CAR_Public/070525.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 103

                            Headlines


40/40 CLUB: Former Waitress Files Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
AAFES: Recalls Toys Due to Paint Peeling, High Lead Content
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Sued by OrthoClear Settlement Class Members
ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Lawsuit Challenges $27.5BB TPG Merger Deal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: June Hearing Set in $100M Securities Suit Deal

BASF CORP: Fairness Hearing for $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Set June
CANADA: Saskatoon Condo Buyers Sue Developer for Failed Project
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Suit Against Archdiocese of Portland Dismissed
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Moves to Dismiss Parts of Investors' Suit
CVS RX: Fla. Pharmacists Sue to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages

DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS: Tex. Suit Claims Firms Tamper Odometers
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Accused of Charging Illegal Payday Loan Rates
FIELDSTONE INVESTMENT: Faces Investor Suit Over Sale to C-BASS
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Approves $64M Paxil Suit Settlement
HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Aims to Collect Wages

KENTUCKY: Work Program for Retired Judges Runs Until 2009
KTM NORTH: Recalls Motorcycles Posing Chemical Burn, Fire Risks
LOUISIANA: City Sued for Allegedly Overbilling Utility Customers
MASSACHUSETTS: Suit Seeks Better Care for Brain-injured Persons
MAURITANIA: Ex-Pres. Sued in N.Y. Over Human Rights Violations

MBIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
MEDPLANS PARTNERS: Ky. Suit Claims Overtime Compensation Denial
METLIFE LIFE: Court Reverses Class Certification in "Macomber"
METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: Still Faces Tenants' Litigation in N.Y.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suits Over Policies in Canada

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Sides with Firm in "Brubaker"
MICROSOFT CORP: $179M Antitrust Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
NASHUA CORP: Plaintiffs Fail to Refile Claim in Cerion IPO Suit
NEW CENTURY: Loan Officers to Pursue Claim for Overtime Pay
NEW CENTURY: Chapter 11 Cases Include WARN Act Violation Claim

ORACLE CORP: Court to Rule on Letting British Author Testify
PETCO ANIMAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Greenies Dog Chews
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Mutual Fund Kickbacks
REFCO COMMODITY: Moves to Lift Stay to Pursue Dismissal Request
REFCO INC: Lift Stay Order in Sunstate Investors' Suit Expanded

SIRVA INC: Parties Seek to Settle Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SMART & FINAL: Settles Calif. Suit Over Sharp Merger Agreement
TB ISLE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation
TIMOTHY J. BROPHY: Wis. Court Okays Settlement with Tenants
TRI-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rattles with Detachable Parts

U.S. ENGINEERING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
U.S. RECOVERY: Student in Bounty Hunter Class Files Fraud Suit
W.R. GRACE: Opposes Anderson Memorial's Access to Privilege Log


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $401.6M Liability in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Ltd. Has 135,260 U.S. Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 326 U.K. Claims at 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $517.9M for A&E Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Celanese Units Rise to 658 in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Records 145T Open Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 19,120 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. Brandon Drying Drop to 9,089
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Faces Mt. Vernon Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Actions from Old Businesses

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. IntriCon Corp. Remain at 122 in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $7.75M for Liability Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Corp. Drop to 375 in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Faces Stehman Suit in California

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $10.37M Liabilities in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms $9.2M Settlement to Congoleum
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 95 Exposure Suits in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Opens 109 Cases in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 115 Pending Suits in 1Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Ohio Faces Fewer than 10 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Indiana Faces 120 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Faces Exposure Actions in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,381 Claims in 1Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces 3rd Party Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Continues to Face G-I Holdings Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Has 1,900 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire State Still Faces Staniszek Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Accrues $768T for Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 101 Hilco Claimants

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Recognizes $11T for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reached in Phase I of Congoleum Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Firms Fined CDN175T for Removal Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Asks Court to Bar Suits v. BNSF
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Worker's Kin Sues 44 Firms in Illinois

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 43 Companies in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 16 Firms in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ironworker Sues 55 Companies in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Warns of Dangers of Working with Hazard
ASBESTOS ALERT: Meruelo Maddux Sued for Illegal Waste Disposal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

XINHUA FINANCE: Bernstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


40/40 CLUB: Former Waitress Files Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 40/40 club owned by rapper Shawn Carter a.k.a. Jay-Z in W.
25th St. in New York is facing a class action filed by a former
waitress alleging she wasn't paid for overtime, New York Posts'
Daily News reports.

Celeste Williams filed the suit in Manhattan Federal court on
May 22.  She is seeking class-action status for the suit on
behalf of bartenders, table clearers and waiters.  She claims
the club doesn't pay minimum wage and takes a portion of their
tips.  Named defendants are: Shawn Carter, Twenty Ones dba The
40/40 Club, club co-owner Juan Perez and Desiree Gonzales.

Ms. Williams is seeking unspecified damages in her suit on
behalf of more than 100 staffers.

40/40 says it hasn't been served with any papers.  Ms. Williams
allegedly worked at the club for only four days.

Ms. Williams' lawyer is:

          Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP
          757 Third Avenue
          25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


AAFES: Recalls Toys Due to Paint Peeling, High Lead Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
AAFES (Army & Air Force Exchange Service) of Dallas, Texas, is
voluntarily recalling about 3,000 Invincibles Transport
Converters Toy Sets.

The firm said surface paints on the toy action figures contain
high levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young
children and can cause adverse health effects.

AAFES has not received any injury or incident reports.

This recall involves toy sets with multiple action figures and
vehicles.  The model number (88931), Universal Product Code (6
98567 88931 4) and Soldier Bear logo are printed on the
product's packaging.  The backs of the action figures are marked
with letters "TC-ST."

Toy Century Industrial Ltd. of Hong Kong manufactured these
products, which were sold at AAFES stores worldwide from August
2006 through April 2007 for about $20.

Click the link to view the photo:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07193.html

Consumers should immediately take the toys away from children
and return the product to the nearest AAFES store for full
refund.

For additional information, call AAFES at (800) 866-3605 anytime
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.aafes.com.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Sued by OrthoClear Settlement Class Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. was notified of a purported class-action
complaint that was filed against it, OrthoClear Inc., and
OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., d/b/a OrthoClear, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York on May 18,
2007.

The Complaint, filed on behalf of Debra A. Weber and all others
similarly situated, alleges that orthodontic treatments of the
plaintiff dental patients "were interrupted, unduly prolonged or
terminated as a result of defendants' unlawful conduct" relating
to the OrthoClear settlement.

Following the OrthoClear settlement, Align Technology launched
the Patients First Program to provide new Invisalign treatment
to former OrthoClear patients at no charge to patients or their
doctors.

The Complaint alleges two causes of action against the
OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align
Technology for breach of contract.  The cause of action against
Align Technology references Align's agreement to make Invisalign
treatment available to OrthoClear patients, alleging that Align
failed "to provide the promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of
the Class Members."

As of May 21, 2007, Align had shipped approximately 23,400 of
the 24,700 cases submitted under the Patients First Program,
including all Invisalign aligners for the named Plaintiff.  The
remaining in-process cases are expected to ship in the second
quarter of 2007, as previously reported by the Company.

Align Technology has reviewed the allegations contained in the
Complaint and believes they are without merit.  It intends to
vigorously defend itself against the Complaint.

The suit is "Weber v. Align Technology, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Norman A. Mordue,
with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mark J. Schulte, Esq.
          Daniel B. Berman, Esq.
          Maureen E. Maney, Esq.
          Zachary M. Mattison, Esq.
          Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm
          P.O. Box 4976
          1500 MONY Tower I
          Syracuse, NY 13221-4976
          Phone: 315-471-3151
          Fax: 315-471-3167 or 315-233-4312
          E-mail: mschulte@hancocklaw.com or
                  dberman@hancocklaw.com or
                  mmaney@hancocklaw.com or
                  zmattison@hancocklaw.com


ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Lawsuit Challenges $27.5BB TPG Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in Little
Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, filed a class action in the
Pulaski County (Ark.) Circuit Court on behalf of holders of
Alltel Corp. (AT) Common Stock.  The case is CV 2007 006406.

The suit, filed against Alltel and its directors, alleges that
certain Alltel insiders and directors were provided with
preferential treatment in connection with their efforts to
complete the sale of Alltel to TPG Capital, formally Texas
Pacific Group and GS Capital Partners, a subsidiary of Goldman
Sachs in a transaction valued at approximately $27.5 billion.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, TPG Capital and GSCP
will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Alltel for
$71.50 per share in cash.  The purchase price per share
represents a 23% premium over Alltel's closing share price prior
to media reports of a potential transaction published on Dec.
29, 2006.  

The Arkansas complaint further alleges that Alltel and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties by placing their own
interests ahead of the company's public shareholders by agreeing
to a merger, which will offer a meager premium to shareholders
but will enrich the directors significantly upon consummation of
the "change of control" transaction.

For further information, contact:

          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          Emerson Poynter LLP
          500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 305
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone:  501.907.2555
          Toll Free:  800.663.9817
          Fax: 501.907.2556
          E-mail: alltelcase@emersonpoynter.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: June Hearing Set in $100M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a final fairness hearing on June 4 at 10:00 a.m. for a
proposed settlement in the matter, "In re American Express
Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04
Civ. 1773 (DAB)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Deborah A. Batts of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
24B, New York, NY 10007.

The settlement covers all persons and entities who, at any time
from and including March 10, 1999 through and including April 1,
2006:

      -- paid a fee for financial advisory services as described
         in the American Express or Ameriprise Financial
         Advisory Services Brochure and the Financial Advisory
         Service Agreement;

      -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors
         (now Ameriprise) any mutual fund in the American
         Express or Ameriprise Preferred Provider Program,
         Select Group Program, or other similar program;
     
      -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors  
         any mutual fund sold under the American Express, AXP,
         or RiverSource brand;

      -- paid a fee for financial advice, financial planning, or
         other financial advisory services rendered in
         connection with the American Express or Ameriprise
         Strategic Portfolio Service program, Wealth Management
         Service program, or Separately Managed Account program.

Generally, plaintiffs in the consolidated action, assert claims
against Defendants under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933; Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rules
10b-5(a)-(c) and 10b-10 promulgated thereunder; Section 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. Sections 80b-5, 80b-6; the
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Minnesota
Consumer Fraud Act; Minnesota False Advertisement Act; Minnesota
Unlawful Trade Practices Act; and for breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment.

In October 2005, a comprehensive settlement was reached
regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against
the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004.  

The settlement, under which the company denies any liability,
includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class
members.  

On Feb. 14, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and
set a final fairness hearing for June 4.

Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement were due May
7.  Deadline for submission of claim forms is July 10.

For more information, contact AEFA Securities Litigation
Settlement c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9089,
Dublin, OH 43017-0989, Phone: 1-888-212-5605, Web site:
http://www.financialfeesettlement.com.

The suit is "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Deborah A. Batts.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jules Brody, Aaron Lee Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6  
         East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:  
         (212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail:  
         ssbny@aol.com;
  
     (2) Sharon M. Lee, Andrei V. Rado, Michael Robert Reese,  
         Steven G. Schulman and Peter Edward Seidman, Milberg,  
         Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P., One  
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)  
         594-5300, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com,
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com, pseidman@milberg.com; and
  
     (3) Jonathan K. Levine, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo,  
         L.L.P., 601 California Street Suite 1400, San  
         Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: (415) 981-4800, Fax: (415)  
         981-4846, E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com.

Representing the company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


BASF CORP: Fairness Hearing for $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Set June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold
a Final Approval Hearing on June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for a
$62.5 million nationwide settlement of a suit filed by farmers
who purchased BASF Corp.'s herbicide POAST(R).

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 in Norman County District Court,
Ada, Minnesota by 11 farmers who accused New Jersey-based BASF
Corp. of fraudulently marketing the same herbicide as different
products -- POAST and POAST Plus -- at different prices.

The lawsuit claimed that this marketing was intended to obtain
inflated prices for the same herbicide from minor crop farmers.
Minor crop farmers are growers of sugarbeets, sunflowers,
potatoes, field beans, fruits and vegetables, and flowers.  

After a trial and numerous appeals, the farmers prevailed.

On Nov. 17, 2006, BASF paid $62.5 million into the Farmers'
Common Fund, an interest-bearing bank account approved by the
court, to hold farmers' money until distribution.

The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same,
but that BASF charged more for Poast (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 15, 2006).

Farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are
eligible to share in the judgment.  Plaintiffs' attorney Douglas  
Nill estimated that several thousand farmers are eligible.  The
distribution will be pro rata.

Objections and claim filing were due May 9 and May 16,
respectively.

The class action on the Net: http://www.poastclassaction.com/.

The suit is "Peterson v. BASF Corp., Case No. C2-97-295," filed
in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota.

Class Counsel is Douglas J. Nill, P.A., 1100 One Financial
Plaza, 120 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801,
Phone: 1-866-573-3669 (Toll-free), Website:
http://www.FarmLaw.com.


CANADA: Saskatoon Condo Buyers Sue Developer for Failed Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of angry would-be homeowners in Saskatoon, Canada, have
filed a class action against Jastek Master Builder, CBC News
reports.

Jastek Master Builder, a home developer, signed contracts for
condominium development with about 50 individuals sometime in
January.

Some months later, these people received letters saying Jastek
was canceling the development because it was unable to secure a
development permit.

The lawsuit alleges the company breached the contract.  It seeks
to have the company either honor the agreement or compensate the
people involved for the deposits they made.

One of the plaintiffs, Gina Smith, found the whole situation
devastating and said she can no longer afford a house in
Saskatoon because the housing prices have increased
considerably.

Jastek has 20 days to file its defense argument.

George Green of Sakskatoon, Saskatchewan is representing the
plaintiffs.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Suit Against Archdiocese of Portland Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action against the Archdiocese of Portland in
Oregon agreed to dismiss the suit after the Honorable Elizabeth
L. Perris approved a settlement under the archdiocese's Chapter
11 case.

Judge Perris overruled all objections to the Class Action
Settlement.  Subsequently, the Archdiocese of Portland in
Oregon, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants, and other
parties, in an approved stipulated order, agree to dismiss the
case with prejudice and without costs to any party (Catholic
Church Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 92).

Several parties tried to block approval of the Settlement,
specifically (i) AbiJah Shachag (ii) the Class Counsel and the
Committee of Catholic Parishes, Parishioners and Other
Interested Parties, (iii)) Ray Jordan, a certified public
accountant, and (iv) Charles E. Wagner of Hillsboro, Oregon.

The parties argued, among other things, that the restructuring
of the Archdiocese should be agreed to in all respects before
the Settlement is approved.

The Class Action Settlement relates to a defendant class action
(Adversary Proceeding No. 04-03292-elp filed in the Bankruptcy
Case).

Under the Class Action Settlement, in consideration for the
Debtor's payment in full of the allowed amount of all claims
under the Second Amended and Restated Joint Plan of
Reorganization:

     (1) the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice on the
         Effective Date of the Plan;

     (2) if the court approves the plan, the Debtor, the
         Parishes and Schools will receive a discharge from
         liability for all claims that arose prior to the
         Effective Date of the Plan.  Thereafter, those with
         claims that arose prior to the Effective Date may seek
         recovery only under the terms of the Plan;

     (3) the Parishes, Schools and the Debtor will be
         restructured under civil law in the 12 months following
         the Effective Date of the Plan, among other things, to
         make clear under civil law the ownership interests
         effective under ecclesiastical law; and

     (4) the Disclosure Statement states:

              "It is anticipated that no Parish or School
              property will be used to pay Claims or serve as
              collateral for any loans, and that the Reorganized
              Debtor will be able to provide the necessary
              funding to pay Claims without increasing the
              Parish assessments."

The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon filed for chapter 11
protection (Bankr. Ore. Case No. 04-37154) on July 6, 2004.

On July 22, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order in a
lawsuit certifying parishes and parishioners as a class of
defendants.

At issue in the lawsuit is whether Catholic parishes, schools
and certain funds are available to the Archdiocese to pay
settlements of tort claims and to other creditors.

The main issues in the Lawsuit are whether Parishes, Schools and
certain funds are unrestricted assets belonging to the Debtor
and available to creditors of the Debtor.

The Debtor, the Parishes and Schools contend, among other
things, that such assets are restricted and are not available to
pay creditors of the Debtor.

The Tort Claimants Committee contends that such property is the
unrestricted property of the Debtor and is available to pay
creditors of the Debtor.

The Committee of Parishioners - Western Oregon on the Net:
           http://www.parishionerscommittee.org/

The suit is "In Re: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon, and successors, a corporation sole, dba the Archdiocese
of Portland in Oregon, Debtor, Case No. 04-37154-elp11."

Class Counsel is Douglas R. Pahl of Perkins Coie LLP, 1120 N.W.
Couch Street, Tenth Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503)
727-2121, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:
parishclass@perkinscoie.com.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Moves to Dismiss Parts of Investors' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Crocus Investment lawyers presented to a Winnipeg court motions
to dismiss portions of a suit filed by fund investors, CJOB
reports.

Investors filed the CAN$200M suit in 2005 after the labor-
sponsored fund failed.

The suit alleges, among others, that the province "did not
properly enforce the Crocus Act," and that provincial officials
"deliberately ignored multiple warning signs regarding the
management of the Crocus Fund" (Class Action Reporter, Nov 22,
2006).

Lead plaintiffs, GrowthWorks Canadian Fund Ltd. and Bernie
Bellan, have proposed a $1 million settlement for the suit.

Defendants in the suit are:

     - Crocus Investment;
     - Manitoba Securities Commission;
     - 17 individuals that include past senior officers and
       members of the fund's board of directors; and
     - Manitoba province.

Hearing for class certification is set on September.

Lead attorney for the investors is:

          David Klein, Esq.
          David Klein, Klein Lyons
          Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway    
          Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1
          Phone: (604) 874-7171


CVS RX: Fla. Pharmacists Sue to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS RX Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
May 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Jeffrey Charron 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).

Mr. Charron files this complaint on behalf of all pharmacists
who worked for CVS Rx at any time within the past three years
and who performed services for defendants for which no
provisions were made to properly pay them for those hours worked
in excess of 40 within a work week.

The complaint claims that during plaintiffs' employment, they
were not paid time and one-half their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one or
more work weeks.  Instead, plaintiffs were paid "straight time"
for their hours in excess of 40 within the work week.

According to the complaint, as a result of defendants'
intentional, willful, and unlawful acts in refusing to pay
plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate of pay for each
hour worked in excess of 40 per work week in one or more work
weeks, plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for the payment of
all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular rate of pay
for the hours worked by them for which defendant did not
properly compensate them, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action, declaratory
relief and for such other and further relief the court deems
just and proper.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2017

The suit is "Charron v. CVS RX Services, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00327-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with
referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS: Tex. Suit Claims Firms Tamper Odometers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC and DaimlerChrylser Corp. are
facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas accusing it of tampering with
odometers.

Named plaintiff Kimberlee Jarrell claims that on or about May
27, 2005, she purchased a 2005 Dodge Durango, designed,
manufactured and marketed by DaimlerChrysler Corp. and/or
DaimlerChrysler Motors.  She further purchased a basic warranty
against all manufacturing defects for a period of three years or
36,000 miles.  She had also purchased warranties of varying
duration on a number of components of the Durango.

The suit claims that in connection with the sale of the vehicle
and these warranties, DaimlerChrysler impliedly represented to
Ms. Jarrell that the vehicle's odometer would accurately record
the miles actually driven by the vehicle.  Allegedly, however,
DaimlerChrysler had purposefully designed the vehicle's odometer
to inflate the mileage driven by the vehicle by a factor not
less than 3% under nominal conditions, Ms. Jarrell's suit
claims.

The complaint alleges DaimlerChrysler achieved this over-
registration by installing a computer software device in the
vehicle that altered the odometer's performance by an amount
that exceeds the odometer manufacturer's design tolerance.

Plaintiff alleges that DaimlerChrysler adopted a uniform, biased
odometer performance standard that purposefully accelerated the
odometers of all DaimlerChrysler vehicles in the U.S.

Ms. Jarrell specifically alleges that DaimlerChrysler altered
the odometer of her vehicle with the intent to defraud.

Ms. Jarrell seeks to represent all persons and entities
who/which purchased, leased or otherwise acquired an automobile
designed or manufactured by Daimlerchrysler anywhere in the U.S.
since May 22, 2005.

She brings this action as a Plaintiff Class Action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a)(3), asking:

     (a) if DaimlerChrysler adopted a uniform odometer
         performance standard for all its vehicles;

     (b) if DaimlerChrysler installed a computer device to alter
         the performance of the odometer in violation of federal
         law;

     (c) if the odometer performance standard adopted by
         DaimlerChrysler causes errors of odometer over-
         registration;

     (d) if the installation of the computer device causes
         errors of odometer over-registration;

     (e) if such odometer over-registration was the result of
         DaimlerChrysler's intent to defraud;

     (f) the measure of actual damages;

     (g) the availabitlity of the statutory penalties; and

     (h) attorney's fees and costs.

Ms. Jarrell prays that upon final trial, she obtain judgment as
follows:

    -- certifying the case as a class action and appointing her
       and her counsel to represent the interests of the class;

    -- adjudging that DaimlerChrysler violated the federal
       prohibition against odometer tampering and that it did so
       with the intent to defraud American consumers;

     -- awarding her and the class their actual damages in an
        amount sufficient to restore to them the benefit of
        their bargain;

     -- awarding her and the class treble their actual damages
        or not less than $1,500 for each class vehicle delivered
        in the U.S. in the last two years;

     -- awarding her and the class their reasonable attorneys'
        fees incurred at trial and, if necessary, on appeal;

     -- taxing all costs of court and the expenses of
        maintaining this suit (including class member
        notification expenses) against DaimlerChrysler; and

     -- awarding her and the class all pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interests as may be allowed under law at the
        highest respective lawful rates.

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?200d

The suit is "Jarrell v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00205-TJW-CE," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge T. John Ward with
referral to Judge Charles Everingham.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          James Andrew Holmes, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          605 South Main, Suite 203
          Henderson, TX 75654
          Phone: 903/657-2800
          Fax: 903/657-2855
          E-mail: jh@jamesholmeslaw.com

          David Brian Miller, Esq.
          Law Offices of David B Miller
          4350 Beltway Dr
          Addison, TX 75001
          Phone: 972/991-2222
          E-mail: david@schneidlaw.com

          - and -

          Robert Stephen Woodfin, Esq.
          Law Office of R. Stephen Woodfin
          PO Box 1638
          Kilgore, TX 75663
          Phone: 903/984-0518
          Fax: 9039842574
          E-mail: stephenwoodfin@sydcom.net


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Accused of Charging Illegal Payday Loan Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in
Alameda County Court accusing it of charging unconscionable and
illegal rates for "payday loans," CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff, Amy Baille, claims she borrowed $300 and paid
$977 in interest over five months, and the defendant claims she
still owes it $430.

According to the complaint, co-defendant Dollar Financial Group,
made more than $300 million in fiscal years 2005-2006 from its
more than 100 "financial service stores in California."

Ms. Baille seeks accounting, restitution for usury and unjust
enrichment and an injunction.

Representing Ms. Baille is:

          Harold M. Jaffe, Esq.
          Stephen H. Cornet A Professional Corporation  
          3521 Grand Ave
          Oakland, CA 94610-2011
          Phone: (510) 452-2610
          Fax: (510) 452-9125

Dollar Financial (NASDAQ (GS): DLLR) -- http://www.dfg.com--
through its subsidiary Dollar Financial Group, operates more
than 1,250 check-cashing stores (about 40% are franchises) in
the US, Canada, and the UK.  In addition to check cashing, the
stores offer payday lending, money wires, transfers, electronic
tax filing, and reloadable Visa debit cards.


FIELDSTONE INVESTMENT: Faces Investor Suit Over Sale to C-BASS
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action has been filed in Howard County
Circuit Court, seeking to block the acquisition of Fieldstone
Investment Corp. by Credit-Based Asset Servicing and
Securitization LLC, Baltimore Sun reports.

The New York firm C-BASS, which collects mortgage payments and
buys troubled loans, acquired some of Fieldstone Investment's
assets sometime in February to keep it buoyant.

The agreement indicates that Fieldstone shareholders would get
$4 in cash per share.  Most of the shareholders who voted in
person or proxy were in favor of the deal held at a recent
special shareholders meeting.

The suit alleges that mortgage banker Michael J. Sonnenfeld,
founder of Fieldstone, and other directors failed to do their
fiduciary duty by not lobbying for a higher stock price.

C-BASS lawyer Edward J. Fuhr expects that the lawsuit will be
dismissed.  For him, the transaction was in favor of the
shareholder.  He added that the suit was chiefly aimed to
"enjoin the shareholders from voting on the proposed
transaction, and it wholly failed in that effort."

In the first quarter, Fieldstone declared it lost $69 million
and had $416 million in loans that were more than three months
past due.  It announced about a month ago that it would close
down some of its branches and lay off employees.

For more information about the case, contact:

          Edward J. Fuhr, Esq.
          Hunton & Williams LLP
          Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074
          Phone: 804-788-8200
          Fax: 804-788-8218 or 804-788-8219
          Web Site: http://www.hunton.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Approves $64M Paxil Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn granted final
approval to a $64 million settlement of a suit over
GlaxoSmithKline plc's anti-depressant drug Paxil, The Associated
Press reports.

The suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use
by children and adolescents while withholding negative
information about the medication's safety and effectiveness.
The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and
Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug.  

Judge Mendelsohn approved on Oct. 6 and unsealed on Oct. 27 the
$63.8 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2006).

Under the deal, announced in April and granted final approval
last week, parents with proof that they bought GlaxoSmithKline
Paxil and Paxil CR for their children can recoup out-of-pocket
expenses.

Under the new settlement, anyone who purchased Paxil for someone
under 18 will get 100 percent of their out-of-pocket expenses
reimbursed if they have proof and file a claim by Aug. 31.

Anyone who does not have proof of purchase is still entitled to
receive up to $100 if the claim is supported by an affidavit
swearing that Paxil was purchased.

Plaintiffs' attorneys can claim more than $16 million in fees,
which will be deducted from the settlement fund, with the
remaining money available for payments to consumers.

Any money left over in the settlement fund is to be returned to
GlaxoSmithKline.

The Settlement on the Net:

         http://www.paxilpediatricsettlement.com
         http://www.paxilprogress.org
         http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com

Contact information for class attorney Stephen Tillery Mr. --
http://www.carrkorein.com/-- Belleville, Illinois (St. Clair     
Co.).


HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Aims to Collect Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Homebridge Mortgage Bankers, Corp. a/k/a Refinance.com is facing
a class-action complaint filed May 22 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiffs -- Kenneth Saunders, Craig Feit, Diego Montoya,
Bruce Nazzaro, Sheldon Rosenburg, Sean Barnes and Anthony Wong -
- bring this action to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory
penalties, other damages and attorneys' fees owed to plaintiffs
and all other similarly situated persons employed or formerly
employed by defendants.

Plaintiffs were non-exempt mortgage consultants who were not
paid overtime indirect violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. within the past three years.

Defendants were obligated to compensate plaintiffs for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the statutory rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate, the suit says.  
Defendants were also obligated to compensate plaintiffs at least
minimum wage for all hours worked.

By failing to pay compensation due under the FLSA, defendants
willfully and knowingly violated provisions of the FLSA which
require overtime compensation be paid to all non-exempt
employees.

As a result of defendants' willful and unlawful practice of
paying less than the required rate and amount, plaintiffs have
been damaged.

Plaintiffs request that the court award them compensatory
damages, including all compensation (minimum wage and overtime)
owed, all interest on all compensation accruing from the date
such amount were due, liquidated damages in an amount equal to
the compensation shown to be owed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 448.08 against defendants,
and such other monetary and equitable relief as the court deems
just and proper.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2019

The suit is "Saunders et al v. Homebridge Mortgage Bankers,
Corp. et al., Case No. 9:07-cv-80442-KLR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
Kenneth L. Ryskamp with referral to Judge Ann E. Vitunac.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Miguel Armenteros, Esq.
          Damian & Valori LLP
          1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-371-3960
          Fax: 371-3965
          E-mail: marmenteros@dvllp.com


KENTUCKY: Work Program for Retired Judges Runs Until 2009
---------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled that a senior status
program for judges does not expire until Jan. 31, 2009, Brandon
Ortiz of Kentucky.com reports.

The ruling is made in a class action involving all active judges
in Kentucky who were seeking to clarify the terms of the
program.  Some fear it may expire on June 30.

The program allows retired judges to work clearing case backlogs
in exchange for a significantly enhanced retirement benefit.  It
was created in 2000 and amended in 2002.

It is clear from statements made surrounding the 2002 passage of
the amendment that the General Assembly intended to extend the
program to 2009, Judge Wingate said, according to the report.

The suit was field by judges Messer, Steve D. Hurt and Doughlas
M. George.  They were represented by James E. Keller, a retired
Supreme Court justice, and Donald Cetrulo, a former director of
the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The lawsuit names as respondents the Board of Trustees of the
Kentucky Judicial Form Retirement System and Chief Justice
Joseph Lambert.

Representing the plaintiffs were Donald Cetrulo, a former
director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and:

          James E. Keller, Esq.
          Gess Mattingly & Atchison, P.S.C.
          201 West Short Street
          Lexington, Kentucky 40507-1269
          Phone: 859-252-9000
          Fax: 859-233-4269
          Web Site: http://www.gmalaw.com


KTM NORTH: Recalls Motorcycles Posing Chemical Burn, Fire Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KTM North America Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, is voluntarily
recalling about 20,000 Off-Road Motorcycles.

According to KTM, the seal around the fuel tank can loosen
allowing fuel to leak, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

KTM has received 5,114 reports of leaking fuel tanks.  CPSC has
received one report of a minor chemical burn due to fuel coming
into contact with a consumer's skin.

This recall involves KTM off-road motorcycles.  KTM is printed
on the side of the orange and black motorcycles along with the
model.  Model numbers included in the recall are:
     
     Model Year 2005     250SX-F;

     Model Year 2006     200XC, 200XC-W, 250XC-W, 250SX-F,
                         250XCF-W, 300XC, 300XC-W, 400EXC-G,
                         450XC-G, 450EXC-G, and 525EXC-G;

     Model Year 2007  125SX, 144SX, 250SX, 250SX-F, 450SX-F,
                         505SX-F, 200XC, 250XC, 300XC, 450XC,
                         200XCW, 250XCW, 300XCW, 400XCW, 450XCW,
                         525XCW, 250XC-F, and 250XCF-W.

These off-road motorcycles, which were manufactured in Austria,
were sold at KTM dealers nationwide from November 2004 through
April 2007 for between $5,400 and $7,800.

Photo of the motorcycle subject for recall:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07194.html

Consumers should stop using these vehicles immediately and
contact their local KTM dealer to schedule an appointment for a
free repair.  Consumers with the recalled vehicles are being
sent direct notices from KTM.

For more information, contact KTM at (888) 985-6090 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.ktmnorthamerica.com


LOUISIANA: City Sued for Allegedly Overbilling Utility Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Alexandria in Louisiana has been served with a
purported class action that claims it has been overbilling
utility customers for a decade, The Associated Press reports.

The petition for a class action was filed in state District
Court by Shreveport attorney Larry English on behalf of eight
people identified as Alexandria ratepayers.  It contends that
Alexandria has defrauded ratepayers since 1997.

Mr. English told The Associated Press that he expects to add
more names to the lawsuit this week.

City Council President Everett Hobbs told The Associated Press
that he would like to research how the city reads fuel
adjustment costs for electricity, which Mr. English alleges have
been miscalculated.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount of damages in addition to a refund of alleged overcharges
to all affected ratepayers.

For more details, contact:

         Larry English, Esq.
         401 Edwards Street, Suite 826
         Shreveport, LA 71101
         Phone: (318) 222-1900
         Fax: (318) 226-1660


MASSACHUSETTS: Suit Seeks Better Care for Brain-injured Persons
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brain-injured people in Worcester, Mass. filed a class action
charging the state with denying them access to community
settings, Richard Nangle of Telegram & Gazette Staff reports.

The suit, similar to "Rosie D. v. Romney," also known as the
"stuck kids" case that had the state move institutionalized
mentally ill patients into residential facilities, alleges the
state violated the Americans With Disabilities Act and some
federal laws by institutionalizing brain-injured people.

It claims that even some of the institutionalized are not
receiving necessary services, including assistance with personal
care, speech, occupational and physical therapy; medical and
nursing services; vocational training or day rehabilitation
programs; medical equipment, transportation; and integrated
social and recreational activities.

According to the plaintiffs' lawyer, Richard Johnston, there are
about 8,200 individuals with brain injuries residing in nursing
and rehabilitation facilities in Massachusetts.  

One of the lead plaintiffs, 57-year old Glen Jones, has spent 21
years in Worcester Skilled Care Center after a motor vehicle
accident left him in a coma for weeks.

He has not received the services necessary for his release into
the general population because efforts to identify existing
residential programs were unsuccessful, the suit states.

The suit also states that because the Brain Injury Statewide
Specialized Community is inadequately funded, applicants are
forced to wait for several years without receiving the services
they need.

In a written statement, lead plaintiff Cathy Hutchinson,
indicated she has lived in a nursing home for almost 11 years
after a stroke, leaving her a mute quadriplegic.  

The complaint claims that the state only provides community
residential services to people who have suffered a traumatic
brain injury, which is not the result of a medical condition
such as a stroke.

Lawyer for the Center for Public Representation Steven Schwartz
said the state has refused to apply for federal funding to help
pay for the transitioning of such people from institutions into
the community.

The suit asks that the state place about 2,000 similarly injured
people into a community setting that could help them live better
within 5 years.  

Defendants are:

     -- Gov. Deval L. Patrick;

     -- JudyAnn Bigby, secretary of the Executive Office of
        Health and Human Services;

     -- Leslie A. Kirwan, secretary of the Executive Office of
        Administration and Finance;

     -- Thomas Dehner, acting director of MassHealth; and

     -- Elmer C. Bartels, commissioner of the Massachusetts
        Rehabilitation Commission.

The case is "Hutchinson et al. v. Patrick et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-30084-KPN," filed in the U.S. District Court in Springfield
with Judge Kenneth P. Neiman presiding.

For more information about the case, contact:

          Richard A. Johnston, Esq.
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, Massachusetts 02109
          Phone: 617-526-6000
          Fax: 617-526-5000
          E-mail: richard.johnston@wilmerhale.com

                    - and -

          Steven Schwartz, Esq.
          Center for Public Representation
          22 Green Street
          Northampton, MA 01060
          Phone: 413-586-6024
          E-mail: sschwartz@cpr-ma.org
          Web Site: http://www.centerforpublicrep.org  


MAURITANIA: Ex-Pres. Sued in N.Y. Over Human Rights Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former president Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya of Mauritania is
facing a class action brought by exiled Mauritanians living in
New York, Christine Kearney of Monsters and Critics.com reports.

The civil class action was filed in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan.  It charges President Taya, now exiled in Qatar, of
torture and gross human rights violations committed from 1989 to
1991.  It says there were thousands of black Mauritanians under
the Taya administration who became subjects to ethnic cleansing,
which included cold-blooded torture and killings.

The suit further alleges that Mauritania courts denied the
plaintiffs' pleas for justice.

Complainants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Abdarahmane Wone, beaten and tortured by the Mauritanian
        government when he was only 15, leaving him a permanent
        deaf;

     -- Mohamed Mansour Kane, former lieutenant in the
        Mauritanian army, suffered sickening torture and
        witnessed others being killed mercilessly; and

     -- family of Ousumane Wele, seized and murdered by
        Mauritanian military while the family was forced to
        leave the country.

Besides jury trial, the suit also seeks compensatory and
punitive damages prescribed in international law.  

Under U.S. federal laws plus the Torture Victim Protection Act,
the case can be heard in the U.S., the suit claims.

Plaintiffs' lawyer prays that the court would at least grant
legal recognition for the crimes the Taya administration
committed.  Claims for monetary damages would almost be
impossible because Mr. Taya does not reside in the U.S., he
said.


MBIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation," are
appealing the dismissal of their case before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

                        Case Background

Initially, several class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against MBIA Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005).

The suits were:

      -- "Anthony Capone v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
         3514) (filed April 4, 2005);

      -- "Thomas Cassady v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
         3730; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 7, 2005);

      -- "Todd Simon v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3636;
         S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 8, 2005);

      -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No.
         05 CV 3709; S.D.N.Y) (filed April 11, 2005); and

      -- "Alan D. Sadowsky and Barbara S. Katvin v. MBIA Inc.,
         et al." (Case No. 05 CV 4150; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April
         26, 2005).

The suits named as defendants Joseph W. Brown, the company's
chairman and former chief executive officer; Gary C. Dunton, the
company's chief executive officer; Nicholas Ferreri, the
company's chief financial officer; Neil G. Budnick, a vice
president of the company and the company's former chief
financial officer; and Douglas C. Hamilton, the company's
controller.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims under Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to act as representatives for
a putative class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock
during the period from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005.  

Although the individual lawsuits vary, the allegations include,
among other things, violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of the company's allegedly false and misleading
statements about its financial condition and the defendant's
failure "to disclose or indicate" these alleged facts:

      -- that the company, during the class period,
         overleveraged itself, deeply under-reserved against
         possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to
         guaranteeing risky structured financings;

      -- that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current income
         by classifying many of its upfront guarantee fees as
         advisory fees taken at closing, rather than accounted
         for over the life of the bonds insured;

      -- that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment
         received from Converium Re (then called Zurich
         Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time
         was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery
         for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan;

      -- that as result, MBIA financial statements were
         materially overstated by $60 million;

      -- that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and
         portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the
         secondary market that were attracting prices lower than
         their stale credit ratings would dictate;

      -- that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the company's
         practice to defer recognizing problems rather than
         providing layers of excess collateral, other
         underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed
         prowess at restructurings;

      -- that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the
         loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and
         Research Foundation (Aherf) bond issuance, with a
         retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance
         recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of
         the future Aherf interest and principal payments, which
         resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in
         pretax income that year - $565 million over what the
         income figure would have been without resort to the
         reinsurance;

      -- that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a
         Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest,
         performing but troubled policies from its existing
         portfolio, with the provision that it could make up any
         quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by
         getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet
         in order to make its financial results appear better;
         and

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company.

The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading
statements or omissions, the company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

These lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with purchases by members of the putative class of
the company's stock at such allegedly inflated prices during the
class period.

On July 25, 2005, the presiding judge issued an order
consolidating these five cases into one action under the
caption, "In re MBIA Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 CV
3514," and named as lead plaintiffs in the case:

      -- the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust, and
      -- the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
         System.

The defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit on various grounds.  On Feb. 13, 2007, the Court
granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its
entirety, on the grounds that these claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.  

The Court did not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued
by the Company and the other defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on March 14, 2007, 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 "In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-03514-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Louis L. Stanton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Peter Edward Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 613-5625
         Fax: (212) 868-1229
         E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com


MEDPLANS PARTNERS: Ky. Suit Claims Overtime Compensation Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medplans Partners, Inc. is facing a class action filed May 21 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
alleging Labor Code violations.

Insurance Claims Examiners of Medplans purport to bring this
action for legal relief to redress unlawful violations of
plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et. seq., and the collective action
provision of the Act found at Section 216(b), to remedy
violations of the wage provisions of the FLSA.  These violations
have allegedly deprived plaintiffs of their lawful wages.

Named plaintiffs in the complaint:

     -- Pamela Adams
     -- Melody R. Bateman
     -- Bureen Frankenberger
     -- Susan E. Brown
     -- Melissa Durbin
     -- Kathrin a. England
     -- Amy J. Frank
     -- Leonard D. Frank
     -- Patricia Gill
     -- Tammy Harrison
     -- Tisha Porter

This suit is brought to recover unpaid hourly and overtime
compensation owed to plaintiffs and all current and former
employees of Medplans, pursuant to the FLSA and the Kentucky
Wages and Hours Act.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all present and former
Claims Examiners of MedPlans, who were not paid overtime
compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours per work week
or were not compensated for time worked.

Plaintiffs claim that during their employment as Claims
Examiners, they consistently worked more than 40 horus per week,
but were not paid overtime compensation.

They were allegedly required to be present at work, but were
taken "off the clock" at various time and not paid for such off-
the-clock work, the complaint alleges.  In addition, upon
information and belief, MedPlans has allegedly failed to
compensate Claims Examiners for additional work performed on the
company's behalf.

As a result of defendant's violations of the FLSA, plaintiffs
have allegedly suffered damages by failing to receive wages for
hours worked and overtime wages in accordance with Sections 206
and 207 of the FLSA, the suit claims.

Plaintiffs, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and the
Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, pray for the following relief:

     -- that pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), at the
        earliest possible time, they be allowed to give notice,
        or that the court issue such notice, to all persons who
        are presently, or have at any time during the three
        years immediately preceding the filing of this suit, up
        through and including the date of the court's issuance
        of court-supervised notice, been employed as a Claims
        Examiner by MedPlans. Such notice shall inform them that
        this action has been filed and of their right to opt in
        to this lawsuit if they were not paid compensation for
        time worked and/or overtime compensation for time worked
        in excess of 40 hours per week;

     -- certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23 as defined;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class and collective action
        members be awarded damages in the amount of their
        respective unpaid compensation, plus an equal amount of
        liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- the costs and expenses of this action; and

     -- such other, further legal and equitable relief,
        including but not limited to, any injunctive and/or
        declaratory relief, to which they may be entitled.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?200f

The suit is "Adams et al. v. Medplans Partners, Inc et al., Case
No. 3:07-cv-00259-TBR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky under Judge Thomas B. Russell.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          Doris A. Kim, Esq.
          Matthew L. White, Esq.
          Gray & White
          500 W. Jefferson Street,
          Suite 1200 PNC Plaza
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: 502-585-2060
          Fax: 502-581-1933
          E-mail: mkgrayatty@aol.com or DKimGW@aol.com or
                  mattwhiteatty@aol.com

          - and -

          Garry R. Adams, Jr., Esq.
          Mary Ann Palmer, Esq.
          Clay, Kenealy, Wagner & Adams PLLC
          462 S. Fourth Avenue, 1730 Meidinger Tower
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: 502-561-2005
          Fax: 502-589-5500
          E-mail: gadams@tclaylaw.com or
                  palmer.maryann@gmail.com


METLIFE LIFE: Court Reverses Class Certification in "Macomber"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed a trial court's
certification of a class in the case, "Macomber, et al. v.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.," which was filed in
Connecticut Superior Court on April 7, 1999.  

An amended putative class action complaint was filed against The
Travelers Life and Annuity Co., now known as MetLife Life and
Annuity Company of Connecticut (MLAC), Travelers Equity Sales,
Inc. and certain former affiliates.

The amended complaint alleged Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,
a former MLAC affiliate, purchased structured settlement
annuities from MLAC and spent less on the purchase of those
structured settlement annuities than agreed with claimants, and
that commissions paid to brokers for the structured settlement
annuities, including an affiliate of MLAC, were paid in part to
Travelers Property Casualty Corp.

On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a
nationwide class action involving the following claims against
MLAC: violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice
Statute, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

On June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the class
certification order.  

In March 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial
court's certification of a class, 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.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.


METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: Still Faces Tenants' Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Co. continues to face a
consolidated class action in New York filed by tenants at
Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village who are challenging a
rent increase.

The complex, which previously owned by Metropolitan Life, was
later sold to Tishman Speyer, which bought it for a record $5.4
billion in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2007).

The tenants, who are represented by attorney Stuart M. Saft, are
seeking are roll back of their rents, claiming that the
complex's owners illegally charged market-rate rents for more
than 3,000 apartments in the complexes while benefiting from tax
breaks that should have precluded them from doing so.

One the suits filed is "Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer
Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed Jan. 22,
2007)."  The suit also names Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity
Co.

Metropolitan Life was initially a named defendant but the action
has been discontinued as to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
since it did not own the properties during the time period in
question.

This group of tenants claim that the MetLife entities, and since
the sale of the properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner,
improperly charged market rents when only lower regulated rents
were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements.  The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages.

A second purported class action, originally titled, "Carroll v.
Tishman Speyer Properties, et. al (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed
Feb. 14, 2007)," was filed against the same defendants alleging
similar claims as in the Roberts case and, in addition, includes
a claim of unjust enrichment and purported violation of New York
General Business Law Section 349.  

The Carroll action was consolidated into the Roberts action,
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.

For more details, contact:

         Stuart M. Saft, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4710
         Fax: (212) 686-0114
         Web site: http://www.whafh.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suits Over Policies in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life in Canada continues to face two putative class
actions, alleging improper marketing and sales of individual
life insurance policies or annuities, 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.

In "Jacynthe Evoy-Larouche v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Que.
Super. Ct., filed March 1998)," plaintiff alleges
misrepresentations regarding dividends and future payments for
life insurance policies and seeks unspecified damages.

In "Ace Quan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Ont. Gen. Div.,
filed April 1997)," plaintiff alleges breach of contract and
negligent misrepresentations relating to, among other things,
life insurance premium payments and seeks damages, including
punitive damages.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Sides with Firm in "Brubaker"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed the decision by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in the purported class action, "Brubaker,
et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02511-
EGS," which was filed by former employees of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co.

A putative class action, which commenced in October 2000,
accuses the company of denying certain ad hoc pension increases
awarded to retirees under the Metropolitan Life retirement plan.  

The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees
(i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement
benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available
to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose
spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible
for an immediate retirement benefit.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of former
Metropolitan Life employees, or their surviving spouses, who are
receiving deferred vested annuity payments under the retirement
plan and who were allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc
pension increases.  

In September 2005, Metropolitan Life's motion for summary
judgment was granted.  Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
was denied.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit.  

The Court of Appeals issued its decision on April 10, 2007,
affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in
Metropolitan Life's favor, 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 "Brubaker, et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., Case
No. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tas Coroneos, Esq.
         5801 Highland Drive
         Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531
         Phone: (301) 656-1124
         Fax: (301) 656-1460

Representing the company are:
  
         Emmett Boaz Lewis, Esq.
         Mark J. Rochon, Esq.
         Anthony F. Shelley, Esq.
         Miller & Chevalier
         655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 900
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 626-6090
         Fax: (202) 628-0858
         E-mail: elewis@milchev.com
                 mrochon@milchev.com
                 ashelley@milchev.com


MICROSOFT CORP: $179M Antitrust Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Polk County District Court has granted preliminary approval to
a $179.95 million settlement reached on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased certain Microsoft software, or a
computer on which Microsoft products were installed for use in
Iowa.

"While Microsoft believes it has sold its products at fair and
reasonable prices that give customers great value, we are
pleased to be providing significant long-term benefits to rural
and disadvantaged Iowa schools as part of this settlement," said
Rich Wallis, associate general counsel for Microsoft.

"We have worked to make the claims process as simple as possible
so that class members can get their cash or vouchers quickly and
without difficulty," explained Roxanne Conlin, co-lead counsel
for the class.  

Plaintiffs claim that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws.  
Because of this, the lawsuit claims that consumers and
businesses paid more for Microsoft Software.  Microsoft denies
the claims and says it developed and sold high quality software
products at fair and reasonable prices.

The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased
a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone
other than Microsoft between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006.  
The class also includes Iowa State and its local governments
that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa
from someone other than Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June
30, 2006.

Microsoft has agreed to provide benefits totaling more than $179
million to the class.  Class members are entitled to receive:

     - $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS;
     - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel;
     - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and
     - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home
       Essential software.

Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used
towards the purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware,
and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as
vouchers for hardware, software and technology services to Iowa
public schools.  One hundred percent of the volume license
vouchers claimed but not redeemed will also be provided to Iowa
public schools.

Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc.,
an Iowa Corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and
Patricia Anne Larsen.

The case is "Joe Comes, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
CL82311" filed in Iowa District for Polk County.

Deadline for mailing of claims is December 14, 2007 or 30 days
after the court grants final approval of the settlement,
whichever comes later.  .

Claims may also be mailed to this address:

          Settlement Claims Administrator
          Microsoft - Iowa Settlement
          P.O. Box 128
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0128

Objections to the settlement must be mailed and received by the
court no later than July 30, 2007.  Objections may also be
mailed to the class and defense counsels or to the court:

          Clerk of Court
          Attn: CL82311
          Polk County Courthouse
          500 Mulberry Street
          Des Moines, IA 55487

Fairness hearing and the hearing for final approval of
settlement are scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on August 31, 2007, at the
Polk County Courthouse.

For more information regarding the class action settlement and
the legal rights of class members, including how to make a claim
and to make a claim online, visit
http://www.IowaMicrosoftCase.com

Plaintiffs' lawyer information:
     
          Roxanne B. Conlin
          Roxanne B. Conlin and Associates, P.C.
          319 7th Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3826
          Phone: 515-283-1111
          Fax: 515-282-0477
          Web Site: http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Tulchin, Esq.
          Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Phone: (212) 558-4000
          Fax: (212) 558-3588
          Web Site: http://www.sullcrom.com


NASHUA CORP: Plaintiffs Fail to Refile Claim in Cerion IPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs failed to refile a claim with the Illinois Supreme
Court with regards to a consolidated class action filed against
Nashua Corp. on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Cerion Technologies between May 24, 1996 and July 9,
1996.

Initially, two individual plaintiffs filed suits in August and
September 1996 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  
The suits were later consolidated.  

The suit was filed against the company, Cerion Technologies,
Inc., certain directors and officers of Cerion, and the
company's underwriter.

In March 1997, the same individual plaintiffs joined by a third
plaintiff in filing a consolidated amended class action
complaint.  

The consolidated complaint alleged that, in connection with
Cerion's initial public offering, the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and omitted the
disclosure of material facts regarding, in particular, certain
significant customer relationships.

In October 1997, the Circuit Court, on motion by the defendants,
dismissed the consolidated complaint.  

The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint
alleging similar claims as the first consolidated complaint
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On May 6, 1998, the Circuit Court, on motion by the defendants,
dismissed with prejudice the Second amended consolidated
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed with the Appellate Court an
appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling.

On Nov. 19, 1999, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit
Court's ruling that dismissed the second amended consolidated
complaint.  The Appellate Court ruled that the second amended
consolidated complaint represented a valid claim and sent the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

On Dec. 27, 1999, the company filed a petition with the Supreme
Court of Illinois.  In that petition, the company asked the
Supreme Court of Illinois to determine whether the Circuit Court
or the Appellate Court is correct.  That petition was denied and
the case was sent to the Circuit Court for trial.

On Oct. 8, 2003, the Circuit Court heard motions on a summary
judgment motion and a class action certification motion.  On
Aug. 16, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2005, the plaintiffs
appealed the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment with the
Appeals Court.  

On June 30, 2006, the Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
appeal of the Aug. 16, 2005 order by the Circuit Court, which
granted the defendants' motion for Summary Judgment.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the
Supreme Court of Illinois for Leave to Appeal the Appellate
Court's order.  

On Nov. 29, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear
the plaintiffs' appeal and notice was sent to the Appellate
Court effective Jan. 4, 2007.  

The plaintiffs had until January 24, 2007 to refile their claim
with the Supreme Court.  Since there was no claim filed, the
matter is now favorably ruled in the company's favor, according
to Nashua's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 30, 2007.

Nashua Corp. -- http://www.nashua.com/-- is a manufacturer,  
converter and marketer of labels and specialty papers.  The
Company's primary products include thermal and other coated
papers, wide-format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and
transaction and financial receipts.  It has two operating
segments: Label Products, which converts, prints and sells
pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification labels
and tickets and tags, and Specialty Paper Products, which coats,
converts, prints and sells papers and films.


NEW CENTURY: Loan Officers to Pursue Claim for Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Rubio, John Hicks and David Vizcarra ask the Court to
lift an automatic stay so they may continue to litigate and
liquidate their claims against New Century Financial Corp.
(Debtor) in a pending civil action before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Rubio, et al. initiated a class action in March 2005 to recover
unpaid overtime wages and compensation for failure to provide
statutorily mandated meal and rest periods.  Rubio, et al.
brought the class action on behalf of 1,600 loan officers
employed by New Century Mortgage Corporation in California.

Rubio, et al. had pursued extensive discovery in the Federal
Court Action prior to the Petition Date.  U.S. District Judge
Cormac J. Carney also has made dispositive rulings regarding the
application of the California Labor Code to Rubio, et al.'s
claims.

Rubio, et al. have filed a fifth amended complaint to add New
Century Financial Corp., Home123 Corp. and five executive and
officers of the Debtors as defendants.

The Debtors possess liability insurance that is sufficient to
cover the claims to the extent the Debtors or the Management
Defendants are adjudged liable in the Federal Court Action,
Rubio, et al. tell Judge Carey.  If permitted to proceed with
the Federal Court Action in federal court, Rubio, et al. will
satisfy the Claim from available insurance proceeds first.

Rubio, et al. are not seeking to continue with the prosecution
of the Federal Court Action to circumvent the Debtors'
bankruptcy proceedings, Marc J. Phillips, Esq., at Connolly Bove
Lodge & Hutz LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, clarifies.  Allowing
Rubio, et al. to liquidate their claims in the Federal Court
Action will benefit the orderly and efficient administration of
the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Phillips says.

(New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 11; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000)

                   
NEW CENTURY: Chapter 11 Cases Include WARN Act Violation Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action relating to alleged violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
2101 et. seq. and California Civil Code Section 1400, et. seq.,
of New Century Financial Corp. (together with affiliates,
Debtors) was filed on April 17, 2007 in the company's Chapter 11
cases.

The WARN Class Action relates to various prepetition employee
terminations, and the plaintiffs seek allowance of a claim for
60 days of wages and benefits for each employee terminated, and
attorney's fees and costs, on an administrative priority claim
basis.

Monika L. McCarthy, the Debtors' senior vice president and
assistant general counsel, relates that in addition to the
defense of the WARN Class Action, the Debtors are in need of
advice relating to possible additional employee terminations.

The Debtors have requested that Irell & Manella LLP provide
advice relative to certain insurance matters that arise from
time to time.  The Debtors also asked Irell & Manella to
represent them in employee benefit matters, including with
respect to the wind-up of the Debtors' benefit plans, and issues
concerning their Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
obligations.  

Irell & Manella performed an insurance policy review for certain
of the Debtors in early 2005.  Since January 6, 2006, the firm
has not performed any services for the Debtors.  The Debtors
timely paid Irell & Manella for its services.

Ms. McCarthy tells the Court that Irell & Manella has experience
in virtually all aspects of the law that may arise in connection
with the proposed representation.  It has served as counsel in
other large class action litigation matters, including Broadcom
Securities Class Action, Cheesecake Factory Securities Class
Action, and Charter Communications Securities Class Action.

Irell & Manella has also served as litigation counsel, insurance
litigation counsel and bankruptcy counsel for First Alliance
Mortgage Company and Imperial Credit Industries, Inc., among
others.  Recently, the firm has also provided assistance in
matters concerning employee benefit plans for First Alliance,
Chevys, and Furrs Supermarkets.

In accordance with the terms in the retainer agreement between
the firm and the Debtors, Irell & Manella will provide, ordinary
and necessary legal services, in connection with:

    -- the WARN Class Action;
    -- insurance matters; and
    -- employee benefit matters, including issues relating to
       the wind down of the Debtors' benefit plans and their
       COBRA obligations.

The Debtors do not intend for Irell & Manella to be responsible
for the provision of substantive legal advice outside the areas
of expertise for which it is being retained.  The firm is also
not required to devote attention to, form professional opinions
as to, or advise the Debtors with respect to their disclosure
obligations under federal or state securities or other non-
bankruptcy laws or agreements.

The firm will be paid according to its customary hourly rates,
which are adjusted periodically, typically on January 1 of each
year:

              Attorneys                    $275 - $805

              Litigation Support, Legal    $110 - $350
                 Assistants, Paralegals             

The Debtors will reimburse Irell & Manella according to its
customary reimbursement policies.

Jeffrey M. Reisner, Esq., a partner at Irell & Manella, has
advised the Debtors that the firm has not, does not, and will
not represent any parties-in-interest with respect to matters
related to their Chapter 11 cases.  He adds that neither the
firm nor any of the attorneys employed by it have any material
connection with the Debtors, their creditors, the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors, the Office of the U.S.
Trustee, any other party with an actual or potential interest in
these cases, or their attorneys or accountants.

Mr. Reisner discloses that the firm currently represents
affiliates of certain creditors, including UBS Real Estate
Group, Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corporation, and J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., in matters unrelated to these cases.

Irell & Manella represents no interest adverse to the Debtors in
the matters for which the firm is to be retained, Mr. Reisner
tells the Court.

The Debtors seek the Court's authority to employ Irell & Manella
as their special litigation, employee benefits and insurance
counsel, nunc pro tunc to April 20, 2007.

(New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 11; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000)


ORACLE CORP: Court to Rule on Letting British Author Testify
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins heard arguments on a request
to allow an editor with The Economist in London to testify in a
shareholder suit against Oracle Corp., Justin Scheck of The
Recorder reports.

The issue before Judge Jenkins centers on a British author's  
audio files of interviews with Oracle chief executive Larry  
Ellison for "Softwar: An Intimate Portrait of Larry Ellison and  
Oracle" that now seem to be missing.   

In a deposition held in March, British author Matthew Symonds,  
who was not a party to the case, asserted a Fifth Amendment  
right not to testify about allegedly destroyed audio files of  
his interviews with Mr. Ellison.  

Mr. Symonds made two statements about how the files were  
destroyed.  His third statement was redacted from court papers  
under a sealing order.  

Attorney Mark Solomon of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &  
Robbins LLP in San Diego challenged Mr. Symonds' right to claim  
a Fifth Amendment privilege as a non-American living outside the  
U.S.  He also wanted to force Mr. Symonds to discuss whether  
Oracle had a role in any evidence destruction.

In a sworn statement filed on March 30, Mr. Symonds denied  
receiving from Mr. Ellison any document for the book.   

Judge Jenkins is to decide whether Mr. Ellison can be compelled  
to testify, or be allowed Fifth Amendment right not to discuss  
what happened to the files, according to The National Law  
Journal (Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007).

The suit raises the issue of whether a party to a suit has an  
obligation to alert nonparties to save evidence, Robert  
Brownstone, an intellectual property attorney in Mountain View,  
Calif.-based Fenwick & West's San Francisco office told The  
National Law Journal.

According to the report, for third parties, new amendments to  
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on electronic discovery  
that took effect on Dec. 1, 2006, do not have as strict a  
standard.   Electronic data is subject to discovery only if they  
are relevant and not too burdensome to produce.  

The securities fraud suit accuses Oracle, Mr. Ellison and other  
top executives of falsifying software sales to mislead investors  
during the 2000 to 2001 period of the dot-com bubble burst.  

It accuses Mr. Ellison of selling $900 million of his own stock  
before bad news hit the market.

The digital recordings in the center of the suit were made  
during the very period of class claims.

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

The class period is Dec. 14, 2000 to March 1, 2001.

Plaintiff Firms Named in Complaint are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San  
         Francisco) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,  
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,  
         CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San  
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, Fax:  
         support@milberg.com.


PETCO ANIMAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Greenies Dog Chews
-----------------------------------------------------------
Petco Animal Supplies Inc. and its pet food distributor, Pet
Food Experts Inc., are facing a class action in state court over  
Greenies dog chews, teeth-cleaning product for dogs claimed to
hurt or even killed dogs, The Kansas City Star reports.

In 2005, the popular dog treat sold under the name "Greenies"
became the subject of a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York.  

The complaint contends that the product, manufactured by S&M  
NuTec, is unsafe, inadequately labeled, and ultimately caused
the death of the plaintiff's 4-year old dog, named Burt.
  
S&M NuTec, then, made claims that Greenies are "highly
digestible," and the product comes with packaging statements
such as "100% edible" and "veterinarian approved!"  

In April 2006, a group of 10 pet owners from eight states filed
a federal suit against S&M NuTec, accusing the company of
knowing the dangers of Greenies, but refused to adequately warn
consumers or recall the product (Class Action Reporter, April
13, 2006).  The lawsuit wants S&M NuTec to change the packaging
of and pay unspecified damages.

In October, S&M NuTec officials said they had been working on a
new formula for their dog treat Greenies Dog Chews, in a move to
reshape and reformulate the treat (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
19, 2006).

According to Kristy Vetter, consumer care strategy coordinator
for S&M NuTec, "We know there are perception issues out there
about the original Greenies."  She adds though that the revamp
on the product will give pet owners confidence about what
they're giving their dogs and help their dogs maintain happy,
healthy lives.  

But plaintiffs in the recent suit against Petco are asking for
reimbursement on their purchases of the "original" Greenies
dental chews for dogs between June 2001 and May 22, 2007.

Greenies are hard, dark green treats shaped like a bone on one
end and a toothbrush on the other.  Greenies manufacturer S&M
NuTec claims the treats help scrub the dog's teeth, preventing
periodontal disease and freshening the animal's breath.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Mutual Fund Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Principal
Financial Group, is seeking the transfer of a purported class
action filed by the trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan over allegations that the company received secret
kickbacks from mutual funds.

The putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8, 2006.  It
alleges, among other things, that Principal Life breached its
alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to 401(k)
plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to
employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are
included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed
to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans.  

Plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute prohibited
transactions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans to
which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief.

Principal Life has filed its Answer and a Motion to Transfer and
is aggressively defending the lawsuit, 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 "Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00903-DRH-PMF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge David R. Herndon with
referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
         Korein Tillery
         209 South LaSalle, Suite 701
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-759-7510
         E-mail: kbruno@koreintillery.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
         Sidley, Austin et al.
         10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Pone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036
         E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com


REFCO COMMODITY: Moves to Lift Stay to Pursue Dismissal Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Refco Commodity Management Inc. asked Judge Robert D. Drain of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
to lift an automatic stay established upon the commencement of
RCMI's Chapter 11 case in order to pursue a motion to dismiss a
putative class action filed by investors in two investment funds
the company jointly administered with IDS Futures Corp.

RCMI is a defendant in a putative class action filed in June
2006 by Gary L. Franzen, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated parties, against RCMI and IDS Futures.  The
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in September 2006.  The
lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under Civil Case No. 06
C-3012.

In March 2007, the Illinois District Court entered a final order
approving a settlement between IDS and the Plaintiffs.  IDS was
also dismissed from the action, thus, leaving RCMI as the sole
defendant of the Complaint.

Under the Settlement, IDS agreed to make an offer that fully
compensated potential plaintiffs for their losses attributable
to the management of two investment funds, which were jointly
administered by IDS and RCMI.  IDS also agreed to pay the
plaintiffs nearly $400,000 in legal fees.

RCMI subsequently sought to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds
that:

   -- certain of the Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot by
      the Settlement; and

   -- the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their remaining
      claims.

Richard B. Levin, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, relates that in the Plaintiffs' response, they argued that
the Litigation is stayed as to RCMI, and adjudication of the
Motion to Dismiss cannot proceed due to the "automatic stay"
established upon the commencement of RCMI's Chapter 11 case.

Accordingly, to ensure that the Motion to Dismiss is adjudicated
on its merits and prevent further delay in the Litigation, RCMI
asks the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay imposed
under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to:

   (a) permit RCMI to prosecute the Motion to Dismiss to full
       and final adjudication, and oppose an appeal, if any,
       from a final order of the District Court granting the
       Motion to Dismiss;

   (b) allow the Plaintiffs to oppose the Motion to Dismiss on
       the basis of any filed response or as permitted by the
       District Court, and to prosecute an Appeal; and

   (c) permit the District Court and the Appellate Court to
       fully and finally adjudicate the Motion to Dismiss or an
       Appeal, if any.

RCMI will inform the District Court regarding the filing of its
Lift Stay Motion and, thereafter, will advise the District Court
regarding the progress and resolution of the Motion, including
any ruling the Bankruptcy Court may enter with respect to the
Motion.

(Refco Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 63; Bankruptcy  
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000)


REFCO INC: Lift Stay Order in Sunstate Investors' Suit Expanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
In relation to a putative class action filed in April 2003 by
Sunstate FX, Inc. investors, Judge Robert D. Drain of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York expanded
a Lift Stay Order to allow Refco Group Ltd., LLC, one of several
defendants, to pursue its Dismissal Motion at a time and date
convenient to the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida,
and the parties to the Litigation.

In July 2006, the Florida Circuit Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.  The Plaintiffs subsequently filed their notice of
appeal in the District Court of Appeal for the 4th District,
State of Florida.

Pursuant to Rule 9.110(f) of Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the Plaintiffs filed their initial appellate brief,
which was duly answered by Refco Group.

Steven R. Griffin, Esq., at Beggs & Lane, in Pensacola, Florida,
states that the Plaintiffs are now in the process of finalizing
their reply brief.  They have requested oral argument, and are
anticipating to receive a ruling from the appellate court within
six months.

Accordingly, at the Plaintiffs' request, the Court expands the
Lift Stay Order to allow the parties to participate in the
pending appeal.


SIRVA INC: Parties Seek to Settle Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities fraud class action,
"Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
07644," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, entered into settlement
discussions in a bid to conclude the matter.

Initially, two securities suits were filed in November 2004
against SIRVA, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  They are:

      -- "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al.,
         No.04-CV-7644," and

      -- "Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7532."

Both complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons
who acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003
and Nov. 9, 2004.

On Jan. 25, 2005, the plaintiff in "Hiatt" voluntarily dismissed
his suit.  On March 29, 2005, the court appointed Central
Laborers' Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the remaining case,
and approved its choice of counsel, Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel.  

On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint,
retaining the same class period, and alleging, among other
things, that defendants had made false and misleading statements
in certain SEC filings, including the prospectuses to the
company's initial and secondary public offerings, and press
releases.

The statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the
Company's insurance claims reserves, European operations, and
restatement accounts and are said to constitute violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint, a corrected version of which was filed on Oct.
19, 2005.  

The amended complaint adds ten new defendants, including an
additional director, the seven underwriters which participated
in the initial and secondary public offerings, the company's
independent auditor and its controlling shareholder.  

It also extends the class period, purporting to be brought on
behalf of all those who acquired the Company's common stock
between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005.  

The amended complaint also contained allegations relating to the
following areas: the company's restatement of financial
statements and accounting errors for years 2000 through 2003 and
the first nine months of 2004, problems in the company's
European operations, insurance reserves, financial forecasting,
and internal controls.

The statements subject to the amended complaint are alleged to
violate Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, as well as Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the company and all other defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
that motion.  It dismissed in full, without prejudice, the claim
under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, as well as various
allegations underlying the other claims, and granted plaintiff
30 days to amend its complaint.

On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiff filed its consolidated second
amended class action complaint in order to replead claims that
the court dismissed without prejudice.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the company and all other defendants filed the
their answer to the second amended complaint.  On Nov. 15, 2006,
the company and certain of the other defendants moved in part to
dismiss the second amended complaint.

The parties have entered into settlement discussions, 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 Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., case no.
1:04-cv-07644," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the company are:

         Tara Kocheran Charnes, Esq.
         Richard Bradshaw Kapnick, Esq.
         Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq.
         Catherine Rosen, Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com
                 mkilby@sidley.com
                 crosen@sidley.com


SMART & FINAL: Settles Calif. Suit Over Sharp Merger Agreement  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smart & Final, Inc. has entered into an agreement to settle a
class action filed in California with regards to its February
2007 Agreement and Plan of Merger with Sharp Holdings Corp., and
Sharp Acquisition Corp.

On Feb. 21, 2007 and Feb. 26, 2007, putative class actions were
filed against the company and members of its board of directors
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.  They are:

     --  "City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v.
         Smart & Final Inc., et al.," and

     -- "Call 4U, Ltd. vs. Smart & Final Inc., et al."

The named respective plaintiffs propose to represent a class of
stockholders and claim that, among other things, a proposed
merger by and among Sharp Holdings Corp. and Sharp Acquisition
Corp. is the product of alleged breaches of duty and self-
dealing by the board of directors.  

Along with other relief, the complaints seek an injunction
against the closing of the proposed merger.  

On April 27, 2007 the company and members of its board of
directors through counsel entered into a memorandum of
understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs in the City of Ann
Arbor and Call 4U, Ltd. actions under which, subject to court
approval, the two actions would be dismissed with prejudice.

Smart & Final, Inc. -- http://www.smartandfinal.com/-- is  
engaged primarily in the business of providing food and related
non-food items in bulk sizes and quantities.  The company sells
food, foodservice products and culinary equipment through non-
membership warehouse stores and wholesale stores.  Its product
selection includes grocery, frozen and refrigerated foods,
delicatessen products, fresh produce and meat, paper products,
janitorial supplies, restaurant equipment, candy, snacks,
beverages and party supplies.


TB ISLE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
TB Isle Resort LP is facing a class-action complaint filed May
17 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Hugoberto Richardson brings this action to
recover unpaid wages and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

Mr. Richardson claims he worked for defendants as a non-exempt
employee paid at various hourly rates depending upon whether he
was assigned as a bartender, waiter or foodrunner, and depending
upon where he was assigned, including the Pool Bar, Veranda Bar,
Veranda Dining Room, Grill Bar, Banquets, or the Ocean Club.

During one or more workweeks, plaintiff worked more than 40
hours, but was not paid one and one-half his regular hourly rate
of pay for overtime hours, the complaint alleges.

Plaintiff further claims he was paid less than the applicable
minimum wage when he worked as a bartender at banquets,
receiving, however, a portion of the service charge that
defendants charged to the banquet customer.

To the extent that defendants paid plaintiff less than the
minimum wage because the tip credit provisions of the FLSA,
plaintiff submits that defendants cannot properly avail itself
of the tip credit provisions because:

     (a) the service charge does not qualify as a tip within the
         meaning of the FLSA; and

     (b) even if the service charge qualified as a tip, the tip
         pooling arrangement was invalid given that unauthorized
         person, including managers and supervisors, share in
         the money.

Defendants' failure to pay plaintiff at least the minimum wage
for all hours worked constitutes a violation of the overtime
provisions of the FLSA, according to the complaint.  By reason
of the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of defendants,
plaintiff has suffered damages, including liquidated damages,
and will continue to incur costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for all damages,
including liquidated damages, and relief, including attorneys'
fees and costs, in addition to all other equitable, injunctive
and 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?201b

The suit is "Richardson v. TB Isle Resort LP, et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21289-KMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge K. Michael Moore.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Todd William Shulby, Esq.
          Suite 270, 12555 Orange Drive
          Davie, FL 33330
          Phone: 954-862-1770
          Fax: 954-862-1769
          E-mail: shulbylaw@comcast.net


TIMOTHY J. BROPHY: Wis. Court Okays Settlement with Tenants
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David A. Hansher of the Circuit Court for
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, has preliminarily approved a
settlement on behalf of residential tenants who rented
properties from Timothy J. Brophy between March 30, 2000 to May
15, 2007.

In 2006, a lawsuit entitled "Wineberg v. Brophy, Case No. 06-CV-
003064," was filed in Wisconsin state court on behalf of two
proposed classes of persons who from March 30, 2000 to the
present:

     (a) paid security deposits or made rent payments to
         Defendant, Timothy J. Brophy, Jr., during
         the Class Period for properties owned by Brophy where
         there were uncorrected housing and building code
         violations that Brophy failed to disclose; or

     (b) did not receive from Brophy the return of security
         deposits that they paid him, or a written explanation
         of the reasons why any such amounts were being
         withheld, within twenty-one (21) days.

On January 26, 2007, the Court entered an order determining that
this lawsuit was appropriate for class action treatment and
certifying these two classes of persons.

On March 15, 2007, the Court held a hearing and determined that
damages should be awarded to Class members. The Court has not
entered a final judgment in the case and the distribution of
damages will be contingent, among other things, on the
collection of damages from Brophy.

Under the settlement, Brophy has agreed to make a cash payment
in the sum of $300,000, which will be used for purposes of
paying:

     (a) a cash payment, on a pro rata basis, to all Class
         members who timely submit claim forms; and

     (b) attorneys' fees and costs and an incentive award. In
         addition, pursuant to the settlement, Brophy is
         prohibited from:

         (i) renting any properties that have outstanding
             building code violations, and

        (ii) failing to comply with applicable law regarding the
             return of security deposits to tenants.

Brophy has consented to the Court's jurisdiction to enforce the
injunction, to enter any necessary contempt findings and to
award counsel for any petitioning party reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs in connection with obtaining any relief for a
violation of the injunction.

Furthermore, Brophy must provide new and existing tenants an
agreed-upon notice of the tenants' rights under the statutes and
administrative code sections under which this lawsuit was
instituted.

Class Counsel is:

          Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          35 East State Street
          Media, Pennsylvania 19063
          Phone: (877) 891-9880 or +1-414-226-9900
          E-mail: ddehler@sfmslaw.com
          Website: http://www.sfmslaw.com


TRI-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rattles with Detachable Parts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-Star International Inc., of Newark, Calif., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting
a voluntary recall nearly 2,000 Ball Rattles, Wrist Rattles,
Wind-Up Toys.

The firm said these toys contain small parts, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves three different types of toys.  The ball
rattle is a multi-colored, 3-inch ball with oval openings and a
small hexagon opening at each end.  The wrist rattle toy is a
white plastic wristband toy with six multi-colored balls with
small bells inside.  The wind-up toy is a 7.5-inch pink giraffe
with yellow legs and a green wind-up knob below the tail of the
giraffe.

These toys were manufactured in China and were sold at Dollar
stores in California from January 2005 through May 2007 for
about $1.

Just click on the link for the photo of these toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07192.html

Consumers should immediately take these toys away from children
and return them to the store where purchased for a refund.

For additional information, contact Tri-Star at (510) 856-8785
anytime or CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


U.S. ENGINEERING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Engineering Contractors Corp. is facing a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Soctt Gochenouer brings this action for
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

This action is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as
well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, under the
provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq. and
specifically under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The complaint alleges defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-19 in that plaintiff, while employed with
defendants performed hours of service in excess of 40 during one
or more work weeks, for which defendants failed to properly pay
additional overtime compensation.

Plaintiff claims he is entitled to be paid time and one-half for
each hour worked in excess of 40 per work week and to have such
overtime calculated in accordance with Federal Regulations, to
include commission/bonus payments earned in the appropriate
workweek in the calculation of the regular rate for the purposes
of determining overtime entitlement.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the wages and
overtime payments due him for hours worked by him for which he
has not been properly compensated, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for 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?2015

The suit is "Gochenouer v. U.S. Engineering Contractors Corp. et
al., Case No. 9:07-cv-80437-KAM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth
A. Marra.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: 561-477-7800
          Fax: 477-7722
          E-mail: ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com or
                  drlevine@sbwlawfirm.com


U.S. RECOVERY: Student in Bounty Hunter Class Files Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Recovery Bureau, Inc. is facing a purported consumer
class action in New Jersey that accuses it of defrauding
students by falsely promising it could make them bounty hunters
because the state does not license the profession.

William Smith filed the suit on May 7, 2007 in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, saying that he paid $425 for
the Bounty Hunter training classes.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that U.S. Recovery
advertised and sold to him and other members of the class
training, classes to become a Bounty Hunter by affirmatively
misrepresenting that New Jersey has no Bounty Hunter Licensing
Act (N.J.S.A. 45:19-28, et. seq.) when, in fact, it does and
that the plaintiffs and other members of the class would be
eligible to become Bounty Hunters in New Jersey after completion
of the training program when in fact, they would not.

Mr. Smith pointed out that the defendant offered 30 hours of
classes, but state law requires, among other things, that bounty
hunters have at least five years experience in law enforcement
or private investigations.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was brought on behalf
of New Jersey consumers who purchased Bounty Hunter Training
Classes also referred to as Bail Enforcement Training Classes,
from defendant subsequent to Jan. 12, 2006, the date of approval
of the New Jersey Bounty Hunter Licensing Act.

The alleges two counts of violations:

      -- Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and
      -- Common Law Fraud.

Plaintiff is demanding damages and an injunction against the
defendants.  He is also seeking for a jury trial.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?200b

For more details, contact:

         Jeffrey W. Herrmann
         Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP
         Park 80 Plaza West-One
         Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
         Phone: (201) 845-9600
         Fax: (201) 845-9423
         Web site: http://www.clphk-njlawfirm.com


W.R. GRACE: Opposes Anderson Memorial's Access to Privilege Log
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. (together with its affiliates, Debtors) asserts
that Anderson Memorial Hospital and its counsel, Speights &
Runyan, cannot meet Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, thus they are not entitled to the privilege log of
the Debtors' in-house and outside counsel.

Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones &
Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, argues that Anderson
Memorial wants the privilege logs for a purpose that the Court
has already recognized is improper -- to probe privileged
settlement communications and analyses in the Debtors' in-house
and outside counsel files related to the Anderson lawsuit.

The settlement communications, analysis and evaluations are
protected from discovery by Rule 408 of the Federal Rule of
Evidence, Mr. Cairns says.  Thus, Anderson Memorial's request
for the privilege log should be denied (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 130; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).

In a Feb. 23, 2007 issue of Class Action Reporter, it was stated
that James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young
Jones & Weintraub LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware told Judith
Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of
Delaware that Speights & Runyan has requested deposition
testimony and "all documents" regarding:

   (i) Anderson's South Carolina lawsuit, Anderson's request to
       certify in South Carolina, the certification hearing, any
       purported efforts to delay the same, and circumstances
       surrounding the South Carolina Circuit Court's
       certification of a statewide class as to W.R. Grace &
       Co.;

  (ii) members or potential members of the putative Anderson
       class;

(iii) damage estimates of Anderson's individual and class
       claims;

  (iv) any position the Debtors took with respect to Anderson's
       request to be included on the Official Committee of
       Asbestos Property Damage Claimants;

   (v) any evaluation of Anderson's individual or class claims
       before the Debtors' Petition Date; and

  (vi) the Debtors' knowledge before Sept. 1, 2005, of
       Anderson's individual and class proofs of claim.

Speights & Runyan also requested "all documents" relating to:

   -- the identity of any asbestos-containing surface treatment
      in any building owned or operated by Anderson and
      potential membership of Anderson's putative class,
      including buildings located in South Carolina and outside
      of South Carolina;

   -- communications with witnesses involving any issues in
      Anderson's efforts to obtain class certification;

   -- the Debtors' knowledge concerning the facts or factual
      assertions relating to Anderson's putative class action;

   -- any amount that could or should be set aside for the
      resolution of Anderson's claim, including any insurance
      reserve;

   -- communications between the Debtors and insurers relating
      to Anderson's claims; and

   -- communications with any building owners regarding the
      Anderson proofs of claim.

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica   
products, especially construction chemicals and building  
materials, and container products globally.  The company and its  
debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on April 2,  
2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).  


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $401.6M Liability in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s current asbestos-related liability, as of
March 30, 2007, amounted to US$401,659,000, compared with
US$424,628,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2007.

As of March 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related
insurance recovery receivable amounted to US$339,047,000,
compared with US$424,628,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006.

Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries face asbestos-
related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the
U.S. and U.K.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by the subsidiaries during the 1970s
and earlier.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process
and power generating facilities. The Company operates through
two business groups. The Engineering & Construction group
designs and builds facilities for the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets. The Global Power
Group makes steam-generating units and related equipment for
power and industrial plants, including fluidized-bed and
conventional boilers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Ltd. Has 135,260 U.S. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., for the three months ended March 30, 2007,
recorded 135,260 open asbestos claims filed against its U.S.
subsidiaries, compared with 164,240 claims for the three months
ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 9, 2007.

For the three months ended March 30, 2007, the Company noted
1,640 new claims and 2,270 claims resolved. For the three months
ended March 31, 2006, the Company noted 2,740 new claims and
3,320 claims resolved.

For the year ended Dec. 29, 2006, the Company recorded 135,890
asbestos-related claims filed against its U.S. subsidiaries,
compared with 164,820 claims for the year ended Dec. 30, 2005.
(Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007)

As of March 30, 2007, the U.S. subsidiaries' asbestos-related
insurance recovery receivable amounted to US$304,800,000,
compared with US$316,700,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006.

As of March 30, 2007, the U.S. subsidiaries' total asbestos-
related assets amounted to US$350,700,000, compared with
US$363,700,000, as of Dec. 29, 2006.

As of March 30, 2007, the U.S. subsidiaries' total asbestos-
related liabilities amounted to US$442,400,000, compared with
US$466,000,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006.

The amount spent on asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$23,600,000 for the three months ended March
30, 2007 and US$18,400,000 for the three months ended March 31,
2006. The Company funded US$10,600,000 of the payments made
during the three months ended March 30, 2007, while all
remaining amounts were paid from insurance proceeds.

Through March 30, 2007, total cumulative indemnity costs paid
were about US$588,500,000 and total cumulative defense costs
paid were about US$222,200,000.

As of March 30, 2007, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$179,900,000 relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$262,500,000 relating to future unasserted claims
through year-end 2021.

As of March 30, 2007, the Company estimated the value of its
asbestos insurance asset contested by its subsidiaries' insurers
in ongoing litigation in New York state court as US$32,700,000.
The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the Company subsidiaries' various insurers
and the Company subsidiaries as self-insurers.

In 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of a New York
state trial court decision that previously had held that New
York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the above coverage
litigation with the Company subsidiaries' insurers, and as a
result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a
gain of US$19,500,000. On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries'
insurers were granted permission by the appellate court to
appeal the decision in the Company's favor to the New York Court
of Appeals.

The Company has funded US$10,600,000 of the asbestos liability
indemnity payments and defense costs from its cash flow in the
first three months of 2007, net of the cash received from
insurance settlements. The Company expects to fund US$32,300,000
of the asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs from its
cash flow in fiscal year 2007, net of the cash expected to be
received from existing insurance settlements.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process
and power generating facilities. The Company operates through
two business groups. The Engineering & Construction group
designs and builds facilities for the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets. The Global Power
Group makes steam-generating units and related equipment for
power and industrial plants, including fluidized-bed and
conventional boilers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 326 U.K. Claims at 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. says that 829 asbestos-related claims to
date have been filed against it U.K. subsidiaries of which 326
remained open as of March 30, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2007.

The Company said that 824 asbestos-related claims have been
brought against its U.K. subsidiaries, of which 330 remained
open as of Dec. 29, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007)

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have
received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure
to asbestos.

As of March 30, 2007, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$36,500,000 comprised of an estimated liability relating to
open (outstanding) claims of US$7,100,000 and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through year-end
2021 of US$29,400,000.

Of the total, US$2,200,000 was recorded in accrued expenses and
US$34,300,000 was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the
condensed consolidated balance sheet. An asset in an equal
amount was recorded for the expected U.K. asbestos-related
insurance recoveries, of which US$2,200,000 was recorded in
accounts and notes receivable-other and US$34,300,000 was
recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable on
the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The liability and asset estimates are based on a U.K. court of
appeal ruling that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment.

Should this ruling be reversed, the asbestos liability and the
related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about US$57,600,000.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process
and power generating facilities. The Company operates through
two business groups. The Engineering & Construction group
designs and builds facilities for the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets. The Global Power
Group makes steam-generating units and related equipment for
power and industrial plants, including fluidized-bed and
conventional boilers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $517.9M for A&E Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group Ltd.'s net asbestos and environmental loss
reserves, for the three months ended March 31, 2007, amounted to
US$517,910,000, compared with US$461,235,000 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, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a net of
US$511.4 million for A&E losses, compared with US$450.5 million
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March
30, 2007)

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company's gross
A&E loss reserves amounted to US$632,239,000, compared with
US$639,635,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a gross
of US$650.1 million for A&E losses, compared with US$649.5
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, March 30, 2007)

The Company's asbestos claims involve potential liability for
bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage
resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos.

In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley, which has
significant exposure to A&E claims, LM Property and Casualty
Insurance Co. provided reinsurance to Mt. McKinley covering 80
percent (US$160 million) of the first US$200 million of any
adverse development of Mt. McKinley's reserves as of Sept. 19,
2000 and The Prudential guaranteed LM's obligations to Mt.
McKinley.

At March 31, 2007, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves
of US$563.7 million, of which US$309.8 million was for assumed
business and US$253.9 million was for direct excess business.

At March 31, 2007, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$141.2 million representing case reserves
reported by ceding companies, US$135.4 million representing
additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed
reinsurance claims, US$208.4 million representing case reserves
established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims,
including Mt. McKinley, and US$147.2 million representing
incurred but not reported reserves.

The Company's net three-year survival ratio on its asbestos
exposures was 4.4 years for the period ended March 31, 2007.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group Ltd. is the holding
company for Everest Reinsurance Co., an underwriter of property
& casualty reinsurance and insurance. The Company offers
specialized underwriting in several areas, including property &
casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical
malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional
errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Celanese Units Rise to 658 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc., as of March 31, 2007, are
defendants in about 658 asbestos-related cases, according to
Celanese Corp.'s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings are both U.S. subsidiaries of
Celanese Corp.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced about
647 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 2,
2007)

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, 26 new cases were
filed against the Company and 15 cases were resolved.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Dallas-based Celanese Corp., with its subsidiaries, is an
integrated global hybrid chemical company. The Company's
business involves processing chemical raw materials, like
methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products,
including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic
polymers and other chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Records 145T Open Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., for the six months ended March 31, 2007, recorded
145,000 open asbestos-related claims, compared with 174,000
claims for the six months ended March 31, 2006, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted:
3,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 19,000 claims
dismissed. For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company
noted: 3,000 new claims filed; 2,000 claims settled; and 11,000
claims dismissed.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in
connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corp., a former
subsidiary.

While Riley was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-
containing components provided by other companies.

Since Oct. 1, 2003, Riley has been dismissed as a defendant in
83 percent of the resolved claims. Amounts spent on litigation
defense and claim settlements averaged US$812 per claim resolved
in the six months ended March 31, 2007, compared with US$1,594
in the six months ended March 31, 2006, and annual averages of
US$1,428 in 2006 and US$1,985 in 2005.

Most lawsuits filed involve multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, with the number of defendants in many cases
exceeding 100.

Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in
about five percent of the 49,500 active suits pending as of
March 31, 2007. In these active suits, about 0.4 percent of the
active suits involve claims between US$0 and US$100,000.

About 1.6 percent of the active suits involve claims between
US$100,000 and US$1 million. Less than one percent of the active
suits involve claims between US$1 million and US$5 million. Less
than 0.1 percent of the active suits involve claims between US$5
million and US$10 million.

Less than two percent of the active suits involve claims between
US$10 million and US$15 million. Less than .02 percent of the
active suits involve claims between US$15 million and US$100
million.

For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-
related reserve amounted to US$619 million, compared with US$550
million for the six months ended March 31, 2006.

At March 31, 2007, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US479 million, of which US$83 million relates to
costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to
US$474 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and US$375 million at March 31,
2006.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 19,120 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., as of April 27, 2007, was defending
against 19,120 asbestos-related claims, compared with 19,388
claims as of Feb. 16, 2007, and 19,416 claims as of Dec. 31,
2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

The Company faces suits brought in various U.S. courts by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury
from exposure to asbestos-containing products made by the
Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally
had a useful life of three to 12 months.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously made by the Company.

As of April 27, 2007, about 12,709 of the claims pending against
the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,042
are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel,
either through removal or original jurisdiction.

In addition to the 12,042 Mississippi claims pending against the
Company at the MDL, there are about 850 claims pending against
the Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts
in other states.

As of April 27, 2007, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 21,231 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,691,000. Of this amount,
US$6,656,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes
around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. Brandon Drying Drop to 9,089
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Inc.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics
Inc., as of April 27, 2007, faced 9,089 asbestos-related claims,
compared with 9,189 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007, and 9,114 claims
as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2007.

Brandon Drying, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a
Company subsidiary, is also a separate defendant in many of the
asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a defendant. The
Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corp., in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned Geschmay subsidiary.

In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a
South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired
by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned
subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics
with asbestos made by its parent, Abney.

Although Brandon made and sold dryer fabrics under its own name
after the asset purchase, none of those fabrics had asbestos.
Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon
and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon
harmless from any actions or claims on account of products made
by Abney and its related corporations before the date of the
sale.

As of April 27, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 8,463 claims for a total of US$152,499.
Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2
percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related
to these proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon.

In 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes
around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Faces Mt. Vernon Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Inc., in several asbestos-related cases,
continues to be named both as a direct defendant and as the
"successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products allegedly sold by Mount Vernon years before the
acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of those products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon before
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims.

On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal
in a number of actions.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes
around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Actions from Old Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek Inc. continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations previously acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2007.

With respect to these claims, the Company is either
contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related
claims or said it believes that it has no liability for those
claims. The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and
has also tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of
the previously acquired businesses and is awaiting their
response.  

The Company has also filed a late claim amounting to US$2.5
million in the Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy proceedings to
recover attorney's fee paid for the defense of these claims,
which the Company said it believes is an obligation of Federal
Mogul although the claim is subject to challenge.

Costs associated with other previously owned businesses were
amounted to US$300,000 for the three months ended April 1, 2007.  
These costs have historically included charges for an
arbitration award in a patent infringement claim and related
legal fees, as well as certain expenses for product liability
claims, environmental issues, and asbestos claims.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek Inc.'s Power Control
Systems Group makes programmable motion control and power
conditioning systems, including variable-frequency motor drives
uses in overhead cranes and elevators, power conditioners for
stationary fuel cells, and telecommunications power plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. IntriCon Corp. Remain at 122 in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits against IntriCon Corp., as of March
31, 2007, remain at about 122, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2007.

As of Dec. 21, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company faced 122
asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007)

These suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.

Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims
against it.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970 to Aug. 1, 1973,
have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide
a defense under those policies. The Company has requested that
the carriers substantiate this situation.

The Company said it believes it has more policies available for
other years, which have been ignored by the carriers.

As settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was
deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company said it
believes when settlement payments are applied to these
additional policies, the Company will have availability under
the years deemed exhausted.

Arden Hills, Minn.-based IntriCon Corp., f/k/a Selas Corp. of
America, designs, develops, engineers, and manufactures micro-
miniature medical and electronic products. The Company supplies
micro-miniaturized components, systems and molded plastic parts,
primarily to the hearing instrument manufacturing industry, as
well as the computer, electronics, telecommunications and
medical equipment industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $7.75M for Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp.'s current reserve for asbestos liability claims, as
of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$7,750,000, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007.

This compares to US$8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term reserve for
asbestos liability claims amounted to US$33,500,000, compared
with US$35 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos
abatement services through Metalclad Insulation Corp. The
Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers,
and other industrial equipment. The Company also maintains and
removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products.
Entrx Corp. was originally established as Metalclad Corp. in
1947.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Corp. Drop to 375 in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp., mainly its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp.,
at March 31, 2007, recorded 375 pending asbestos-related cases,
which are defended and covered by insurance, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007.

Metalclad, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 404
pending asbestos-related cases, compared with 507 pending cases
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, April
13, 2007)

Metalclad continues to be engaged in suits involving asbestos-
related injury or potential injury claims. In the first three
months of 2007, 37 new claims were made, compared with 68 in the
first three months of 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's total estimated future asbestos-
related liability amounted to US$43 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company projected that about 186 new
asbestos-related claims would be commenced, and about 237 cases
would be resolved, in 2007, resulting in an estimated 353 cases
pending at Dec. 31, 2007.

Since the Company projected that an aggregate of 924 new cases
would be commenced after Dec. 31, 2006, and that 186 of these
cases would be commenced in 2007, the Company estimated that an
aggregate of 738 new cases would be commenced after Dec. 31,
2007. Accordingly, the cases pending and projected to be
commenced in the future at Dec. 31, 2007, would be 1,091 cases.

In the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company expended
defense costs of US$107,000 to administer the asbestos claims,
compared with US$215,000 in 2006.

On its March 31, 2007 balance sheet, the Company included
US$41,250,000 of insurance coverage as an asset, compared with
US$43 million on its Dec. 31, 2006 balance sheet.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos
abatement services through Metalclad Insulation Corp. The
Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers,
and other industrial equipment. The Company also maintains and
removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products.
Entrx Corp. was originally established as Metalclad Corp. in
1947.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos
abatement services through Metalclad Insulation Corp. The
Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers,
and other industrial equipment. The Company also maintains and
removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products.
Entrx Corp. was originally established as Metalclad Corp. in
1947.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Faces Stehman Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. faces an asbestos-related case, filed
on Dec. 8, 2006, and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Francisco, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007.

The suit is styled Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v.
Asbestos Corp. Ltd. and Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. individually
and as successor in interest to Strong International, Strong
Electric Corp. and Century Projector Corp., et al.

The plaintiffs have made no monetary demand upon the Company.

In March 2006, the Company settled an asbestos case entitled
Bercu v. BICC Cables Corp., et al., originally filed June 27,
2003 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Administrative costs rose to US$1.4 million or 11 percent of
revenue, compared with US$1.2 million or 9.5 percent a year ago.
The increase was primarily due to employee severance costs
incurred as a result of planned workforce reductions as well as
for legal expenses to settle the Company's remaining asbestos
lawsuit.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Ballantyne of Omaha Inc., with its wholly
owned subsidiary Strong Westrex Inc., Strong Technical Services
Inc., and Design & Manufacturing Inc., designs, develops,
manufactures, services, and distributes theatre and lighting
equipment. The Company's products are distributed to movie
exhibition companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement
parks and special venues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $10.37M Liabilities in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp.'s current asbestos-related liabilities, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$10,372,000, compared with
US$13,950,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2007.

In 2003, the Company was one of many defendants in about 22,000
pending lawsuits (including workers' compensation cases)
involving about 106,000 individuals, alleging personal injury or
death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

Nearly all asbestos-related claims that have been brought
against the Company to date allege that various diseases were
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products, including
resilient sheet vinyl and tile made by the Company (or, in the
workers' compensation cases, exposure to asbestos in the course
of employment with the Company).

The Company discontinued the manufacture of asbestos-containing
sheet products in 1983 and asbestos-containing tile products in
1974.

Claims involving about 80,000 individuals were settled under the
Claimant Agreement and the Bankruptcy Code stayed litigation
related to unsettled or new claims. The Company expects
unsettled and future claims to be handled in accordance with the
terms of a plan of reorganization and a Plan Trust.

In December 2005, the Company commenced the Avoidance Actions
seeking to void the security interest granted to the Collateral
Trust and settlements. In March 2006, the Company filed a motion
for summary judgment in the Avoidance Actions seeking to avoid
the Claimant Agreement settlements and liens under various
bankruptcy theories, which motion was denied in June 2006.

In April 2007, the Company filed a new motion for summary
judgment in the Avoidance Actions, seeking to avoid the security
interests in insurance allegedly securing the Claimant Agreement
settlements. A hearing on this summary judgment motion is set
for June 4, 2007.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products
for residential and commercial use. Company products include
resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-
yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American Biltrite
Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms $9.2M Settlement to Congoleum
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in April 2007, approved a settlement
agreement where law firm Gilbert Heintz & Randolph would pay
Congoleum Corp. about US$9.2 million for asbestos-related
insurance matters, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
11, 2007.

Under the terms of the Claimant Agreement, the Company's claims
processing agent processed 79,630 claims meeting the
requirements of the Claimant Agreement with a settlement value
in excess of US$466 million. In addition, Pre-Existing
Settlement Agreements and Trial-Listed Settlement Agreements
with claims secured by the Collateral Trust total about US$25
million.

As a result of tabulating ballots on its Fourth Plan, the
Company is also aware of claims by claimants whose claims were
not determined under the Claimant Agreement but who have
submitted claims with a value of about US$512 million based on
the settlement values applicable in the Sixth Plan.

The Company's gross liability of in excess of US$491 million for
these settlements and contingent liability for the about US$512
million in unsettled claims is substantially in excess of the
total assets of the Company.

In February 2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court ordered GHR to
disgorge all fees and certain expenses it was paid by the
Company. The amount of the disgorgement is about US$9.6 million.

In October 2006, the Company and GHR entered into the agreement
in full satisfaction of the disgorgement order. The payment
would be secured by assets of GHR and would be made over time
according to a formula based on GHR's earnings.

Treatment of funds received pursuant to the GHR
Settlement under a future amended plan of reorganization may
differ from the treatment accorded by any prior plans.

The Company recorded charges aggregating about US$51.3 million
in prior years, and is not yet able to determine the amount of
the additional cost that will be required to complete its
reorganization.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products
for residential and commercial use. Company products include
resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-
yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American Biltrite
Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 95 Exposure Suits in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norcross Safety Products LLC, as of March 31, 2007, recorded
about 636 product liability lawsuits, of which 15 percent, or
about 95 suits, is asbestos-related, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 14, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had about 644 product liability
lawsuits, of which 15 percent, or about 96 suits, is asbestos-
related. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

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

As of March 31, 2007, North Safety Products, along with its
predecessors and the former owners of such business were named
as defendants in about 624 suits involving respirators allegedly
made and sold by it or its predecessors.

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

Collectively, these 636 suits represent about 8,434, excluding
spousal claims, plaintiffs.

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

These suits allege that the purported injuries resulted in part
from respirators that were negligently designed and made. The
defendants in these suits are often numerous, and include, in
addition to respirator manufacturers, employers of the
plaintiffs and manufacturers of sand (used in sand blasting) and
asbestos.

The Company acquired North Safety Products on Oct. 2, 1998 from
Siebe plc. In connection with the acquisition, Siebe, which was
subsequently merged with BTR plc (now known as "Invensys plc"),
contractually agreed to indemnify the Company for any losses,
including costs of defending claims, resulting from respiratory
products made or sold before its acquisition of North Safety
Products in October 1998.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based Norcross Safety Products LLC makes
protective equipment (boots, clothing, eyewear, hats, hearing
protection aids, and respiratory devices) for the agricultural,
fire service, industrial, and utility markets. Odyssey
Investment Partners LLC owns 75 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Opens 109 Cases in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reunion Industries Inc. says that, since the end of 2006, 109
new asbestos-related cases have been opened, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007.

Since the end of 2006, 128 cases have been dismissed and 47
cases have been settled for a net reduction of 66 cases during
the 2007-1st quarter.

The gross cost of the 47 case settlements was US$48,000 and the
gross amount of legal fees and costs incurred during the 2007-
1st quarter were US$212,000.

The Company's insurance carriers cover the significant majority
of these costs and the Company's total share of these settlement
and other costs in the 2007-1st quarter was US$37,000.

Pittsburgh-based Reunion Industries Inc. makes machined and
fabricated industrial products like fluid power cylinders,
gratings, and steel pressure vessels. The Company serves
customers in the transportation, power generation, chemicals,
metals, and electronics industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 115 Pending Suits in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises Inc.'s subsidiary Indianapolis Power & Light
Co., as of March 31, 2007, faced about 115 pending asbestos-
related lawsuits, compared with 114 suits as of March 31, 2006,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007.

These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, IPL faced about 114 pending asbestos-
related lawsuits, compared with about 109 suits as of Dec. 31,
2005. (Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007)

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not
mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by
IPL.

IPL has insurance, which may cover some portions of these
claims. Counsel, retained by various insurers who wrote policies
applicable to the period of time during which much of the
exposure has been alleged, is defending these cases.

Historically, settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been
comprised of proceeds from one or more insurers along with
comparatively smaller contributions by IPL.

Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises Inc., through regulated
unit Indianapolis Power & Light, generates, transmits, and
distributes electricity to more than 465,000 customers in
central Indiana. The Company is a subsidiary of The AES Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Ohio Faces Fewer than 10 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Ohio Inc. faces lawsuits related to asbestos at its
electric generating stations, in which there are fewer than 10
pending suits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15,
2007.

The Company is a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.

In these suits, plaintiffs claim to have been exposed to
asbestos-containing products in the course of their work as
outside contractors.

The plaintiffs further claim that as the property owner of the
generating stations, the Company should be held liable for their
injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty to warn and
protect them from any asbestos exposure.

As it has been named in fewer than 10 cases, the Company has
virtually no settlement history for asbestos cases.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Ohio Inc. distributes
electricity and natural gas in Cincinnati and surrounding areas,
including portions of Indiana and Kentucky. The Company has
680,000 power and 420,000 gas customers. The Company also
operates fossil-fueled power plants with more than 5,200 MW of
generating capacity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Indiana Faces 120 Pending Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Indiana Inc. faces lawsuits related to asbestos at
their electric generating stations, of which about 120 suits are
pending, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007.

The Company is a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.

In these suits, plaintiffs claim to have been exposed to
asbestos-containing products in the course of their work as
outside contractors.

The plaintiffs further claim that as the property owner of the
generating stations, the Company should be held liable for their
injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty to warn and
protect them from any asbestos exposure.

Of these suits, one case filed against the Company has been
tried to verdict. The jury returned a verdict against the
Company on a negligence claim and a verdict for the Company on
punitive damages.

The Company appealed this decision up to the Indiana Supreme
Court. In October 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the
jury's verdict. The Company paid the judgment of about
US$630,000 in the 2005-4th quarter.

In addition, the Company has settled over 150 other claims for
amounts, which neither individually nor in the aggregate, were
material to its operations.

The Company estimates that the range of reasonably possible
exposure in existing and future suits over the next 50 years
could range from an immaterial amount to about US$60 million.

Plainfield, Ind.-based Duke Energy Indiana Inc. transmits and
distributes electricity to 69 of Indiana's 92 counties (about
766,000 customers). The utility also owns power plants (7,275 MW
of primarily fossil-fueled capacity), which are operated by Duke
Energy Corp.'s merchant energy division.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Faces Exposure Actions in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Co. and certain of its predecessors continue to face
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of Jones
and Smith Counties in Mississippi, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 15, 2007.

Filed in August 2004, these four suits included 118 individual
plaintiffs alleging that they suffer various illnesses from
exposure to asbestos and seeking damages. The suits assert
claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and strict liability, all
based upon the status of the Company's predecessors as Jones Act
employers.

About 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer. Four individuals filed amended
suits against the Company and the remainder of the original
claims (114) were dismissed.

Of these four suits, three failed to name the Company as an
employer or manufacturer of asbestos containing products so it
was dismissed. Subsequently an individual from one of these
suits brought his own action against the Company.

As a result, the Company is named as an employer in two of the
Mississippi suits.

In addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named
in a small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations
in these cases vary, but generally include claims that the
Company provided some unspecified product or service, which
contained or utilized asbestos.

Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is a
successor to the Byron Jackson Co.

To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals
of such cases without any payment in settlements or judgments.

Houston-based BJ Services Co. provides pressure-pumping services
used to protect oil formation. The Company's oilfield services
include casing and tubular services, process and pipeline
services, production chemicals, completion tools and completion
fluids services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,381 Claims in 1Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc., as of March 31, 2007, is a co-defendant
in about 1,381 pending asbestos-related claims involving about
1,967 individuals, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission May 14,
2007.

The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 1,332 pending
asbestos-related claims involving about 1,918 individuals,
compared with 1,703 claims as of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, April 13, 2007)

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
164 new claims filed, three settlements, and 112 dismissals. For
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 625 new
claims filed, 30 settlements, and 966 dismissals.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2007 amounted to US$19,000,
compared with US$3.1 million during the year ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The amounts were paid by the Company's insurance carriers under
the Company's applicable insurance policies, as were the related
defense costs.

The average indemnity cost per resolved claim was about US$200
for the three months ended March 31, 2007, compared with
US$3,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the estimated range of liability for
settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to
be filed through 2012 was US$10.3 million to US$35.3 million.
The Company recorded the minimum liability estimate of US$10.3
million in its consolidated financial statements at Dec. 31,
2006.

At March 31, 2007, the Company has recorded US$10.4 million for
the estimated minimum liability. The Company said it believes
that corresponding amount of insurance probable of recovery is
US$9.3 million at March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces
Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and
it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates
supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect
materials during handling and for varied applications. The
Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces 3rd Party Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems Inc. and other third parties continue to
face several lawsuits related to illnesses from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 16, 2007.

The complaints did not specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company's products.

Since the cases are in its initial stages, it is uncertain
whether any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses or dealt
with the Company's products, much less whether any plaintiffs
were exposed to an asbestos-containing component part of the
Company's product or whether that part could have been a
substantial contributing factor to the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal
and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these
products from certain Invensys plc subsidiaries, under the stock
purchase agreement under which the Company acquired Invensys
Metering Systems, those indemnities are limited to the purchase
price paid by the Company in connection with the acquisition of
Invensys Metering Systems.

The Company is unable to estimate the amount of its exposure, if
any, related to these claims at this time.

Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides
metering and related communications solutions to the utility
industry. The Company makes water, gas, heat, and electric
meters. The Company was formed on Dec. 17, 2003 through the
acquisition of the metering systems and certain other businesses
of Invensys plc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Continues to Face G-I Holdings Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corp. of America continues to face asbestos-
related liabilities of its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc.,
which filed for bankruptcy in January 2001.

In connection with its formation, the Company contractually
assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of
liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating
to the inhalation of asbestos fiber of G-I Holdings. As of March
30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed asbestos-related
liabilities.

In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to Asbestos Claims.
Most asbestos claims do not specify the amount of damages
sought.

On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
Asbestos Claim against the Company.

By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered Feb.
22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the temporary
restraints into a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the
bringing or prosecution of any Asbestos Claim against the
Company.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability
for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (the "BMCA Action").

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants (the "creditors' committee"), subsequently
filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration
that the Company has successor liability for Asbestos Claims
against G-I Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I
Holdings.

On May 13, 2003 the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and
this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court.

On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a
complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey
against G-I Holdings and the Company. The complaint requests
substantive consolidation of the Company with G-I Holdings or an
order directing G-I Holdings to cause the Company to file for
bankruptcy protection.

The plaintiffs also filed for interim relief absent the granting
of their requested relief. On March 21, 2001, the Bankruptcy
Court denied plaintiffs' application for interim relief.

In November 2002, the creditors' committee, joined in by the
legal representative of future demand holders, filed a motion
for appointment of a trustee in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy. In
December 2002, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion. The
creditors' committee appealed the ruling to the U.S. District
Court, which denied the appeal on June 27, 2003.

The creditors' committee appealed the denial to the 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004. The
creditors' committee filed a petition with the 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors'
committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on
Oct. 26, 2004.

On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court authorized the creditors'
committee to commence an adversary proceeding against the
Company and others challenging, as a fraudulent conveyance,
certain transactions entered into in connection with the
Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I Holdings caused to be
transferred to the Company all of its roofing business and
assets and in which the Company assumed certain liabilities
relating to those assets, including a specified amount of
asbestos liabilities (the "1994 transaction").

On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain
aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004
decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the
holders of the Company's bank and bond debt and the Company
cross-appealed. The District Court entered an order on June 21,
2006 affirming in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy
Court's July 7, 2004 order.

In March 2007, after participating in a mediation, which
resulted in the parties agreeing to an outline of the principal
terms of a settlement of the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and all
related litigations, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings
pending the completion of their negotiations.

The judges presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding
and the related litigations, including the BMCA action and the
fraudulent conveyance action, have each entered stipulated
orders dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007, and April 4, 2007,
implementing the stay.

Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corp. of America makes and
markets asphalt and polymer based roofing products and
accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets.
The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMCA Holdings Corp.,
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Has 1,900 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corp. of America, as of April 1, 2007, had
about 1,900 alleged asbestos-related bodily injury claims
pending against it, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
16, 2007.

These claims relate to the inhalation of asbestos fiber.

Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corp. of America makes and
markets asphalt and polymer based roofing products and
accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets.
The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMCA Holdings Corp.,
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire State Still Faces Staniszek Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Building Associates LLC and other New York City
Building owners continue to face an asbestos-related action
styled Stanislawa Staniszek v. A.C.&S. Inc., et al., according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2007.

The action is part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation
pending before the New York State Supreme Court.

It is alleged that Mr. Staniszek, now deceased, suffered from
mesothelioma and other related conditions as a result of being
exposed to asbestos and asbestos-related products while employed
as a project supervisor at various locations, including the
Empire State Building.

New York-based Empire State Building Associates LLC, an investor
group led by New York real estate expert Peter Malkin, holds the
master lease on the Empire State Building through 2076.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Accrues $768T for Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerex Group Inc., at March 31, 2007, recorded US$768,101 as
accrued remediation liability for the removal of asbestos that
exists at its Pryor, Okla., facility, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 21, 2007.

At March 31, 2007, the Company had current liabilities amounting
to US$13,092,169, which is comprised of the current portion of
long term debt, accounts and notes payable, accrued expenses,
the Company's accounts receivable line of credit, and accrued
share-based liabilities.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current liabilities were
US$12,838,806.


COMPANY PROFILE

Amerex Group Inc.
512 7th Ave., 9th Fl.
New York, N.Y. 10118
Phone: 212-609-3000
Fax: 212-575-1940
http://www.amerexgroup.com

Description:
The Company makes outerwear for men, women, and children.
Established in 1946, the Company has licensing agreements with
brands like Jones New York, London Fog, OshKosh, and Mudd. The
Company also sells outerwear under its own labels and sports-
oriented outdoor wear through subsidiary Gerry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 101 Hilco Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. faces asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, with 101 plaintiffs, from predecessor Hilco Inc., in
the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County.

The Company has never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs, 11 filed actions in 2007, seven
filed actions in 2006, 15 filed actions in 2005, 42 filed
actions in 2004, 23 filed actions in 2003, and three filed
actions in 2002.

There are 110 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and nine other plaintiffs that have settled as of
March 31, 2007 for a total of US$3,325,500. There has been no
judgment against Hilco.

The Company's Universal Supply Group Inc. subsidiary was named
by 35 plaintiffs. Of these, two filed actions in 1999, one filed
an action in 2000, five filed actions in 2001, 11 filed actions
in 2005, six filed actions in 2006 and 10 filed actions in 2007.

Six plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed
and, of the total US$3,325,500 of settled actions, two
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500. No money
was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. After
these dismissed and settled actions, there exist 27 plaintiffs
that name Universal.

The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims,
and insurance companies are defending the interests of Hilco and
the Company in these cases.

The Company said it believes that none of the litigation that
was brought against the Company's Universal subsidiary through
March 31, 2007 is material, and that the only material
litigation that was brought against Hilco through that date was
Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corp., filed on April 26, 2004 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,
Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 ("Settlement") under an agreement reached in
connection with a US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered
on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes
case.

On April 29, 2005, before the Rhodes case trial, Hilco filed a
third party complaint against Sid Harvey Industries ("Third
Party Complaint") in an action demanding contributor payment in
connection with the Settlement. Sid Harvey Industries moved
successfully for summary judgment.

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

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp., through
subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group, and
American/Universal Supply, supplies HVAC products, climate-
control systems, and plumbing fixtures to some 6,000 customers
(mostly builders and HVAC contractors) in New York and New
Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Recognizes $11T for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intermountain Refining Co. Inc., 1n 2007, recognized US$11,141
from the salvage of metals from asbestos-containing equipment
being dismantled in its Fredonia, Ariz., facility, compared with
US$29,505 in 2006, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
22, 2007.

In April, 2005, the Company began the process of dismantling the
portions of its refining equipment at its Fredonia facility that
are no longer used for ongoing operations and were not expected
to be used in the future.

As part of the dismantling process, the Company identified
asbestos containing materials in portions of the equipment being
dismantled. The Company engaged a consultant to evaluate the
extent of asbestos present on the site and to prepare a plan for
the abatement and removal of the material.

During the year ended Feb. 28, 2006, the Company incurred
US$276,212 in consulting and abatement costs associated with the
removal of the material.

The Company said it believes that abatement and disposal of the
asbestos containing materials had been completed as of Feb. 28,
2006, and does not expect to incur any material abatement costs
in the future.

Farmington, N.M.-based Intermountain Refining Co. Inc. produces
natural gas, manufactures and stores asphalt-paving products.
The Company also provides management and consulting services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reached in Phase I of Congoleum Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp. said that a court decision was issued in Phase I
of the trial addressing disputes regarding insurance coverage
for asbestos liabilities, according to a Company press release
dated May 23, 2007.

The decision found that the Company's insurers were not
obligated to provide coverage for the settlement agreement
covering numerous claimants with asbestos claims against the
Company. The settlement had been reached in 2003, before the
Company's Chapter 11 filing.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "The judge
presiding over our reorganization proceedings has already made
it clear that she would not confirm a plan that honored the
terms of the settlement agreement addressed by this state court
decision.

"This decision further confirms the issues created by that
agreement, and provides additional guidance on the steps we can
take to comply with the bankruptcy court's rulings and
decisions. We are proceeding with those steps so we can move
ahead with a plan that complies with all necessary legal
requirements and enables us to complete our reorganization."

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case
No. 03-51524) seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted against it
related to the use of asbestos in its products decades ago.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes resilient
flooring, serving both residential and commercial markets. The
Company's sheet, tile and plank products are available in a wide
variety of designs and colors, and are used in remodeling,
manufactured housing, new construction and commercial
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Firms Fined CDN175T for Removal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suncor Energy Products Inc. and Tornado Insulation Ltd. were
issued a total penalty of CDN175,000, two years after workers
were exposed to asbestos during an insulation-removal job at an
ethanol refinery in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, Canadian
Occupational Health & Safety News reports.

Suncor Energy was fined CDN125,000 for two asbestos-related
violations and Tornado Insulation was fined CDN50,000 for one
violation.

Suncor Energy was fined CDN25,000 on the first count and
CDN100,000 on the second count. Tornado Insulation, for their
part, pleaded guilty to one charge identical to Suncor Energy's
second count.

The fines follow incidents between March 9, 2005 and March 12,
2005, during which workers from both firms were removing
insulation and other materials from heat exchangers and from a
large chemical vessel, known as a stripper change drum,
according to a Ministry of Labor press release.

However, on March 11, 2005, when concern was raised that
material on the stripper change drum contained asbestos, Suncor
Energy sent the material to a testing facility in London,
Ontario, which confirmed that the materials contained asbestos.

However, Suncor Energy did not notify the MoL of the presence of
asbestos, and both companies failed to ensure workers wore
appropriate personal protective equipment when removing the
materials both after the asbestos was discovered and after it
was confirmed, the MoL said.

On May 14, 2007, Suncor Energy pleaded guilty to failing to
ensure that the friable material discovered during the work,
that was not referred to in a previously prepared asbestos
report, was reported orally and in a written report to the MoL.

Suncor Energy also pleaded guilty to failing to ensure workers
were provided with protective equipment that included a
respirator with supplied air, positive pressure full-facepiece
respirator for a Type 3 asbestos removal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Asks Court to Bar Suits v. BNSF
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith K.
Fitzgerald to bar asbestos-related lawsuits against Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. over the railroad's objections to
the legal protection, Bloomberg News reports.

Grace's effort to resolve more than 100,000 asbestos claims it
faces would be more difficult if BNSF starts defending itself
against 113 suits involving the railroad's transportation of
vermiculite ore in Libby, Mont., Grace attorney David M. Bernick
said in court.

Grace faces federal criminal charges and civil suits related to
its former vermiculite ore mine outside Libby, where town
residents claim the Company is responsible for exposing them to
asbestos. BNSF transported vermiculite from Grace's mine until
1990, when the mine was shut down, according to court documents.

While Grace is in bankruptcy protection, none of the civil
asbestos cases against the Company can go forward. The criminal
case is on hold pending legal appeals. Grace has proposed
settling all the suits as part of its plan to exit bankruptcy.

About 600 town residents and former railroad workers sued BNSF,
claiming the railroad's transportation of vermiculite ore
exposed them to asbestos, which is linked to lung diseases,
including cancer.

Grace argued that the plaintiffs in the BNSF case will
eventually sue Grace. The BNSF cases would give plaintiffs'
attorneys the chance to collect evidence that would later be
used as leverage against Grace in negotiations, Mr. Bernick told
Judge Fitzgerald.

Judge Fitzgerald agreed to sign an order allowing BNSF to pursue
legal claims against its insurers.

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: Pa. Worker's Kin Sues 44 Firms in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elsie Eberhard, representing her mother Barbara Clarke, on May
16, 2007, sued 44 defendant corporations in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed in Madison County Circuit Court, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

The suit, which states that Mrs. Clark resided in Pennsylvania,
claims that she was exposed to asbestos while employed as a
production worker, machinist, and engineering draftsman from
1961 to 1995.

Several defendants include Bondex Inc., Cooper Industries Ltd.,
Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., John
Crane Inc., Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Inc., and Thyssenkrupp AG.

The suit states that Mrs. Clarke was diagnosed with mesothelioma
on Jan. 26, 2005, and died on May 25, 2005.

Ms. Eberhard claims her mother was also exposed to asbestos
during non-occupational work projects including home and
automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

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

Ms. Eberhard claims the defendants included asbestos in their
products when they knew asbestos fibers would have a highly
deleterious effect on the health of people absorbing them,
included asbestos in their products when adequate substitutes
were available. She claims the defendants failed to provide any
warnings to people working with or around asbestos and failed to
conduct tests on asbestos-containing products in order to
determine the hazards to workers.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Eberhard claims Mrs.
Clarke was exposed to fibers with asbestos and developed a
disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured
her.

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

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

Ms. Eberhard claims that, before her death, Mrs. Clarke
experienced great pain and mental anguish, became liable for
medical expenses and lost large sums of money she otherwise
would have earned.

Ms. Eberhard seeks damages in excess of US$700,000, plus
punitive damages in an amount to punish the defendants for their
alleged misconduct.

Case No. 07 L 452 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel
Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 43 Companies in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maren Roberts, for her husband Henry Joe Roberts, sued the A.O.
Smith Corp., along with 42 other major corporations, for
distributing products throughout Jefferson County, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mrs. Roberts filed the suit with the Jefferson County District
Court on May 18, 2007. Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial
District, will preside over the case.

This is the eighth case of its kind filed by Attorney Bryan
Blevins of Provost Umphrey in the last two months.

Mrs. Roberts is blaming corporations like Lockheed Martin Corp.
and Zurn Industries Inc. for manufacturing and distributing
asbestos laced products.

The petition does not state Mr. Roberts' age when he passed away
or the nature of his illness. The suit only says he was exposed
to asbestos while working as an electrician.

However, a separate suit against E.I. Du Pont De Nemours filed
by Mrs. Roberts, says Mr. Roberts died from an asbestos related
disease on May 18, 2005. Provost Umphery is also representing
Mrs. Roberts in the separate suit (case No. A179-324).

The second suit says Mr. Roberts was a former employee of the
Beaumont refinery.

In the first suit, the petition says the 43 defendants in Mr.
Roberts' suit were negligent, failing to adequately test their
asbestos-laced products before flooding the market with
dangerous goods.

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

In Case No. E179-325, Mrs. Robersts is suing for physical pain
and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past
and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement
in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and
future, and past and future medical expenses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 16 Firms in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Burns and Patricia Ann Rollins, on May 1, 2007, sued
16 corporations, for the death of Willard Harold Burns from
asbestos-related diseases, in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The
West Virginia Record reports.

The suit was filed through Attorney James A. McKowen. Ms.
Rollins is the executrix of Mr. Burns' estate.

According to the suit, Mr. Burns died Feb. 3, 2007, of
asbestosis and mesothelioma. He worked for Union Carbide Corp.
as an operator, boilermaker and welder, from 1943 to 1977.

The suit says Mr. Burns breathed asbestos and other harmful
dusts and developed mesothelioma.

According to the suit, the defendants are responsible for Mr.
Burns' illness and subsequently, his death, by neglecting to
inform him of the dangers associated with asbestos.

Mrs. Burns and Ms. Rollins seek full compensation and punitive
damages, in the nine-count suit.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-813 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ironworker Sues 55 Companies in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Mayo Sr., on May 4, 2007, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against 55 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Mayo, of Cabell County, claims the defendants' negligence
with asbestos-containing materials caused him to contract lung
cancer.

Gladys Mayo, Mr. Mayo's wife, is also named as plaintiff.

Mr. Mayo was an ironworker for several mills and plants in West
Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky from 1970 to 1993. During that time,
he claims he was forced to breath asbestos and other harmful
dusts, which caused his cancer.

In the 12-count suit filed through Attorney Samuel D. Elswick,
the Mayos seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-851 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Warns of Dangers of Working with Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom's Health and Safety Executive issued warnings
to firms to take extra care when demolishing buildings
containing asbestos cement sheets, Azobuild.com reports.

The warning came after Wye Valley Demolition Ltd. of St.
Weonards, Hereford, on May 18, 2007, was fined GBP6,000 and
asked to pay costs of GBP13,621.49 at Hereford Magistrates'
Court after the release of asbestos during the demolition of a
former grain store building in Bodenham.

HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, Joy Jones, said,
"People working in the construction industry need to exercise
caution when working in areas that may contain asbestos.
Asbestos should not be treated lightly as it causes 3,500 deaths
in Britain each year, with annual numbers predicted to go on
rising into the next decade.

"All people working in areas that may contain asbestos need to
be aware of the dangers to others and the financial penalties
imposed if asbestos is mishandled. The risks from asbestos
cement are lower than from other asbestos materials but
contractors still need to take proper precautions."

This prosecution followed an incident between June 25, 2004 and
June 29, 2004 during the demolition of a former grain store
building at Chapel Lane, Bodenham.

The building contained asbestos cement sheets which should have
been removed under controlled conditions but which instead were
smashed to the ground by a machine then spread over the
demolition site.

Wye Valley Demolition Ltd. pleaded guilty to breaches of
Regulation 10(1) and Regulation 15 of the Control of Asbestos at
Work Regulations 2002.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Meruelo Maddux Sued for Illegal Waste Disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, on April 3, 2007, filed
a misdemeanor complaint against Meruelo Maddux Properties Inc.,
alleging illegal disposal of hazardous waste, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007.

Regarding its project at Vignes Village, the Company has been
notified that the South Coast Air Quality Management District
was investigating compliance with regulations and laws relating
to demolition of structures with asbestos-containing materials,
but that no claim had been asserted yet by the agency.

Since the date of the disclosure, the Los Angeles City
Attorney's Office, upon referral by SCAQMD, filed the complaint
in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles against the
company, the subsidiary of the company that owns the property,
and employees of the company or its subsidiaries, alleging
illegal disposal of hazardous waste.

The arraignment is not scheduled until July 2007.


COMPANY PROFILE

Meruelo Maddux Properties Inc.
761 Terminal St. Bldg. 1, 2nd Fl.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90021
Phone: 213-291-2800
Fax: 213-627-5979
http://www.meruelomaddux.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2006 Sales (mil.):                US$23.5
1-Year Sales Growth:              30.9 percent
2006 Net Income (mil.):           (US$17.1 million)
2005 Employees:                   91

Description:
The Company is a self-managed, full-service real estate company
that develops, redevelops and owns commercial and residential
properties located in downtown Los Angeles and other densely
populated urban areas in California that are undergoing
demographic or economic changes.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

  
XINHUA FINANCE: Bernstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action was commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired American Depositary Shares of
Xinhua Finance Media Ltd. pursuant or traceable to Xinhua's
initial public offering, dated March 8, 2007.

The lawsuit is also on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired ADSs of Xinhua between March 8, 2007 and May 21, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants:

     - Xinhua;
     - Fredy Bush;
     - Shelly Singhal;
     - J.P. Morgan Securities Inc;
     - UBS AG, CIBC World Markets Corp.; and
     - WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC

made, or facilitated, misleading statements in the company's
March 8, 2007 prospectus, issued in connection with the offering
of 23,076,932 ADSs, representing 46,153,846 common shares at $13
per share.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose
material information that since April 2006, prior to the
company's IPO, Shelly Singhal, the company's CFO at the time of
the IPO, was simultaneously an investment banker and stockbroker
in charge of Bedrock Securities.  Since April 2006, prior to the
company's IPO, Bedrock had been under a Nasdaq cease-and-desist
order for violating SEC regulations.  Moreover, reports also
surfaced that Singhal had been fighting a private civil
racketeering lawsuit in California and had previously been a
major investor in AremisSoft and ACLN, companies previously sued
for fraud by the SEC.  This information was never disclosed in
the prospectus.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Xinhua ADSs during the class
period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 23,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more information about the case or to obtain a copy of the
complaint, contact:

          Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, New York
          Phone: (877) 779-1414  or (212) 779-1414
          E-mail: XFML@bernlieb.com
          Web Site: http://www.bernlieb.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                        


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, and Mary Grace Durana, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *