CAR_Public/070608.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 113

                           Headlines      


ARKANSAS: Teacher Settles Part of Suit Against Van Buren School
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL: Noteholders Might Sue to Recover Money
CANADA: College Students File CAD200M Suit Over Ancillary Fees
CANNONDALE BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles with Broken Cranksets
CASEY’S GENERAL: Assistant Managers Sue For Unpaid Overtime

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: To Pay $12M to Former Bellsouth Employees
CKCTB INC: Nursing Aides Sue in Fla. Over Labor Code Violations
C. MARKS: Fla. Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CONSECO HEALTH: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in “Doiron” Case
FFE TRANSPORTATION: Court Mulls Class Certification in Tex. Suit

FREMONT GENERAL: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges ERISA Violations
GIANT INDUSTRIES: Faces “Hot Fuel” Litigation in New Mexico
HATFIELD QUALITY: Settles Suit Over Job Prep. Time for $1.3M
HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Ill. Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Tex. Suit

INTERMIX MEDIA: Dismissal of Calif. Shareholder Suit Appealed
INTERMIX MEDIA: No Hearing Date Set in Calif. Securities Suit
MENU FOODS: Faces 90 Collective Suits Over Tainted Pet Food
MERCK & CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.J. Securities Suit
MERCK & CO: Still Faces Consolidated Fosamax Litigation in N.Y.

MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Grants Review Petition in “Sinclair”
MISSISSIPPI: Settles Child Welfare Suit, Binding Order Set Oct.
MOTOROLA INC: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in “Stoneridge”
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. Consumer Suit Hearing Set Next Week
ODYSSEY MARINE: Spain Sues Over Recoveries in Alboran Sea

PALMERA PROPERTIES: Britons Sue to Get Downpayment for Houses
PHARMOS CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
SIMPLICITY INC: Recalls Cribs with Incorrect Assembly Info
TELLABS INC: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Ill. Suit’s Appeal
TELLABS INC: Seventh Circuit Denies Request in ERISA Lawsuit

TOBY’S FAMILY: Recalls Dairy Products Possibly Contaminated
UNITED FOOD: Expands Recall of Beef Product Tainted With E.Coli
UNITED STATES: Awaits Ruing in Medicare Reimbursement Lawsuit
WASHINGTON GROUP: La. Suits Over Levee Failure Remain Pending
VERTRUE INC: One Equity $800M Buyout Prompts Del. Lawsuit

* Fulbright Partner One of U.S. Most Influential Women Lawyers
* Peter Kraneveld Joins Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler to Pay $5.2M in Injury Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician Seeks Payout for Injuries   
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Shop Owner’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Int’l. Labour Headquarters
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Slaps Mass. Firms With $20,500 Fine

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found On Planned NSW Aged Care Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Work to Contain Asbestos in Ark. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenants Win Suit v. Sheffield Over Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Predicts Disease Rate at NSW Town
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Merton Council to Survey Estate for Hazards

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philippine Navy Veterans Exposed to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group Urges More Research in Baryulgil Town
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Gov’t. Mulls Fund for Ireland Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nebr. Court Favors DeMarco in Olivotto Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ga. Court Favors Defendants in Purser Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sheppard v. Northrop et al. Suit Remanded
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Lawyers Seek to Overturn Grace Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Developer in Talks with DEQ Over $64T Fine
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Seeks BP Workers in Compensation Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Council Seeks Info in Fly-tipping Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Council to Remove Asbestos in Ireland Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Shipbuilder’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UKAS Urges Impartial Surveys by Contractors
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Retains $8.4M Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Still Has Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joy Global Inc. Still Faces Product Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Has AUD78.7M Liability in 4Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Reaches Agreement w/ Federal-Mogul
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Met-Pro Corp. Remain at 37
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Action Reserved for Review

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Sets Aside $100,000 for Injury Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial v. SDG&E over Asbestos Removal Begins
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Brakes Exposure Suit Filed in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Chesterton, 145 Firms in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS ALERT: Hills Minerals to Pay GBP15T for Handling Breach


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MACY’S INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SHUFFLE MASTER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ARKANSAS: Teacher Settles Part of Suit Against Van Buren School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Van Buren junior high school teacher Steven Jones and the Van Buren School
District settled a portion of a 2003 breach of contract suit filed by the
former teacher against the school district, Rusty Garrett of the Times Record
reports.

Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Jones will be reinstated through the
end of the current school year -— though he subsequently resigned his
employment with the school district.  The district also agreed to pay Mr.
Jones a total of $275,000 in three equal annual installments, beginning July
15.

The district also agreed to pay funds into the Teacher Retirement System
reflecting Jones as an active teacher through the current school year and to
pay Mr. Jones’ attorney fees of $50,000.

Mr. Jones signed a release freeing the district and Superintendent Merle
Dickerson from any liability or action relating to the terms of his
employment, except for claims pursued as a class action against the district.

Former Coleman Junior High civics teacher Steve Jones filed the case against
the school district on Aug. 22, 2003.  He filed it along with another
teacher, Allen Wolfe, asking for payment to teachers who had worked
uncompensated duty time.  Mr. Wolfe settled his claim and was dismissed from
the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006).

The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school district
between August 1998 and present who has performed "uncompensated non-
instructional duties."

Mr. Jones asked for compensation for the duty time, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and other relief to which he
and the class are entitled.  He also asked for compensatory and punitive
damages.

Crawford County Circuit Judge Mike Medlock granted class-action status to
that case back in 2005, allowing about 500 Van Buren teachers to join the
lawsuit.

In April 2006, two claims were added to the lawsuit:

      -- an appeal of Mr. Jones' termination under the Teacher
         Fair Dismissal Act; and

      -- an allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil
         Rights Act.

Judge Medlock dismissed all but the class-action portion of the lawsuit.  

Attempts at negotiating a settlement for the case ended in Feb. 13, when the
school board voted 6-0 against accepting an offer that would have involved a
$400,000 payment by the district. Thus, the case was tried on Feb. 22 (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2006).

It resulted in a split verdict in which Jones and the class of Van Buren
teachers prevailed on three questions and lost on another three questions
(Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007).

Issues raised included the length of a school day, what constituted
instructional and non-instructional duty, and whether teachers were receiving
a state-mandated 30-minute lunch period.

Currently the amount of settlement due the class members is being computed,
according to Brian Meadors, attorney for Mr. Jones and the more than 300
teachers participating in the suit.

Mr. Meadors said a specific amount is needed before a final order can be
entered in the case and a determination of whether to appeal any portions of
the case is made.

Mr. Dickerson said the school district is satisfied with the class-action
verdict and does not plan any appeals.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          C. Brian Meadors
          Pryor, Robertson & Barry, PLLC
          315 North 7th Street
          P.O. Drawer 848
          Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0848
          Phone: 479-782-8813 and 479-782-7911
          Fax: 479-785-0254
          Web Site: http://www.prblaw.com;and   

          Mark T. Burnette
          Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &
          Sneddon, PLLC
          1010 West Third Street
          Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1510, (Pulaski Co.)
          Phone: 501-378-7870
          Fax: 501-375-1940
          Web site: http://www.mbbwi.com


AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL: Noteholders Might Sue to Recover Money
----------------------------------------------------------
Slater & Gordon lawyer Ben Whitwell said a noteholder class action against
the failed Australian Capital Reserve Ltd. was an option if administrators
were unable to secure an adequate recovery of their money, The Age reports.

ACR was recently placed in voluntary administration amid fears that 7000
noteholders could lose substantial amounts of money.  Reportedly, ACR has
been running out of cash with less than AU$10 million left at the end of
2006.  Investors are owned some AU$330 million.

PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed administrator to represent the interest
of noteholders.  McGrathNicol was assigned to represent creditors of ACR’s
parent, Estate Property Group.  PwC partner Greg Hall was appointed along
with Phil Carter.

Estate Property's secured bank creditors and builders have first claim on
$183.87 million, leaving $440.72 million to cover the debt to ACR
noteholders, according to the report.

Australian Capital Reserve Ltd. -- http://www.acrlimited.com.au/-- is an  
investment group based in North Sydney New South Wales, Australia.


CANADA: College Students File CAD200M Suit Over Ancillary Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two students, acting on behalf of thousands of other college students across
Ontario, launched a $200 million class action in Ontario Supreme Court
against the province's 24 community colleges of applied arts and technology,
claiming that certain types of prohibited ancillary fees have been collected
illegally.

At the same time, they notified the Government of Ontario of their intention
to serve it with a similar statement of claim in
60 days.

Ancillary fees are charged to students for auxiliary services and are in
addition to tuition fees.  However, government policy prohibits the
collection of ancillary fees to fund capital projects or core academic
operations, which are already covered by tuition fees or general purpose
operating grants.

Despite clear restrictions, the government of Ontario has allowed it to
become a universal practice for colleges across the province to collect fees
for such things as information technology, labs, libraries, and the mandatory
lease of laptops, a statement announcing the lawsuit said.

"Ontario's college students have been paying illegal fees for years and the
Ontario government turned a blind eye," said Dan Roffey, one of two students
who launched the case.  "What kind of message does it send to students when
we are told that we will fail if we cheat on an assignment, but at the same
time we catch our college administrators cheating on our fees?"

"As a student who has struggled to make ends meet, I am angry that the
government pretended to freeze tuition fees while allowing additional fees to
be collected illegally," said Amanda Hassum, the second representative
plaintiff.  "Premier McGuinty broke his promise to students by claiming to
lock the front door while leaving the back door wide open."

The two students who launched the court challenge are acting
as "representative plaintiffs" in a class action that is seeking compensation
for every student who paid the illegal fees.

"This case is about playing by the rules," said Doug Elliott, the students'
legal counsel and named partner of Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor.  "The government
sets the rules for how fees are collected and they have a responsibility to
ensure that the colleges obey those rules.  If they won't enforce the rules,
we will do it for them."

The Canadian Federation of Students, which represents more than 500,000
college and university students from coast to coast, and nearly 300,000
students in Ontario, helped the plaintiffs connect with their legal counsel
and compile the background research for their case.

"No educational institution should be able to circumvent the law in order to
download additional costs onto individual students," said Jesse Greener,
Ontario Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students.  "It is our hope
that this case will prevent such fees from being collected in the future."

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU/NUPGE) president Warren
(Smokey) Thomas said they’re offering their full support to this lawsuit.  He
said he applauds the two students for coming forward to expose these illegal
fees that all college students are forced to pay.

OPSEU represents staff at Ontario’s 24 community colleges.


CANNONDALE BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles with Broken Cranksets
----------------------------------------------------------
Cannondale Bicycle Corp., of Bethel, Conn., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 2,900
units of Bicycles with Carbon Cranksets.

According to Cannondale, the bicycle’s crankset could break, posing a fall
hazard to user.

The firm has received two reports of the cranksets breaking resulting in one
minor injury.

Cranksets are the gears at the front of the bicycle chain with pedals
attached to the outer ends.  The crankset spins on a bearing and axle
assembly called a bottom bracket.  The recalled cranksets are two piece
carbon crankset with an integrated aluminum bottom bracket.  These cranksets
were used on these bicycle models:

     2007 Road Bikes:
          Synapse Carbon SL1 Compact drive;
          Ironman 1, Si Carbon Standard drive;
          System 6 Team 1 Compact drive and Standard drive;
          System 6 Team 3 Compact drive and Standard drive; and
          Cyclocross SLl 1 Compact drive

     2007 Mountain Bikes:
          Taurine 1 SL; and
          Rush Carbon 2

     2007 Framesets & Cranksets:
          Synapse SL Si;
          System 6 Team SI;
          Ironman 613 SL;
          CAAD 9 Cyclocross Si; and
          All carbon Si road and mountain cranksets

     2008 Road Bikes:
          System 6 Liquigas 3 Compact and Standard Drive

These cranksets were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at authorized Cannondale
dealers nationwide from June 2006 though May 2007 for between $1,800 and
$5,700 for the bicycles and about $475 for the crankset.

Consumers are strongly advised to stop using the recalled product
immediately.  Cannondale dealers will inspect the bicycle cranksets to
determine if a free replacement is needed.

To view the photo of the recalled product, click:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07206.html

For additional information, contact Cannondale at (800) BIKEUSA (245-3872)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s Web
site at http://www.cannondale.com.


CASEY’S GENERAL: Assistant Managers Sue For Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two former Casey's General Stores, Inc. assistant managers filed a nationwide
wage and overtime class action on May 30, 2007 in Iowa against the company.

The suit charges Casey's with wrongfully denying overtime pay due to current
and former Casey's assistant managers. The lawsuit alleges that Casey's
violated Federal law by working assistant managers off the clock to avoid
paying overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"I was required to work several hours per week off the clock," said former
assistant manager and current plaintiff Kristina Jones, who worked at several
Casey's in Des Moines.

"Casey's relied heavily on assistant managers to pick up the slack and keep
the store running but failed to pay me all of my overtime," added Ms. Jones.

Kim Marrs, who worked at two Casey's in Missouri, stated that, "I complained
several times to Casey's about not being paid for all the hours I worked."

"Failing to pay overtime is a serious violation of Federal law," stated one
of the plaintiffs' attorney, Scott Peters. "These assistant managers deserve
an opportunity to recover their unpaid wages."

"There may be hundreds of other current and former assistant managers who are
in a similar position," stated Jon Tostrud, a Los Angeles-based employment
attorney with the firm Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca.

The assistant managers are represented by:

          Scott Peters
          Peters Law Firm, P.C.
          233 Pearl Street
          P.O. Box 1078
          Council Bluffs, IA 51502
          Phone: (712)-328-3157
          Fax: (712)-328-9092
          E-mail: scott.peters@peterslawfirm.com
          Website: http://www.peterslawfirm.com

          John Tostrud
          Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, L.L.P.
          9254 Thrush Way
          Los Angeles, California 90069
          Phone: 310-418-8262
          E-mail: jtostrud@cuneolaw.com
          Website: http://www.cuneolaw.com

          - and -

          Hudson, Mallaney & Shindler, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Phone: (515) 223-4567
          Fax: (515) 223-8887
          Website: http://www.hudsonlaw.net


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: To Pay $12M to Former Bellsouth Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
NASD has fined Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., $3 million to settle charges
relating to the use of misleading materials in retirement seminars and
meetings for BellSouth employees in North Carolina and South Carolina.  NASD
also ordered Citigroup to pay approximately $12.2 million in restitution to
more than 200 former BellSouth employees.

Specifically, NASD found that Citigroup failed to adequately supervise a team
of brokers based in Charlotte, N.C., who used misleading sales materials
during dozens of seminars and meetings for hundreds of employees of BellSouth
Corporation.

As a result of these presentations, more than 400 BellSouth employees opened
over 1,100 accounts with the Citigroup brokers. Most of these employees were
unsophisticated investors with minimal experience in the financial markets
who retired in their mid-50s, well before the BellSouth retirement age of
62.  They generally were of modest means, with retirement savings of less
than $350,000.  These employees typically cashed out their pensions and 401
(k) accounts, and invested these proceeds and other retirement assets with
the Citigroup brokers.

"NASD remains strongly committed to protecting investors as they make
critical decisions about how to provide for their retirement years," said
James S. Shorris, NASD Executive Vice President and Head of Enforcement.

"The improperly supervised brokers in this case used misleading documents
that made exaggerated and unwarranted projections of future earnings without
fully explaining the risks involved.  Many BellSouth employees gave up secure
pensions, believing they could afford to retire early, but ended up losing
substantial amounts from their retirement nest eggs.  We are pleased that
this settlement helps ensure that the injured investors will receive the
restitution to which they are entitled."

NASD also disciplined three brokers and two managers at the Charlotte branch
office.  Those sanctions include:

     -- A $125,000 fine and an 18-month suspension for Jeffrey
        Sweitzer, the broker who developed the sales campaign,  
        led over 40 seminars, directed the activities of the   
        other brokers and drafted or directed the drafting of   
        the misleading sales materials;

     -- A $50,000 fine and a 9-month suspension for broker
        Matthew Muller, for his role at 25 seminars and numerous
        face-to-face meetings; and

     -- A $30,000 fine and a 30-day suspension for Joseph
        Zentner, a junior broker who helped Mr. Sweitzer prepare
        some of the misleading sales materials.

In addition, Mr. Sweitzer, Mr. Muller and Mr. Zentner must each complete 40
hours of continuing education relating to compliance with NASD rules and
federal securities laws, including courses that cover communications with the
public and the use of sales materials.

     * A $60,000 fine and a 90-day suspension from acting in a   
       supervisory capacity for the brokers' branch office
       manger, Randall Matz.

     * A $30,000 fine and a 45-day suspension from acting in a
       supervisory capacity for branch operations manager
       Elizabeth Harris.

In addition, before Mr. Matz and Mr. Harris can return to work at a broker-
dealer in a supervisory or principal capacity, they must each pass the
appropriate NASD Qualification Examination.
NASD found that from 1994 to 2002 Mr. Sweitzer conducted more than 40
seminars, alone or with Mr. Muller, without obtaining firm approval for the
seminars or seminar sales materials.

Following the seminars, Mr. Sweitzer and Mr. Muller, alone or together, met
with BellSouth employees.  Using charts, graphs, handouts and other documents
at the seminars and meetings, the brokers' sales presentations led the
employees to expect that for 30 years they could earn approximately 12
percent annually on their investments and withdraw approximately 9 percent
annually.

One document projected the amount a generic 53-year-old BellSouth employee
would earn from an initial investment of $300,000. The projection sheet
suggested that this typical employee would earn more than $1.8 million, could
withdraw from $27,000 to $69,000 annually, and still have more than $770,000
in principal remaining 30 years later, at age 83. During their face-to-face
meetings, many employees received a customized version of this document,
which projected the amount of money the employee could expect to have after
30 years, based upon the employee's current age, assets and monthly expenses.

Mr. Sweitzer told one couple: "I'm going to tell you by way of expectations
that you should be able to expect 12%. That is not guaranteed, but I feel
like good times, bad times, ugly times, beautiful times, we should be able to
average 12 . . . We expect to earn 12%. We pay out 9%. ... [b]asically, 10
years down the road you are looking at doubling your money. … We may do 15,
may do 18 or 20. But good times, bad times, I think that we would do 12%."

NASD found that the brokers' sales materials and presentation failed to
adequately disclose that the recommended investments exposed the BellSouth
employees to greater market risk than the employees would have faced had they
opted to retain their fixed annuity pension payments from BellSouth.

The brokers' materials also failed to adequately disclose that the customers
would pay fees of two to three percent, requiring them to earn 14 to15
percent annually to achieve the expected 12 percent return.  It was not
adequately explained that the expected 12 percent annual net returns exceeded
the historical average return of the Standard & Poor's 500 index over 70
years, and that for many periods during that time the S&P 500 returned far
less than 12 percent.

The brokers also did not adequately disclose that the recommended investments
could decline in value so much as to reduce the customers' principal. In
addition, various pieces of the sales materials overstated the brokers'
credentials and experience and omitted necessary disclaimers.

NASD found that as a result of Mr. Sweitzer's and Mr. Muller's sales
presentations many of the BellSouth employees came to believe that they could
afford to retire early by relying upon monthly withdrawals from their
retirement savings pursuant to the provisions of Internal Revenue Code
Section 72(t).

Under Section 72(t), a person under the age of 59 1/2 can withdraw a fixed
stream of regular and equal payments from their retirement accounts without
having to pay the usual 10 percent tax penalty for early withdrawals. Relying
on this IRS provision, many of Mr. Sweitzer's and Mr. Muller's customers
cashed out their nearly risk-free BellSouth pensions, their 401(k) accounts
and other retirement assets and invested the proceeds with the brokers. Fees
and commissions from those BellSouth employee accounts comprised a majority
of the compensation earned by Mr. Sweitzer and Mr. Muller.

Over 200 BellSouth employees saw the principal in their accounts decline by a
total of approximately $12.2 million. NASD found that when the customer
accounts began losing value, Mr. Sweitzer and Mr. Muller held a series of
telephone conference calls to retain their clients' accounts. In a December
2000 call, Mr. Sweitzer told his clients that he believed that the Dow Jones
Industrial Average (DJIA) could rise above 11,000 and that it might
get "closer to 12,000" by the end of 2001. He also told clients that he
believed the DJIA would double in six years, rising to 20,000 or 21,000 by
2006. Mr. Sweitzer had no reasonable basis for making these statements (in
fact, the DJIA ended 2001 at 10,021).

Citigroup failed to follow up on various red flags arising from the brokers'
conduct. During most of the relevant years, Mr. Sweitzer indicated to
Citigroup in branch audit questionnaires that he was holding seminars, but
the auditors did not require him to produce samples of the materials he was
using at his seminars or to confirm that the seminars and related documents
had been approved by a principal, as required by Citigroup's procedures.

Furthermore, Citigroup's compliance officials had an opportunity to review
one of the team's seminar handouts in 2001, but failed to detect, correct and
follow up on some of the misstatements and omissions contained in the
documents, after having sent the documents back to the branch for revision
and resubmission Mr. Matz and Mr. Harris failed to supervise the activities
of the brokers even though they should have known the brokers were holding
seminars and using misleading, unapproved sales materials.

       McPhatter, et al. v. Citigroup Global” Settlement

NASD ordered Citigroup to pay $12.2 million in restitution to former
BellSouth employees through the recently approved settlement of a North
Carolina state court class action brought on behalf of the BellSouth
customers of Citigroup, entitled, “Victoria T. McPhatter, et. al. v.
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., et al.”

The state court judge has certified the class and approved the settlement of
the class action, Citigroup has deposited the money into an escrow account,
and an administrator will process compensation claims from the brokers'
customers subject to court approval.

Citigroup, Mr. Sweitzer, Mr. Muller, Mr. Zentner, Mr. Matz, and Mr. Harris
settled the action without admitting or denying the charges, but consented to
the entry of NASD's findings.

For a detailed look at the potential benefits and risks of early retirement
investment plans, see the NASD Investor Alert Look Before You Leave; Don't Be
Misled By Early Retirement Pitches That Promise Too Much.


CKCTB INC: Nursing Aides Sue in Fla. Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
CKCTB Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 29 in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging Labor Code
violations.

Named plaintiff Patricia Dickinson, a former CKTCB Nursing Aide, brings this
action for unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.s.C. Section 216(b).

Ms. Dickinson claims that during her employment, defendants failed to comply
with 29 U.S.C Sections 201-209, because she had performed services for which
no provisions were made to properly compensate her for hours worked in excess
of 40 within a work week. She further claims she was not paid time and one-
half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40.

As a result of defendants' intentional, willful, and unlawful acts in
refusing to pay plaintiff overtime compensation, she has suffered damages
plus incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff demands judgment for the payment of all overtime hours at one and
one-half the regular rate of pay for the hours worked for which she was not
properly compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred, and any and all further relief that the court determines to
be jus and appropriate.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20ae

The suit is “Dickson v. CKCTB, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00339-JES-DNF,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


C. MARKS: Fla. Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Marks Auto Repairs of Lee County, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed May 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.

Named plaintiff Brandi Wolfert brings this action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq. to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages owed.

Plaintiff claims that during the three years prior to the filing of this
complaint, defendant had a policy and practice of requiring or permitting
employees, to work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without paying them
time and one half their regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff prays that the court:

     -- award damages for the amount of unpaid overtime
        compensation owed to plaintiff;

     -- award liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
         216(b), to plaintiff;

     -- award post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
        and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); and

     -- award all other relief as the court deems just and
        appropriate.

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

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20af

The suit is “Wolfert v. C. Marks Auto Repairs of Lee County, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00345-JES-DNF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge
Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jason L. Gunter
          Webb, Scarmozzino & Gunter, PA
          2nd Floor, 2121 W First St
          Ft Myers, FL 33901
          Phone: 239/334-1600
          Fax: 239/334-7979
          E-mail: jason@wsglawyers.com


CONSECO HEALTH: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in “Doiron” Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit accepted Conseco Health
Insurance Co.’s appeal with regards to a decision by the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana to grant class-action status to the
case, “Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-00784-JJB-CN.”

Initially, on Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class action was filed in
the 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana,
captioned, “Diana Doiron, et al. v. Conseco Health Insurance Company, Case
No. 61,534.”

In her complaint, plaintiff claims that she was damaged due to Conseco Health
Insurance Co.'s failure to pay claims made under her cancer policy, and seeks
compensatory and statutory damages along with declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Conseco caused the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004.

An order was issued on Feb. 15, 2007 granting plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The order specifically certifies two sub-classes identifying
them as the radiation treatment sub-class and the chemotherapy treatment sub-
class.

The company has appealed the certification order and on April 23, 2007, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit accepted jurisdiction over the
company’s appeal, 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 “Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-00784-JJB-CN,”
on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
under Judge James J. Brady with referral to Judge Christine Noland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stanley P. Baudin, Esq.
         Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP
         P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St.
         Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071
         Phone: 225-687-6396
         Fax: 225-687-6398
         E-mail: sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Raymond J. Pajares, Esq.
         Pajares & Schexnaydre, LLC
         103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 110
         Covington, LA 70433
         Phone: 985-292-2000
         Fax: 985-292-2001
         E-mail: rpajares@pajares-schexnaydre.com


FFE TRANSPORTATION: Court Mulls Class Certification in Tex. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has yet to rule on
a motion seeking class certification for a lawsuit over independent
contractor agreements that was filed against FFE Transportation Services, a
subsidiary of Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. and
three independent contractors with trucks formerly contracted to the company
filed a putative class action complaint against the company.

The complaint alleges that parts of the company’s independent contractor
agreements violate the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations at 49 CFR Part
376.

The complaint seeks to certify a class comprised of all independent
contractors of motor vehicle equipment who have been party to a federally
regulated lease with the company during the time period beginning four years
before the complaint was filed and continuing to the present.  It seeks
injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages, and legal costs.

The company’s response to the complaint was filed in March 2006, and the
parties are engaged in discovery concerning class certification issues.  

Plaintiffs submitted a motion for class certification on Sept. 15, 2006, and
the Court is expected to rule on the motion sometime after June 1, 2007.  

Frozen Food reported no new development in the matter on its May 9, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.   

The suit is "Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. et al. v.
FFE Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-00010," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Cohen, Esq.
         The Cullen Law Firm
         1101 30th St. NW, Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20007
         Phone: 202/944-8600
         E-mail: dac@cullenlaw.com

              - and -

         Jay R. Stucki, Esq.
         Hulse Stucki
         2912 W. Story Rd.
         Irving, TX 75038
         Phone: 214/441-3000
         Fax: 214/441-3001
         E-mail: JRS@TExasNetLaw.com

Representing the defendantsare:

         George C. Lamb, III, Esq.
         Aimee Williams Moore, Esq.
         Baker Botts
         2001 Ross Ave., Suite 600
         Dallas, TX 75201-2980
         Phone: 214/953-6659 and 214/953-6500
         Fax: 214/953-6503 and 214/661-4695
         E-mail: george.lamb@bakerbotts.com
                 aimee.moore@bakerbotts.com


FREMONT GENERAL: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP filed an ERISA class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Fremont General Corp.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of participants in two of
Fremont's pension plans, the Fremont General Corp. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP) and the Fremont General Corporation and Affiliated Companies
Investment Incentive Plan (401(k) Plan). The class period alleged in the
complaint is from January 1, 2005 to the present time.

The seven named plaintiffs in the case claim that Fremont and the other named
Defendants in the case breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the
retirement plans by allowing the investment of employee-participant account
balances in Fremont stock and by other related acts.

The complaint alleges that employee-participants have suffered millions of
dollars in losses to their retirement savings.

The suit is “Linda Sullivan et al. v. Fremont General Corp. et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-00622-JVS-FMO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge James V. Selna with referral to Judge
Fernando M. Olguin.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jonathan W. Cuneo
          Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com


GIANT INDUSTRIES: Faces “Hot Fuel” Litigation in New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
Giant Industries, Inc. was named as a defendant in a class action filed in
New Mexico on March 2007, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The company was just one of the numerous retail suppliers of motor fuel named
as defendants in the case, which alleges that they are conspiring and
engaging in deceptive practices by selling motor fuel to consumers without
using temperature-correction devices at the pumps.  These devices measure the
volume of fuel being dispensed by correcting for fluctuations in temperature.

Giant Industries, Inc., -- http://www.giant.com-- through its subsidiary  
Giant Industries Arizona, Inc. and its subsidiaries, refines and sells
petroleum products.  The Company has three business units: refining group,
which operates two refineries; retail group, which operates 155 service
stations, and wholesale group, which distributes commercial wholesale
petroleum products.


HATFIELD QUALITY: Settles Suit Over Job Prep. Time for $1.3M
------------------------------------------------------------
Hatfield Quality Meats has agreed to pay about $1.3 million in back wages to
its employees in a federal class action, Associated Press reports .

The suit stemmed from non-payment of the time spent putting on as well as
taking off protective gears the company requires.

It was filed on behalf of 1,500 current and former workers of the
Pennsylvania meat company.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several similar cases, saying
employees should be paid for the time spent putting on safety clothes to do
their jobs.

Based on the report, the settlement covers Hatfield employees between March
2000 and May 2006.  Payments will depend on the length of their employment.


HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Ill. Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action, alleging
generally that the spin-off of the company from Abbott Laboratories adversely
affected employee benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Security
Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned, "Myla
Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira,
Inc."

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an additional claim
against Abbott and the company for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The
company has moved to dismiss the new claim.

By Order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action status to the
lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint is not subject to the class
certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the company in the original complaint, the court
certified a class defined as:

        “all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
        Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott
        was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30,
        2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of
        Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who
        were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit
        Plans on the date of their terminations.”

The company reported no new development in the matter on its May 9, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.   

The suit is “Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert
W. Gettleman.
    
Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: (312) 263-0272

Representing the company is:

         James F. Hurst, Esq.
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 558-5230
         E-mail: jhurst@winston.com


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Tex. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has heard oral arguments on an appeal
regarding the dismissal of the securities class action filed against
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

Between Aug. 20 and Oct. 4, 2004, five putative securities fraud class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.  The five lawsuits were consolidated as
"In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:04-CV-3342."

On March 23, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborer' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.  Pursuant to the parties'
agreed scheduling order, lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on June
6, 2005.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements during the proposed class period
of Nov. 10, 2003 to Aug. 13, 2004.

It also alleges that defendants misrepresented the company's financial
condition in 2003 and 2004 as evidenced by the restatement, violated
generally accepted accounting principles, and misrepresented the sufficiency
of the company's internal controls so that they could engage in insider
trading at artificially-inflated prices, retain their positions at the
company, and obtain a credit facility for the company.

On Aug. 5, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim.  Defendants argued, among other things, that the
amended complaint fails to allege fraud with particularity as required by
Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to satisfy the
heightened pleading requirements for securities fraud class actions under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

Defendants also argued that the amended complaint does not allege fraud with
particularity as to numerous Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles violations and opinion statements about
internal controls, fails to raise a strong inference that defendants acted
knowingly or with severe recklessness, and includes vague and conclusory
allegations from confidential witnesses without a proper factual basis.

The lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on Sept. 28,
2005, and defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on
Nov. 14, 2005.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court held a telephonic hearing
relating to the motion to dismiss.  

On Jan. 10, 2006, the district court dismissed the putative class action with
prejudice, ruling that the amended complaint failed to raise a strong
inference of scienter and, therefore, did not satisfy the pleading
requirements for a securities class action under the PSLRA.

The lead plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit arguing that the lower court erred substantively and procedurally in
its rulings.

Both plaintiff and defendants have filed their respective briefs, and the
Fifth Circuit heard the matter under oral argument on May 3, 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 "In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-3342," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

         Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
         Schwartz Junell, et al.
         909 Fannin, Ste. 2700
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-752-0017
         Fax: 713-752-0327
         E-mail: rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com

         Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard, et al.
         10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
      
              - and -

         Steven J. Toll, Esq.
         Cohen Milstein, et al.
         1100 New York Ave., NW Ste. 500 W. Twr.
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

Representing the company is:

         N. Scott Fletcher, Esq.
         Vinson & Elkins, LLP
         1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713-758-3234
         Fax: 713-615-5168
         E-mail: sfletcher@velaw.com


INTERMIX MEDIA: Dismissal of Calif. Shareholder Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a consolidated class action that named Intermix  
Media, Inc. -- an acquisition of News Corp. -- as one of the defendants has
been appealed, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing for
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.   

On Aug. 26, 2005 and Aug. 30, 2005, these purported class actions were filed
in the California Superior Court, County of  
Los Angeles:

      -- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and  

      -- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al."  

Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then incumbent members of the
Intermix Media Board, including Mr. Rosenblatt,  
Intermix' former chief executive officer, and certain entities affiliated
with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former major  
Intermix stockholder.  

The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby  
Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive and approving the
related merger agreement, the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Intermix stockholders by, among other things, engaging in self-
dealing and failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for
Intermix and its stockholders.  

The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement resulted from a
flawed process and that the defendants tailored the terms of the merger to
advance their own interests.  The Fox  
Interactive Media Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.  

The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently consolidated and, on
Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, known as "Intermix
Media Shareholder Litigation."   

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various forms of
declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs.  

The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all claims in the
Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were heard by the court on July
6, 2006.   

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend.  
On Dec. 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints and entered judgment for
the defendants.

On Feb. 6, 2007, the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  A briefing schedule for the appeal has not been set.


INTERMIX MEDIA: No Hearing Date Set in Calif. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has yet to set
a new hearing date for motions in a purported securities class action against
several former officers and directors of Intermix Media, Inc., an acquisition
of News Corp.

The suit, "Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed on June 14, 2006.  
In it, plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 14a of the
U.S. Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well
as control person liability under Section 20a.   

Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants disseminated false and misleading
definitive proxy statements on two occasions:  

     -- on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder  
        vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and  
        ratification of financing transactions with certain  
        entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former  
        large stockholder of Intermix; and  

     -- on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote  
        on the formation of Fox Interactive Media, a division of  
        News Corp.  

The complaint names as defendants certain VantagePoint-related entities and
the members of the Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of the
respective proxy statements.

Intermix is not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity obligations
to the former officer and director defendants in connection with these claims
and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain investment
banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain indemnity obligations to the
investment banks as well.   

After conferring with defendants concerning deficiencies in the amended
complaint pursuant to local rule and entering a stipulation with defendants
regarding a briefing schedule, plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept.
27, 2006.  

On Oct. 19, 2006, defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims in the
second amended complaint.  

On February 9, 2007, the case was transferred from Judge Walter to Judge
George H. King, the judge assigned to the LeBoyer action on the grounds that
it raises substantially related questions of law and fact as LeBoyer, and
would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

Judge King took the Feb. 26, 2007 hearing date for the motions to dismiss off-
calendar and the parties are waiting for the court to set a new hearing date,
according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing for the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.   

The suit is "Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06 cv-03731-JFW-
SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge John F. Walter with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

        Christy W. Goodman, Esq.
        Goodman Sheridan and Roff
        1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Phone: 619-241-4860
        E-mail: cgoodman@gsrllp.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Elizabeth A. Moriarty, Esq.
         Hogan and Hartson
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-785-4600
         E-mail: eamoriarty@hhlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.hhlaw.com
        
              - and -

         Stephen M. Knaster, Esq.
         Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
         Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-773-5700
         Fax: 415-773-5759
         Web site: http://www.orrick.com


MENU FOODS: Faces 90 Collective Suits Over Tainted Pet Food
-----------------------------------------------------------
The head of Menu Foods Income Fund said about 90 class actions have been
filed against the company over its recalled pet food that has been blamed for
numerous pet deaths, David Friend of Canadian Press reports.  The pet food
contained contaminated wheat gluten from China.

CEO Paul Henderson also said the company has lost two major contracts with
unnamed North American customers.  

The company estimates the recall to cost about $45 million, excluding the
impact of reduced sales or the costs of any claims or litigation that may
exceed its insurance coverage.  Last month, the company posted a loss of
$17.5 million or 91.8 cents per unit for the first quarter ended March 31.


MERCK & CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.J. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities fraud suit, "Merck & Co. Inc. Securities
Litigation In Re: MDL1658, Case No. 2:05-cv-02367-SRC-MF," are appealing the
dismissal of their complaint.

Originally, the company and various current and former officers and directors
were named as defendants in various putative class actions and individual
lawsuits under the federal securities laws and state securities laws.

All of theses suits that were pending in federal court have been transferred
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for
inclusion in a nationwide MDL.  Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits for all purposes.

Plaintiffs request certification of a class of purchasers of Company stock
between May 21, 1999 and Oct. 29, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and the costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees.

It also asserts a claim under Section 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act against certain defendants relating to their sales of Merck stock.

In addition, the complaint includes allegations under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 that certain defendants made incomplete and
misleading statements in a registration statement and certain prospectuses
filed in connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend
reinvestment plan.

On April 12, 2007, Judge Chesler granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs’ counsel has stated that
plaintiffs plan to appeal the dismissal of the complaint, according to the
company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Merck & Co. Inc. Securities Litigation In Re: MDL1658, Case No.
2:05-cv-02367-SRC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Paul B. Brickfield, Esq.
         Brickfield & Donahue
         70 Grand Ave.
         River Edge, NJ 07661
         Phone: (201) 488-7707
         E-mail: pbrickfield@bricdonlaw.com

         James E. Cecchi, Esq.
         Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
         Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein,
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Phone: (973) 994-1700
         Fax: (973) 994-1744
         E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                 ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

              - and -

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

Representing defendants are:
        
         Sally Anne Mulligan, Esq.
         Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.
         Sheila A. Sadighi, Esq.
         Lowenstein Sandler
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Phone: (973) 597-2422 or (973) 597-2500
         E-mail: smulligan@lowenstein.com
                 lrolnick@lowenstein.com
                 ssadighi@lowenstein.com


MERCK & CO: Still Faces Consolidated Fosamax Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. continues to faces several lawsuits over its drug Fosamax,
according to the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing for the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

As of March 31, 2007, 156 cases had been filed against Merck in either
federal or state court, including 4 cases, which seek class action
certification, as well as damages and medical monitoring.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have
suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally subsequent to invasive dental
procedures such as tooth extraction or dental implants, and/or delayed
healing, in association with the use of Fosamax.

On Aug. 16, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that
the Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide
should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation
(Fosamax MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

As a result of the JPML order, over 130 cases (which are included in the 156
cased noted above) are now before Judge Keenan.

Judge Keenan has issued a Case Management Order setting forth a schedule
governing the proceedings, which focuses primarily upon resolving the class
action certification motions in 2007, and the start of substantive fact
discovery relating to the class action motions and to the factual merits of
the cases.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com-- is a global pharmaceutical  
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Grants Review Petition in “Sinclair”
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted a review petition for the
matter “Sinclair v. Merck,” according to the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

The case was originally filed in December 2004 and sought the creation of a
medical monitoring fund.  It is a purported class action against Merck & Co.,
Inc., the manufacturer of Vioxx, on behalf of Vioxx users who had taken the
drug for at least six consecutive weeks.  

The plaintiffs brought claims based on negligence, the New Jersey Product
Liability Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of warranty.  

They did not claim that they had been injured by taking Vioxx, but rather,
alleged that as a result of “direct and prolonged exposure to Vioxx,”
they “have an enhanced risk of sustaining serious, undiagnosed and
unrecognized myocardial infarctions (UMIs) that . . . would subject them to
the risk of further, significant, long-term cardiovascular harm.”  

As a remedy, the plaintiffs asked that Merck be ordered to pay for a medical-
screening program to detect UMIs and other “latent or unrecognized
injuries.”  

Judge Carol E. Higbee of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County,
dismissed the medical-monitoring claim, finding that although claims had been
recognized in the toxic tort context, they were not sustainable in the
products liability context.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, heard
argument on plaintiffs’ appeal of Judge Higbee’s dismissal of the claim.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Appellate Division reversed the decision and remanded
the case back to Judge Higbee for further factual inquiry.

On April 4, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition
for review of the Appellate Division’s decision.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com-- is a global pharmaceutical  
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
products to improve human and animal health.


MISSISSIPPI: Settles Child Welfare Suit, Binding Order Set Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi settles a 2004 class action alleging physical, sexual and
psychological harm to children in the custody of the Mississippi Division of
Family and Children’s Services.  

The state agreed to completely renovate the foster home.  In fact, it has
devised a plan, which is due to be filed in court on October for a binding
order.  

If the plaintiffs find the implementation plan unsatisfactory, the matter
will have to heard further on Dec. 3.

The suit charges Mississippi with failing to provide legally required safety,
protection and basic health care services to thousands of abused and
neglected children in state custody, while denying them the opportunity for a
permanent, loving home.  Longstanding problems identified in the suit include
dangerously overburdened and untrained caseworkers, a shortage of safe foster
homes and a lack of basic health services (Class Action Reporter, April 19,
2007).

Mississippi foster agency attorney Rusty Fortenberry, agreed to the
settlement because he said, the state was already on course to correct the
problems.

The suit is “Johnson, et al. v. Barbour, et al., Case No: 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-
JCS,” filed in the U.S. District Court in Jackson, Miss., under Judge Tom S.
Lee.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are:

          John F. Lang, Esq.
          Christian D. Carbone, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB, LLP
          345 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10154
       
               -  and  -

          Tara S. Crean, Esq.
          Children's Rights, Inc.
          330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: 212/683-2210
          Fax: 212/683-4015

Representing the defendants is:

          Dewitt L. Fortenberry, Jr., Esq.
          Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
          P. O. Box 14167
          Jackson, MS 39236
          Phone: 601-351-2400
          Fax: 601-351-2424
          E-mail: rfortenberry@bakerdonelson.com


MOTOROLA INC: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in “Stoneridge”
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, “Stoneridge
Investment, et al. v. Charter Comm. Inc., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01186-CAS.”

Previously, Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC filed a petition for
certiorari seeking review of the dismissal of its case against Motorola, Inc.
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

On Aug. 5, 2002, Stoneridge Investment filed a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri against Charter Communications, Inc. and certain of its officers,
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to Charter securities.

This complaint did not name Motorola as a defendant, but asserted that
Charter and the other named defendants had violated the securities laws in
connection with, inter alia, a transaction with Motorola.  On Aug. 5, 2003,
the plaintiff amended its complaint to add Motorola as a defendant.

As to Motorola, the amended complaint alleges a claim under
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5(a)-(c) promulgated thereunder relating to Charter securities and
seeks an award of compensatory damages.

The District Court issued a final judgment dismissing Motorola from the case
which plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.  

On April 11, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment of the
District Court dismissing Motorola from the case.

On July 7, 2006 plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of
the Court of Appeals decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  On Oct. 20, 2006,
Motorola submitted its response opposing the petition.

On April 11, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment of the
District Court dismissing Motorola from the case.

On March 26, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case,
according to the company’s May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing for the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

The suit is “Stoneridge Investment, et al. v. Charter Comm. Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:02-cv-01186-CAS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri under Judge Charles A. Shaw.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Paul J. D'Agrosa, Esq.
         Wolff And D'Agrosa
         8019 Forsyth
         Clayton, MO 63105
         Phone: 314-725-8019
         Fax: 314-725-8443
         E-mail: wolffdagrosa@birch.net

Representing the defendant is:

         Alan C. Kohn, Esq.
         Kohn and Shands
         One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2410
         St. Louis, MO 63101-1643
         Phone: 314-241-3963
         Fax: 314-241-2509
         E-mail: akohn@ksegg.com


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. Consumer Suit Hearing Set Next Week
------------------------------------------------------------
Phuong Cat Le of Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that a class action opens
next week in U.S. District Court in Tacoma that may affect about 1,000
Washington homeowners who received home loans through NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.

A May 7 Class Action Reporter article states that a June 2007 trial is slated
for the putative consumer fraud class action.

Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed to disclose
prior to closing that a broker payment would be made on their loans, which
was an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans, excess interest
charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and finances, treble damages as
provided in the Washington Consumer Protection Act and attorney fees.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a
Washington state class.

NovaStar Mortgage sought to appeal the grant of class certification; however,
a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the request
for interlocutory appeal so review of the class certification order must wait
until after a final judgment is entered, if necessary.  

The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq.
         The Law Office Of Matthew Bergman
         705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com

              - and -

         Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
         Bergman & Frockt
         705 Second Avenue, Ste. 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Donald C. Brown, Jr. Esq.
         Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider
         1300 19TH St., NW, 5th Fl.
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-628-2000
         E-mail: brown@wbsk.com

              - and -

         Sal Mungia, Esq.
         Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim
         P.O. BOX 1157
         Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
         Phone: 253-620-6500
         Fax: 1-253-620-6565
         E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com


ODYSSEY MARINE: Spain Sues Over Recoveries in Alboran Sea
---------------------------------------------------------
The Spanish government filed a class action in a U.S. federal court against
two American exploration ships suspected of removing sunken treasures from
Spanish waters, it emerged in a report by Mike Elkin of Telegraph.co.uk.

The suit was filed to ensure that the Spaniards retain property rights for
anything that Odyssey Marine Exploration’s ships may have recovered while
exploring the Alboran Sea, the western-most part of the Mediterranean Sea.  
The ships are now docked and retained in Spanish-controlled Gibraltar.  The
Spanish government already issued a warrant for the capture and search of the
ships, according to the report.

Spain requests that Odyssey provides information on three alleged
discoveries: the British sailing ship Merchant Royal, which sank off the
Isles of Scilly in 1641 carrying Spanish cargo; an unnamed wreck which could
be the British warship Sussex, which sank off Spain in 1694; and an Italian
ship which sank near Sardinia.  It believes it might have a claim to 17 tons
of gold and silver coins, worth an estimated GBP250 million.

Susana Tello of the Spanish Culture Ministry said the lawsuit was filed at
the Tampa Courts, in Florida on May 29, according to Associated Press.

Spain's lawyers in the U.S. are from Covington and Burling LLP
(http://www.cov.com).


PALMERA PROPERTIES: Britons Sue to Get Downpayment for Houses
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of mostly British homebuyers are preparing a class action against the
Andalucia, Spain-based real estate company Palmera Properties, the Olive
Press reports.  

The group, which includes residents of Mollina and Fuente de Piedra, have
joined up with the Costa del Sol Action Group to file a suit against the
company to demand their money back.

“The class action is now in its final stages with prison sentences and
restitution orders expected for the miscreants,” said lawyer Gwilym Rhys-
Jones of Costa Del Sol Action Group, according to the report.  He is working
with a public prosecutor.

The investors want to get back their money after waiting for at least three
years for the construction of their homes.  Some complain of shoddy
workmanship.  According to the report, agent of Palmera Properties had
assured customers that their properties in Benalmadena would be ready by 2004.

Palmera Properties said the project and money are in the hands of builders
Grupo Mirador.  A spokesman reportedly told Olive Press, “Grupo Mirador [has]
the money and they are responsible for the build. We were getting on well
until Roman ruins were found on the site. Since then the communication has
collapsed. Building has started again though and it should take 24 months to
complete.”

Palmera Properties on the Net: http://www.palmeraproperties.com/


PHARMOS CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmos Corp.’s counsel, on May 31, 2007, entered into an agreement with
plaintiffs' legal counsel to settle the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and certain of its current officers currently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Beginning in January 2005, the company along with other defendants was named
in several purported shareholder class actions alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

These lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaints allege generally that the defendants knowingly or recklessly
made false or misleading statements regarding the effectiveness of
dexanabinol in treating Traumatic Brain Injury, which had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock.

The complaints seek unspecified damages.  These class actions were
consolidated by an order of the court and lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed.  An amended complaint was filed in
September 2005.  

In November 2005, the company moved to dismiss the litigation, and the motion
was fully briefed on Feb. 10, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2007).

The recent settlement, which is covered in its entirety by Pharmos'
insurance, has been reached with no admission of liability by any party and
has been entered into to avoid costly and time consuming litigation by all
parties.

The parties agreed to seek the required court approvals of the settlement and
filed the settlement documents with the Court on June 4, 2007. The settlement
is subject to court approval. There is no assurance that the settlement will
be approved by the Court.

The suit is "Cohen, et al. v. Aviv, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00338-KSH-PS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Katharine S. Hayden with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Pamela E. Kulsrud, Esq.
          Joanne M. Cicala, Esq.
          Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          E-mail: pkulsrud@kmslaw.com and jcicala@kmslaw.com

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Seeger Weiss, LLP
          550 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

          - and –

          Jean-Marc Zimmerman, Esq.
          Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
          226 St. Paul Street
          Westfield, NJ 07090
          Phone: (908) 654-8000
          E-mail: jmzimmerman@zlk.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas S. Brierley, Esq.
          Schenck, Price, Smith & King, Esqs.
          10 Washington St., CN-905
          Morristown, NJ 07963-0905
          Phone: 973-539-1000
          E-mail: dsb@spsk.com


SIMPLICITY INC: Recalls Cribs with Incorrect Assembly Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Simplicity Inc., of Reading, Penn., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of about 40,000
units of Nursery-in-a-Box Cribs.

The firm said the assembly instructions provided with the cribs incorrectly
instructs consumers how to attach the crib’s drop side.  If improperly
installed, the drop side can disengage from the crib, posing fall and
entrapment hazards for the child.  Additionally, the metal locking pins on
the drop side can pop off, presenting a choking hazard.

CPSC is aware of an incident in which the crib’s drop side, which was
installed upside down, fell from its upright position and the metal locking
pins became dislodged.  Simplicity received a report of wrong instructions
being packaged with the crib.

The recalled cribs are part of the Nursery-in-a-Box furniture set which also
includes a changing table and clothing organizer.  The cribs are cherry,
white or natural in color.  Only model numbers 8910 and 8050 with serial
numbers 3005 HY through 0806 HY are included in this recall.  The model and
serial numbers are printed on an envelope permanently attached to the
mattress support.  “Simplicity,” model and serial numbers are also printed on
a label on the bottom rail of the headboard.

These cribs were manufactured in China and sold at department stores and
children’s product stores from August 2005 through May 2007 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and check the crib to
make sure the drop side is securely fastened and correctly installed.  
Contact Simplicity to receive correct assembly instructions, or consumers can
download the assembly instructions at the firm’s Web site,
http://www.simplicityforchildren.com.

Consumers can view a video on the firm’s Web site showing the proper assembly
of the drop side.  If the drop side is not properly installed, consumers
should stop using the crib until it is assembled correctly.

Click on the link below to view the photo of the recalled crib:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07205.html

For additional information, contact Simplicity at (800) 784-1982 anytime, or
visit the firm’s Web site at http://www.simplicityforchildren.com.


TELLABS INC: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Ill. Suit’s Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in an appeal by Tellabs,
Inc., regarding a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
to reverse a dismissal of certain claims in a class action against the
company.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs Inc., Michael
Birck, and Richard Notebaert, the company's former chief executive, president
and director.  

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All nine of these actions were
subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against
Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of the company's current
or former officers and/or directors.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period --
Dec. 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001 -- the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements,
including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that
were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products,
and reporting overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in the
company's financial statements.  

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated
the federal securities laws by trading the company's securities while
allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about the company
pertaining to these matters.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety.  On
May 19, 2003, the court granted the company's motion and dismissed all counts
of the consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead.  

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action
complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously named
individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those contained in the
previously dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint.  

The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003, seeking the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second consolidated
amended class action complaint.  On Feb.
19, 2004, the court issued an order granting that motion and dismissed the
action with prejudice.   

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S.
Federal Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit.  The appeal was fully briefed
and oral argument was heard on Jan. 21,
2005.  

On Jan. 25, 2006, the 7th Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and
reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings.  

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the 7th Circuit a petition for
rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.    
On April 19, 2006, the 7th Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an answer to
the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3,
2006.  

On July 10, 2006, the 7th Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a
minor modification to its opinion.  On Sept.
22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss some
(but not all) of the remaining claims.  

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme  
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the 7th Circuit's
decision.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted.  The
U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc., et al., Case No.  
1:02-cv-04356," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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

Representing the defendant is:

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


TELLABS INC: Seventh Circuit Denies Request in ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit denied a request by Tellabs,
Inc. for an interlocutory appeal on a ruling denying its request to dismiss
the purported class action, "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-01882."

On April 5, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the court against:

     -- Tellabs;

     -- Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert, the company's former
        chief executive, president and director; and

     -- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the
        alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000 to July 1,
        2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and
        Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit
        Sharing and Savings Plan.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  Thereafter, two similar complaints were filed in the same court.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the defendants
allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by, among other things, continuing to offer Tellabs
common stock as a Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so and
allegedly misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information
necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions concerning the
Plan.

Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor the fiduciary
activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and certain of the defendants
allegedly breached their duty of loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while
taking no protective action on behalf of Plan participants.  The complaints
seek restitution, damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions and on Aug. 14,
2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.  

On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims in the consolidated amended class action complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion.  Based on the court's
decision, the defendants have requested that the court certify an issue for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit.  The court denied defendants’ request,
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.

Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class, discovery is being taken to
determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs will determine
whether to oppose class certification.

The suit is "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Norman Rifkind, Esq.
         Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
         350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Phone: (312) 634-0057
         Fax: (312) 634-0059
         E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Charles Clark Jackson, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 324- 1000
         E-mail: charles.jackson@morganlewis.com


TOBY’S FAMILY: Recalls Dairy Products Possibly Contaminated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toby's Family Foods is recalling Toby's Lite Sour Creme and Toby's Toasted
Sesame Dressing because the products may be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting
into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Toby's Lite Sour Creme and Toby's Toasted Sesame Dressing were distributed
primarily in Oregon, as well as Washington and California, through natural
food and specialty retailers.  The products include:

     -- 8 oz. plastic containers of Toby's Lite Sour Crème with  
        expiration dates of June 17 and earlier; and

     -- 12 oz. glass jars of Toby's Toasted Sesame Dressing with
         Best By dates of 7/05/07 and earlier.

No illnesses have been reported to date, and no other products produced by
Toby's Family Foods are affected.

The recall was prompted by the potential contamination of an ingredient,
MaraNatha Sesame Tahini.  The manufacturer, California-based nSpired Natural
Foods, was alerted to the situation during a routine sample testing, and the
company has since put additional safety measures in place.  Retailers have
removed all units of Toby's Lite Sour Creme and Toby's Toasted Sesame
Dressing from store shelves as a precautionary measure.  Toby's has stopped
production of the two affected products.

Consumers who have purchased Toby's Lite Sour Creme or Toby's Toasted Sesame
Dressing should return them to retailers for a full refund or contact Toby's
for a replacement coupon.  Consumers can also call the company at 800-600-
8636 with questions, or visit the Toby's Web site at
http://www.tobysfamilyfoods.com.


UNITED FOOD: Expands Recall of Beef Product Tainted With E.Coli
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Food Group, LLC of Vernon, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is
voluntarily expanding its June 3 recall of ground beef products because they
may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

A link between illnesses in several states and the ground beef subject to
recall was determined through an investigation carried out by the California
Department of Health Services and the Colorado Department of Health, in
coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The
expanded recall totals approximately 370,000 pounds.

The ground beef products in the expanded recall were produced on April 13,
while the products subject to the original recall were produced on April 20.  
The ground beef products were shipped to retail distribution centers in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody
diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and persons with
compromised immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company Customer
Service Representative James Turner at (800) 325-4164.  Media with questions
about the recall should contact company Vice-President for Sales and
Marketing Brian Levy at (323) 588-5286.

The labels of the products subject to recall bear the establishment
number "EST. 1241" inside the USDA mark of inspection or printed on the
package.  All of the products bear a sell-by date of "APR/29/07," "APR/30/07"
or "May/06/07," a freeze-by date of "APR/28/07," "APR/29/07," "APR/30/07"
or "May/07/07," or a produced on date of "APR/13/07" or "APR/20/07."

To view the labels, click on:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/025_2007_expanded_labels.pdf

The list is inclusive of products included in both the original and expanded
recall actions:

5-pound chubs of "1ST STREET 73/27 ground beef;"
3-pound chubs of "BASHAS 73/27 ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "SIR BASHA 90/10 ground beef;"
5-pound chubs of "INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCT 73/27 ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS 80/20 ground beef;"
2-pound chubs of "INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS 93/7 ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "STATER BROS. MARKET 73/27 ground beef;"
3-pound chubs of "STATER BROS. MARKETS 73/27 ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 73/27 ground beef;"
3-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 73/27 ground beef;"
5-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 73/27 ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S All Natural, 73/27 fine ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 73/27 coarse ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 75/25 fine ground beef;"
3-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 80/20 ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 80/20 ground chuck;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 80/20 coarse ground chuck;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 80/20 fine ground chuck;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S All Natural 81/19 fine ground beef;"
2-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 85/15 ground beef;"
3-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 85/15 ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 85/15 coarse ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 85/15 fine ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 85/15 ground round;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S All Natural 85/15 coarse ground round;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S All Natural 85/15 coarse ground sirloin;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S All Natural 85/15 fine ground sirloin;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 90/10 fine ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 90/10 ground sirloin;"
1-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural, 90/10 fine ground sirloin;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S All Natural, 90/10 fine ground sirloin;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 90/10 coarse ground sirloin;"
2-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 93/7 ground beef;"
2-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 93/7 fine ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 93/7 coarse ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S 93/7 fine ground sirloin;"
5-pound chubs of "MORAN'S 95/5 fine ground beef;"
1-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 96/4 ground beef;"
2-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 96/4 ground beef;"
10-pound casings of "MORAN'S All Natural 96/4 fine ground beef;" and
5-pound chubs of "MORAN'S All Natural 96/4 fine ground beef;"

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual
representative available 24 hours a day at http://www.AskKaren.gov. The toll-
free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


UNITED STATES: Awaits Ruing in Medicare Reimbursement Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge is yet to rule on a request for a summary judgment to dismiss
a class action filed in 2003 against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS), Saul Friedman of Newsday reports.

The suit, brought by Attorney Richard C. Cahn, was filed on behalf of Seniors
Against Discrimination organizer Joan Andersen.

The organization represents enrollees in Suffolk County (N.Y.) who have been
affected by the differences in insurance reimbursement rates between suburban
and urban counties.  

The suit questions the constitutionality of the inequality in the federal
government’s reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage plans among the nine
counties in the New York City.

It claims the formula Medicare uses in computing the rates it pays to
insurers is illogical.  It further asserts that the rates are based on
outmoded and inaccurate methodology that causes a “mismatch between the HMOs’
projected costs for a county and the costs that CMS itself projects for the
same county.”

According to the suit, "As a result of the mismatch Medicare Advantage
enrollees residing in the four New York suburban counties for virtually all
the years since 1997, have been required to make substantial monthly premium
payments and co-payments while their counterparts in the five boroughs of New
York City -- enrolled in health plans that are otherwise identical -- have
not been required to pay monthly premiums or make co-payments.  It is this
geographical discrimination that plaintiffs challenge" under the U.S.
Constitution's equal protection clause.

The federal government denies the rate differences, saying the formula is
based on differences in medical costs between the counties.

In consequence to the lower rates paid to Suffolk insurers, most of them have
left the county, leaving behind several elderly Medicare beneficiaries
scrambling for coverage.  

The suit is named “Andersen et al. v. Thompson et al, Case No: 2:03-cv-06115-
DRH,” filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York under
Judge Denis R. Hurley.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Richard C. Cahn, Esq.
          Cahn & Cahn, LLP
          445 Broadhollow Road Suite 332
          Melville, NY 11747-9034
          Phone: 631-752-1600
          Fax: 631-752-1555
          E-mail: rcahn@cahnlaw.com  

Representing the U.S. is:

          Michael J. Goldberger, Esq.
          United States Attorneys Office
          Eastern District of New York
          One Pierrepont Plaza
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (718)254-6052
          Fax: (718)254-6083
          E-mail: Michael.Goldberger@usdoj.gov


WASHINGTON GROUP: La. Suits Over Levee Failure Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. faces class actions related to the New
Orleans levee failure during Hurricane Katrina, 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 30, 2007.

From July 1999 through May 2005, the Company performed demolition, site
preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACOE) on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal
(Industrial Canal) in New Orleans, Louisiana (Task Order 26).  All the work
performed by the Company and its subcontractors was directed, supervised and
approved by the USACOE.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.
The storm surge created by the hurricane flooded the east bank of the
Industrial Canal and overtopped the Industrial Canal levee floodwall,
flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the City.

Between September 19, 2005 and January 3, 2006, seven personal injury and
property damage class actions were filed in Louisiana state and federal court
naming the Company as one of numerous defendants including The City of New
Orleans an The Board of Commissioners for the Orleans Parish Levee District
and its insurer St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.  

Plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their design, construction
and maintenance of the New Orleans levees and assert their claims under the
Federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 12(d)(2).

The members of the purported class of plaintiffs are all residents and
property owners of the Parishes of Orleans and Jefferson in the State of
Louisiana, who incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of the
hurricane protection levees and floodwalls along the 17th Street Canal, the
London Avenue Canal, and the Industrial Canal...in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina.

In all of the lawsuits to date, the only specific allegation against the
Company is that it contracted to level and clear abandoned industrial sites
along the Industrial Canal between the floodwall and the canal and plaintiffs
believe the use of heavy vehicles and/or other heavy construction equipment
along the Industrial Canal between the floodwall and the canal damaged the
levee and/or floodwall and caused and/or contributed [to] the...breach in the
levee and/or floodwall.  

Plaintiffs allege damages as high as $200 billion and demand attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Company has substantial liability insurance coverage in the
event that it is found to have any liability in this matter.  

The actions, which are all currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, and are consolidated under “Berthelot:”

      -- "Berthelot, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 05-4182,

      -- "Vodanovich, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et. al., Case No. 05-5237,

      -- "Kirsch, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6073,

      -- "Ezell v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et al., Case
         No. 05-6314,

      -- "Brown, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6324,

      -- "LeBlanc, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6327, and

      -- “Finney, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-0886,”

      -- “Christenberry, et al. v. Board of Commissioners of the
         Orleans Levee District, et al., Case No. 06-2278,”

      -- “Sanchez, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-2287,”

      -- “C. Adams, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 06-4065,”

      -- “Brock, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-4931,”

      -- “Fleming, et al. v. The United States of America, et       
         al., Case No. 06-5159,”

      -- “G. Adams, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,        
         et al., Case No. 06-4634,”

      -- “Gisevius v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et al.,
         Case No. 06-5308,”

      -- “Holmes, et al. v. The United States of America, et
         al., Case No. 06-5161,”

      -- “Joseph, et al. v. New Orleans Sewage and Water Board,
         et al., Case No. 06-5032,”

      -- “LeDuff, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-5260,”

      -- “O’Dwyer(1) v. Boh Bros Construction Col, LLC, et al.,
         Case No. 05-4181,”

      -- “O’Dwyer(3) v. Dept. of Trans. and Dev., et al., Case
         No. 06-4389,”

      -- “Bradley, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-225,”
   
      -- “O’Dwyer(2) v. Dept. of Trans. and Dev., et al., Case
         No. 06-5786,”

      -- “Richardson v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et al.,
         Case No. 06-8708,”

      -- “Yacob v. Board of Commissioners for Orleans Levee
         District, et al., Case No. 06-5937,”

      -- “Cochran, et. al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 06-5785,”

      -- “Ciuffi v. United States of America, et al., Case No.
         07-1271,” and

      -- “Carney v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC.”

Washington Group International, Inc. -- http://www.wgint.com-- is an  
international provider of a range of design, engineering, construction,
construction management, facilities and operations management, environmental
remediation and mining services.


VERTRUE INC: One Equity $800M Buyout Prompts Del. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Vertrue Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 9 in Delaware
Chancery Court (CA No. 2949), over its recent merger with One Equity
Partners, Oak Investment Partners and Rho Ventures V.

In March, Vertrue entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by
Vertrue's management and an investor group consisting of One Equity Partners,
Oak Investment Partners and Rho Ventures in a transaction valued at $800
million (Troubled Company Reporter, March 27, 2007).

Under the terms of the agreement, Vertrue's stockholders will receive $48.50
in cash for each share of Vertrue common stock, which represents a 21%
premium to the undisturbed stock price of $40.12 per share on Jan. 23, 2007.

Less than two weeks ago, in a 13D filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Brencourt Advisors, LLC (Brencourt) disclosed that it is one of
Vertrue's largest shareholders with a 9.5 percent stake in the company, and
is dissatisfied with the current $48.50 offer price.

In a letter attached to its 13D filing, Brencourt states that the $48.50
offer does not adequately compensate it for its Vertrue shares, and urges
Vertrue's Board of Director's to re-consider their endorsement of the current
$48.50 offer.

The proposed merger is subject to shareholder approval.

                    About One Equity Partners

One Equity Partners manages $5 billion for direct private equity
investments.  Partnering with management, OEP invests in transactions that
initiate strategic and operational changes in businesses to create long-term
value.  OEP's investment professionals are located across North America and
Europe, with offices in New York, Chicago and Frankfurt.

                  About Oak Investment Partners

Oak Investment Partners is a multi-stage venture capital firm with a total of
$8.4 billion in committed capital.  The investment focus is on high growth
opportunities in communications, information technology, Internet, new media,
financial services information technology, healthcare services and consumer
retail. Over a 30-year history, Oak has achieved a strong track record as a
stage-independent investor funding more than 450 companies at key points in
their lifecycle.  Oak has been involved in the formation of companies, funded
spinouts of operating divisions and technology assets, and provided growth
equity to mid- and late-stage private businesses and to public companies
through PIPE investments.

                        About Rho Ventures

Rho -- http://www.rho.com/-- has been backing venture-stage companies in the  
U.S. since its inception in 1981.  Venture capital funds under management
currently exceed $1 billion.  Rho Ventures has invested in over 165 venture
stage companies and helped build market leaders across many high growth
industries. Previous investments include Ciena Corporation, Commerce One,
Compaq Computer Corporation, Diversa Corporation, Human Genome Sciences,
Inc., iVillage, Leukosite, MedImmune, Inc., NitroMed, Senomyx, Tercica,
Tripod, Vanda Pharmaceuticals and Vicuron.

                    About Vertrue Incorporated

Headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut, Vertrue Incorporated (Nasdaq: VTRU) --
http://www.vertrue.com/-- is a leading Internet marketing services company.   
For the twelve months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the company generated adjusted
EBITDA of approximately $98 million on revenues of approximately $697 million.


* Fulbright Partner One of U.S. Most Influential Women Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal named Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Partner Linda
Addison as one of America’s “50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America.”

When the publication set out to find 50 women "with the demonstrated power to
change the legal landscape, shape public affairs, launch industries and do
big things," they determined Addison fit squarely on its newly released list.

Ms. Addison's selection is no surprise, given that last year, The National
Law Journal named her as one of only 17 women lawyers on its list of the "100
Most Influential Lawyers in America."

“Merely holding high office was not enough,” National Law Journal Editor
Michael Moline said in the May 28 issue. “We looked for women with the
demonstrated power to change the legal landscape, shape public affairs,
launch industries and do big things.”

The National Law Journal noted Ms. Addison’s representation of some of the
country’s biggest companies including the former directed trustee of Enron’s
401(k) plan in the largest ERISA class action in U.S. history. She helped
negotiate a $37.5 million settlement in the case, which sought more than $1
billion in damages. The publication also cited a $4.2 million jury verdict
that Addison obtained on behalf of Mars Inc. in a pet food patent
infringement case against Heinz and Del Monte, which forced a number of
infringing products to be pulled from shelves.

“The list reflects not just some of the most influential women lawyers, but
some of the most influential lawyers, period,” Moline said.

Readers of The National Law Journal nominated nearly 200 female attorneys
with a national impact inside and outside the legal world in the past five
years, according to the publication. The editorial staff also submitted names
based on its own research. The pool was then winnowed down to the “50 Most
Influential Women.” The last time The National Law Journal published such a
list was in 1998.

“It is an honor to be recognized among such an accomplished group of women,”
Ms. Addison said.

Ms. Addison joined Fulbright as a litigator in 1976. It was a time when other
firms did not allow women to try cases. Since then, Addison has tried cases
as lead counsel in federal and state courts and before arbitration panels.
She is now a member of the international firm’s six-member Executive
Committee and the author of a book that is considered the authority on Texas
evidence rules. Addison is known as the lawyer who made it possible for
Texans to shop on Sunday because of her successful handling of the case that
resulted in Texas’ “Blue Law” being declared unconstitutional.

In addition to her civic work improving education and human services, she has
been a champion for equal access to training and client opportunities for
women in the law.

As part of the Fortune/U.S. State Department International Women Leaders
Mentoring Partnership, Addison has mentored two emerging female leaders from
Africa. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Holocaust Museum of
Houston and was appointed by the President to the U.S. Commission for the
Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. Additionally, Addison serves on
the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee of U.S. Senators Kay Bailey
Hutchison and John Cornyn.

She was previously named one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America"
by The National Law Journal in 2006, and in 2001, the newspaper listed her
among the “America’s Top 50 Women Litigators.” Addison also has been selected
among The Best Lawyers in America, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in
American Law, Who's Who of American Women, Chambers Global: The World's
Leading Lawyers 2004-2006, and Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for
Business 2004-2006.

                   Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

Founded in 1919, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. is a leading full-service
international law firm, with nearly 1,000 lawyers in 16 locations in Houston,
New York, Washington, D.C., Austin, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis,
San Antonio, St. Louis, Dubai, Beijing, Hong Kong, London, Munich and Riyadh.
Fulbright provides a full range of legal services to clients worldwide.

The 2007 BTI survey of FORTUNE 1000 general counsel chose Fulbright as "The
BTI Client Service 30" A-Team and Corporate Board Member magazine named
Fulbright among the top 20 corporate law firms in the U.S. in their survey of
board members of public companies.

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. on the net: http://www.fulbright.com


* Peter Kraneveld Joins Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
----------------------------------------------------------
International pension expert Peter Kraneveld has joined Schiffrin Barroway
Topaz & Kessler, LLP, a major U.S. law firm specializing in shareholder
litigation, as an advisor.

Mr. Kraneveld will work with SBTK to analyze and work on issues such as
corporate governance, shareholder rights and activism and how these fit into
the interests of the firm's large international client base of pension funds
and other institutional investors. Both Mr. Kraneveld and SBTK believe that
the fiduciary duties of institutional investors make it necessary to consider
shareholder rights and activism as a credible option and a tool of last
resort to defend the interest of their beneficiaries in the framework of
corporate governance.

He will begin working with SBTK on July 1, 2007.

Mr. Kraneveld, an economist by training, has a long history of working with
pension funds and other institutional shareholders. He just completed an
eight year stint working with Dutch pension fund PGGM, a public pension fund
for the healthcare sector in the Netherlands, and one of the largest pension
funds in Europe.

His last three years at PGGM were spent as a Special Advisor for
International Affairs where his main responsibilities included setting up a
network among national and international lobbying organizations, domestic and
foreign pension funds and international civil servants and using it to
promote the interests of the pension fund industry.

Mr. Kraneveld served as Chief Economist for PGGM's Investments Directorate
from 1999 until 2004 where his accomplishments included the Tactical Asset
Allocation process and designing alternative scenarios for Asset Liability
Management.

Prior to his work with PGGM, Kraneveld worked with the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Dutch Ministry of
Economic Affairs.

"I am enthusiastically looking forward to working with the Schiffrin firm.
They are serious and focused and their work will benefit the sophistication
and reliability of institutional investing. I am happy to bring their wide
expertise in contact with my international network," said Mr. Kraneveld.

SBTK, with its headquarters located just outside of Philadelphia, PA (USA),
currently employs over 60 attorneys and 100 staff dedicated to serving its
institutional clients from around the globe. In addition, SBTK recently
represented a group of European institutional investors in a precedent
setting settlement with Royal Dutch Shell with regard to the company's oil
reserve case. SBTK's free "Securities Tracker" service actively monitors the
portfolios of institutional investors to identify potential claims for
damages as a result of corporate malfeasance.

"Peter's experience and knowledge will bring a different view to our thinking
on many issues that relate to our practice and will help us better
incorporate international views on corporate governance and shareholder
rights," said Darren Check, Partner and Director of Institutional Relations
at SBTK.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087
          Phone: (610) 822-2235
          Fax: (484) 270-1484
          Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler to Pay $5.2M in Injury Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has ordered Foster Wheeler Ltd. to
pay US$5.2 million in damages, in a lawsuit filed by Richard Walmach for
exposure to asbestos, Associated Press reports.

The verdict ordered the Company to pay the survivors of Mr. Walmach, a career
naval machinist who died in 2006 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Walmach died after filing the suit, which claimed the Company failed to
disclose asbestos risks. The Company supplies boilers, steam generators, and
other power equipment to the U.S. Navy.

The Company has faced 20 other asbestos-related suits and been found liable
for US$100 million in general damages. However, this was the first time the
Company was ordered to pay punitive damages, said lead plaintiff's attorney
Sean P. Tracey.

Of the US$5.2 million total award, US$2 million was for punitive damages. An
attorney for the Company said a motion was pending before the judge
challenging jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

Kevin M. Loew, another plaintiff’s attorney, said the trial took place in Los
Angeles since several defendants have headquarters there. He added that the
original suit named 21 defendants, with all except Foster Wheeler reaching
confidential settlements before trial.

Mr. Walmach spent most of his 37-year career at the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, where workers used jackhammers to remove asbestos-packed insulation
from Foster Wheeler boilers. He also worked at the Long beach Naval Shipyard
when asbestos was being removed there in the 1960s.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician Seeks Payout for Injuries  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electrician Edward Anderson is fighting for compensation against his former
employer Balfour Kilpatrick in an asbestos-related action filed in London’s
High Court, EveningStar 24 reports.

Mr. Anderson, who is 64 years old, worked as an electrician for the Company
in the 1960s at Sizewell A Nuclear Power Station.

Mr. Anderson fell ill in 2005, almost 40 years after he left Sizewell, and
was diagnosed in April 2006 with pleural plaques and mesothelioma.

Mr. Anderson said, “At Sizewell I had installed a copper tape earthing system
from electrical motors and pumps and it was at floor level so I had to sweep
the floor. Asbestos is something I wouldn't have dreamed of thinking about at
the time.”

Mr. Anderson had worked close to pipes which were being lagged by laggers,
who mixed up asbestos powder with water, the Court will hear.

The writ claims Balfour Kilpatrick failed to ventilate the workplace
properly, failed to give Mr. Anderson protective clothing or breathing
apparatus, and failed to warn him of the dangers of asbestos.

Judge Master Whitaker is now due to decide whether to take court proceedings
further.

A spokeswoman for Balfour Kilpatrick said, “The case of Mr. Anderson is in
the hands of our insurers and as it is subject to legal proceedings we are
unable to comment further.”

Balfour Kilpatrick has experience within the multi services and power system
sectors of the mechanical and electrical construction industry. The Company
covers mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, building services and related
design, engineering, construction, commissioning and specific manufacturing
disciplines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Shop Owner’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coroner Edward Thomas, in an inquest at Hatfield Coroner’s Court, linked the
death of Roy Roberts, from Hertford, England, to asbestos exposure, Herts &
Essex News Online reports.   

Mr. Roberts died on Dec. 30, 2006 at the age of 69. It is believed that
exposure to asbestos during his tenure of national service between 1955 and
1957 caused a malignant lung neoplasm.

Mr. Roberts’ wife, Angela, recalled how her husband had described his years
with the Royal Navy. She said, “When they did their washing he remembered
hanging all their clothes on the pipes, which were all covered in asbestos.”

Mr. Roberts was well-known in Hertford, having first owned the shop Something
Old Something New, and more recently the Wiggintons shops in St. Andrew
Street and Old Cross.

Mr. Roberts regularly appeared in the Mercury, railing against traffic
wardens, the St. Andrew Street traffic lights and East Herts Council.

Mr. Thomas explained how the number of deaths attributed asbestos “goes in
peaks and troughs” and how numbers are peaking as comparatively lesser cases
begin to take their toll after 50 years.

Mr. Thomas added that Mr. Roberts had reached the age of 69 "due to his
attitude to his condition" and determination to fight the disease. He
recorded a verdict of death due to industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Int’l. Labour Headquarters
----------------------------------------------------------------
An International Labour Organization official, on June 1, 2007, said that the
ILO’s headquarters, which houses some 2,000 staff, needs to be cleared of
asbestos, TerraNet reports.

The ILO has long campaigned against work-related asbestos exposure. It
estimates that up to 100,000 people die each year, mainly from cancer caused
by breathing in asbestos when it is frayed, ageing or broken up, or in raw
form.

ILO spokeswoman Corinne Perthuis said that asbestos was used in the
building's walls. A committee was set up in 2005 to deal with the issue,
while health monitoring has been in place since a Swiss ban on use of the
material.

The ILO's 1986 Asbestos Convention calls for national laws to protect workers
from exposure and to replace the fibrous material, primarily to help
construction, demolition and factory workers.

During the ILO's conference, senior international union representative Marc
Blondel called for an increase in the US$2.5 million allocated for renovation
work on the building by member states, which is regarded as insufficient.

A report by the ILO's building subcommittee said that the replacement of
materials with asbestos was among the environmental aspects that need to be
taken into consideration during renovation work.

The report suggested that some land owned by the ILO in Geneva could be sold
to help finance work on the building.

The International Labour Organization, based in Geneva, is a specialized
agency of the United Nations that deals with labor issues. Founded in 1919,
the ILO was formed through the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles, and
was initially an agency of the League of Nations. The ILO became a member of
the U.N. system after the demise of the League and the formation of the U.N.
at the end of World War II.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Slaps Mass. Firms With $20,500 Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued a total
penalty of US$20,500 to companies and individuals for violations of the
commonwealth’s asbestos regulations that took place in Springfield,
Northampton, and Westfield, The Republican reports.

Fleet Environmental Services, of Randolph, Mass., will pay a US$4,000 penalty
for not properly handling and disposing of caulking and window glazing
material that contained asbestos during a window replacement project at
Edgewater Towers in Springfield, Mass.

Phyllis Cove, of Auburndale, Mass., will pay a US$2,500 penalty for asbestos
violations at a rental property at 46 Ridgewood Terrace in Northampton.

After a complaint by the building's tenants, state environmental agents
confirmed that a new boiler had been installed and the old asbestos insulated
boiler and pipes had been cut out with a saw and left on the basement floor.

During a routine inspection of a water and sewer line replacement project in
the Eastwood Estates section of Westfield, the state environmental department
observed that Borges Construction Co., of Ludlow, Mass., had removed sections
of asbestos-containing water line without the proper work practices and
without prior notice to the agency. Borges agreed to a pay a penalty of
US$8,000.

The Freitas Construction Co., of Ludlow, Mass., will pay a penalty of
US$6,000 to address the excavation of asbestos-containing water lines without
the proper state permits, and the subsequent crushing of the pipes within
excavation trenches.

The Company was working in the Eastwood Estates in Westfield at the time of
the violation.

Michael J. Gorski, director of DEP’s western regional office in Springfield,
said, “We will continue to aggressively seek compliance with these very
important public health regulations.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found On Planned NSW Aged Care Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-tainted land and the possibility of unexploded bombs have led to
serious doubts on whether to build a nursing home for northern New South
Wales, Australia, Australian Associated Press reports.

On May 31, 2007, the federal health and ageing department said it gave
permission for the aged care facility to be built before the problem was
discovered. The department initially gave the Ballina Ex-Services Home the
right to build a 40-bed nursing home in 2001.

However, when the land Ballina was intending to build on was deemed
environmentally sensitive, the group was given council permission to build on
a former RAAF base in Evans Head.

“We are now aware it's contaminated land,” aged care division first assistant
secretary Andrew Stuart told a Senate estimates hearings.

Department officials said the allocation had been approved after the local
council prepared a management plan for the site and both it and the NSW
heritage council endorsed the site.

The problem was revealed in May 2006 after a contaminated site investigation
was commissioned.

Labor's ageing spokeswoman Jan McLucas said the report commissioned by the
local council had found “potential for unexploded ordinance, i.e. bombs and
pyrotechnics.”

According to the Richmond Valley Council, the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome
was used as an airfield and training base by the Royal Australian Air Force
during World War II.

More than 5,000 military personnel were stationed at the base during its
heyday, making it the biggest in the southern hemisphere at the time.

Soil and groundwater at the site has been found to be contaminated with fuel
spills, heavy metals including arsenic and lead, asbestos fragments, benzene,
cyanide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Work to Contain Asbestos in Ark. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Destruction crews worked to contain asbestos stirred up during the demolition
of the old Hillsboro Inn, a motel in El Dorado, Ark, The Associated Press
reports.

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality issued an emergency order,
saying tests indicated a large amount of asbestos-containing material at the
site of motel. The DEQ said the material poses an imminent threat to the
public health.

The DEQ halted demolition after receiving a complaint on May 15, 2007 and
later issued an order to property owner, Shailesh Vora, who also owns the
contracting firm Akshar, which was hired for the demolition, along with
subcontractor Ralph Whitley of Blue Eyed Enterprise of Bossier City, La.

The environmental officials said the property is located at a major city
intersection that has a significant amount of pedestrian traffic.

The emergency order said that the site was not secured to control access or
to prevent air dispersal of asbestos.

Mr. Whitley said a plan for resumption of demolition work has been sent to
the state.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenants Win Suit v. Sheffield Over Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tenants group representing the interests of the Sheffield won a battle with
the developers of the building over the removal of asbestos-containing
materials present in the building, according to a Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
press release dated June 4, 2007.

The Sheffield is a high rise apartment building on W. 57th Street in New York
City.

Built in the 1970s, the Sheffield had acoustic (known as "popcorn," named for
the rough texture of the coating) ceilings. Like most residential and
commercial properties built or remodeled from the 1960s through the 1980s
where the popcorn coating was used, the ceilings at the Sheffield property
contained asbestos.

James C. Long, Jr., an attorney in the Weitz & Luxenberg Asbestos Department,
warned, "It is important that the public remain aware of the inherent dangers
of exposure to asbestos to this very day. Asbestos surrounds us even today in
our sprayed on ceilings, in the floor tiles under our feet, around our pipes,
and in other products we use everyday."

While asbestos has not been used in the construction industry for many years,
asbestos exposure is still a danger. Since the latency period for symptoms of
pulmonary diseases like Mesothelioma, other virulent forms of lung cancer and
asbestosis is decades long, even short term exposure may result in
contracting a lung disease related to asbestos 30-40 years after the exposure
occurred.

Established in 1986, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., is a plaintiffs', mass torts,
product liability, and personal-injury litigation law firm in America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Predicts Disease Rate at NSW Town
----------------------------------------------------------------
A report, commissioned by James Hardie Industries N.V. and actuaries KPMG,
predicts that more than 10 percent of the New South Wales community of
Baryulgil will contract asbestos disease, on top of the 10 percent who have
already died or become ill, The Australian reports.

However, lawyers representing Baryulgil residents say recent medical tests
show a far greater number of residents already display evidence of asbestos
disease.

During the asbestos mining years from 1942 to 1979, Baryulgil had a
population of about 350. That has now dwindled to around 200.

A 1984 federal parliamentary report found Hardie dodged health regulations
and was still exposing its workers to unlawful levels of asbestos when it
sold the mine in 1976.

The parliamentary inquiry heard evidence from a former mine manager that the
dust levels at the plant were so high that “when you walked in it was
impossible to see anywhere.”

The former mine manager estimated that adequate dust control would have cost
between AUD70,000 and AUD80,000, but Hardie did not regard it as worthwhile
expenditure. The Company initially excluded the people of Baryulgil from its
AUD1.5 billion asbestos compensation package.

According to the report, 28 claimants from Baryulgil have filed and settled
suits against Hardie's former asbestos mining subsidiaries over the years.

Asbestos diseases usually take 30 to 40 years from exposure to manifest into
illness, and KPMG expects there to be a further 27 future claims. Of those,
10 would comprise claims for mesothelioma, eight would be other product and
public liability claims, and nine would be workers compensation claims.

KPMG said the value of future claims was estimated at AUD8.6million.

Sydney lawyer Stephen Smart, who has taken up cases of Baryulgil asbestos
victims, said the KPMG estimate of future claims was far too conservative.

Mr. Smart said his firm had filed six cases with the Dust Diseases Tribunal.
These represented the most urgent, he said, including a case of one woman who
has had part of a lung removed.

However, Mr. Smart said he expected to file dozens more cases this year, with
CT scans of more than 100 Baryulgil residents testing positive for asbestos-
related diseases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Merton Council to Survey Estate for Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Council of the London Borough of Merton would survey properties on
Harland Estate to establish any presence of asbestos and what condition it is
in, Southern Housing reports.

Invicta Analytical Services has been appointed to carry out the internal
surveys of 120 homes on Harland Estate, during the week commencing June 4,
2007.

If any damaged asbestos is found, the area will be sealed off and the
atmosphere tested for any airborne asbestos fibers. Residents will be
informed of the result of the test within 24 hours.

Councilor Diane Neil Mills, Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration
said, “As a landlord, the council has an obligation to keep a record of
locations of asbestos and these surveys will update our records. It also
gives us an opportunity to act swiftly to ensure tenants' safety in their
homes.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philippine Navy Veterans Exposed to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veteran Helping Veteran President Ken Smith, on June 4, 2007, said that tens
of thousands of Philippine veterans who served with the U.S. Navy were
exposed to asbestos, TransWorldNews reports.

Mr. Smith said, “We think that veterans from the Philippines were exposed to
asbestos and have the same rates of mesothelioma as other veterans in the
U.S. Navy. We have set up a new web site Http://www.mesothliome.ph and
request that any former navy veteran, or family member of a veteran who has
been diagnosed with this cancer, contact us so we can begin to help.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group Urges More Research in Baryulgil Town
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Foundation of Australia, an asbestos victims’ group,
says more research needs to be done into the effects asbestos has had on
Baryulgil, a community in New South Wales, Australia, ABC News Online reports.

Barry Robson, from the group, says a report which found about 20 percent of
Baryulgil residents had or would contract a related illness, may have
overlooked some cases.

Mr. Robson says there are only about 300 people living in the former mining
community, but the rate of disease is high.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Gov’t. Mulls Fund for Ireland Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of asbestos disease victims would find it easier to claim Irish
Government compensation in the North under the Welfare Reform Bill being
considered, The Irish Times reports.

The Bill will allow dependants to claim from a special fund administered by
the Department for Social Development and relax the claiming criteria.

Hundreds of workers have already died after contracting crippling lung
diseases, leaving family struggling to cope.

Chairman of the Justice for Asbestos Victims lobby group, Brian Lee, said it
was a welcome step. He said, “Hopefully people and their families will
benefit from this. They don't have a good quality of life at present so this
money that they get will be a help.”

The aid includes those who worked in the housing industry but are unable to
claim against a former employer. Onset of the disease can be delayed by up to
40 years. By that time many employers are gone.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nebr. Court Favors DeMarco in Olivotto Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld a Workers’ Compensation Court appeal in
favor of DeMarco Brothers Co. in an asbestos-related action filed by Joe
Olivotto.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Heavican, Wright, Gerard, Stephan, McCormack,
and Miller-Lerman, handed down the decision of Case No. S-05-1526 on June 1,
2007.

Mr. Olivotto worked for DeMarco as a terrazzo installer from 1954 to 1980.
During this time, he was allegedly exposed to asbestos. He died in 2004 from
malignant pleural mesothelioma.

In this workers' compensation action, Romana I. Olivotto, Mr. Olivotto’s
widow sought from DeMarco death benefits and compensation for medical bills.
The trial court awarded her a weekly indemnity benefit, medical expenses, and
burial expenses.

A review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court affirmed the award of
medical and burial expenses but concluded the trial court erred in finding
that Mrs. Olivotto was entitled to a weekly indemnity benefit.

DeMarco appealed and Mrs. Olivotto has cross-appealed.

The judgment of the review panel is affirmed except that the Supreme Court
reduced the award for medical expenses by US$4,800. The cross-appeal is
dismissed.

Thomas F. Hoarty, Jr., of Byam & Hoarty, represented DeMarco Brothers Co.

Michael J. Lehan represented Romana I. Olivotto, widow of Joe Olivotto.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ga. Court Favors Defendants in Purser Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division, granted a Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment in the defendants’ favor in an asbestos-related
action filed by John L. Purser.

U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield and U.S. Magistrate Judge James E.
Graham handed down the decision of Civil Action No. 605-033 on May 28, 2007.

Mr. Purser, an inmate confined at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Ga.,
has filed an action contesting certain conditions of his confinement.

Mr. Purser’s allegations against Defendant Mr. Guy, Engineer at Georgia State
Prison, Defendant Mr. Smith, Warden at GSP, and Defendant Mr. Donald,
Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, are summarized as
follows:

-- Mr. Purser alleged that Defendants have allowed him to be exposed to
friable asbestos in prison dormitories at GSP.

-- Mr. Purser contended that friable asbestos exists in insulation on the
pipes in hallways and in areas behind the ice machines in Buildings L and M
where he is housed.

-- According to Mr. Purser, continued maintenance on these areas by prison
staff and tampering by inmates released the asbestos and allowed particles to
travel through the ventilation system and into the dorms and cells.

-- Mr. Purser alleged that prison officials were aware of the friable
asbestos but failed to take appropriate action to remove or contain the
asbestos, to transfer Mr. Purser to asbestos-free housing, or to give him
medical treatment.

-- Mr. Purser contended that exposure to this friable asbestos has caused
scarring and calcification of his lungs.

Defendants previously moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Purser’s
deliberate indifference claim failed on the merits that Mr. Guy and Mr. Smith
are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Mr. Donald cannot be held liable
in his supervisory capacity.

In their Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants incorporated the
arguments and evidence set forth by their initial motion for summary judgment.

In his Response, Mr. Purser addressed Defendants' new argument, contending
that he has suffered a present injury and an increased risk of future serious
injury.

Mr. Purser has failed to satisfy the objective component of his deliberate
indifference claim, and it is consequently unnecessary to consider whether
Defendants' conduct constituted deliberate indifference under the subjective
factor.

Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

John L. Purser of Reidsville, Ga., pro se.

Andrew Marshall Magruder and Jesse Weatherspoon Owen of Magruder and Owen
LLP, Augusta, Ga., represented James E. Donaldson and the other defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sheppard v. Northrop et al. Suit Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana granted Eulis “Ellau” Sheppard’s
Motion to Remand in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Northrop
Grumman Systems Corp. and other defendants.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier handed down the decision of Civil Action
No. 07-2208 on May 24, 2007.

Mr. Sheppard sued Northrop and several other defendants in Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans asserting that he contracted asbestos-related
lung cancer while employed as a laborer and rigger at Avondale Shipyard in
Avondale, La.

Northrop and Peter Territo, an executive officer (Defendants), removed this
action to federal court based on federal officer immunity. Defendants also
stated that the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) was a
basis for removal.

The day before Defendants removed this action, Mr. Sheppard filed and served
a motion for leave of court to amend his petition in state court.

Defendants claimed that they are entitled to remove this case based on
federal officer jurisdiction. Specifically, Defendants asserted that the
intense government presence at Avondale and government control of the
construction of vessels at Avondale, where Mr. Sheppard allegedly was exposed
to asbestos, was of a direct and detailed nature that Defendants are entitled
to defend this claim in federal court.

Although this case was properly removed based on federal question
jurisdiction, seven days after removal, Mr. Sheppard was granted leave to
amend his Complaint. This amendment effectively allowed him to delete any
possibility of federal claims from his Complaint.

Here, Mr. Sheppard has amended his petition to omit any strict liability
claim. Thus at present, his amended petition stated theories of liability
which sound in negligence, which should be remanded according to all Eastern
District precedent.

Accordingly, the District Court granted Mr. Sheppard’s Motion to Remand. This
matter is now remanded to

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Rec.Doc.11) should be and
hereby is GRANTED. This matter is now remanded to the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans from which it was removed.

Scott R. Bickford, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, and Spencer R. Doody of Martzell &
Bickford, New Orleans, La., represented Euelis "Ellau" Sheppard.

Brian C. Bossier, Christopher Thomas Grace III, and Edwin A. Ellinghausen III
of Blue Williams LLP, Charles V. Giordano of Miranda, Warwick, Milazzo,
Giordano & Hebbler APLC, Christopher Kelly Lightfoot of Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, Metairie, La., Glenn Lyle Maximilian of Swetman,
Aultman, Tyner & Ruffin, Ltd., Gordon Peter Wilson, Frederick Lewis Parks of
Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Gary Allen Lee and Richard
Marshall Perles of Lee, Futrell & Perles LLP, Samuel Milton Rosamond III of
Crawford Lewis PLLC, New Orleans, La., William L. Schuette, Jr. of Jones,
Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre LLP of Baton Rouge, La.,
represented Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., et al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Lawyers Seek to Overturn Grace Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. federal lawyers urge three senior judges of the 9th U.S. Court of
Appeals in Seattle to overturn U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s rulings on
W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos-related lawsuit, seattlepi.com reports.

Judge Molloy’s decisions in 2006 to ban the government's use of scores of
documents, studies and testimony of expert witnesses blocked government
efforts to bring Grace and seven of its current and former senior executives
and managers to trial in September 2006.

For 30 years, Grace mined vermiculite in Libby, Mont. The ore is contaminated
with asbestos.

The vermiculite was shipped to more than 200 processing and packaging plants
throughout North America -- including Seattle; Spokane, Wash.; and Portland,
Ore. -- where it was made into lawn and garden products and attic and wall
insulation that the government has estimated is in between 15 million and 35
million homes and businesses.

The government told the panel that since at least the 1970s, Grace and its
officials "knew, yet deliberately concealed, the devastating health effect
that would result from exposure to asbestos."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean from Montana and Todd Aagaard from the
Justice Department explained that Judge Molloy's rulings:

-- Forbid the government from presenting facts and data that came from
Grace's own testing of its vermiculite products for asbestos, EPA's asbestos
sampling in Libby, and the results of a peer-reviewed government study in
which 7,300 people from Libby and surrounding Lincoln County were given chest
X-rays and medical interviews. The study found more than 1,300 of those
tested had lung abnormalities consistent with asbestos-related disease.

-- Dismissed the most serious charges of multiple counts of "knowing
endangerment." Those would have carried the stiffest sentence.

-- Accepted Grace's contention that the government has misidentified the
specific type of asbestos in its vermiculite.

Christopher Landau represented Grace and its officials at the June 4, 2007
hearing, and he echoed most of Judge Molloy's justification for his rulings
and stated the Company and its employees had done nothing unlawful.

Mr. Landau said that because the government has charged the Company and seven
of its officials "with unprecedented environmental crimes carrying serious
and far-reaching penalties, courts must be especially scrupulous in upholding
the rule of law."

In 2005, Grace and its senior people were accused of multiple charges,
including criminal conspiracy and knowing endangerment. If the defendants are
found guilty, sentences could be 15 years or longer.

In June 2006, Judge Molloy raised concerns about whether some of the alleged
crimes had occurred beyond the statute of limitations. Within two weeks, Mr.
McLean brought the evidence before another federal grand jury, which reissued
and updated the indictments.

That trial has been tentatively rescheduled for September 2007. However, the
government is waiting for the appellate court's decision before moving ahead.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Developer in Talks with DEQ Over $64T Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco developer Hassan Kangarloo and his attorney, on May 31, 2007,
were negotiating with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality over a
US$$64,132 penalty for four violations of state asbestos rules, Billings
Gazette reports.

Mr. Kangarloo has run into difficulties on his project, the conversion of the
Guest House Motel in Livingston, Mont., into residential and office condos.

On May 8, 2007, the DEQ issued the US$64,132 penalty to Mr. Kangarloo for the
breaches, including failure to have an asbestos professional inspect the
Guest House before ceiling tiles were torn out last summer 2006.

In February 2006, Mr. Kangarloo purchased the Guest House Motel with plans to
remake the motel at Main Street and Park Street into residential and office
condos.

By July 2006, he ran afoul with the DEQ, and between July 2006 and December
2006, he was cited for four asbestos violations, according to enforcement
specialist Larry Alheim.

Mr. Alheim said, “The first violation was for failing to do an asbestos
inspection prior to renovation. The second was doing an asbestos project
without a permit.”

The third was for using non-accredited workers to do asbestos abatement, and
the fourth was for not following work practice procedures.

The fine is being disputed by Mr. Kangarloo, who said the work started before
he bought the motel and that the department overestimated the square footage
involved.

Mr. Alheim said that when he receives Mr. Kangarloo's paperwork, the DEQ will
evaluate the evidence and make a decision in two to three weeks.

In June 2006, the DEQ changed its asbestos regulations, making them more
stringent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Seeks BP Workers in Compensation Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edna Human seeks out the former colleagues of her husband, Wilf Human, to
help in her bid for compensation against BP p.l.c., BBC News reports.

Mr. Human, who worked at the BP refinery in Kent, England, United Kingdom,
for 22 years, died from mesothelioma in January 2005 at the age of 82.

Mrs. Human said her husband started to complain of chest pains in 2004 and
underwent lung surgery later that year.

Mrs. Human said, “Wilf began work with BP in June 1957 and worked there until
June 2, 1979, working on the jetties where tankers would come in with crude
oil, and in the pumping stations.”

Mrs. Human’s solicitor, Paul Meehan from Pattinson & Brewer Solicitors in
London, said, “Mr. Human worked amongst hundreds, if not thousands, of pipes
at the refinery that were lagged with asbestos.”

Mr. Meehan continued, “It is vital that people who worked with Mr. Human, or
who have first-hand knowledge of the refinery in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, come
forward in order to give statements about working conditions there.”


COMPANY PROFILE

BP p.l.c.
1 St. James's Square
London
SW1Y 4PD, United Kingdom
Phone: +44-20-7496-4000
Fax: +44-20-7496-4234

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2006 Sales (mil.):                US$274,316.0
1-Year Sales Growth:              11.7 percent
2006 Net Income (mil.):           US$21,116.0
1-Year Net Income Growth:         7.5 percent
2006 Employees:                   97,000
1-Year Employee Growth:           0.8 percent

Description:
The Company is the world's second largest integrated oil concern, behind
Exxon Mobil. The Company, which was formed in 1998 from the merger of British
Petroleum and Amoco, grew by buying Atlantic Richfield Co. The Company has
proved reserves of 18.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent, including large
holdings in Alaska.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Council Seeks Info in Fly-tipping Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Council in Tandridge, Surrey, U.K., seeks information from residents for
information relating to two fly-tipping incidents, icSurreyOnline reports.

On May 9, 2007, asbestos sheeting was dumped in two locations, between 4 p.m.
and 5 p.m.

The first dumping was in Broadbridge Lane, Smallfield, and the second in
Moats Lane, South Nutfield.

A Ford Transit pick-up truck with a white cab and a black tipping body was
seen in the area, with a young white man, about 18 years old, in the
passenger seat.

Councilor Eric Morgan, Chairman of the community services committee,
said, “We are doing all we can to prevent fly-tipping and catch those
responsible, but we do need the public to help us by reporting any incidents.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Council to Remove Asbestos in Ireland Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering staff of the Limerick County Council in Ireland, as of June 5,
2007, were still finalizing plans for the removal of asbestos-contaminated
rubble from a site in Rathkeale, Irish Examiner.com reports.

After the demolition of the old People’s Bakery building in the center of the
town, the Council was alerted by locals that it had an asbestos roof. The
Council immediately informed the Health and Safety Authority who sent
inspectors to the site.

The Authority said it had not been given advance notice that a building with
asbestos was to be demolished, as is provided in law.

Developers have to give 28 days’ notice to enable the Authority to approve
the contractor engaged to carry out the work.

Stringent regulations are in place with regard to the manner in which the
work is carried out and the removal of rubble from the site for safe disposal.

A Council spokesman hit out at the manner in which an earth-moving machine
arrived on site and, effectively, created a contaminated site by knocking the
building. Deputy Dan Neville has called for an investigation into the matter.

Two units of the Co Limerick fire brigade spent days at the site hosing the
rubble to prevent asbestos-contaminated dust rising into the air.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Shipbuilder’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portsmouth, U.K., Coroner David Horsley is linking the death of Archibald
Davis, a man who spent his life working in shipbuilding, to asbestos, The
News reports.

Mr. Davis died on July 6, 2006, after a three-month battle with mesothelioma.

During the Second World War, Mr. Davis, of Victoria Road North, Southsea,
U.K., worked with a special unit building motor torpedo boats around the
country.

Once the war was over, Mr. Davis returned to Portsmouth Dockyard where he
worked as an apprentice shipwright, gradually working his way up the civil
service ranks until his retirement at the age of 60.

A Portsmouth inquest heard that although Mr. Davis was never part of the
teams that worked with asbestos he would have been exposed to the deadly dust
throughout his shipbuilding career.

Recording a verdict of death due to an industrial disease Mr. Horsley
said, “He's quite clearly been exposed to asbestos for a long period.

“It's most probably that asbestos exposure in the dockyard and on the ships
caused it. It doesn't seem fair he only contracted it because he was earning
a living.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UKAS Urges Impartial Surveys by Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom Accreditation Service has called on asbestos consultancies
and removal contractors, which provide non-accredited asbestos surveys, to
ensure that they remain impartial when asked by clients to provide asbestos
surveys, ContractJournal reports.

UKAS accreditation and development manager Rob Bettinson said, “We are
concerned there could be a conflict of interest with such companies. We would
ask that companies state in their final report to clients that they recommend
a number of companies to supply asbestos removal if requested rather than
simply saying ‘we can do that as part of the service.’ However, I wouldn't
expect a contractor, when asked by a client whether it provided such
services, to say 'try the other firm down the road'.”

Mr. Bettinson said the current position opens up the possibility for surveys,
carried out by multi-skilled firms, to over-exaggerate their findings to beef
up extra work for the company concerned when it comes to asbestos removal.

Steve Sadley, general manager at the Asbestos Removal Contractors'
Association, said, “The problems that exist with the quality of the
information and the impartiality of the recommendations contained within some
asbestos survey reports run much deeper than simply the conflict of interest
that may exist with asbestos removal contractors carrying out asbestos
surveys.”

Mr. Bettinson also raised concerns after UKAS found a rising proportion of
failures by contractors when it comes to the four-stage clear-up process
during their inspections on site.

Mr. Sadley responded, “ARCA does not believe this particular problem is down
to record keeping. It is, in our opinion, a training issue with contractors
not being fully aware of their responsibilities.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Retains $8.4M Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corp.’s asbestos-related liability, as of March 31, 2007,
amounted to about US$8.4 million, which is reflected in its consolidated
financial statements, according to the Company’s annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company estimated US$8,400,000 as asbestos-related
liability in its consolidated financial statements. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 16, 2007)

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability through
March 31, 2025 and March 31, 2037 to range between US$5 million and US$14
million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to
30 years.

The increase in the recorded liability from US $6.3 million at March 31, 2006
to US$8.4 million as of March 31, 2007 is due to the increase in historical
data used to calculate required asbestos liability reserve levels.

The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. Of this amount, management expects to incur
asbestos liability payments of about US$300,000 million over the next 12
months.

During fiscal 2006, the Company reevaluated the predictability of future cash
flows associated with its self-insured product liability and asbestos
reserves and concluded that future cash payments related to reserves for non-
asbestos claims could no longer be discounted due to their underlying
uncertainty.  Reserves for asbestos claims continue to be discounted at a
risk free rate.

This change in estimate resulted in a reduction in the discount recorded by
the Company of about US$1,578,000. The gross reserves amounted to
US$23,438,000 as of March 31, 2007, compared with US$23,329,000 as of March
31, 2006.

Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corp. makes and markets hoists, cranes,
chain, conveyors, material handling systems, lift tables and component parts
serving commercial and industrial end-user markets. Company brand names
include CM, Coffing, Duff-Norton, Shaw-Box, and Yale.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Still Has Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. still faces lawsuits alleging personal injury from
exposure to chemicals and particulates, including asbestos, according to the
Company’s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 31, 2007.

These chemicals and particulates were integrated into the Company’s premises
and processes and certain historical products.

The particulates at issue are no longer incorporated in any currently made
products and the Company has implemented safety protocols to reduce exposure
to chemicals and remaining particulates in the workplace.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these suits and has
settled a number of others.

Portland, Ore.-based Precision Castparts Corp. is a worldwide manufacturer of
complex metal components and products. The Company also provides high-quality
investment castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener systems for critical
aerospace and industrial gas turbine (IGT) applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joy Global Inc. Still Faces Product Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face product liability
actions, including asbestos-related and silicosis liability, according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 31, 2007.

The Company and its subsidiaries also face employment and commercial matters.

Milwaukee-based Joy Global Inc. is a manufacturer and servicer of high
productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other minerals
and ores. The Company’s is used in major mining regions throughout the world
to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands and other minerals. The Company
operates in two business segments: underground mining machinery (Joy Mining
Machinery) and surface mining equipment (P&H Mining Equipment).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Has AUD78.7M Liability in 4Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.’s current asbestos-related liability, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to AUD78.7 million or US$63.5 million, according to
a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 31, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company’s current liability for workers’
compensation amounted to AUD3.3million or US$2.7 million.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company’s non-current asbestos-related liability
amounted to AUD1.519 billion or US$1.225 billion. As of March 31, 2007, the
Company’s non-current liability for workers’ compensation amounted to AUD94.8
million or US$76.5 million.

The Company’s current asbestos-related insurance receivable, as of March 31,
2007, amounted to AUD11.7 million or US$9.4 million. As of March 31, 2007,
the Company’s current assets for workers’ compensation amounted to AUD3.3
million or US$2.7 million.

The Company’s non-current asbestos-related insurance receivable, as of March
31, 2007, amounted to AUD204.6 million or US$161.5 million. As of March 31,
2007, the Company’s non-current assets for workers’ compensation amounted to
AUD94.8 million or US$76.5 million.

Asbestos adjustments for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007 amounted to
US$286.3 million, compared with US$715.6 million for the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2006.

Asbestos adjustments for fiscal year 2007 amounted to US$405.5 million,
compared with US$715.6 million for fiscal year 2006.

After receipt of security holders’ approval at the Company’s Extraordinary
General Meeting held on Feb. 7, 2007, all conditions precedent to the Amended
Final Funding Agreement were satisfied.

In accordance with the Amended FFA, the Company made an initial contribution
of AUD184.3 million (US$148.7 million) to the Asbestos Injuries Compensation
Fund on Feb. 9, 2007.

The new asbestos compensation funding arrangement is now operational. The
AICF had net assets of AUD182.1 million at March 31, 2007.

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.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Reaches Agreement w/ Federal-Mogul
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. has into a Settlement Agreement with Federal-Mogul Corp.
(FMC), Federal-Mogul Products Inc. (together with FMC, Federal-Mogul), and
certain other parties, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2007.

Magnetek Controls Inc. and Magnetek National Electric Coil Inc. are also
parties of the Settlement Agreement.

Federal-Mogul and certain of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
in 2001 and the Company filed proofs of claim relating to recovery of defense
costs, attorney’s fees, and insurance proceeds in connection with asbestos-
related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by
the Company, but which are no longer owned (Magnetek Claims).  

The Company also intended to seek separate class treatment for its claims,
reject Federal-Mogul’s proposed bankruptcy plan, and object to the
confirmation of the Plan by the Bankruptcy Court.

The Settlement Agreement, which is dated as of May 24, 2007, was executed,
delivered, and filed with the Bankruptcy Court on May 29, 2007, and is
conditioned upon receipt of approval from the Bankruptcy Court.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to have its proofs of
claim disallowed and expunged, to release Federal-Mogul from certain
liabilities with respect to the Magnetek Claims, and to withdraw with
prejudice any objections to the Plan in exchange for certain insurance
proceeds that may be collected by a settlement trust established as part of
the Plan and a release from Federal-Mogul.

The settlement trust will be funded by insurance proceeds recovered by
Federal-Mogul or the trust under policies providing coverage for claims
relating to historical business operations of Wagner Electric Corp.

The Company will be entitled to receive 15 percent of the first US$20 million
of insurance proceeds and 10 percent of the next US$25 million of insurance
proceeds recovered by Federal-Mogul or the trust, up to a maximum of US$5.5
million dollars.  

However, there is no guarantee that any amounts will be collected on any
insurance policies, and Federal-Mogul and the trust have control over the
collection process.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. Met-Pro Corp. Remain at 37
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corp., as of April 30, 2007, recorded a total of 37 asbestos-related
cases pending against it, the same as for year ended Jan. 31, 2007, according
to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 5. 2007.

As of Jan. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a total of 51 asbestos-related
cases pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007)

Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its divisions began to be named as
one of many defendants in asbestos-related suits filed predominantly in
Mississippi on a mass basis by large numbers of plaintiffs against a large
number of industrial companies including in particular those in the pump and
fluid handling industries.

More recently, the Company and this division have been named as one of many
pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos-related suits filed in New
York and Maryland by individual plaintiffs, sometimes husband and wife.

To a lesser extent, the Company and this division have also been named
together with many other pump and fluid handling defendants in these type of
cases in other states as well.

The complaints filed against the Company and this division allege that the
Company and the division sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries and loss to the
plaintiffs.

The Company and the division have been dismissed from or settled a number of
these cases.

The sum total of all payments through April 30, 2007 to settle these cases
was US$305,000, all of which has been paid by the Company’s insurers, with an
average cost per settled claim of about US$28,000.

During the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2007, six new cases were filed
against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from six cases. Most of
the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery,
although several cases are on schedules leading to trial.

Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corp. makes and sells product recovery and
pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, and fluid
handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Sets Aside $100,000 for Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corp., in February 2007, recorded a US$100,000 provision for estimated
costs in connection with a lawsuit filed against the Company alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in products made by the
Company, according to the Company’s annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2007.

The Company has been engaged in discussions with the plaintiff in an effort
to settle the suit. The range of the possible cost related to this suit is
estimated to be US$25,000 to US$375,000.

The Company faces several suits alleging illnesses from exposure to asbestos
or asbestos-containing products and seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

Batavia, N.Y.-based Graham Corp. designs, manufactures and sells custom-built
vacuum and heat transfer equipment to customers worldwide. Company products
include steam jet ejector vacuum systems, surface condensers for steam
turbines, vacuum pumps and compressors, various types of heat exchangers,
including helical coil heat exchangers marketed under the Heliflow name, and
plate and frame exchangers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial v. SDG&E over Asbestos Removal Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and several of its employees are facing an
action over the removal of asbestos from a Lemon Grove site in 2001,
SignOnSanDiego.com reports.

The trial began on June 5, 2007 before U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw
and is expected to last about six weeks.

Defense attorneys say criminal charges against the Company and three workers
are the result of a disagreement between SDG&E's experts and government
regulators over whether the asbestos at the site posed a danger.

In his opening statement on June 5, 2007, Greg Vega, a former U.S. attorney
who represents the Company, said, “Everything that San Diego Gas & Electric
did in this case was aboveboard and transparent.”

SDG&E, two employees and a contractor are named in a five-count criminal
indictment alleging that they violated safety standards while removing
asbestos from nine miles of pipe at a storage station near the Lemon Grove-
San Diego boundary.

If convicted, the Company could face a fine of up to US$2.5 million. The
workers – Jacqueline McHugh, a supervisor in the environmental department;
David Williamson, an environmental specialist; and Kyle Rheubottom, project
superintendent for contractor IT Corp. – face a maximum sentence of five
years in prison and a US$250,000 fine for each charge.

SDG&E had owned the 16-acre site, dubbed the Encanto Gas Holder Facility,
since the 1950s and once stored natural gas in the pipes. The Company sold
the land to a developer for about US$1.5 million and began removing the pipes
in late 2000 to complete the sale.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie Pierson told jurors the workers disregarded
warnings that the site's asbestos was “friable,” or crumbly, meaning it
required government regulation.

Ms. Pierson said the Company used a machine that scraped chunks of coating
containing asbestos off the pipes instead of a more costly machine designed
for removing asbestos more safely.

Defense attorney Michael Lipman, representing Mr. Rheubottom, said workers on
the project did not believe the asbestos posed a danger but stopped work
after county regulators issued violation notices beginning in November 2000.

Ms. McHugh's attorney, Lisa Damiani, said Ms. McHugh selected Mr.
Rheubottom's company to clear the site because it had the most thorough –
though not the cheapest – bid. She said that indicated there was not a
conspiracy to save money.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Brakes Exposure Suit Filed in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey mesothelioma attorneys Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP filed an
asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit on behalf of a woman who was exposed to
asbestos as a result of her husband and children performing brake work,
according to a press release by the law firm dated June 6, 2007.

The woman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2002 and died from her illness
shortly after mesothelioma treatments were attempted at Virtua West Jersey
Hospital.

The asbestos mesothelioma suit, Case No. 03-0007, was filed in Middlesex
County in central New Jersey and is set to proceed to trial this summer.

Brake dust, containing asbestos, can be released when a brake disk or drum is
removed from a vehicle. The dust is frequently invisible to the naked eye,
but if the brakes contain asbestos, then the dust released from the brakes
will contain asbestos.

The brake work, which will be at issue in this trial, was performed by the
woman's husband and children on the family's cars in the garage and driveway
of their New Jersey home from the 1960s through the 1980s.

During the trial, it will be argued that the brand predominately used for the
brake work was asbestos-containing Bendix brakes.

The victim was unknowingly exposed to asbestos as a result of her laundering
the dusty clothes and the used rags that were used by her husband and
children after they performed the brake work. The victim would shake out the
dirty clothes and dusty rags and then launder them.

She performed the cleanup and laundry without any realization that she was
neither in any danger nor that she was being exposed to asbestos-laden dust.

This asbestos mesothelioma suit is coming on the heels of a new set of
recommendations from the Environmental Protection Agency regarding automobile
repairs and the importance of reducing or eliminating asbestos exposure from
such work.

The EPA in March 2007 released the guideline brochure entitled, "Current Best
Practices for Preventing Asbestos Exposure Among Brake and Clutch Repair
Workers" which is similar to guidance that EPA has been distributing since
1986.

The EPA states in this publication that by using the recommended practices,
home mechanics can minimize potential exposure to asbestos and reduce their
potential risk of developing asbestos-related disease. For example, the EPA
recommends not using compressed air or dry rags for cleaning.

To visit the EPA website to learn more about how to lower the risks of
asbestos exposure from asbestos dust while doing brake and auto repairs,
please click on the following link:
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/brakesbrochure.html.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Chesterton, 145 Firms in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dillon Parker Jr. sues A.W. Chesterton Co. and 145 other firms, for
conspiring to mine, process, sell and distribute asbestos products,
suppressing the information pertaining to the fiber's hazardous influence on
human health, and purposely inflicting him with an asbestos disease, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Parker's eight-count personal-injury suit was filed with the Jefferson
County District Court on May 31, 2007. Judge Bob Wortham, 58th Judicial
District, will preside over Case No. A179-413.

According to the Mr. Parker’s petition, firms like Viacom Inc., General
Electric Co., and Zurn Industries Inc. knew that the asbestos products they
manufactured would hit the market without inspection for defects.

The suit stated, "Defendants knowingly conspired among themselves to cause
Parker's injuries, diseases, and illness and/or death by exposing him to
asbestos. Defendants committed conspiracy by willfully misrepresenting and
suppressing the truth as to the risks and dangers associated with asbestos."

The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical and
scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for decades, but
conspired among themselves to suppress the information.

The suit indicates Mr. Parker was most likely exposed to asbestos while
working at shipyards, steel mills, refineries, paper mills, chemical plants,
the military, and other facilities in the U.S.

"Parker has sustained damages including injuries…and has been deprived of the
opportunity of informed free choice," the suit said. "Each defendant violated
federal and state regulations relating to asbestos exposure."

Mr. Parker sues for physical pain and suffering in the past and future,
mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity,
disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and
future, and past and future medical expenses, including homecare costs.

He also seeks punitive and exemplary damages. "Plaintiff will rely on a fair
and impartial jury to provide compensation…," the suit said.

Phillip Kanayan of Brent Coon & Associates represents Mr. Parker.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Action Reserved for Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Casualty Co. and related companies' declaratory judgment action
against BorgWarner Inc. certain of its other historical general liability
insurers is reserved for appellate review, BorgWarner Vice President and
Controller Jeffrey L. Obermayer disclosed in a regulatory filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 26, 2007.

The declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill. CNA provided the Company with both primary and
additional layer insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is
currently defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The suit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage available to the
Company including whether the available limits exhaust on a “per occurrence”
or an “aggregate” basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage
responsibilities should be apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the
apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making insurers
responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the-
risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the insured harmless for periods of
bankrupt or unavailable coverage. Appeals of the interim order were denied.

BorgWarner Inc. manufactures and sells engineered systems and components for
vehicle power train applications worldwide. The Company is headquartered in
Auburn Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Hills Minerals to Pay GBP15T for Handling Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Minerals & Waste Ltd., on May 21, 2006, was issued a GBP15,000 fine by
Swindon Magistrate’s Court for a breach of the Company’s pollution prevention
and control permit conditions at its asbestos-handling site in Swindon,
Wiltshire, U.K., Environment Times reports.

The Company, now known as Hills Waste Solutions Ltd., was also ordered to pay
GBP2,704 in costs to the Environment Agency.

Inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious health problems and there is
no safe level of exposure. Very few permits to manage the disposal of the
substance are granted each year, and the Agency carries out monitoring checks
on all permitted sites.

The Company obtained a permit from the Agency in 2005, which stated that all
asbestos waste dealt with at the Chapel Farm site, the Company’s asbestos-
handling operation, would arrive in enclosed containers, would be carefully
unloaded, and immediately covered with a suitable amount of inert material.

A further condition was imposed that only one vehicle could tip within the
dumping area, or cell, at any one time.

On July 29, 2005, the Agency conducted a routine site inspection that
revealed a breach of the PPC permit, with asbestos material being
inadequately covered.

Agency officers spoke to the Assistant Site Manager about the breach and were
assured that site operators would operate in accordance with the PPC permit.

However, a further inspection on Aug. 11, 2005 revealed two lorries tipping
waste containing asbestos into the cell at the same time.

In addition to this the site digger was seen driving over the deposited pile
of asbestos before it had been covered with suitable inert waste. This caused
clouds of dust containing asbestos to enter the atmosphere. It was these
serious breaches which led the Agency to prosecute the Company.

Joanna Moakes, investigating officer for the Agency said, “A PPC Permit
requires the holder to store and dispose of waste in a responsible manner,
and to minimize the risk of harm to the environment and human health. On this
occasion this was clearly not done and we are pleased the court has
recognized the seriousness of ignoring these requirements with these fines.”

Since these incidents were noticed, the Company has invested GBP125,000 in
new plant for the site and a further GBP125,000 to improve operations and re-
train staff.


COMPANY PROFILE

Hills Minerals and Waste Ltd.
Ailesbury Court
High Street
Marlborough
Wiltshire
Tel: 01672 516999
Fax: 01672 516699
Internet: www.hills-group.co.uk


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


MACY’S INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Macy's Inc. (formerly known as Federated Department Stores,
Inc.) publicly traded securities during the period between February 8, 2007
and May 15, 2007.

The complaint charges Macy's and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that between February 8, 2007 and May 15, 2007,
defendants caused Macy's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by
concealing that the May integration was actually failing, sales growth was
diminishing, the Company's business had deteriorated, and as a result, its
sales projections were grossly overstated. Defendants' positive statements
had their intended effect and the Company's stock price reached a Class
Period high of $46.70 by March 23, 2007.

The complaint further alleges that Macy's stock price plummeted between May
10, 2007 and May 15, 2007, as the Company disclosed that customers of the
former May stores had actually rejected the rapid conversion, that sales at
the Company's new Macy's stores had declined during the first quarter of
2007, and that in particular, the Company's decision to dramatically cut the
number of days coupons could be used at the former May locations had badly
damaged sales. On this news, the Company's stock price plunged to a price
nearly 18% lower than its Class Period high, erasing over $3 billion in
market capitalization.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Macy's
publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

Macy's, the second-largest U.S. department store franchise, operates more
than 850 department stores in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and
Puerto Rico under the names of Macy's and Bloomingdale's. Macy's acquired May
Department Stores Co. ("May") in 2005 for $11 billion.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP,                                         
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com


SHUFFLE MASTER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Shuffle Master, Inc. (Nasdaq:SHFL)
between December 22, 2006 and March 12, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Shuffle Master and certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and S.E.C. Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial performance caused Shuffle Master's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants inflated
reported profits by, among other things, booking an inter-company transfer of
inventory that occurred on the last day of the fiscal year ended October 31,
2006, as if it were a sale to a third party.

Specifically the Complaint alleges that:

     (1) defendants, through the October 31, 2006 transaction
         and several other transactions for which the company
         improperly accounted, inflated Shuffle Master's
         quarterly earnings per share by 50% and year end
         earnings per share by 35%; and

     (2) the fraudulent booking of inter-company transactions
         arose out of Shuffle Master's tax avoidance scheme,
         whereby the Company transferred profits that were
         otherwise taxable in the U.S. to foreign countries
         where profits would be taxed at a much lower rate, if
         at all.

On March 12, 2007, Shuffle Master admitted that it had improperly booked the
October 31, 2006 transaction, and that it would have to restate reported
results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2006. The Company further
admitted that its internal controls were defective. In response to this news,
Shuffle Master's stock fell 8%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Shuffle Master, through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets
technology- and entertainment-based products for the gaming industry.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 3, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Website: http://www.glancylaw.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                        


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary
Grace Durana, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in
any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and
photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the
publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of
the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For subscription
information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *