., which owned the Livestock Exchange Building at
the time and had hired Sachau Excavation.

Canal had required Sachau to carry a US$10,000 bond to insure
the work, and the City negotiated the US$7,500 settlement.

Assistant City Attorney Rosanne Lienhard said, CCircumstances
being what they were, this was the absolute best recovery we
could get."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Faces Property Damage, Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to face property damage and personal
injury lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing
products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

As of the Company's April 2, 2001 bankruptcy filing date, the
Company was a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17
involving claims for property damage (one of which has since
been dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims for
personal injury.

Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new suits against the Debtors.

Separate creditors' committees representing the interests of
property damage and personal injury claimants, and a legal
representative of future personal injury claimants, have been
appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases.

The Company's obligations with respect to present and future
claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and
materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Property Damage Claims v. Grace Drop to 519
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., as of April 30, 2007, recorded about 519
outstanding property damage claims after the reclassification,
withdrawal, or expungement of claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2007.

As of Jan. 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 625 outstanding
property damage claims after the reclassification, withdrawal,
or expungement of claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 23,
2007)

Plaintiffs in asbestos property damage suits seek to have the
defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing
the asbestos-containing materials in the affected buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases, which involved
thousands of buildings, filed before the Company's April 2, 2001
bankruptcy filing date, 140 were dismissed without payment of
any damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial were
entered in favor of the Company in nine cases, excluding cases
settled following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company.

Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases, one of which is on appeal, for a total of US$86.1
million; 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
US$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding, including the
one on appeal.

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to the Company's former
Zonolite Attic Insulation product and eight relate to a number
of former asbestos-containing products, two of which also are
alleged to involve ZAI.

About 4,300 more property damage claims were filed before the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
suits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 suits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.

These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the
removal, replacement and disposal of all such insulation. The
plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and
that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per
home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been
stayed.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos
and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no
unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.

The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a conference in May 2007 to
consider whether any of the claimant's theories of liability
still need to be addressed and what claims, if any, may still
remain.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and
materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2007.

Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly made by
the Company.

Cumulatively through the Company's April 2, 2001 bankruptcy
filing date, 16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving
about 35,720 claims were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts, primarily on the basis that
Company products were not involved, and about 55,489 suits
involving about 163,698 claims were disposed of, through
settlements and judgments, for a total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 claims for personal injury were
pending against the Company.

The total recorded asbestos-related liability as of March 31,
2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 was US$1.7 billion.

The amount recorded at March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 includes
the US$1.613 billion maximum amount reflected as a condition
precedent to the Plan of Reorganization and US$87 million
related to pre-Chapter 11 contractual settlements and judgments
included in general unsecured claims.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and
materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Notes $917M Coverage from 55 Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., as of March 31, 2007, recorded about US$917
million of asbestos-related excess coverage from 55 presently
solvent insurers, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2007.

The Company bought insurance policies that provided coverage for
years 1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related suits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts
paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount for settled insurers available under these settlement
agreements is about US$487 million.

Regarding asbestos-related personal injury claims, the
settlement agreements generally require that the claims be
spread over the claimant's exposure period and that each insurer
pay a pro rata portion of each claim based on the amount of
coverage provided during each year of the total exposure period.

The Company has no agreements in place with insurers with
respect to about US$430 million of excess coverage, which is at
layers of coverage that have not yet been triggered, but certain
layers would be triggered if the Plan of Reorganization were
approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of US$1.7
billion.

In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess
insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of
US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of
the holders of claims for which the Company was provided
coverage under the affected policies.

The escrow account balance at March 31, 2007 amounted to US$91.4
million, including interest earned on the account.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and
materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Estimates Mont. Liabilities at $255M
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., at March 31, 2007, estimates US$255 million
for asbestos remediation related to its former vermiculite
operations in Libby, Mont., compared with US$255.2 million at
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

As a result of a 2002 district court ruling, the Company is
required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million
(plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for
all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-related
remediation on the Company's former vermiculite mining and
processing activities in Libby.

These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs.

The estimated obligation as of each date includes US$164.4
million for asserted reimbursable costs through 2005, which
includes the US$54.5 million charge.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and
materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Employees Still Face Suit in Montana
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and seven current or former senior level
employees continue to face a lawsuit relating to the Company's
former vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby,
Mont., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and
seven current or former senior level employees in the action
styled United States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al.

The indictment accuses the defendants of: (1) conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and
(3) obstruction of justice.

The Company purchased the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it
until 1990. Vermiculite processing activities continued until
1992. The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from
1976 to 2002.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company could
be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax
profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged
loss suffered by victims, plus additional amounts for
restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that such after-
tax profits were US$140 million.

In March 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana entered a scheduling order setting a trial date of Sept.
11, 2006. In July 2006, the District Court dismissed a portion
of the conspiracy count of a superseding indictment alleging
conspiracy to knowingly endanger residents of the Libby area and
others in violation of the Clean Air Act.

In August 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the
defendants to exclude as evidence sample results that included
minerals that do not constitute asbestos under the Clean Air
Act.

The Government has appealed these and other rulings to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled oral argument for
June 2007. As a result of the appeal, the trial has been delayed
until September 2007 or later pending resolution of the appeals.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's
request to advance legal and defense costs to the employees,
subject to a reimbursement obligation if it is later determined
that the employees did not meet the standards for
indemnification set forth under the appropriate state corporate
law.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, total expense for the
Company and the employees amounted to US$2.5 million, compared
with US$10.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006.

While the appeal is pending, the Company expects legal fees for
this matter to be US$3 million to US$5 million per quarter.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and
materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Still Faces Action in N.J. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and two former employees continue to face an
asbestos-related action filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey Law Division: Mercer County, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2007.

Filed on June 1, 2005 by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, the suit is styled N.J. Dept. of
Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations
and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the DEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of the Company's former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J.

The Company is also aware that the State of New Jersey and the
U.S. Department of Justice each may be conducting criminal
investigations related to Grace's former operations of the
Hamilton plant. The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets
in 1963 and ceased operations in 1994.

During the operating period, the Company produced spray-on fire
protection products and vermiculite-based products at this
plant. The current property owners are conducting remediation
activities as directed by the EPA.

The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim
against the Company for this site and now seek about US$3.4
million with respect to the Hamilton plant site.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and
materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $299.2M Losses, Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp., for the three months ended March 31,
2007, recorded US$299,297,000 as gross asbestos-related unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses, compared with
US$280,981,000 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 9, 20007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
US$185,357,000 as net asbestos-related unpaid losses and LAE,
compared with US$137,656,000 for the three months ended March
31, 2006.

The Company has exposure to losses from asbestos, environmental
pollution and latent injury damage claims. The Company's
reserves for A&E related liabilities are from business written
in years 1985 and prior.

Gross unpaid A&E losses and loss adjustment expenses as of March
31, 2007 amounted to US$335 million, representing 6.5 percent of
total gross unpaid losses and LAE, compared with US$344.7
million, or 6.7 percent of total gross unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's survival ratio for A&E liabilities as of March 31,
2007 is 12 years. The survival ratio represents the asbestos and
environmental reserves, net of reinsurance, on March 31, 2007,
divided by the average paid A&E claims for the last three years
of US$18.3 million, which are net of reinsurance.

The Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related
liabilities is 11 years.

Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. writes treaty
and facultative reinsurance through its London Market (including
Lloyd's of London syndicate Newline), EuroAsia, and Americas
divisions. The Company offers marine, aerospace, and surety
reinsurance. The Company's casualty lines include general and
auto liability, professional liability, and accident and health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Records $64.1M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation LLC, at March 31, 2007, recorded US$64.1
million for asbestos-related matters, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2007.

There were about 176 cases for which the Company was potentially
liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31,
2007.

On Feb. 23, 2003, the Company entered into a supplemental
agreement with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation to
resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its reimbursement
obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental
indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

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

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company
apportioned responsibility for future asbestos-related claims
based upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth
Edison locations or Company locations. The obligations under
this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.

The supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision. Payments are made under this
indemnity upon tender by Commonwealth Edison of appropriate
proof of liability for an asbestos-related settlement, judgment,
verdict, or expense.

Chicago-based Midwest Generation LLC has a generating capacity
of more than 5,610 MW from its six coal-fired power plants in
Illinois. The Company also oversees the operation of the Fisk
and Waukegan on-site generating plants which have 305 MW of
capacity. Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison
International's merchant energy business, Edison Mission Energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Drop to 230
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 10 percent of the 2,300 product liability lawsuits filed
against Mine Safety Appliances Co. is asbestos-related,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

About 10 percent of the 2,500 product liability suits filed
against Mine Safety Appliances Co. is asbestos-related. (Class
Action Reporter, March 23, 2007)

The Company faces about 2,300 suits primarily involving
respiratory protection products allegedly made and sold by the
Company. Collectively, these suits represent a total of about
16,500 plaintiffs. About 90 percent of these suits involve
plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or made
by the Company.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective
equipment for workers in the military, as well as the fire
service, construction, homeland security industries, and miners.
The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas
masks, and head protection gear.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Corp. Still Faces About 375 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp., through its formerly owned McKesson Chemical Co.
division, continues to face about 375 cases involving the
alleged distribution of asbestos, according to a Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2007.

These cases involved either single or multiple plaintiffs
claiming personal injuries and unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.

Under an indemnification agreement signed at the time of the
1986 sale of McKesson Chemical Co. to what is now called Univar
USA Inc., the Company has tendered each of these actions to
Univar.

Univar has raised questions concerning the extent of its
obligations under the indemnification agreement, and while
Univar continues to defend the Company in many of these cases,
it has been rejecting the Company's tenders of new cases since
February 2005.

The Company said that it believes Univar remains obligated for
all tendered cases under the terms of the indemnification
agreement.

However, the Company is beginning to incur defense costs in
connection with these more recently served actions.

San Francisco-based McKesson Corp. is a pharmaceutical
distributor that operates in three segments: pharmaceutical
distribution, Medical-Surgical Unit, and Provider Technologies
segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Corp. Has 34,798 Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corp., at March 30, 2007, recorded about 34,798
outstanding asbestos claims filed against it, of which 1,409
were non-maritime and 33,389 were maritime.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded about 40,400 asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, March
23, 2007)

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company.

At March 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, the Company has accrued, on
a gross basis, about US$5.2 million, and had recorded about
US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these suits.

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corp. makes aluminum,
copper, and fiber-optic wire and cable, including industrial and
specialty products, energy products, and communications
products. The Company also produces power cables, automotive
wire, mining cables, and custom-designed cables for medical
equipment and other products.


                            *********


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  * * *