CAR_Public/070601.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 1, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 108

                            Headlines

        

AMBLING MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Bugging Devices in Pendleton Apt.
BP PRUDHOE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss “Goldman” Lawsuit
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Two More Antitrust Suits in N.Y., N.J.
BJ’S RESTAURANTS: Parties Seek Resolution to Calif. Labor Suit
BOYDS COLLECTION: Recalls Toy Drums Due to High Lead Content

BUCA INC: June 22 Hearing Set for Dismissal Motion in Minn. Suit
CADENCE DESIGN: Tech Support Workers Sue to Claim Overtime Pay
CALIFORNIA: Suit Over Riverside County Jail Policy in Discovery
CARDINAL HEALTH: Transfers $600M Settlement of Securities Suit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Settles Ohio ERISA Litigation for $40M

DDI CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
DEVRY INC: Class Certification Sought for Calif. Student's Suit
EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Infant Swings Posing Entrapment Hazard
GARDENS MANUFACTURED: Settles Housing Development Suit for $525T

GENERAL ELECTRIC: General Counsel Files $500M Gender Bias Case
K2 SPORTS: Recalls Ski Bindings that Release Unexpectedly
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Court Mulls Appeal for Calif. Securities Suit
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Trial in MK Share Purchase Suit Moved to July
LOUISIANA: Parents of Plantation Students Sue Over Toxic Mold

MARTHA STEWART: N.Y. Court Okays $30M Securities Suit Settlement
MEDIMMUNE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over AstraZeneca Buyout
MERCURY INSURANCE: Court Mulls Final OK for FLSA Suit Settlement
STARTEK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Colo.
TELEPHONE COS: JPML Issues Conditional Remand Order in “Farina”

TEMPLE INLAND: On-Duty Meal Break Suit Settlement in Jeopardy
UNITED WESTERN: Dismissal of Defendants in "Munoz" Case Appealed
WINSTON HOTELS: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over Disposal

* DLA Piper Launches 20-Lawyer Class Action Team in U.K.

        
                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Still Faces Maritime Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Action in Ohio Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Lawsuits v. RBS Global Surge to 630
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces Over 140 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Faces About 5,200 Zurn Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study to Check Exposure’s Impact on Women
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: County Inmates May Be Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amagasaki Locals Likely to Die From Disease
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Liability Slashed Due to Claims Drop
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Greek Officials Campaign to Stop Pollution

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker Awarded GBP948T in Damages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Local Sues 92 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Voids Congoleum's Pact With Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Schools Across West Surrey
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCAPCA Issues Zanco $1.9T Fine for Breaches

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds $40M Award to Favor New York
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Issues Work Guide for Textured Coatings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malta Shipyards Ltd. Denies GWU Risk Charge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Plumber’s Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Says Workers Were Exposed to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Local Dies After Getting GBP90T Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Machinist’s Family Gets Payout for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiff Dies 10 Days After Filing Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish Town Center Remains Closed Amid Scare
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Sets Asbestos Attorney Trial in Sept.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Donald Durham, 60 Corporations Sued for Exposure


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

XINHUA FINANCE: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AMBLING MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Bugging Devices in Pendleton Apt.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer is seeking class-action status for a suit over installation of
surveillance devices in his client’s apartment.

Attorney Charles R. Griffin said it was both a violation of federal laws and
his client’s right to privacy.  He expects his case to go to federal court.

Judy Johnson moved in the Pandleton Garden Aparments, located at 210 Kirk
Lane, Pandleton, South Carolina in March 2006.  About a year later, she found
out that some bugging devices were installed in her apartment.

She filed the complaint May 11, after her efforts for asking help from the
South Carolina Housing Authority went nowhere.

She alleges that Ambling Management Company, administrator of Pendleton
apartments, illegally recorded private conversations on the apartment
property.

According to the suit, an Ambling Management Company employee confessed about
the surveillance devices at a Crimestoppers meeting at the apartment complex
on March 31, 2007.

The complaint further questions the legality of the installation of the
bugging devices in and around the residential premises.

The defendant received the notice of the suit May 24 and has not yet filed an
answer.

Mr. Griffin said the tenants never received any notice about the installation
of the surveillance systems.  The only notice they received was about the
video surveillance device.

The suit seeks for $100 a day of $10,000, whichever is greater as allowed by
the federal law.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Charles R. Griffin, Esq.
          136 North Main Street
          Anderson, SC 29621-5505
          Phone:  (864) 231-8870
          
Representing the defendant is:

          Harrison Coleman, Esq.
          Coleman Talley LLP
          7000 Central Parkway NE, Suite 1150
          Atlanta, Georgia 30328
          Phone: 770-698-9556
          Fax: 770-698-9729


BP PRUDHOE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss “Goldman” Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Michael Goldman v. BP P.L.C., et
al., Case No. 3:06-CV-00260 TMB,” have voluntarily dismissed their case
against BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust, according to the trust’s May 9, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The complaint filed on Nov. 7, 2006 purportedly as a class action by the
plaintiff, Michael Goldman, on behalf of the public holders of Units in the
Trust, against BP, the Trust, BP Alaska, Standard Oil and other unnamed
defendants.

On April 26, 2007 the plaintiff filed a notice with the Court of the
voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of the Trust from the suit.  The
action continues against the defendants BP, BP Alaska and Standard Oil.


BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Two More Antitrust Suits in N.Y., N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. is facing two additional purported federal class
actions that accuse it of using its size to suppress competition and
overcharge its products, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suits are:

      -- “The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
         Dickinson and Company was filed on March 28, 2007 in
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (Case No. 07-CV-2544);” and

      -- “International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice
         v. Becton Dickinson & Company was filed on April 5,
         2007 in U.S. District Court for the District of New
         Jersey (Case No. 2:07-cv-10602).

These purported class action cases have been brought on behalf of alleged
indirect purchasers of the Company’s products.  In each case, the plaintiff
seeks treble damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

Including the above actions, direct and indirect purchasers of the Company’s
products have brought 10 purported antitrust class action lawsuits against
the company.

The Company anticipates that these two new antitrust class action lawsuits
will be consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the other eight actions in
the Multi-District Litigation currently pending in federal court in New
Jersey.

As directed by the court, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the
Multi-District Litigation have filed consolidated complaints with the court.  

The Company has filed motions to dismiss each of the consolidated
complaints.  With respect to the actions, class certification motions are to
be briefed by the end of 2007, and oral arguments on class certification are
to be held in early 2008.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com-- is a medical technology  
company engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of a range of medical
supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products used by
healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.  BD's operations consist of three worldwide
business segments: BD Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences. BD Medical
produces an array of medical devices, including safety-engineered injection,
infusion and surgery products. BD Diagnostics provides products for the safe
collection and transport of diagnostic specimens, and instrumentation for
analysis for a range of microbiology and infectious disease testing.  


BJ’S RESTAURANTS: Parties Seek Resolution to Calif. Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a labor-related lawsuit against BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. have set a
mediation settlement meeting, on a non-binding basis, for later this year.

On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of herself, and
allegedly other employees, filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles
County, California Superior Court, Case Number BC310146.

On March 16, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging causes of
action for:

      -- failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;

      -- failure to allow meal breaks;

      -- failure to allow rest breaks;

      -- waiting time penalties;

      -- civil penalties;

      -- reimbursement for fraud and deceit;
  
      -- punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and

      -- disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second, third,
fourth and fifth causes of action.  

During September 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to binding arbitration of the
action.

The parties have scheduled a mediation settlement meeting, on a non-binding
basis for later this year, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 3, 2007.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com-- owned and operated  
55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and
Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in
Lahaina, Maui.  Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a
BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a
BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its
breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers
(contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-
service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-dish
pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers,
entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the
Pizookie cookie.  The Company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are
produced and sold.


BOYDS COLLECTION: Recalls Toy Drums Due to High Lead Content
------------------------------------------------------------
The Boyds Collection Ltd., of McSherrystown, Penn., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 4,500
units of Eli’s Small Drums and Liberty’s Large Drums.

According to the firm, the red paint on the drums contains high levels of
lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects.

Boyds has not received any injury nor incident reports.

The recalled decorative toy drums are made of wood and come with two wooden
drum sticks.  The sides of the drums are painted blue with white stars and
the tops and bottoms feature an antique U.S. flag decoration.  The Eli’s
Small Drum measures 4 3/4 inches in diameter and 3 1/2 inches tall.  The
Liberty’s Large Drum measures 6 3/4 inches in diameter and 4 inches tall.  
The Eli’s Small Drum has item number 654933 printed on its hangtag and
packaging.  The Liberty’s Large Drum has item number 654934 printed on its
hangtag and packaging.  The drums are packaged and sold separately.

These drums were manufactured in China and sold at gift and collectible
stores nationwide from June 2005 through April 2007 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled decorative toy drums away from
children and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund.

For additional information, contact The Boyds Collection Ltd. toll-free at
(877) 772-3277 ext.2179 anytime, e-mail: safety@boydsstuff.com, or visit the
firm’s Web site at www.boydsstuff.com.


BUCA INC: June 22 Hearing Set for Dismissal Motion in Minn. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 22, 2007 hearing is set for a motion to dismiss the second complaint
in the consolidated securities class action filed against BUCA, Inc.

Between Aug. 7, 2005 and Sept. 7, 2005, three identical civil actions were
commenced against the company.  The three actions were later consolidated.    

On Jan. 11, 2006, the four lead plaintiffs filed and served a consolidated
amended complaint.  The complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons who purchased the company's common stock in the market during
the time period from  
Feb. 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005.    

The lead plaintiffs allege that in press releases and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings issued during the class period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the
company's income, revenues, and internal controls, which allegedly had the
result of artificially inflating the market price for the company's stock.   

They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.   
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plus an award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.   

On Feb. 26, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Complaint,
which is scheduled for hearing on June 22, 2007.  

The suit is "West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al. v.
Buca, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-1762," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan   
W. Frank with referral under Judge Arthur Boylan.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:    

         Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
         Muria J. Kruger, Esq.
         Stacey L. Mills, Esq.
         Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
         80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550,   
         Mpls., MN 55402
         Phone: 612-338-4605
         Fax: 612-338-4692
         E-mail: bcrawford@heinsmills.com
                 mkruger@heinsmills.com
                 smills@heinsmills.com
  
         Jay W. Eng, Esq.
         Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         222 Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-835-9400,   
         Fax: 561-835-0322, E-mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and  
         mpucillo@bermanesq.com

              - and -

         Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
         Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein   
         Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC - DC, 1100 New York Ave., NW Ste.   
         500, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4609 and   
         202-408-4646, E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com and   
         stoll@cmht.com.    

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael M. Krauss, Esq.
         Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
         Faegre & Benson, LLP
         90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Phone: 612-766-8514
         Fax: 612-766-1600
         E-mail: mkrauss@faegre.com
                 wwildung@faegre.com


CADENCE DESIGN: Tech Support Workers Sue to Claim Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Employees of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. filed a nationwide class action in
U.S. District Court in San Francisco charging the nationwide San Jose-based
computer services company with failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
federal and state labor laws.

The suit, “Higazi v. Cadence,” was filed by attorneys from Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP on behalf of current and
former Cadence Systems Engineers.  The proposed class includes hundreds of
systems administrators, network technicians, helpdesk support workers, and
other technical staff who are based in Cadence's offices in San Jose, San
Diego, Irvine, Berkeley, and Napa, as well as Massachusetts, Texas, and Utah.

"Hundreds of Cadence technical support workers put in long hours to support
the company's computer systems and help Cadence bring in $1.5 billion in
revenues," stated Lieff Cabraser partner Kelly M. Dermody. "These employees
deserve to be paid for their efforts to make Cadence successful."

The complaint charges that Cadence unlawfully characterizes its employees who
install, maintain, and support computer software and hardware as exempt from
certain federal and California labor law compensation requirements in order
to deprive them of overtime pay. The proposed class consists of current and
former Cadence Systems Engineers, who were wrongly classified by the company
as exempt from the overtime provisions of wage and hour laws.

"A corporation cannot avoid paying overtime wages simply by providing a fancy
sounding title to workers who are entitled to overtime pay under the law,"
said James M. Finberg, a partner with Altshuler Berzon.

Plaintiff Ahmed Higazi, a 45-year-old Pleasanton resident, was a technical
support worker for Cadence in its San Jose headquarters for 5 years. He was
responsible for installing, maintaining, and supporting computer software and
hardware for the company.  "I was often required to work in excess of 40
hours a week -- but I did not receive overtime pay.

"What they did to me and other tech support workers was simply unfair.  I
worked hard for the company, and was not compensated for all the hours I put
in for Cadence," said Higazi, who left Cadence in 2004 and currently works at
another technology service company.

Dermody explained, "Workers are entitled to overtime pay unless they fall
under a specific legal exemption, such as computer programmers who develop
software. The plaintiff and class members in this lawsuit are responsible for
maintaining computer networks, not developing new software. They do not
qualify for the software development exemption, or any other exemption, under
wage and hour laws."

The lawsuit is asking the federal court to issue an injunction requiring
Cadence to provide overtime pay to eligible employees as well as compensation
and damages to all current and former employees who were denied overtime both
in California and elsewhere.

For more information, contact:

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Phone: 1-800-541-7358
          E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
                  jsagafi@lchb.com
          Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/


CALIFORNIA: Suit Over Riverside County Jail Policy in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking policy changes and unspecified damages against Riverside
County for alleged violations of attorney-client privilege remains in
discovery and has yet to be certified as a class action, it emerged in a
report by Signonsandiego News Services.

Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
denied motion to dismiss the purported class action the county over a jail
policy that allegedly involves recording conversations between inmates and
their attorneys, The Press-Enterprise reports (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
08, 2006).

Judge Audrey B. Collins denied a motion by the county to throw out the civil-
rights case, "Medina v. Riverside County," which was filed by defense
attorney Amador L. Corona on behalf of his client, Jaime Medina.  

Basically, the judge turned aside the county's claim of immunity for
Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle and ruled federal wiretap rules do apply
to the case.  
                        Case Background

Filed on June 29, 2006, the suit was brought on behalf of defense attorney
Messrs. Corona and Medina.  It seeks to force Riverside County Sheriff Bob
Doyle to change the jailhouse policy that allegedly permits deputies to
record conversations between attorneys and their clients (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 22, 2006).  

According to Mr. Corona, he learned while preparing for trial in a murder
case back in 2005 that several conversations he had had with his client was
recorded and supplied to the Riverside County District Attorney's office.  
Mr. Corona alleges that the conversations were one of about 700 calls Mr.
Medina made in 2003 and 2004 and recorded on a CD.

Riverside County's jail taping policy started three years ago, and inmates
are routinely notified by voice prompt that conversations may be recorded, a
report by The Daily Journal revealed.  

In the suit, Mr. Corona alleges violations of state wiretapping statutes,
invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of mandatory duty.   

Thus, Mr. Corona is calling for the county to meet three conditions:

      -- Stop taping calls,

      -- Inform all attorneys what procedure they need to follow  
         to make sure calls are not recorded, and  
   
      -- Sanctions awarded to all members of the class for these  
         violations.  

The county for its part has sought to have the case dismissed in  
a summary judgment motion it filed previously.

The suit is "Jaime Medina et al v. Riverside County of, et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-04144-ABC-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Audrey B. Collins with referral to Judge Charles F.
Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lee Wei Chen and Scott E.  
Schutzman of Scott E. Schutzman Law Offices, 3700 South Susan  
Street, Suite 120, Santa Ana, CA 92704, Phone: 714-543-3638,  
Fax: 714-245-2449.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Arthur K. Cunningham of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and  
         Smith, Tri-City Corp Center, 650 East Hospitality Lane,  
         Ste. 600, San Bernardino, CA 92408-3508, Phone: 909-
         387-1130, E-mail: akcatty@lbbslaw.com; and

     (2) Christopher D. Lockwood of Arias and Lockwood, 225 West  
         Hospitality Lane, Suite 314, San Bernardino, CA 92408,  
         Phone: 951-890-0125, Fax: 909-890-0185.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Transfers $600M Settlement of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. has transferred into an escrow account the $600 million
it agreed to pay to settle a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
it in Ohio federal court.

Under the MOU, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions will be
terminated for a payment of $600 million, an amount reserved by the Company
in the third quarter of fiscal 2007. The Company transferred the $600 million
into an escrow account on May 25, 2007.


Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's securities have
filed 10 purported class action complaints.   They named the company and
certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.   

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be brought on
behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities during various periods
beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and ending as late as July 26, 2004.   

The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act
by issuing a series of false and/or misleading statements concerning the
company's financial results, prospects and condition.   

Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming material misstatements or
omissions in prospectuses issued by the company in connection with its
acquisition of Bindley Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.   

The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for recoveries
relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin manufacturers, and to
classification of revenue in the company's Pharmaceutical Distribution
business as either operating revenue or revenue from bulk deliveries to
customer warehouses, and other accounting and business model transition
issues, including reserve accounting.   

The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an artificial inflation
in the company's stock price during the proposed class period.   

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against
the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.   

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions were
consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal
Securities Litigation."  On Jan. 26, 2005, the court appointed the Pension
Fund Group as lead plaintiff in this consolidated action.   

On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming the company, certain current and former officers and employees and the
company's external auditors as defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified
money damages and other unspecified relief against the defendants.   

On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with respect to the
company's external auditors and a former officer and denied the motion to
dismiss with respect to the company and the other individual defendants.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the parties stipulated that the case could proceed as a
class action with a class comprised of all persons other than Company
officers or directors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock
during the class period.

On April 23, 2007, the Company announced that it had determined that it was
necessary to record a reserve of $600 million for the quarter ended March 31,
2007 in respect of the Cardinal Health federal securities actions.

Since that announcement, the Company has negotiated a proposed memorandum of
understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs to settle these actions,
including an agreement by the Company to pay $600 million.   

On May 2, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the proposed
memorandum of understanding; however, the proposed memorandum of
understanding remains subject to approval by the class representatives for
the plaintiffs.

Under the MOU, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions will be
terminated for a payment of $600 million, an amount reserved by the Company
in the third quarter of fiscal 2007. The Company transferred the $600 million
into an escrow account on May 25, 2007.

The defendants in the Cardinal Health federal securities actions continue to
deny the violations of law alleged in those actions, and the settlement is
solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further
protracted litigation.  The settlement is subject to completion of definitive
documentation and certain conditions, including notice to the class of
plaintiffs in the Cardinal Health federal securities actions and court
approval.

The class to be covered by the settlement will be as previously certified by
stipulated Court Order dated December 12, 2006:

All persons (and their beneficiaries) who purchased or otherwise acquired
Cardinal Health, Inc. common stock between October 24, 2000 and July 26,
2004, inclusive.  Excluded from the Class are the defendants; and persons who
during or after the Class Period were officers or directors of Cardinal
Health, Inc.; any corporation, trust or other entity in which any defendant
has a controlling interest; and the members of the immediate families of the
individual defendants or their successors, heirs, assigns and legal
representatives.

The settlement is subject to targeted additional discovery that is reasonably
necessary for Lead Plaintiffs to confirm the adequacy of the settlement, in
the form of (a) document deliveries, including:

      (i) contents of a set of binders delivered by Gibson Dunn
          & Crutcher to the Cardinal Audit Committee;

     (ii) backup material concerning the “bulk sales”
          presentation by Tom Long at the March 28, 2007
          mediation session;

    (iii) backup material concerning the September 3, 2004
          memorandum by Mary Scherer and Eric Johnson entitled
          Bulk Delivery Revenues.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,   
Case No. 04-CV-575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

        Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
        10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
        New York, NY, 10016
        Phone: 800-217-1522
        E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
  
        Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP
        600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,   
        San Diego, CA, 92101
        Phone: 800.449.4900
        E-mail: support@milberg.com

             - and -

        John R. Climaco, Esq.
        Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA
        1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900
        Cleveland, OH 44115-1891
        Phone: 216-621-8484
        Fax: 216-771-1632
        E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

Representing the company are:

        John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
        Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
        Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue
        North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave.
        Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
        Phone: 216-586-3939
        E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com
                gjritts@jonesday.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Settles Ohio ERISA Litigation for $40M
-------------------------------------------------------
The company entered into an agreement to settle for $40 million the suit, “In
re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Beginning July 2, 2004, 15 purported class action complaints have been filed
by purported participants in the Cardinal Health
Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan, collectively referred to as the
Cardinal Health ERISA actions.  These cases include:   

     -- "David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health,   
        Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 643,"

     -- "Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,       
        Case No. 04 CV 668,"   

     -- "James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case   
        No. 04 CV 684,"   

     -- "Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,   
        Case No. 04 CV 722,"   

     -- "Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case   
        No. 04 CV 725,"   

     -- "Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,   
        Case No. 04 CV 736,"   

     -- "Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,   
        et al., Case No. 04 CV 745,"   

     -- "Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case   
        No. 04 CV 746,"   

     -- "Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case   
        No. 04 CV 778,"   

     -- "Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.   
        04 CV 789,"

     -- "Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case   
        No. 04 CV 790,"   

     -- "Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
        04 CV 803,"   

     -- "Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case   
        No. 04 CV 815,"

     -- "Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,   
        Case No. (04 CV 828), and"   

     -- "Gint Baukus v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.   
        05 C2 101."   

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on behalf of
participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savings and Stock
Ownership Plan, and also on behalf of the Plans themselves.   

The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties
owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full
disclosure of the risks to the
Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the detriment of
the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that company stock should not
have been made available as an investment alternative for the Plans'
participants.   

The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions significantly
overlap with the misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health federal
securities actions.   

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against
the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.   

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were consolidated into
one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation."   

On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison counsel for
the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action.   

On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended ERISA
complaint naming the company, certain current and former directors, officers
and employees, the company's Employee Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam
Fiduciary Trust Co. as defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified money
damages and other unspecified relief against the defendants.   

On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.   

On March 31, 2006, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with respect to
Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. and with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for
equitable relief.  The Court denied the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the Company and certain defendants.

On Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification.  

According to the company’s May 30 form 8-k filing, the company has reached an
understanding with the counsel for the plaintiffs regarding a proposed
settlement of the ERISA actions that are pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Company and
certain officers, directors and employees of the Company by purported
participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings
Plan (now known as the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan, or the “401(k)
Plan”) asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(the “Cardinal Health ERISA actions”).

The understanding provides that the Cardinal Health ERISA actions will be
terminated for a payment by the Company of $40 million. As a result, the
Company will record a reserve of $40 million for the period ending June 30,
2007. The defendants in the ERISA litigation continue to deny the violations
of law alleged in those actions, and the settlement reached is solely to
eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted
litigation.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

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

             - and -

        George E. Barrett, Esq.
        Barrett Johnston & Parsley
        217 Second Avenue N.
        Nashville, TN 37201
        Phone: 615-244-2202
        E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

Representing the company are:

        J. Kevin Cogan, Esq.
        Jones Day
        325 John H. McConnell Blvd., P.O. Box 165017
        Columbus, OH 43216-5017
        Phone: 614-469-3939
        Fax: 614-461-4198
        E-mail: jcogan@jonesday.com;

             - and -

        Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
        Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
        65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
        Columbus, OH 43215-4294
        Phone: 614-462-5400
        Fax: 614-462-5422
        E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com


DDI CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California gave final
approval to a $4.4 million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against DDi Corp.

In late 2003, a number of putative class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against certain of the
company's former officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock, alleging violations of the federal securities laws
between December 2000 and April 2002 in connection with various public
offerings of securities.

In December 2003, these actions were consolidated into a single action, "In
re DDI Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 03-
7063 MMM (SHx)."

In late 2006, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to settle the
federal class action.  On Nov. 22, 2006, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.

The terms of the settlement require the defendants to pay $4.4 million in
full settlement of the claims asserted on behalf of the class.

On March 30, 2007, the Court approved the preliminary settlement among the
parties.  The Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the terms
of the settlement in its entirety on April 2, 2007, according to the
company’s May 9, 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:

         Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
         Kay E. Sickles, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: (610) 667-7706
         E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         DDi Corp. Securities Litigation,
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 9000 #6465,
         Merrick, NY 11566-9000
         Phone: 1-888-292-1828
         Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com


DEVRY INC: Class Certification Sought for Calif. Student's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University campus, has
filed a new motion seeking class-action status for her case against DeVry,
Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc. over their alleged violations of state
education laws.

Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the putative class action in the California
state district court for the County of Los Angeles.   

Plaintiff alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students did not
comply with California state statutes including a California Education Code
requirement to provide a specified statement to prospective students
concerning the transferability   of credits.   

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  A motion to dismiss was filed, but it was later denied.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court denied
without prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed a new motion for class
certification, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,  
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Central District of California under Judge  
Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         Braun Law Group
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone:  310-442-7755
         E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
         Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-392-8801
         E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Van T. Lam, Esq.
         Reed Smith
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
         Phone: 213-457-8000


EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines, a subsidiary of Con-way Inc., remains a defendant
in a labor-related class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  

The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act in connection with employee layoffs and ultimate
terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of Emery Worldwide's airline
operations and the shutdown of the airline operations in December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
affected employees laid off between Aug. 11 and
Aug. 15, 2001.  

The WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days notice, or 60-days
pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any shutdown of operations or mass
layoff at a site of employment.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 8, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Bledsoe, et al. v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, et al., Case No.
3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H.
Rice.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Gerard Torchia, Esq.
         Tobias & Kraus
         414 Walnut Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-241-8137
         Fax: 513-241-8137
         E-mail: davet@tktlaw.com

Representing the company are:

         Michelle R. Arendt, Esq.
         Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Esq.
         Ulmer and Berne
         Penton Media Building, 1300 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-931-6056
         Fax: 216-931-6057
         E-mail: marendt@ulmer.com

              - and -

         Jacqueline Schuster Hobbs, Esq.
         Cinergy Services, Inc.
         139 East Fourth Street 25ATII
         Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960
         Phone: 513-287-1238
         Fax: 513-287-2996
         E-mail: Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Infant Swings Posing Entrapment Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of nearly 112,000
(an additional 15,000 were sold worldwide) units of Rainforest Open Top Take-
Along Swings.

The firm said infants can shift to one side of the swing and become caught
between the frame and seat, posing an entrapment hazard.

Fisher-Price has received 60 reports of the infants becoming entrapped,
resulting in cuts, bumps, bruises and red marks.

This recall involves Portable Rainforest Take Along Swings with a palm tree
mobile and two hanging plush toys.  The swings are approximately 23-inches-
high and have two carry handles on the left and right sides.  Model numbers
K7203, K7192 and K7195 are included in the recall.  Model numbers are located
under the right handle on the swing.  No other collection of Rainforest
swings or products are included in this recall.

These swings were manufactured in China through discount department stores
and toy stores nationwide from November 2006 to May 2007 for about $65.

Click this link to view the photo of the infant swing subject to recall:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07197.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the swing and contact Fisher-Price
for instructions on how to return it to receive a voucher for a replacement
product.

For additional information, call Fisher-Price toll-free at (888) 303-5631
anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at http://www.service.mattel.com.


GARDENS MANUFACTURED: Settles Housing Development Suit for $525T
----------------------------------------------------------------
A certified class of residents of the Gardens Manufactured Home Community in
Rochester, Minn. has entered into an out-of-court settlement totaling
$525,000, Janice Gregorson of The Post-Bulletin reports.

A sum of $240,000 will be divided among the residents and the rest is
allocated to attorney fees and other costs.

The lawsuit was filed in 2004 by 21 residents of the manufactured home
community.  It alleged consumer fraud, breach of contract, and violations of
state and local laws against the Gardens, which leases out the land, and
Windmill Homes LLC, which markets and sells manufactured homes (Class Action
Reporter, April 4, 2006).

An Olmsted District Court judge granted class certification to the suit in
May 2006.  Late last year, more individual defendants were named to the
suit.  Claims for punitive damages were also added.  In March this year, all
the parties signed the settlement.

Based on the report, Olmsted District Judge Joseph Wieners signed the final
order and judgment May 7.  The 15 named plaintiffs were individually awarded
class representative awards of between $2,000 and $3,000.  The settlement
also includes $180,000 to the residents for damage distribution.

According to the defendants, they entered into the settlement only because
they wanted to resolve the matter immediately and avoid litigation.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
          
          Wood Foster, Esq.
          Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A.
          1300 Washington Square
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
          Phone: 612-337- 6100
          Telecopier: 612-339-6591

Representing the defendant is:

          Todd Wind, Esq.
          Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
          200 South Sixth Street Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1425
          Phone: 612-492-7000
          Telecopier: 612-492-7077


GENERAL ELECTRIC: General Counsel Files $500M Gender Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The highest-ranking legal employee in General Electric's $4.2 billion
Transportation Division filed a gender discrimination class action complaint
against her employer on May 31 in U.S. District Court in Connecticut.

GE Transportation General Counsel, Lorene F. Schaefer, accuses GE of systemic
company-wide discriminatory treatment of (1) female executive band employees,
and (2) all female attorneys. She is seeking to change the company's
discriminatory pay and promotion policies and practices.

Ms. Schaefer also seeks $500 million in damages for a class of approximately
1500 Executive Band female employees and female attorneys.  Each female
Executive Band employee and female attorney would receive, on average,
approximately $300,000.

Ms. Schaefer and the class are represented in the matter by David Sanford and
Steven L. Wittels, who head teams of lawyers from Sanford, Wittels & Heisler,
LLP's Washington, D.C. and New York City offices.

"Chair and CEO Jeffrey Immelt wrote in GE's most recent Corporate Citizenship
Report that 'A good company leads by example, not words,'" said Mr.
Sanford.  "Unfortunately for senior executive women in the company, the
example set by its male-dominated leadership is not inclusive for females.  
Ms. Schaefer has experienced this kind of discrimination and has witnessed
its effects on other top female employees. She believes it is time to bring
better treatment for GE's women executives to life."

According to the Complaint, the glass ceiling remains a fact of life at GE.
From 2002 to the present, women have made few inroads into the
company's "good old boy" culture.

"The representation of women in the officer ranks has remained steady at a
dismal 13 percent for five years. Similarly, I believe female representation
in the Senior Executive Band has also been stagnant at approximately 20
percent in the same period," said Ms. Schaefer.

Although I have consistently received awards and recognition for outstanding
legal work and leadership, I've been kept at the company's lower Executive
Band level while my male General Counsel peers have been promoted to the
Senior Executive Band level. I hope this lawsuit serves as the necessary
catalyst for creating much needed and long overdue change at GE."

The suit names General Electric's Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey R. Immelt; Senior
Vice President and GE General Counsel, Brackett B. Denniston, III;
President/CEO of GE Infrastructure-Transportation, John M. Dineen; and Vice
Chairman of GE John G. Rice as defendants.

In addition, the suit names senior managers John F. Lynch (Senior Vice
President, GE Human Resources), John Loomis, (Vice President of Human
Resources for GE Infrastructure); Greg Capito, (Senior Human Resources
Manager for GE Transportation) and GE Management Development and Compensation
Committee Members Claudio X. Gonzalez, Andrea Jung, Ralph S. Larsen, Sam
Nunn, and Douglas A. Warner III.

The suit alleges that members of the Management and Development Committee
carried out and/or assisted the wrongful acts described in the Complaint.

These acts include violating company policy when it comes to promoting female
attorneys to the Senior Executive Band level or higher when they serve as
General Counsel in one of GE Infrastructure's seven business divisions;
paying their two female General Counsel less than their five male General
Counsel counterparts; and paying male lawyers more than female lawyers.
(The accompanying chart at the end of this press release graphically makes
this point).

"I have suffered from discrimination, but I am not alone," said Ms.
Schaefer. "That is why this action has been filed on behalf of an entire
class of women who have been denied promotional opportunities, senior
management positions, equal pay, bonuses, and other benefits of employment.
These aren't incidental acts of discrimination, and they are continuing in
nature, not aberrations or rare occurrences."

Ms. Schaefer is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for herself and the
class, including back pay; front pay; compensatory, nominal and punitive
damages; and attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. Her claims are based on
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Connecticut Human Rights
Act.

"At this point, a suit has become the only way to redress GE's pervasive and
discriminatory policies, practices and procedures that have adversely
impacted and continue to adversely impact women in its management ranks,"
said Mr. Steven Wittels. "GE's CEO claims to have personally changed the DNA
of his senior management leaders in the last 5 years. The bad news is that
the XY chromosome is his favored gene."

Mr. Sanford added, "This week's United States Supreme Court decision only
serves to highlight the obstacles women face in bringing powerful claims of
discrimination. Ms. Schaefer has taken a courageous stand in acting on behalf
of women throughout GE and hopes her lawsuit will serve as a model for change
for GE and all corporations throughout the United States."
Ms. Schaefer emphasized, "This suit is not only for GE women, but for my
daughters and all daughters who should not have to face what I have faced at
GE."

Mr. Sanford leads Ms. Schaefer's Washington, D.C.-based team, which includes
Stefanie F. Roemer, Meenoo Chahbazi, Angela Corridan, Shayna Bloom and Grant
Morris. Mr. Wittels leads the New York City-based legal team which includes
Jeremy Heisler, Janette Wipper and William R. Weinstein.

    GE Infrastructure Segment - $48 B*

    Business              Revenue    CEO            GC


    Energy                19.1 B     Male Officer   Male Officer

    Aviation              13.2 B     Male Officer   Male Officer

    Oil & Gas             4.3 B      Male Officer   Male SEB

    Transportation        4.2 B      Male Officer   Female EB
    Aviation Fin. Serv.   4.2 B      Male Officer   Male SEB
    Water/Other           2.0 B      Male Officer   Female EB

    Energy Fin. Serv.     1.7 B      Male Officer   Male SEB


    EB  = Executive Band (entry level executive band)
    SEB = Senior Executive Band (upper level executive band)

*2006 Revenue (All GE Infrastructure Officers including chief executive,
human relations, chief financial officer, and compliance are male).

For more information, contact:

          David Sanford, Esq.
          Phone: +1-202-276-4028
          E-mail: dsanford@nydclaw.com

          - and -
          Steven Wittels, Esq.
          Phone: +1-646-723-2947
          E-mail: swittels@nydclaw.com


K2 SPORTS: Recalls Ski Bindings that Release Unexpectedly
---------------------------------------------------------
K2 Sports, of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 7,400 pairs of Marker M1
Demo Ski Bindings.

The firm said skiers can unintentionally displace a lever at the rear of the
binding which is used for fitting adjustment by ski technicians.  If it is
fully displaced, it can result in the unexpected release of the binding and
possibly cause the user to fall.

K2 Sports has received at least 10 reports of bindings unexpectedly
releasing, which may be due to this hazard, including one report of a skier
receiving bruises and one skier reporting a shoulder injury.

This recall involves Marker M1 Demo ski bindings, which fit only on certain
K2 skis with the K2/Marker Mod integrated mounting system.  These bindings
will not mount on other skis.  Consumer versions of Marker ski bindings do
not have a gray boot sole length adjustment lever on the back of the heel and
are not included in this Recall Alert.

These skis were manufactured in Germany and Czech Republic and were sold in
ski rental shops nationwide from October through December 2006.  These skis
were not sold to consumers.

Ski shops have been advised to stop renting skis with these bindings until
they have been repaired.  Consumers whose equipment has not been upgraded
should stop using it immediately and return it to the place of rental /
purchase to have it upgraded.

All adjustments and inspections of Alpine ski bindings should be performed by
a qualified ski shop technician.

Click this link to view the photo of the product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07554.html

For information, retailers and consumers should contact K2 Consumer Affairs
at (888) 546-3754 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.  
Press "3" to be connected to a technical support specialist.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Court Mulls Appeal for Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal
in the consolidated securities class action against Leadis Technology, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors.

On March 2, 2005, a securities class action was filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the
defendants.  

The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and misleading statements in
the company's registration statement and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004
for the company's initial public offering.  

Another similar action was filed on March 11, 2005.  On April  
20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions.   

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
purchasers that acquired shares of the company common stock pursuant to its
registration statement and prospectus.   

The claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of the IPO
demand for the company's color organic light-emitting diodes products was
already slowing due to competition from one of its existing customers and
that the company failed to disclose that it was not well positioned for
continued success as a result of such competition.   

On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit.  

By a March 1, 2006 order, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
with prejudice, and a judgment was entered in favor of the company and all
other defendants.  

On or about March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The parties have filed their respective appellate briefs and the appeal is
now pending, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2007.

The suit is "Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis Technology,  
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge Charles R. Breyer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

      -- Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Grant P. Fondo, Esq.
         Laura R. Smith, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
         Phone: 650 843-5458
         Fax: 650 857-0663
         E-mail: gfondo@cooley.com
                 smithlr@cooley.com


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Trial in MK Share Purchase Suit Moved to July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court trial in a purported class action filed against Leucadia National
Corp. in relation to its 2005 acquisition of minority interest in MK
Resources Co. has been moved to July 16-20, 2007, instead of the original
March 2007 dates.

The case is "Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al. v.
Leucadia National Corp., et al.," a consolidated action involving a petition
for appraisal and a class action pending in the Delaware Chancery Court.

The pending appraisal petition seeks a judicial determination of the fair
value of approximately 3,979,400 shares of MK Resources' common stock as of
Aug. 19, 2005, the date of the merger of one of the company's subsidiaries
into MK Resources.

The class action complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, costs, disbursements and any further relief that the court may deem
just and proper, and in the alternative, seeks rescissory damages, in each
case taking into account the $1.27 per share consideration paid to the
minority stockholders of MK Resources in the merger.

Based on discovery to date, the company understands that the plaintiffs
believe that the fair value of each share of MK
Resources common stock at the date of the merger ranged from
$4.75 to $10.16 per share (with respect to a total of approximately
10,500,000 shares), while the company believes that the fair value of each MK
Resources share at that date was $0.57 per share.

The trial of these two cases currently is scheduled for July 16-20, 2007,
according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

Leucadia National Corp. -- http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a diversified  
holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including manufacturing,
real estate activities, medical product development, winery operations, and
residual banking and lending activities that are in run-off.  Its segments
include Manufacturing, Domestic Real Estate, Medical Product Development and
Other Operations.  The Company's manufacturing operations are conducted
through Idaho Timber, LLC, which offers wood products, and Conwed Plastics,
LLC, which manufactures and markets lightweight plastic netting used for a
variety of purposes.  Its domestic real estate operations consist of a
variety of commercial properties, residential land development projects and
other unimproved land. Its medical product development segment is conducted
through Sangart. Other operations primarily consist of Leucadia’s wineries,
Caribbean-based telecommunications services, and residual banking and lending
activities that are in run-off.


LOUISIANA: Parents of Plantation Students Sue Over Toxic Mold
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Lafayette law firm is working with parents of some Plantation Elementary
School students who believe they could have suffered adverse health effects
from exposure to harmful mold on campus, Amanda Harris of The Daily
Advertiser reports.

Clayton Burgess represents three students attending Plantation School in
Lafayette, Louisiana, who seeks to certify a class of complainants.

He said students could get compensation for both medical expenses and
monitoring if the case gets certified.  Otherwise, majority of the students
won’t have money for future health needs, he added.

Doubts on the school’s sanitation were raised when Jeannie and Barry
Philliber’s son was tested positive of toxin caused by mold in December.

The suit names Linda Villagomez and daughter, Anita, as lead plaintiffs.  It
also includes all similarly situated Lafayette Parish residents whose
children are attending Plantation Elementary School.

The school has already requested extension to answer the complaint.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
          
          Clayton Burgess, Esq.
          Law Office of L. Clayton Burgess
          605 W. Congress St.
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Phone: (337) 234-7573
          Toll Free: 877-234-7573
          Fax: (337) 233-3890
          Web Site: http://www.clayburgess.com/clay/Contact_Us.asp

Representing the defendant is:

          Lane Roy, Esq.
          Preis & Roy, A Professional Law Corporation
          Versailles Centré, Suite 400, 102 Versailles Boulevard
          P.O. Drawer 94-C
          Lafayette, Louisiana 70509
          Phone: 337-237-6062
          Fax: 337-237-9129
          Web Site: http://www.preisroy.com


MARTHA STEWART: N.Y. Court Okays $30M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved on May
29 a $30 million settlement in the class action, "In Re Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-6273 (JES),"
Reuters reports

The pact requires the homemaking expert to pay $5 million of the total
settlement, according to law firm Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP, which
represented the investors.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that bought shares of Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. common stock between Jan. 8, 2002 and Oct. 2,
2002.

Deadline for the submission of claim forms is on June 23.

                         Case Background

On Feb. 3, 2003, the company was named as a defendant in a consolidated and
amended class action complaint filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent a
class of persons who purchased common stock in the company between Jan. 8,
2002 and  Oct. 2, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2006).

The consolidated suit is captioned, "In re Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)."  
Besides the company, it also names Martha Stewart and seven of its other
present or former officers, Gregory R. Blatt, Sharon L. Patrick, and five
other company officers, as defendants.   

All such individuals other than Martha Stewart are collectively referred to
herein as the individual defendants.  The action consolidated seven class
actions previously filed in the Southern District of New York.   

The claims in the consolidated class action complaint arose out of Ms.
Stewart's sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock on Dec. 27, 2001.  

The suit asserts violations of Sections 10(b) (and rules promulgated
thereunder), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the company, Ms. Stewart and the individual defendants
omitted material information and made statements about Ms. Stewart's sale
that were materially false and misleading.    

They also allege that, as a result of these false and misleading statements,
the market price of the company's stock was inflated during the putative
class periods and dropped after the alleged falsity of the statements became
public.   

Plaintiffs further alleged that the individual defendants traded  
MSO stock while in possession of material non-public information, but as
explained below, all such allegations have been dismissed.


The suit is "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under  
Judge John E. Sprizzo.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
         Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 759-4600
         E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

         Salvatore Jo Graziano, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York NY 10119
         Phone: 212-554-1538
         Fax: 212-554-1444
         E-mail: SGraziano@blbglaw.com

             - and -

         Mark David Smilow, Esq.
         Weiss & Yourman
         551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
         New York, NY 10176
         Phone: (212) 682-3025
         Fax: (212) 682-3010
         E-mail: msmilow@weisslurie.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Gregory Arthur Markel, Esq.
         Martin L. Seidel, Esq.
         Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP
         One World Financial Center
         New York, NY 10281
         Phone: (212) 504-6112 and 212-504-5643
         Fax: (212) 504-6666 and 212-504-6387
         E-mail: greg.markel@cwt.com and martin.seidel@cwt.com

For more details, contact In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia,
Inc. Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-
0990, Phone: 1-800-447-7657, Web site: http://www.gilardi.com.


MEDIMMUNE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over AstraZeneca Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Purported Medimmune Inc. shareholder Jamie Suprina, as custodian for
Alexander Suprina, filed a Shareholder Class Complaint for Self-Dealing and
Breach of Fiduciary Duty against the company in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland on May 21, 2007.

              Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations

This is a stockholder class action brought by plaintiff on behalf of the
holders of MedImmune, Inc. to enjoin the buyout of the publicly owned shares
of MedImmune common stock by AstraZeneca PLC.  The Company as recently as May
1, 2007, announced that its first-quarter earnings more than tripled while
revenue advanced 15% from a year ago.  Furthermore, analysts foresee that the
Company’s impressive vaccine platform will likely give the Company a huge
competitive edge in the near future.

Instead of allowing the Company’s shareholders to enjoy this expected growth
the Individual Defendants have decided to sell the Company for inadequate
consideration, in a deal structured to grant insiders preferential treatment
at the expense of the Company’s public stockholders.  For instance,
defendants Mott and Hockmeyer will receive change of control and other
payments totaling $145 million, and $59.7 million, respectively.

The Buyout is designed to prevent any genuine suitors from coming forward.  
The Buyout provides for a $450 million termination fee if the Board
authorizes the company to enter into an agreement to be acquired by a third
party.  That termination fee operates as a deterrent against other potential
suitors.
  
In pursuing the unlawful plan to sell MedImmune for grossly inadequate
consideration, each of the defendants violated applicable law by directly
breaching and/or aiding the other defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing.

In pursuing the unlawful plan to facilitate the acquisition of MedImmune by
AstraZeneca, each of the defendants violated applicable law by directly
breaching and/or aiding the other defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing.

In fact, instead of attempting to obtain the highest price reasonably
available for MedImmune, the Individual Defendants spent substantial efforts
tailoring the structural terms of the Buyout to meet the specific needs of
AstraZeneca and to guarantee themselves lucrative retention and charge of
control packages.

In essence, the Buyout is the product of a hopelessly flawed process that was
designed to ensure the sale of MedImmune to AstraZeneca and is not in the
best interests of plaintiff and the other public stockholders of MedImmune.

                     Individual Defendants

Defendants are: David M. Mott, chief executive officer, vice chairman,
president and director; David Baltimore, director;
M. James Barrett, director; Wayne T. Hockmeyer, director; James H. Cavanaugh,
director; Barbara Hackman Franklin, director; Elizabeth H. S. Wyatt,
director; George M. Milne, Jr., director; and H. Hotz, director.

                        The Transaction

The acquisition is structured as an all cash tender offer for all outstanding
shares of MedImmune Common Stock followed by a merger in which each remaining
untendered share of MedImmune would be converted into the same $58 cash per
share price paid in the tender offer.  The acquisition is subject to the
satisfaction of customary conditions, including the tender of a majority of
the outstanding MedImmune shares on a fully-diluted basis and the expiration
or earlier termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period and other
regulatory approvals.  The tender offer will be commenced within 10 working
days and is expected to close in June 2007, unless extended.  The tender
offer is not subject to a financing contingency.

The acquisition price represents a premium of approximately 53.3% to
MedImmune’s closing share price of $37.84 on 11th April, 2007, this being the
last business day prior to MedImmune’s announcement to explore strategic
alternatives.

The transaction has been unanimously recommended by the Board of Directors of
MedImmune.

The acquisition will be effected pursuant to a merger agreement.  The merger
agreement contains certain termination rights for each of AstraZeneca and
MedImmune and further provides that, upon termination of the merger agreement
under specified circumstances, MedImmune may be required to pay AstraZeneca a
termination fee of $450 million.

Plaintiff demands, among others, for a court order enjoining defendants,
their agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in concert with them
from consummating the Buyout, unless and until the Company adopts and
implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for
shareholders.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrew Radding, Esq.
          Gregory M. Kline
          Adelberg Rudow Dorf & Hendler, LLC
          7 Saint Paul Street, Suite 500
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: (410) 539-5195
          Fax: (410) 539-5834

         - and -

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         Shane Rowley, Esq.
         Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017-6531
         Phone: (212) 983-9330
         Fax: (212) 983-9331


MERCURY INSURANCE: Court Mulls Final OK for FLSA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has yet to give
final approval to Mercury Insurance Co.’s proposed settlement with former
automobile policy field adjusters who filed the lawsuit, "Robert Dolan, et
al. v. Mercury Insurance Co., et al."

The case is a collective action claim filed in April 2006.  The plaintiffs,
former automobile policy field adjusters, claim that they and the members of
the class they seek to represent were denied overtime compensation in
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class of field
adjusters for a period of three years preceding the filing of the action, and
recovery of allegedly unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has granted conditional certification for notice purposes.  In
February 2007, the company and the plaintiff reached a preliminary
settlement, which is subject to review and approval by the court.  

It is anticipated that the Court will finally approve the settlement in July
2007, according to the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is "Dolan et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co. et al., Case
No. 8:06-cv-00600-RAL-TGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Richard A. Lazzara with referral to Thomas G.
Wilson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
         Florin, Roebig, P.A.
         777 Alderman Rd.
         Palm Harbor, FL 34683
         Phone: 727/786-5000
         Fax: 727-772-9833
         E-mail: fgo@florinroebig.com

Representing the defendants is;

         Stephen L. Berry, Esq.
         Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
         695 Town Center Dr., 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714/668-6200
         Fax: 714/979-1921
         E-mail: stephenberry@paulhastings.com


STARTEK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado against StarTek, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers and directors have moved to dismiss the
case.

Initially, the company and others were named as defendants in two purported
class actions in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.  The suits
are:

      -- "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. StarTek,
         Inc., et al.," filed on July 8, 2005; and

      -- "John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al.," filed on July
         20, 2005.

The federal court later consolidated those actions.  The consolidated action
is a purported class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock in a secondary offering by certain of
the company's stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between Feb.
26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company and its business and prospects
in the prospectus for the secondary offering, as well as in filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in press releases issued during
the class period, and that the market price of the company's common stock was
artificially inflated as a result.

It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants moved the court to
dismiss the action in its entirety.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 8, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Startek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01265-PSF-OES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, under
Judge Phillip S. Figa.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Matthew M. Wolf, Esq.
         Allen & Vellone, P.C.
         1600 Stout Street, #1100
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-534-4499
         E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com  

Representing the company are:

         James E. Nesland, Esq.
         Matthew Voss, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken Crescent, #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099
         E-mail: neslandje@cooley.com
                 mvoss@cooley.com


TELEPHONE COS: JPML Issues Conditional Remand Order in “Farina”
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Mulitdistrict Litigation conditionally remanded the
class action, “Farina v. Nokia Corp. et al.,” to Pennsylvania federal court,
Jeffrey Silva of RCRWireless News reports.

The remand order issued May 24 was made at the recommendation of U.S.
District Judge Catherine Blake of Baltimore.

The Farina lawsuit seeks to force cellular operators to supply consumers with
hands-free headsets to reduce their exposure to phone radiation and to
compensate consumers who have already purchased headsets.  It was filed on
April 19, 2001 in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

During 2001, after removal to federal court, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the above four cases to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the matter called, "In re Wireless Telephone Radio
Frequency Emissions Products Liability Litigation."


TEMPLE INLAND: On-Duty Meal Break Suit Settlement in Jeopardy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Temple Inland, Inc. believes that a recent opinion by the Supreme Court of
California jeopardizes the settlements it has reached in two of the three
class actions filed against the company in California state court.

The company reached agreements in principle to settle two of these cases --
alleging violations of that state’s on-duty meal break laws -- in 2007.  

In April 2007, however, the Supreme Court of California issued an
interpretation of the meal break laws that had the effect of applying a four-
year limitations period to these actions as opposed to the one-year period
the company believed applied.

The longer limitations period results in a higher exposure for these claims
and jeopardizes the settlements the company had reached, according to the
company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Temple-Inland, Inc. -- http://www.templeinland.com/-- is a holding company,  
which through its subsidiaries operates four business segments: corrugated
packaging, forest products, real estate and financial services.  The Company
manufactures linerboard and corrugating medium that it converts into
corrugated packaging and sells in the open market.  The Company owns or
leases 1.8 million acres of timberland in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and
Alabama.  It grows timber, cuts the timber and converts it into products.  
The Company entitles and develops real estate that it owns directly or
participates in through ventures.  As of December 30, 2006, it had projects
in eight states and 12 markets encompassing about 237,000 acres, including
196,000 acres of land located in Georgia, principally near Atlanta, and in
Texas. The Company owns a savings bank, Guaranty Bank, which includes an
insurance agency subsidiary.


UNITED WESTERN: Dismissal of Defendants in "Munoz" Case Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of United Western Bancorp, Inc., and
certain other defendants in the class action, "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v.
Sterling Trust Co., et al.," which was filed in Superior Court of the State
of California, according to the company’s May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.

Sterling Trust Co., United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank,
The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. were named as
defendants in the action, which was filed in December
2001.  

The complaint sought class-action status, requested unspecified damages and
alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
written contract on the part of
Sterling Trust.  

In the fourth quarter of 2005, Sterling Trust was granted summary judgment as
to all claims against it.  In April 2006, the court granted a motion for
summary judgment, dismissing
Sterling Trust, United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The
Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. from the action.

On Sept. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
California Superior Court.  The plaintiffs filed their appellate brief with
the California Court of Appeals on March 19, 2007, Sterling and the other
defendants responsive brief is to be filed with the appeals court May 26,
2007.  

United Western Bancorp, Inc., -- http://www.matrixbancorp.com/-- formerly  
Matrix Bancorp, Inc., is a unitary thrift holding company that, through its
subsidiaries, provides diversified financial services.  The Company has four
segments.  The traditional banking subsidiary provides deposit and lending
services to its customers and also makes investments in residential mortgage
loans.  The mortgage-banking subsidiary owns residential mortgage service
rights (MSRs) and services the mortgage loans underlying those MSRs, and has
some minimal mortgage origination activity.  The brokerage subsidiaries offer
brokerage and consulting services for residential MSRs and brokerage services
for loan activities and fixed income activities, and small business
association loans and securities.  The trust services subsidiary provides
services for only self-directed individual retirement account, pension,
profit sharing accounts and escrow arrangements.


WINSTON HOTELS: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the purported class action, “Whitney v.
Winston Hotels, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CVS-3449,” a case that seeks to
prevent Winston Hotels from consummating its sale to Wilbur Acquisition
Holding Co., according to the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2007.

The suit was filed on March 5, 2007 in Superior Court in Wake County, North
Carolina, naming the company, the individual members of the company’s board
of directors, Wilbur Acquisition, and its wholly owned subsidiary formed for
the purpose of effecting the proposed merger, as defendants.

On April 2, 2007, Winston Hotels entered into the merger agreement.  On April
5, 2007, the company filed a notice of designation requesting that the
lawsuit be designated as a mandatory complex business case and moved to the
North Carolina Business Court.  This request was granted on April 11, 2007.

On May 2, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Superior Court in
Wake County, North Carolina naming Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc.,
and Inland American Acquisition, LLC, (IAA), as defendants in addition to
those defendants set forth above.

The lawsuit seeks class action status and generally alleges that members of
the Company’s board of directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company’s
shareholders by entering into each of the merger agreements, and that Wilbur
Acquisition and its subsidiary, Inland American and IAA aided and abetted the
other defendants’ alleged fiduciary breaches.

The lawsuit seeks a variety of equitable and injunctive relief, including
enjoining defendants from completing the merger, enjoining solicitation of
proxies through the dissemination of the proxy statement, declaring the
termination fee for not completing the merger to be unfair and enjoining the
payment of such fee, and awarding pre-and post judgment interest, attorney’s
fees, expert fees and other costs incurred by the plaintiffs.

Winston Hotels, Inc. -- http://www.winstonhotels.com/-- operates as a real  
estate investment trust that owns and develops hotel properties directly and
through joint ventures, provides and acquires hotel loans, and provides hotel
development and asset management services.


* DLA Piper Launches 20-Lawyer Class Action Team in U.K.
--------------------------------------------------------  
DLA Piper launches its own team in U.K. representing both defendants and
claimants in private and class actions, Caroline Binham of The Lawyer.com
reports.

The firm put up an office in the U.K. to compete with the U.S. class action
firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, who hired Rob Murray, DLA’s former head
of competition.  Another firm, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom will also
start a London defense practice for class actions.

DLA Piper’s head of competition and trade in Europe and Africa, Mike Pullen,
is setting off 20 lawyers to work on private actions from competition law
breaches, the report says.

He said this is driven by client demand and that they can’t just solely rely
on litigation teams.

The U.K. group will also work with teams in Australia and the United States.

Based on the report, DLA Piper has a key role on the first representative
action for anticompetitive behavior to be brought by consumer group Which?,
advising defendant JJB Sports, which resulted into a GBP18.6 million fine.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Still Faces Maritime Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. says its subsidiaries, The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.
and The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Co., have been named defendants in 485
asbestos-related actions brought from 1986 to date by former seamen or their
admininstrators, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2007.

In the suits, the plaintiffs claim damages under federal law for illnesses
allegedly suffered from exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while serving as
crew members aboard the vessels previously owned or managed by Company
entities until the mid-1980s.

All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict proceedings in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whose docket now includes a total of
over 30,000 maritime cases filed by seamen against ship-owners and other
defendants. All of these cases have been administratively dismissed without
prejudice, but can be reinstated upon application by plaintiffs' counsel.

The claims against Company entities are insured, subject to self-insured
retentions by the insured in amounts that vary by policy year. However, the
manner in which these retentions will be applied remains uncertain.  

Cleveland-based Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. is a producer of iron ore pellets in
North America. The Company, founded in 1847, sells substantially all of its
pellets to integrated steel companies in the U.S. and Canada.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/764065/0001193125-07-123585-index.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Action in Ohio Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., in April 2007, was named a defendant in a maritime
asbestos lawsuit brought in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2007.

The suit also names the following Company subsidiaries: The Cleveland-Cliffs
Iron Co. and The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Co.

The plaintiff has alleged exposure to asbestos while serving as a crew member
aboard vessels previously owned or managed by Company entities between 1967
and 1971. This case is not subject to the multidistrict proceedings in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and accordingly, is not subject to the
administrative dismissal applicable to actions brought in Federal Court.

The claim against Company entities is insured, subject to self-insurance
retentions by the insured in amounts that vary by policy year. However, the
manner in which these retentions will be applied remains uncertain.

Cleveland-based Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. is a producer of iron ore pellets in
North America. The Company, founded in 1847, sells substantially all of its
pellets to integrated steel companies in the U.S. and Canada.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/764065/0001193125-07-123585-index.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Lawsuits v. RBS Global Surge to 630
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. faces over 630 lawsuits, with about 6,800 claimants, pending
in state or federal court relating to alleged personal injuries due to
asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously made by its Stearns
division, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2007.

The Company faced 580 suits, with about 6,750 claimants, pending in state or
federal court relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches made by its Stearns
division. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2007)

Invensys plc and FMC, the Stearns business' former owner, has paid 100
percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns suits.

The Company's Prager subsidiary has been named as a defendant in two pending
multi-defendant suits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
presence of asbestos in a product made by Prager. About 3,600 claimants are
named in the Prager suits.

To date, Invensys has paid 100 percent of the costs related to the Prager
suits. The Company said it believes that it also has insurance coverage for
its legal defense costs related to those suits.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc.'s business is comprised of two platforms: its
Power Transmission platform and the Water Management platform based on the
acquired Zurich operations. The Company's PT products include gears,
couplings, industrial bearings, flattop, aerospace bearings and seals,
special components and industrial chain. The Zurn acquisition added
specification drainage, PEX, water control and commercial brass products to
the Company's highly engineered product portfolio.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1213336/0001193125-07-122866-index.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces Over 140 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc.'s Falk unit faces over 140 lawsuits pending in state or
federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries
due to the presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously
made by Falk, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2007.

About 4,100 claimants are named in these suits. Hamilton Sundstrand is
defending Falk in these suits under its indemnity obligations and has paid
100 percent of the costs to date.

On May 16, 2005, the Company acquired the Falk Corp. from Hamilton
Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies Corp.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc.'s business is comprised of two platforms: its
Power Transmission platform and the Water Management platform based on the
acquired Zurich operations. The Company's PT products include gears,
couplings, industrial bearings, flattop, aerospace bearings and seals,
special components and industrial chain. The Zurn acquisition added
specification drainage, PEX, water control and commercial brass products to
the Company's highly engineered product portfolio.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1213336/0001193125-07-122866-index.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Faces About 5,200 Zurn Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. and about 80 other unrelated companies, as of March 31, 2007,
face about 5,200 asbestos-related lawsuits representing about 46,200 claims,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 25, 2007.

Plaintiffs' claims against the Company allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used in industrial boilers formerly made by a segment of
the Company's Zurn water management business.

Zurn did not make asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased
them from suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense strategy
funded by the Company's insurers.

The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$11.8 billion
against all defendants.

As of Dec. 30, 2006, the Company's Zurn water management business is faced
with about 4,900 asbestos-related personal injury suits involving about
46,200 plaintiffs in various U.S. courts. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16,
2007)

The Company estimates that Zurn's potential liability for asbestos claims
pending against it and for claims estimated to be filed through 2016 is about
US$136 million, of which the Company expects to pay about US$102 million
through 2016 on those claims, with the balance of the estimated liability
being paid in subsequent years.

The Company estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential
asbestos liability as of March 31, 2007, is about US$287 million.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded a receivable from its insurance
carriers of US$136 million. However, there is no assurance that US$287
million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$287 million.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc.'s business is comprised of two platforms: its
Power Transmission platform and the Water Management platform based on the
acquired Zurich operations. The Company's PT products include gears,
couplings, industrial bearings, flattop, aerospace bearings and seals,
special components and industrial chain. The Zurn acquisition added
specification drainage, PEX, water control and commercial brass products to
the Company's highly engineered product portfolio.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1213336/0001193125-07-122866-index.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study to Check Exposure’s Impact on Women
----------------------------------------------------------------
A University of Western Australia study is set to examine the impact of
asbestos exposure on women, ABC South West WA reports.

UWA researchers say the study will build on data collected from people who
worked at Wittenoom, Western Australia, as well as information about asbestos-
related disease in the general community.

Bill Musk from UWA says the study will also help determine whether asbestos
is associated with ovarian cancer, by focusing on women who lived at
Wittenoom.

Professor Musk says the results of the research could lead to more
compensation claims.

Professor Musk said, “I'm sure if they develop a disease that can be
associated with their exposure to asbestos they will be eligible for some
compensation one way or another.”

http://abc.net.au/news/items/200705/1937343.htm?southwestwa


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: County Inmates May Be Exposed to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Allen, county manager of Cayuga County, N.Y, said that several inmates
working at the county office may have been exposed to asbestos on May 29,
2007, as they helped with renovations there, The Post-Standard reports.

Mr. Allen said the inmates were removing metal partitions from a room on the
fourth floor. He said, “The partitions hit an elbow in the pipe and material
came to the floor.”

Inmates Marc Nolan, Brian Cuatt, and Francis S. Thompson underwent a
decontamination process, Mr. Allen said.

The state Department of Labor was notified of the potential exposure.

http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/05/mishap_may_have_exposed_some_c.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amagasaki Locals Likely to Die From Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
A survey from Japan’s Environment Ministry showed that people who live in
Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, from the 1950s through the 1970s were more
likely to die from mesothelioma than the national average, The Asahi Shimbun
reports.

According to the survey, the rate was high among women living around
factories in Amagasaki that used asbestos, with the figure soaring up to 69
times the national average.

The Environment Ministry conducted the survey in Osaka, Hyogo and Saga
prefectures to determine the scale of health hazards caused by asbestos.

The results were made public, on May 28, 2007, at a panel meeting in Tokyo
discussing the health effects from asbestos. The panel is chaired by Iwao
Uchiyama, professor of environmental health at the Graduate School of
Engineering, Kyoto University.

For the survey conducted in Amagasaki, the ministry covered about 180,000
people who lived in the city from between 1955 and 1974, during which
asbestos particles were scattered from asbestos-related plants, until late
2001.

Among the data used for the survey was information on 42 people who died from
mesothelioma in the city from 2002 through 2004, and the rate of people who
died from the disease across the nation.

The survey found that, in Amagasaki, the mortality rate for men ranged
between 3.3 times to 12.1 times the national average, depending on age
groups. The figure for women ranged from 10.4 times to 14.5 times the
national average.

The mortality rate for women living in the city's Oda district, where Kubota
Corp.'s former Amagasaki plant and other asbestos-related facilities were
concentrated, was between 29.6 times and 68.6 times the national average.

The figure for men in the area ranged from 10.6 times and 21.1 times the
national average.

In addition to Amagasaki residents, the ministry's survey covered people
living near asbestos-related facilities in the Sennan district in southern
Osaka Prefecture and Tosu in Saga Prefecture.

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200705300080.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Liability Slashed Due to Claims Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.’s estimated asbestos liabilities were slashed
due to a drop in mesothelioma claims, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The Company reported a US$151.7 million (AUD185.2 million) full-year net
profit, compared with the previous year's US$650 million loss which included
a US$716 million asbestos provision.

Despite booking a US$716 million (AUD874 million) asbestos provision in 2006
and paying AUD184.3 million in February 2007 to establish the newly formed
Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund, the Company still has US$153.9 million
of debt.

Meanwhile, a KPMG report revised downwards the estimated damages the Company
could be liable to pay victims of its former asbestos sheeting products. The
Company has estimated it will be liable for AUD1.355 billion over the next 50
years, well below the previous forecast set in September 2006 of AUD1.567
billion.

Aside from savings stemming from the New South Wales Government legislation
aimed at cutting the litigation costs of settling asbestos claims, a dip in
mesothelioma claims led KPMG to cut the estimated number of claims made
against the Company.

The number of mesothelioma-related claims dipped from its peak of 263 to 202
over the two years to June 2006.

However, this did not lessen the suffering of victims over all, with the
number of asbestosis victims rising from 102 to 155 in the 12 months to June
30, 2006. One benefit for Hardie is that asbestosis sufferers receive around
one-third of the compensation of a mesothelioma victim.

Yet KPMG revised the number of projected claims against the Company from
13,068 to 12,739.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands-based James Hardie Industries N.V. uses cellulose-
reinforced fiber cement to create products for residential and commercial
construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls,
fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)
pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/james-hardie-profit-up-asbestos-liability-
estimate-down/2007/05/28/1180205161229.html?s_cid=rss_smh


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Greek Officials Campaign to Stop Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Authorities in Kozani, Greece, are campaigning to curb pollution from a
disused asbestos mine which they believe poses a health risk to the local
population, Kathimerini reports.

More than GDR10 million have been earmarked for environmental restoration,
including soil treatment, the planting of trees, cementing over large areas
of pure asbestos and burying more asbestos in specially designed areas built
to safely contain the carcinogenic mineral.

Kozani Prefect Giorgos Dakis said, “In cooperation with the government, the
region can be restored and returned to the local community.”

According to local environmental experts, the air blows asbestos particles
into local communities. Over the years, these contribute to lung problems and
can even cause cancer, experts say.

According to environmentalists, the particles are also polluting the local
Aliakmon River, which gets into the water via rainfall and local streams.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100035_26/05/2007_83845


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker Awarded GBP948T in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Shanks, a former shipyard worker from the U.K., who is battling
mesothelioma, on May 24, 2007, won GBP948,565 in High Court damages, The
Scotsman reports.

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

Mr. Shanks sued Swan Hunter Group, for whom he worked as an electrician at
their shipyard in Wallsend, Tyneside, for four years from 1965.

In November 2006, a senior High Court official entered judgment on liability
in Mr. Shanks's favor for damages to be assessed.

Giving his ruling on the amount of the claim, which was disputed by the
Company, Judge Gary Hickinbottom said that while Mr. Shanks was at Wallsend,
he worked close to laggers and others working with asbestos.

Mr. Shanks migrated to Adelaide, Australia, with his wife and family in 1982,
where he worked as a construction manager. However, he returned to the U.K.
in October 2005 after his diagnosis.

Judge Hickinbottom said Mr. Shanks, of West Monkseaton, Tyneside, was likely
to decline after April 2008 and was only likely to survive until early 2009.

Judge Hickinbottom awarded Mr. Shanks GBP70,000 for pain, suffering and loss
of enjoyment of life.

The balance of the award was made up of sums for loss of earnings past and
present, relocation costs and other expenses.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=811432007


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Local Sues 92 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hubert Johnston of Kansas, on May 24, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 92 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In the suit, Mr. Johnston alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while
working from 1946 to 1990 as a service station attendant and insulator at
various locations.

Mr. Johnston claims that during the course of his employment and during home
and automotive repairs he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with
and around.

According to suit, Mr. Johnston was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 23,
2007.

Mr. Johnston claims the defendants knew or should have known that the
asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly
deleterious effect upon the health of people.

Mr. Johnston alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products
even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or
adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around
asbestos.

Mr. Johnston also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise
employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying
asbestos fibers home.

Mr. Johnston seeks damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment.

The complaint states that Mr. Johnston also suffers "great physical pain and
mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his
normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money."

Mr. Johnston seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence, willful and
wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other
allegations.

G. Michael Stewart and Tim Thompson of SimmonsCooper, East Alton, Ill.,
represent Mr. Johnston.

Case No. 07 L 475 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.

http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/195883-kansas-plaintiff-files-asbestos-case-
against-92-defendants


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Voids Congoleum's Pact With Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer County Superior Court Judge Nicholas Stroumtsos Jr., on May 18, 2007,
has ruled that Congoleum Corp.'s insurance carriers do not have to fund a
US$500 million settlement with the Company's asbestos claimants because it
was a bad-faith deal engineered by lawyers acting collusively, Law.com
reports.

Judge Stroumtsos did not rule on whether the Company’s potential loss of
US$500 million was accurate, but he did note that of 70,000 claims between
1981 and 2002, insurers resolved more than 33,000 for about US$13.5 million,
with most claims dismissed without payment.

The settlement had been the centerpiece of a prepackaged Chapter 11 petition
designed to protect the Company from claims arising from its use of asbestos
before 1983.

However, the settlement was reached without the consent of the insurance
companies that were to fund it and so was not reasonable or entered in good
faith, Judge Stroumtsos said in his ruling.

The settlement was negotiated in 2002 and 2003 by the Company’s bankruptcy
firm, Gilbert Heintz & Randolph in Washington, D.C, and attorneys
representing most of the potential asbestos claimants, Perry Weitz of Weitz &
Luxenberg in New York and Joseph Rice of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C.

Judge Stroumtsos wrote in Congoleum v. ACE American Insurance Co., Mid-L-8908-
01, “GHR colluded with Rice and Weitz to create a framework that would
provide Congoleum with both the insurance money and also protect against the
asbestos liability, while leaving the insurance companies to bear the costs.”

In January 2007, U.S Bankruptcy Judge Kathryn Ferguson in Trenton, N.J.,
granted summary judgment to creditors objecting the confirmation of a
reorganization plan that included the asbestos settlement.

The Company is appealing Judge Ferguson's ruling, but it also is trying to
reach a settlement with all creditors through mediation, the Company said in
a report prepared for the annual meeting of shareholders on May 8, 2007.

Judge Stroumtsos ruled that the asbestos settlement failed to meet the
reasonableness and good-faith tests under the leading New Jersey cases on the
enforcement of settlements reached without the consent of insurers.

Judge Stroumtsos found that the settlement would have resulted in the payment
of claims that no tort court would have authorized. He said that the
agreement "contained weak exposure and medical causation requirements, yet
provided claims values that vastly exceeded Congoleum's historical average
payments."

Judge Stroumtsos also noted that the agreement allowed settlements in time-
barred claims and he said the exposure requirements were so lax it would be
virtually impossible to challenge claims that plaintiffs had been affected by
asbestos.

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/070525/275b9640d8a07219a79c6f34827821ae.html?.v=1


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Schools Across West Surrey
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASBESTOS has been found in schools across West Surrey, particularly in 50
schools in Mole Valley, Guildford, and Waverley, Surrey Advertiser reports.

The county council, in its role as Local Education Authority, carried out the
surveys in 2005 and 2006 to locate, identify and assess asbestos containing
materials.

In schools across West Surrey, any identified or suspected asbestos in
schools containing materials were given a risk code: A, being the most
serious, to E, where there is low risk hazard.

Risk code A areas, where removal is recommended as soon as possible, were in
parts not generally accessed by school staff or pupils like boiler rooms.

A County Hall spokesman said that any identified or suspected material with
this risk code would have to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Kim Atherton, an Asbestos Diseases UK spokesman, believes the risk to
children in schools is minimal as it is found in places where youngsters do
not have access.

County Hall currently does not have a program for the removal of asbestos.

http://www.surreyad.co.uk/news/index.html?article19731


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCAPCA Issues Zanco $1.9T Fine for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, in Spokane, Wash., has
leveled a US$1,900 fine against Zanco Properties for an asbestos-related
breach, KREM Local News reports.

Since January 2007, KREM 2 News has exposed unsanitary conditions and other
problems at a number of Zanco apartment complexes. Tenants showed the news
agency mouse infestations and holes in ceilings.

In February 2007, Jessaca Johnson showed KREM 2 News the hold in her ceiling
at the Stoneridge Apartments in Spokane Valley. Fred Zanco, the vice
president of the Company promised to fix it.

SCAPCA said Zanco Properties broke the law with some repairs, and they found
asbestos in the ceiling that was patched.

SCAPCA sent Zanco Properties a notice of violation. However, it has taken
Zanco Properties months to respond.

SCAPCA received a letter from Zanco owner Vernice Zanco, who has written, “I
was unaware of laws about asbestos control standards. I now understand and
will in the future conduct an appropriate asbestos survey and complete
asbestos removal and containment according to the law.”

Zanco Properties has 30 days to decide whether to pay the US$1,900 penalty,
ask for a reduction, or file an appeal.

http://www.krem.com/news/local/stories/krem2_052407_zancofine.9964ba5.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds $40M Award to Favor New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, on May 30, 2007,
upheld a lower court ruling awarding New York City more than US$40 million
from The Celotex Corp. of Tampa’s asbestos trust, The New York Times reports.

Celotex was among the companies sued by the city starting in 1985 to reclaim
expenses incurred in removing asbestos from city-owned buildings. The Company
later filed for bankruptcy.

New York City filed more than 740 claims in the case, but the Celotex
trustees refused to pay some of them, arguing they were wrongly decided.

Two judges and a federal court in Florida previously ruled in the City’s
favor, most recently in April 2005.

The Atlanta court upheld the lower court rulings, bringing the total payments
from Celotex, including US$11 million from previous claims, to more than
US$55 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/nyregion/31mbrfs-claim.html?
_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1180584354-anO83GBEqInZoppsQUiMrg


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Issues Work Guide for Textured Coatings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive has issued new task guidance sheets for work
on textured decorative coatings with asbestos, Workplace Law reports.

These sheets cover work as drilling and boring, inserting and removing
screws, removal from a small area and how to remove debris following a
ceiling or wall collapse.

The HSE also issued guidance sheets covering other non-licensed asbestos
work, like working with asbestos cement or insulating board.

In the past, those people who held a relevant license could carry out work
involving textured asbestos coatings. However, the Control of Asbestos at
Work Regulations 2006, which came into force in November 2006, changed this.

It was decided that certain types of work where exposure to asbestos is
considered to be ‘sporadic and low intensity’, and where it falls below the
control limit, would no longer need to be done by a licensed contractor.

When defending its decision, the HSE pointed to research that shows the risk
from asbestos-containing textured decorative coatings is comparable to the
risks from work with asbestos cement.

However, the decision to allow unlicensed contractors to remove textured
coatings proved contentious with some groups, including the Construction
Safety Campaign, the Hazards Campaign and the Asbestos Removal Contractors
Association, who all voiced serious concerns.

Due to the concerns expressed, the HSE commissioned the Health and Safety
Laboratory to carry out further research into work with textured coatings,
and the dangers this held.

The task guidance sheets can be found at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/essentials/index.htm.

http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=8639&a_id=1943


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malta Shipyards Ltd. Denies GWU Risk Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malta Shipyards Ltd., on May 25, 2007, filed a counter protest in the First
Hall of the Civil Court to deny allegations by the General Workers’ Union
that its employees were at risk of asbestos poisoning, TimesOfMalta.com
reports.

GWU had filed a protest against the Company, holding it responsible for
damages in the event that any employees became ill due to exposure to
asbestos.

However, Malta Shipyards categorically denied that its employees were at
risk. The Company said it had the well-being of its employees at heart and
that it had established procedures to control their health and safety.

These procedures were regularly discussed at the central safety committee set
up by the Company and on which GWU sat.

Malta Shipyards said that whenever work involved asbestos it engaged a
specialized external contractor to carry it out. It was due to the Company's
tight controls that it was discovered in February 2007 that certain materials
provided by a local contractor and supposed to be asbestos free in fact
contained traces of asbestos.

Malta Shipyards had sent the materials back even though it did not release
asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.

Lawyer Pawlu Lia signed the counter-protest.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=262743


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Plumber’s Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pascoe, assistant deputy coroner of North Lincolnshire in England,
recorded a verdict of death by malignant mesothelioma of “unsubstantiated
cause” for retired plumber Kenneth Oswald Chafer, Scunthorpe Telegraph
reports.

Mr. Chafer, who died at the age of 82, was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma four years ago, after he developed chest pains and shortness of
breath. He died on Jan. 12, 2007 at Clarence House nursing home in Brigg,
after a long period of illness.

Mr. Pascoe told an inquest at Cleethorpes Town Hall how Mr. Chafer had
prepared a statement via his solicitors before his death. In this he detailed
the numerous incidences when he came into contact with asbestos during his
working life.

After a stint in the Royal Navy in the early 40s, Mr. Chafer worked for
various plumbing businesses, and for a time was self-employed as a domestic
plumbing engineer. He retired in 1988, aged 64, due to his worsening
arthritis.

In September 2003, Mr. Chafer developed sharp pains in his chest and was
admitted to hospital, and again in November 2003.

In March 2004, he was admitted to the hospital again and subsequently
underwent an operation and lung biopsy, after which he was told that he had
mesothelioma.

In his statement, Mr. Chafer declared he had never lived near a factory and,
as far as he was aware, no other members of his family had been exposed to
asbestos. He concluded he could only have developed mesothelioma as a result
of working with asbestos.

However, after conducting a postmortem at Lincoln County Hospital, consultant
pathologist Dr. Coup was unable to find asbestos bodies within Mr. Chafer's
lungs.

Nevertheless, Dr. Coup said this did not exclude previous exposure to
asbestos.

http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk./displayNode.jsp?
nodeId=153005&command=displayContent&sourceNode=152831&contentPK=17425341&fold
erPk=86735&pNodeId=152562


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Says Workers Were Exposed to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Sumptur, and asbestos manager from Lenexa, Kans., says he is sure that
residents and volunteers who are wading through what is left of Greensburg,
Kans., after the May 4, 2007 tornado are being exposed to asbestos,
LJWorld.com reports.

However, federal environmental officials say if there is asbestos in the
nearly 1,000 private residences that were destroyed in the tornado, there is
really nothing they can do about it if air samples do not indicate a problem.

Government regulators acknowledge that the housing debris could be
contaminated with asbestos, but they have not seen any proof.

Many of the homes in Greensburg were built before 1980, when construction
materials frequently had asbestos. Some experts say because of the danger,
the government should be doing more to protect the health of those helping in
the cleanup effort.

Becky Ingrum Dolph, an attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency, said
regulators do not have the authority under federal and state regulations to
require that asbestos be removed from single-family homes. She said the
government has done everything it legally can to protect residents and
volunteers.

Two weeks after the tornado destroyed 961 homes and caused major damage to
105 more and minor damage to 67 others, the EPA took eight air samples in and
around Greensburg to see if asbestos fibers were in the air. The samples came
up negative.

If the tests had been positive, that would have meant there was imminent
danger to human health and the EPA would have been allowed to take action,
Ms. Dolph said.

However, EPA officials said suspicion of contamination is not enough to
warrant testing the debris.

Days after the tornado, licensed asbestos workers tested commercial buildings
and schools and determined that four, including the high school, contained
asbestos.

Those buildings have been cordoned off and posters have been taped to them
warning of the danger.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/may/30/workers_likely_being_exposed_asbestos
_experts_say/#comments


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Local Dies After Getting GBP90T Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Reuby died two months after receiving GBP90,000 in compensation, in
which he developed lung disease due to asbestos exposure at a Crawley,
England, metal works, according to a Unite(formally Amicus) press release
dated May 30, 2007.

Donald Reuby developed mesothelioma after years of exposure to asbestos at
APV Ltd. in Crawley. His death follows the death of colleague, Sidney Wilson
who also went on to develop mesothelioma after working for APV.

Donald Reuby was a member of Unite (formally Amicus).

Mr. Reuby's son, Ian, said, “My dad was a union member and we were able to
use the union's legal services to win compensation for his death. My dad was
keen to let people in a similar situation know that they can get compensation
for being exposed to asbestos.”

Unite has a legal register for people who have been exposed to asbestos so
that legal action can be brought if the member develops an asbestos related
disease.

http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?
action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=654894


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Machinist’s Family Gets Payout for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Brenda Kitchen, a machinist from the U.K., who died from
bronchopneumonia caused be exposure to asbestos, has been awarded an
undisclosed six-figure compensation payout, Legal & Medical reports.

Mrs. Kitchen had been employed as a machinist in the textile industry between
1954 and 2001. She was not aware of any direct contact with asbestos or any
exposure in the course of her employment.

However, her husband worked for British Rail between 1964 and 1994 as a
carriage and wagon examiner based in Nottingham Victoria Station up until its
closure, and then moved to Toton workshops in Nuneaton.

In the course of his employment with British Rail, Mr. Kitchen was exposed to
asbestos in the form of insulation on a regular basis. Mrs. Kitchen recalled
that her husband often came home with his work clothes covered in dust and
there were not any laundering facilities within British Rail until the last
three to four years of his employment.

Therefore, Mrs. Kitchen carried out the task of laundering his uniform as any
normal house wife would have done and this lead to her consequent death by
inhaling the hazardous asbestos dust.

Proceedings were brought against BRB (Residuary) Ltd., the successor to
British Rail, alleging negligence with respect to Mrs. Kitchen’s secondary
exposure to asbestos dust after 1965.

Liability was initially denied. However, on March 28, 2007, all parties
reached as out of court settlement whereby compensation was recovered for
Mrs. Kitchen’s illness and her consequent death, which had resulted in
financial losses on behalf of her and her widower’s estate.

http://www.legal-medical.co.uk/news/11499.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiff Dies 10 Days After Filing Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hitoshi Taima, who accused the U.S. Navy and Japanese government of failing
to protect workers of the Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan from asbestos
exposure, died 10 days after filing a lawsuit, Stars and Stripes reports.

Mr. Taima, 51 years old, died on May 19, 2007 from malignant pleural
mesothelioma, according to a statement released by his lawyer.

Mr. Taima’s lawyer said in a statement that he was exposed to asbestos
particles between 1977 and 1995, when he repaired refrigerators and air
conditioners for U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command at Yokosuka.

Mr. Taima continued to work on base until 2006 and was the subject of a
recently averted strike over his medical leave. That effort was headed up by
Zenchuro Yokosuka, a local group of about 4,000 base workers

Mr. Taima’s family will pursue the suit, which claims the Navy and the
Japanese governments did not take proper precautions or provide workers with
the right protection equipment, said Zenchuro secretary general Hiroki
Otogawa.

The suit, filed May 9, 2007, against the Defense Facilities Administration
Agency seeks JPY86.5 million (about US$733,000) in compensation, Mr. Otogawa
said.

The first hearing will be held at Yokohama District Court in Yokosuka on June
25, 2007.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=46315


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish Town Center Remains Closed Amid Scare
----------------------------------------------------------------
The center of Rathkeale, a town in County Limerick, Ireland, was cordoned off
amid an asbestos scare, irishexaminer.com reports.

The Health and Safety Authority said it investigating why it was not informed
that a building in Rathkeale with asbestos roofing was being demolished.

Two units of the Co Limerick fire service moved in to dampen down asbestos
rubble at the site of the old People’s Bakery several days after the building
was demolished.

Limerick County Council spokesman Eugene Griffin said, “We have called in
experts to advise us on the situation. But we have stopped all movement of
material on the site.”

HSA spokesman Angus Laverty said by law, it has to get 28 days’ notice when
demolition work involves any structure that has asbestos.

Mr. Laverty said it has to be satisfied that the work is to be carried out by
a competent contractor and it also has to assess issues arising from the
removal of asbestos material due to the dust it generates.

Local Fine Gael TD Dan Neville has called for an immediate investigation. He
went to the scene on learning of local concern.

Local sources said that residents contacted the authorities after demolition
work got under way in recent days. Road cordons were still in place as the
different agencies decide on what steps they now intend to take.  

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-
qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=33900-qqqx=1.asp


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Sets Asbestos Attorney Trial in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold has set a trial date of Sept. 4, 2007 for
lawyer Louis S. Robles’ asbestos-related case, Insurance Journal reports.

Mr. Robles, once an asbestos attorney, has been accused of defrauding nearly
4,400 clients out of US$13.5 million. He had reached an agreement with
prosecutors to plead guilty to two of the 41 mail fraud counts lodged against
him and would have served 10 years in prison under the deal.

Mr. Robles, 59 years old, once represented more than 7,000 clients in suits
against companies that made asbestos. From January 1989 through September
2002, he collected more than US$164 million from about 75,000 settlements,
according to court records.

If convicted of all counts, Mr. Robles could be sentenced to more than 200
years in prison. The government has recovered about US$1.3 million from Mr.
Robles' frozen bank accounts.

Judge Gold had previously postponed the hearing and Mr. Robles' guilty plea
to allow victims to write letters or appear in person about the agreement.
The 24 responses the U.S. attorney's office in Miami received
were “overwhelmingly positive with regard to the proposed plea agreement,”
according to a court document.

According to the filing, the widow of the victim owed the most money, about
US$185,000, also supported the plea agreement.

Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, said in a
statement that prosecutors believed “the terms of the proposed plea agreement
were fair and just” and that it “provided quick restitution to elderly and
dying victims” as well as ensuring punishment of 10 years in prison.

Prosecutors say Mr. Robles also stole from his own clients, often by claiming
that their money had not been received or paying them far less than they were
due.

In 2003, Mr. Robles was disbarred in 2003 after the Florida Bar investigated.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/05/23/79944.htm


ASBESTOS ALERT: Donald Durham, 60 Corporations Sued for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four East Coast cancer patients, who allege that they are suffering from
asbestos-related disease, are suing Donald Durham Co. and about 60 other
firms for exposure, DesMoinesRegister.com reports.

Durham said that tests show the product, which is sold under the name
Durham’s Rock Hard Water Putty, is safe.

Ron Lindhart, Durham’s president, said, “We don't have any asbestos in our
product. There never has been.”

The Company has three employees and four contract workers who prepare the dry-
form putty, which is mixed with water for use by consumers.

Durham began making the putty in 1932. Mr. Lindhart said he was not aware of
any asbestos-related cancers among workers.

Hayward Draper, Durham's legal counsel, said the Company was sued once before
about asbestos allegations. That suit was dismissed in 2005 when tests
conducted on behalf of the plaintiff found no asbestos, Mr. Draper said.

The current suits were filed in Connecticut and New York by the Connecticut
law firm Early, Ludwick, Sweeney & Strauss, a firm that specializes in
asbestos-related litigation.

Chris Meisenkothen, an Early Ludwick attorney, said most mesothelioma victims
are exposed to asbestos in several ways. One client, for example, worked in a
shipyard where asbestos was used, worked with brake linings containing
asbestos and used home repair products that could have contained asbestos,
Mr. Meisenkothen added.

Mr. Meisenkothen said his tests show the presence of asbestos in the Durham
putty, but Mr. Lindhart said several tests on behalf of Durham show the putty
has no asbestos.

Witnesses and consultants associated with the Early Ludwick suits have sent
copies of the plaintiffs' test results to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission and an environmental group in California. No actions have been
taken against the product.

The alleged source is a talc ingredient mined by R.T. Vanderbilt Co. of
Norwalk, Conn. Vanderbilt says its testing shows no asbestos in its product.


COMPANY PROFILE

The Donald Durham Co.
Box 804-E
Des Moines, Iowa 50304
Phone: (515) 243-0491
Email: info@waterputty.com
Web: http://www.waterputty.com/

Description:
The Company makes putty, which is used for repairs to wood and plaster, model
building, and sculpting.

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20070524/BUSINESS/705240377/1029/BUSINESS


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


XINHUA FINANCE: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action on May 30 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Xinhua
Finance Media Limited (XFML) and certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the American Depository
Shares (ADSs) of Xinhua between March 9, 2007, the date of the Company's
initial public offering, and May 21, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated
Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company.

The Complaint alleges that on March 9, 2007 Xinhua issued 23,076,923 ADSs at
$13.00 per share in an initial public offering that raised approximately $300
million. It is further alleged that on May 21, 2007, Barron's reported that
Xinhua's Registration Statement omitted to state that at the time of the
initial public offering, Shelly Singhal, in addition to being Xinhua's CFO,
was an investment banker and stock broker who runs the Newport Beach,
California firm Bedrock Securities, and that since April 2006, Defendant
Singhal's firm has been under a cease-and-desist order from the National
Association of Securities Dealers for violating several SEC rules.

It is further alleged that on May 21, 2007 Xinhua shares declined from a
closing price of $9.94 per share on May 18, 2007, to close at $8.76 per share
on May 21, 2007, a decline of $1.18 per share or approximately 12%, on
heavier than usual volume.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is July 23, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, New York  10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952
                 (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
         
          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, California  94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax:  (415) 772-4707


                            *********


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  * * *