CAR_Public/070622.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 123

                           Headlines


BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Utah Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
BEST PALLETS: Fla. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Compensation
BLUE GOOSE: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Claim Denied Overtime Wages
CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Playoff Tickets Rip-Off
COCO SOD: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Labor Code Violations

DEPT OF HOMELAND: Suit Filed Over Forcible Drugging of Deportees
DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Sims” Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Holman” Labor Lawsuit in Calif.
GOLD COAST ROOFING: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
INDONESIA: Court Hears Suit Against Gov’t Over Feb. Flood

IPO LITIGATION: U.S. High Court Blocks Investor Antitrust Suits
ISRAEL: Tiv Taam Investor Sues Billionaire for Canceling Deal
MORTGAGE VENDORS: Accused of Unlawful Sales Practices to Aged
NORTHWEST CARE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Wages
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Wash. Consumer Lawsuit for $5.1M

ORBITZ LLC: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Taxes/Fees Assessment Suit
ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation
ORBITZ INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
PHARMA COS: Mass Court Dismisses Schering-Plough in AWP Case
POWEREX CORP: U.S. High Court Remands Price-Fixing Lawsuit

ROYAL AHOLD: Investors to Start Receiving Payouts by Sept. 2007
SCOTTISH RE: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
SEPRACOR INC: Settles Mass. Securities Fraud Suits for $52.5M
SLM CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over FFELP Billing Practices
SPECTRUM BRANDS: 2006 Securities Suit Filed in Ga. Dismissed

TASER INT'L: $20M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
TERAYON COMM: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss I.B.L. Suit Set July
TIME WARNER: $2.65B Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Proceeds
TOLT TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UNITED STATES: Illegal Immigrants’ Kids Sue to Halt Deportations

WEYERHAEUSER CO: Trial in Sawlog Market Antitrust Suit Set 2008
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Opposes Motions in Pa. OSB Antitrust Litigation
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Court Gives Final OK to Ariz. Suit Settlement
ZIPREALTY INC: Former Employee Agents File Lawsuit in Calif.


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 504
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waste Mgmt. Director Fined GBP2T for Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mechanic Gets GBP135T Payout for Illness
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Contractor’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Summary Judgment to Favor Sequoia

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Dowman in Nagl Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Rise to 171
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Has EUR1.176B Reserves for Loss in ‘06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Units Face Actions in U.S., Netherlands
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Blast Health Dept. Over Info Delay

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Kingston, Ontario Property
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Official Pleads Guilty to Removal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Governor Reviews Statute Limitations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workplace Standards Hit for Botched Inquiry
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants 3 Firms’ Summary Judgment Move

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Exposed at Calif. Plant, ATSDR Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Public Schools to be Checked for Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Remands Bessire Action v. Defendants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Mulls Palermo Certiorari Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks THAN’s Appeal in Insurance Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. Local Sues 96 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Motion for Leave in Anderson Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Payout Recipients Remain “Poor”
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Mining Town Closed Over Health Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richland, Ga. Faces Contamination Crisis

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belluck & Fox Supports Bill to Ban Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Inks $10.5M Deal w/ Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Court Favors 7 Firms in Henderson Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician’s Mate Gets GBP102,500 Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. School District OKs Asbestos Probe

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Seeks Reorganization Approval


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NYSE: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
STERLING FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Files Penna. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Utah Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Battelle Memorial Institute is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah over alleged Labor Code violations,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Jason Sweat and Sue Renzello allege Battelle violates labor
laws at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, where it disposes of
chemical warfare agents for the federal government.

Battelle is a subcontractor for EG&G Defense Materials, a prime contractor
with the U.S. Army, the plaintiff workers claim. They say Battelle fails to
pay overtime, fails to pay for all hours worked, violates labor laws on meal
and work breaks, and fails to pay for time spent on required safety
procedures.

The suit is “Sweat et al. v. Battelle Memorial Institute., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00401-TS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under
Judge Ted Stewart.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jesse S. Brar
          Sue Renzello
          716 E 4500 S STE N142
          Salt Lake City, UT 84107
          Phone: (801)269-9541
          E-mail: jbrar@xmission.com or sharon@xmission.com


BEST PALLETS: Fla. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Pallets Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 18 in the
U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Danny D. Hall alleges denial of overtime compensation, thus
a violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Hall v. Best Pallets Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01053-EAK-
EAJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, with referral to Judge Elizabeth A.
Jenkins.

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


BLUE GOOSE: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Claim Denied Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Goose Growers, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed June 13 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff James Clark claims denial of overtime compensation, thus
violating the Labor Code.

The suit is “Clark v. Blue Goose Growers, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-14181-KMM,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under
Judge K. Michael Moore, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Playoff Tickets Rip-Off
---------------------------------------------------------------
Football fans have filed a class-action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against the
Chargers Football Co., the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit claims the Chargers required season ticket-holders who wanted NFL
playoff tickets this year to buy tickets to two playoff games, and promised
refunds if the team lost in the first round. The Chargers lost game one to
the New England Patriots, but refuses to refund the price of tickets for
game two, named plaintiff Kells Christian claims in Superior Court.

Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion and false advertising.

Mr. Christian says the Chargers owe him $266 for the two game two tickets he
bought at $133 each. He says when he demanded a refund, the team told him
it “intended to retain the funds ‘for any future transactions’ with the
purchaser.”

The suit is "Kells Christian et al. v. Chargers Football Company, LLC, Case
No. 37-2007-0006871-CU-BC-CTL," filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Diego.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          JoBeth Halper
          JoBeth Halper Litigation Group, P.C.
          160 chesterfield Drive, Suite 2
          Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007
          Phone: 760-632-1101
          Fax: 760-632-1131
          E-mail: jobeth@halperlitigation.com


COCO SOD: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
CoCo Sod Farms, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 15 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Angel Rivera claims denial of overtime compensation, thus
violating the Labor Code.

The suit is “Rivera v. CoCo Sod Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14180-
JEM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Jose E. Martinez, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


DEPT OF HOMELAND: Suit Filed Over Forcible Drugging of Deportees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two men who claim they were forcibly injected with drugs to make it easier
for the Department of Homeland Security to deport them have filed a class-
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against DHS Director Michael Chertoff, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

According to the suit, “Federal officials have publicly admitted that the
government has a policy of forcibly injecting immigrants with psychotropic
drugs in order to render them less ‘agitated’ for deportation.

Named plaintiffs Amadou Diouf and Raymond Soeoth claim they were both
forcibly injected in anticipation of their deportation.

“In both cases, the men lacked any history of mental illness. Further, in
both cases, the men had exhibited no behavior that indicated they would be
mentally unstable during deportation. And, in both cases, the men were not
examined by a doctor before being injected with potentially fatal anti-
psychotic drugs. Because both men remain in immigration proceedings, they
reasonably fear it could happen to them again,” the suit states.

“No federal statue authorizes forcible injection under these circumstances,
and the Constitution clearly forbids it,” according to the suit.

Mr. Diouf, of Senegal, and Mr. Soeoth, of Indonesia, were allegedly injected
with haloperidol and cogentin, powerful drugs often administered to
psychotic people that stuns them and puts them to sleep.

They also sue Division of Immigration Health Services Interim Director Neil
Sampson, and several official at the San Pedro Service Processing Center
(immigration prison), where they were drugged.

The suit is "Diouf et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al., Case No. CV07-
03977AHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Ahilan T. Arulanantham
          Mark D. Rosenbaum
          ACLU Foundation of Southern California
          1616 Beverly Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752
          Phone: 213-977-9500
          Fax: 213-250-3919

          - and-

          Bradley S. Phillips
          Stephen M. Kristovich
          Fred A. Rowley, Jr.
          Fadia I. Raefedie
          Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Thirty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          Fax: 213-687-3702


DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Sims” Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A., a subsidiary of Downey Financial
Corp., remains a defendant in a purported class action filed by a former
loan-underwriting employee in Contra Costa Superior Court, California.

Filed on June 21, 2005, the suit, "Teresa Sims, et al. v. Downey Savings and
Loan Assoc., Case No. C05-01293," seeks unspecified damages for alleged
unpaid overtime wages and bonuses, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and
related claims.   

It is seeking class action status to represent all other current and former
Downey Savings employees that held the position of loan underwriter,
including, but not limited to, the job title of Senior Loan Underwriter
within the State of California at any time during the four years prior to
June 21, 2005 and/or who was employed by Downey Savings on or about Sept.
30, 2002, when the company terminated an annual bonus program.   

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


DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Holman” Labor Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Downey Savings and Loan Assoc., F.A., a subsidiary of Downey Financial
Corp., remains a defendant in a purported class action filed by two former
traditional branch employees in Los Angeles Superior Court, California.

The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2004, under the caption, “Margie Holman and
Alice A. Mesec, et al. v. Downey Savings and Loan Association, Case No.
BC323796.”

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid regular and
overtime wages and bonuses, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and related
claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status to represent all other
current and former Downey Savings employees who held the position of
Customer Service Supervisor and/or Customer Service Representative at any
time during the four years prior to Oct. 29, 2004.

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

Downey Financial Corp. -- http://www.downeysavings.com-- is a savings and  
loan holding company.  Downey Savings and Loan Association (the Bank) is the
Company’s wholly owned subsidiary. The Company is also involved in real
estate investments.  Its banking activities focus on attracting funds from
the general public and institutions and obtaining borrowings; originating
and investing in loans, primarily residential real estate mortgage loans,
investment securities and mortgage-backed securities, and originating and
selling loans to investors in the secondary markets.


GOLD COAST ROOFING: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Coast Roofing & Builders, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
June 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Adam Ziselman claims denial of overtime compensation, thus
violating the Labor Code.

The suit is “Ziselman v. Gold Coast Roofing & Builders, Inc., Case No. 2:07-
cv-14179-DLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Donald L. Graham, with referral to Judge Frank J.
Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


INDONESIA: Court Hears Suit Against Gov’t Over Feb. Flood
---------------------------------------------------------
The Central Jakarta District Court (Indonesia) on Monday heard a class
action against Governor Suityoso and Jakarta's five mayors over February's
devastating floods, according to the Jakarta Post.

Ten flood victims filed the suit accusing defendants of failing to properly
manage the flooding.  They demand IDR100 million for each flood victim and
IDR5.16 trillion to rebuild the ruined city (Class Action Reporter, April
24, 2007).

Made Suarjaya, representing the governor, said he questions whether the
plaintiffs represent all the residents in Jakarta.  He added that a flood is
a natural calamity, plus the government has already provided the victims
compensation.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nurkholis Hidayat.

Judge Moefri presided over the case, letting the plaintiffs read their suit
in court.

The court will decide whether the class-action can proceed on June 25.


IPO LITIGATION: U.S. High Court Blocks Investor Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 to overturn a federal appeals court ruling
allowing antitrust suits against 16 investment banks and institutional
investors involved in hundreds of initial public offerings in the 1990s,
reports say.

The suit was filed in 2002 by 60 investors.  The principal defendants are
Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America Corp, Fidelity
Investments, Janus Capital and Comerica.  Other defendants are Goldman Sachs
Group Inc., Credit Suisse Group and Merrill Lynch & Co.  They are accused of
conspiring to inflate IPO prices during the 1990 Internet boom, causing huge
losses for investors when the market sank in early 2000.  

The antitrust lawsuits said the securities firms profited at the investing
public’s expense by ensuring that the prices of Amazon.com Inc., EBay Inc.
and hundreds of other Internet stocks would soar soon after they began
trading publicly.  The companies were demanding cash kickbacks from clients
and engaged in “laddering” a practice which requires clients to buy more
stock, at higher prices, after the securities are sold to the public.

A U.S. District Court in Manhattan dismissed the case.  In 2005, the U.S.
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the class action to move forward.  But
The Supreme court disagreed, saying lawsuits alleging IPO abuses have to be
brought under securities rather than antitrust statutes.  It said an
antitrust shield was warranted because the Securities and Exchange
Commission regulates IPOs and lays out detailed rules governing what steps
underwriters can and can’t take.

"Allowing an antitrust lawsuit would threaten serious harm to the efficient
functioning of the securities markets," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for
the majority.

The suit is “Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing, No. 05-1157.”  Plaintiffs'
attorney is:

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016    
          Phone: 212-545-4690
          Fax: 212-545-4653

The lead lawyer for the investors at the high court is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP  
          500 Fifth Avenue
          58th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
         Phone:  212-608-1900
         Fax:  212-719-4677

One of the lawyers representing the investment banks in the case is:

         Stephen M. Shapiro, Esq.
         Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw  
         Phone: +1 312 701 7327
         Fax: +1 312 706 8684
         E-mail: sshapiro@mayerbrownrowe.com  


ISRAEL: Tiv Taam Investor Sues Billionaire for Canceling Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli Tiv Taam Holdings shareholder filed a class action against
Israeli-Russian billionaire Arcadi Gaydamak, The Marker Online’s Nurit Roth
reports.

Itai Aharon filed the suit in Tel Aviv District Court Wednesday.  He intends
to represent all investors who bought Tiv Taam shares from June 10.

Mr. Aharon acquired about 690 points of the non-kosher supermarket chain for
NIS20,000 on June 10, the day Mr. Gaydamak said he was purchasing it.  He
then sold it on June 18 after he found out the billionaire didn’t make good
on his promise, canceling the deal.

The investor claims he lost up to 16.2% of his investment because of Mr.
Gaydamak's misconduct.  He asserts that since Mr. Gaydamak intended to
become the sole controlling shareholder, he must exercise due caution.

The motion charges Mr. Gaydamak of acting in bad faith regarding his legal
obligations to Tiv Taam shareholders.  It could cost Mr. Gaydamak tens of
millions of shekels if the court grants it class-action status.


MORTGAGE VENDORS: Accused of Unlawful Sales Practices to Aged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. and Carteret Mortgage Corp. are named
in a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, claiming these mortgage vendors prey on senior
citizens, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges:

     (a) elder financial abuse
     (b) unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices;
     (c) unfair, deceptive and misleading advertising;
     (d) breach of fiduciary duty
     (e) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
     (f) fraudulent concealment
     (g) unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust
     (h) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, civil
         Code Section 1750, et. seq.
     (i) breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
         Dealing
     (j) negligence/negligent misrepresentation

The deceptively named Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. financially
abuses old people nationwide in a deceptive reverse mortgage scheme, the
complaint claims.

Named plaintiff Mary Munoz also accuses Carteret Mortgage Corp., Kathleen
Miller and Louis Soqui of elder financial abuse, fraudulent concealment,
deceptive and unfair business practices and violating consumer laws.

“Financial Freedom formulated and implemented a deceptive scheme to
originate, underwrite and sell reverse mortgages to vulnerable senior
citizens -- by imposing a variety of undisclosed and excessive costs, fees,
and charges -- providing kickbacks, referral fees and/or other unearned fees
to its mortgage brokers to encourage them to steer unwary borrowers into
Financial Freedom reverse mortgage loans, often under the guise of
offering ‘estate’ or ‘financial planning services,’” the suit states.

Ms. Munoz brings this nationwide class action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated senior citizens (persons aged 62 and older) to halt and
obtain redress for the harm caused by defendants' systematic unfair,
fraudulent and unlawful sales practices in connection with the structuring,
origination, underwriting, marketing and sale of reverse mortgage loans in
California and nationwide.

She alleges Financial Freedom formulated and implemented a deceptive scheme
to originate, underwrite and sell reverse mortgages to vulnerable senior
citizens, in part, by imposing a variety of undisclosed and excessive costs,
fees and charges associated with its reverse mortgages, as well as providing
kickbacks, referral fees and/or other unearned fees to its mortgage brokers
to encourage them to steer unwary borrowers into Financial Freedom reverse
mortgage loads, often under the guise of offering "estate" or "financial
planning services".

A reverse mortgage is a type of home equity loan that allows a senior
homeowner to convert the home's equity into cash, while allowing the
borrower to retain ownership and not make immediate repayments.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant improperly solicited, referred,
         marketed, brokered, underwrote and/or originated
         reverse mortgage loans to senior citizens, including
         plaintiff and the class;

     (b) whether defendant committed elder abuse as defined in
         California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600
         et seq.;

     (c) whether defendant committed unfair, unlawful and/or
         fraudulent business practices in violation of
         California Business and Professions Code Section 17200
         in its solicitation, referral, marketing, brokering,
         underwriting and/or origination of reverse mortgage
         loans to senior citizens, including plaintiff and the
         class;

     (d) whether defendant engaged in false and misleading
         advertising in violation of California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17500;

     (e) whether defendant breached a fiduciary duty owed to
         plaintiff and the class;

     (f) whether defendant aided and abetted a breach of
         fiduciary duty owed to plaintiff and the class;

     (g) whether defendant fraudulently concealed information
         about reverse mortgages from plaintiff and the class in
         violation of California law;

     (h) whether defendant has violated California Civil Code
         Section 1750 (Consumer Legal Remedies Act);

     (i) whether defendant breached its obligation of good faith
         to plaintiff and the class;

     (j) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched at the
         expense of the class;

     (k) whether plaintiff and members of the class have
         sustained damages;

     (l) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to damages; and

     (m) whether the class is entitled to injunctive,
         declaratory and/or other relief.

Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows:

     -- an order certifying this action as a class action under
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- for a temporary, preliminary and permanent order for
        injunctive relief enjoining defendants from pursuing the
        acts, methods and/or practices complained of;

     -- imposition of a constructive trust, an order granting
        recessionary and injunctive relief and/or such other
        equitable relief, including restitution, disgorgement of
        ill-gotten profits as set forth and as the court deems
        just and proper;

     -- for compensatory, actual and special and general damages
        according to proof;

     -- for punitive and exemplary damages under Cal. Civ. Code
        Section 3294 and Welfare and Institutions Code Section
        15657.5 et seq.;

     -- for statutory, treble damages and penalties under, inter
        alia, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750-1784 (including but
        not limited to Sections 1761, et. seq. and 1780, et.
        seq.) and Section 3345; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
        6153, 6175.4, 6175.5 and 17206.1; and Cal. Ins. Code
        Section 789, among other statutes;

     -- for double damages under Cal. Probe. Code Section 859;

     -- for transfer of the wrongfully obtained monies and/or
        property under Cal. Prob. Code Sections 850-859 et seq.;

     -- rescission of the policies under Cal. Ins. Code Sections
        331 and 359;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
        investigation and litigation under, among other
        statutes, Cal. Code Civ. Pro. Section 1021.5 and
        2033.420; and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15657.5 et
        seq. or the common fund doctrine;

     -- for costs of suit, pre-judgment, and post-judgment
        interest; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.
     
The suit is "Mary P. Munoz et al. v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp.
et al. Case No. SACV 07-0710 CJC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Louise H. Renne
          David L. Cheng
          Steven P. Shaw
          Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP
          350 Saonsome Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-678-3800
          Fax: 415-678-3838
          E-mail: lrenne@publiclawgroup.com or
                  dcheng@publiclawgroup.com
or                                                                           
                                                                             
                                                                             
             
                  stevenpshaw@publiclawgroup.com


NORTHWEST CARE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Care Centre, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 18
in the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Tacara Lopez alleges denial of overtime compensation, thus a
violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Lopez v. Northwest Care Centre, Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-01054-
JDW-MSS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, under Judge James D. Whittemore, with referral to Judge Mary S.
Scriven.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kelly Allyssha Amritt
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954/318-0268
          Fax: 954/333-3515
          E-mail: KAmritt@forthepeople.com


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Wash. Consumer Lawsuit for $5.1M
-----------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., agreed to
pay $5.1 million to settle a federal class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington accusing it of charging higher rates
because of hidden fees it pays brokers, Reuters reports.

In the settlement, NovaStar Mortgage Inc. agreed to include $3.3 million to
be paid to the roughly 1,600 class members, or just over $2,000 per person,
plus $1.8 million for legal fees.

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 (Class
Action Reporter, May 7, 207).

The recent settlement removes a potential obstacle to a sale of NovaStar, an
option the Kansas City, Missouri-based company said it was considering when
it announced on April 11 that it would explore strategic alternatives.

NovaStar said it did not admit wrongdoing, and settled to avoid further
litigation costs.

NovaStar maintained that its disclosures were appropriate, and that
borrowers were not harmed because absent the yield spread premiums, they
would have had to pay higher broker fees.

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


ORBITZ LLC: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Taxes/Fees Assessment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against Orbitz, LLC and
Orbitz, Inc., according to the company’s May 10, 2007 S-1 filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 24, 2005, a consolidated class-action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Orbitz, LLC, Orbitz, Inc.,
and Cendant Corp.

The case purports to be a national class action brought by persons who were
assessed taxes/fees when paying for a hotel, motel or resort room through
Orbitz.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Orbitz improperly charged customers
for transient occupancy taxes that are not being submitted to the taxing
authorities.

Orbitz is also alleged to have concealed that it was charging more tax than
required.

Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the action as a class action, actual
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and penalties.

On May 31, 2006, the court dismissed Cendant from the case again and
dismissed all counts, with the exception of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Procedures Act claim.  Discovery is ongoing.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online  
travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers
to research, plan and book a range of travel products.  The Company owns and
operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets,
ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel
brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels,
vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination
services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide.


ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz, LLC remains a defendant in the purported class action, “Ronald Bush,
et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc., et al.,” which was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

The suit was file on Feb. 17, 2005 on behalf of all Californians who were
assessed a "Taxes/Fees" charge when paying for a hotel, motel, or resort
room through defendants.

The complaint was brought against a number of Internet travel companies,
including Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), Cendant Corp.,
Orbitz, Inc., and Orbitz.

Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, conversion, and imposition of a constructive trust.

Plaintiffs' claims are based on allegations that the defendants charged for
taxes that were not legitimate in that they were not required by the taxing
authorities to be collected.

Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants failed to disclose this improper
practice.  

They seek an order certifying the action as a class action, actual damages,
punitive damages, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest, and injunctive relief.

On July 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims
under the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.

The company reported no development in the case at its May 10, 2007 S-1
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online  
travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers
to research, plan and book a range of travel products.  The Company owns and
operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets,
ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel
brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels,
vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination
services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide.


ORBITZ INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz, Inc. along with several others continues to face several lawsuits
relating to hotel occupancy taxes, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 S-
1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Orbitz, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a CheapTickets.com),
Travelport Americas, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group,
Inc.), and Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com) were named as
parties to various cases brought by consumers and municipalities and other
governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and our merchant hotel
business model.

Some of the cases are purported class actions and most of the cases were
brought simultaneously against other Internet travel companies, including
Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.

The cases allege, among other things, that the company violated the
jurisdictions hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and
remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the ordinance. While not
identical in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims,
including violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances, violations
of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition
of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting,
injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in one cases, civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including declaratory
judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive
trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution,
interest, penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and where a class action has
been claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online  
travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers
to research, plan and book a range of travel products.  The Company owns and
operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets,
ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel
brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels,
vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination
services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide.


PHARMA COS: Mass Court Dismisses Schering-Plough in AWP Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor
Schering-Plough Corp. and dismissed all claims relating to Schering-Plough's
branded pharmaceutical products in a class action involving several
pharmaceutical companies and the setting of average wholesale prices (AWPs)
for prescription products.

"We are gratified that the hard work of our new management team has resulted
in Schering-Plough putting another issue from the past substantially behind
us," said Fred Hassan, Schering-Plough chairman and CEO.

While the company also said it was pleased that the Court found no liability
against Warrick Pharmaceuticals, its generic subsidiary, for the period from
1991 through 1997 and from 2000 through 2003, it disagreed with the Court's
finding of limited liability against Warrick with respect to one form of a
generic product, albuterol sulfate solution, in the years 1998 and 1999.

While the Court has scheduled further proceedings on damages, plaintiffs'
claim for damages for this one formulation during 1998 and 1999 totaled less
than $100,000.

The company said it continues to believe that Warrick complied with all
applicable laws and regulations governing pharmaceutical pricing and
reimbursement in connection with reporting AWPs. Although damages claimed
against the company for the Warrick albuterol sulfate solution product are
quite limited, the company said it is considering whether to appeal the
ruling.

Earlier in 2006, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts certified a nationwide class action against four
big drugs company for defying pricing rules set out by the Average Wholesale
Price formula (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2006).

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN);   
     -- Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ);   
     -- Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP) and   
     -- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY).

The suit is "In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-
12257-PBS," filed in the United States District Court in Massachusetts,
under Judge Patti B. Saris with referral to Marianne B. Bowler.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101-1090
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

          Gary L. Azorsky
          Berger & Montague, PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-3000

          - and -

          Terrianne Benedetto
          Kline & Specter
          1525 Locust Street, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

Representing the defendants are:

          Jon Steven Baughman
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          700 Twelfth Street
          N.W., Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005-3948
          Phone: 202-508-4606
          Fax: 202-508-4650
          E-mail: sbaughman@ropesgray.com

          Aimee E. Bierman
          Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP
          State Street Financial Center One Lincoln
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-261-3100
          Fax: 617-261-3175
          E-mail: abierman@klng.com

          - and -

          Joseph G. Adams
          Snell & Wilmer LLP
          1 Arizona Center
          400 E Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Phone: 602-382-6207
          Fax: 602-382-6070


POWEREX CORP: U.S. High Court Remands Price-Fixing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Canadian power company Powerex Corp. in
a suit relating to the 2000-2001 energy crisis, reports say.

Reliant Energy filed the suit in California state court.  The plaintiff
claims price fixing and price gouging during the California energy crisis of
2000 and 2001.

Several defendants filed cross claims for indemnity against additional
companies, including Powerex.  Cross-claimants sought to have the case
removed to federal court.  Powerex argued that because it was a wholly owned
subsidiary of a crown corporation of the Canadian province of British
Columbia, it is an instrumentality of a foreign nation under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and is therefore entitled to have its case
moved to a U.S. federal court.

Reliant disagreed, and the District Court remanded the suit to state court.  
The Ninth Circuit court upheld the ruling.

In a ruling on June 18, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit was
barred from considering Powerex's claim that it is a foreign state under
FSIA by 28 USC 1447(d).  It said that a defendant who moved a state court
lawsuit to federal court cannot except in narrow circumstances appeal a
federal judge's ruling sending it back.

The court stated: “Section 1447(d) reflects Congress’s longstanding ‘policy
of not permitting interruption of the litigation of the merits of a removed
case by prolonged litigation of questions of jurisdiction of the district
court to which the cause is removed.’”

“Appellate courts must take that jurisdictional prescription seriously,
however pressing the merits of the appeal might seem. We hold that Section
1447(d) bars appellate consideration of petitioner’s claim that it is a
foreign state for purposes of the FSIA. We therefore vacate in part the
judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand the case with instructions to
dismiss petitioner’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.”

The suit is "Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services Inc., 05-85."


ROYAL AHOLD: Investors to Start Receiving Payouts by Sept. 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Lead Plaintiffs' counsel appointed by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, issues this informational
release concerning the current projected timing of payment of claims in the
Settlement of the class action against Royal Ahold N.V. in the U.S.

The Garden City Group -- the Court-appointed Claims Administrator -- is in
the final stages of reviewing all of the claims submitted in the Settlement,
including a large volume of originally deficient claims that required the
claimant to provide additional information.

The Claims Administrator currently anticipates concluding this process and
submitting required information to the Court in the U.S. by August 2007.  
Based upon the current schedule, it appears that the Claims Administrator
will be able to start making Settlement payments to Class Members in
September 2007. If this schedule changes, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel will
issue another informational release.

Claimants who have questions about their claims are reminded and encouraged
to direct all questions regarding the process or individual claims to the
Claims Administrator in the U.S. by email at Questions@AholdSettlement.com
or by telephone to the international call center toll-free at 00-800-1020-
4060. The best time for Dutch claimants to call is between 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. CET. The Claims Administrator is prepared to answer your questions
in Dutch or in English.

The suit "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation"
is before Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

The judge entered a final order and judgment approving Royal
Ahold's settlement of the suit for US$1.1 billion (EUR937
million) in June 2006.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the
company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years.
Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the
company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia.  It alleged
that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate
financial picture of the company to stockholders and inflating
the price of its common stock.

It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA
Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven,
Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller,
Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William
J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING
Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based
upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24, .

The settlement of the suit covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters.   

It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all
other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.  The
settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a
recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or
American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23,
2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their
Ahold shares.  

The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares
from about 800 million qualifying shares.  The average payment
is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share
for Fund B shares, according to court documents.  Claims are to
be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  The company denies
any wrongdoing in the settlement.


SCOTTISH RE: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to
rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against Scottish Re Group Ltd.

On Aug. 2, 2006, putative class actions were filed against:

     -- the company;
     -- Glenn Schafer, the chairman of its board of directors;
     -- Dean E. Miller, chief financial officer;
     -- Scott E. Willkomm, former chief executive officer; and
     -- Seth Vance, former chief executive officer - North
        America.

Between Aug. 7, 2006 and Oct. 2, 2006, seven additional related class
actions were filed against the company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and certain third parties.  

Each of the complaints allege that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the company's business and
operations, thereby causing investors to purchase the company's securities
at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the 1934 Act.

Two of the complaints also allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, related to a 2005 preferred stock offering.  Each of
the class actions filed seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.

On Oct. 12, 2006, all of the class actions were consolidated.

On March 7, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the putative class
action lawsuit.  This motion is still pending, according to the company’s
May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The is suit is "Zuckerman v. Scottish Re Group Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
05853-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing the plaintiff are:

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

              - and -

         Max W. Berger, Esq.
         Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 554-1400
         Fax: (212) 554-1444

Representing the company is:

         George E. Anhang, Esq.
         LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.
         1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20009
         Phone: (202) 986-8052


SEPRACOR INC: Settles Mass. Securities Fraud Suits for $52.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in two securities fraud class actions filed against
Sepracor, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and a current
director in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The company and several of its officers were named as defendants in several
class action complaints, which have been filed on behalf of certain persons
who purchased the company's common stock and/or debt securities during
different time periods, beginning on various dates, the earliest being May
17, 1999, and all ending on March 6, 2002.

These complaints allege violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Primarily, they allege that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements relating to the testing, safety and likelihood of
approval of tecastemizole by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In both the debt purchasers' action and equity purchasers' action, the court
has granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

In late February 2006, two corrected and amended consolidated complaints
were filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the company common stock and
the other on behalf of the purchasers of the company's debt securities.

The amended complaints were for:

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12235-MEL," (Debt Purchasers Action); and

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12338-MEL," (Equity Purchasers Action).

The cases were brought on behalf of all persons and entities who either
purchased any of the 5%, 5.75% or 7% convertible debt securities of the
company, or purchased the common stock or call options or who sold put
options of the company on the open market, between May 17, 1999 and March 6,
2002.

These corrected and amended consolidated complaints reiterate the
allegations contained in the previously filed complaints.
The parties are engaged in discovery.

On April 20, 2007, the company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
or MOU, regarding the cases.

Under the terms of the MOU, which outlines certain elements of a settlement
that will require the execution by all parties of definitive settlement
agreements, notice to the plaintiffs and final approval by the Court, the
company has agreed with counsel for the lead plaintiffs to pay or cause to
be paid $52.5 million in settlement of the class actions.

Of this amount, the company expects to pay $34.0 million, and the company
expects that its insurance carriers will pay the remaining $18.5 million.

In consideration of this settlement payment, counsel for the lead plaintiffs
has agreed that the settlement will include a dismissal of the class actions
with prejudice and a release of claims by the plaintiffs.

A copy of the Debt Purchasers lawsuit is available at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e7

A copy of the Equity Purchasers lawsuit is available at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e8

For more details, contact:

         Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Notice Administrator
         P.O. Box 9000 #6372
         Merrick, New York 11566-9000
         Phone: (800) 916-5305

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

              - and -  

         Michael R. Dube, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
         60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-526-6420
         Fax: 617-526-5000
         E-mail: michael.dube@wilmerhale.com


SLM CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over FFELP Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corp. faces a purported class action in California federal court in
relation to its Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) billing
practices.

The suit, “Chae, et al. v. SLM Corporation et al.,” was filed on April 14,
2007. It was served to the Company by several borrowers.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code
17200, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, violation of consumer legal remedies act and unjust enrichment.

The complaint challenges the Company’s FFELP billing practices as they
relate to use of the simple daily interest method for calculating interest.

SLM Corp., -- http://www.salliemae.com/-- also known as Sallie Mae, is  
engaged in education finance.   The company is a holding company that
operates through a number of subsidiaries.  The Company’s primary business
is to originate and hold student loans by providing funding, delivery and
servicing support for education loans in the U.S. through its participation
in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and through offering
non-federally guaranteed Private Education Loans.  The Company provides an
array of credit products and related services to the higher education and
consumer credit communities and others through two primary business
segments: Lending business segment and Debt Management Operations (DMO)
business segment.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: 2006 Securities Suit Filed in Ga. Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands, Inc. announces the dismissal of a putative class action
filed against the company last year in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The Company, along with certain Executive Officers, are defendants in a
purported class action, filed on February 2, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company and the individually named
defendants made materially false and misleading public statements concerning
the Company’s operational and financial condition, thereby allegedly causing
plaintiff to purchase Company securities at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs and
attorneys’ fees.  On March 6, 2006 defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
October 27, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without
prejudice, and also ordered plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint
within 30 days.  

On November 22, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an extension of time
to file an amended complaint and a partial lift of the stay of discovery.  
Defendants opposed this motion, which remains pending with the Court.  

On October 27, 2006, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and
ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, if any, within 30 days.  
Plaintiffs requested, among other things, additional time to file an amended
complaint and on May 18, 2007, the Court entered an opinion and order
denying that request.  Plaintiffs did not file an appeal and, accordingly,
this case is now closed.


TASER INT'L: $20M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona gave final approval to
the proposed $20 million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Taser
International, Inc.

Beginning on or about Jan. 10, 2005, numerous securities class actions were
filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors.  

These actions were filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's stock
in various class periods, beginning as early as
May 29, 2003 and ending as late as Jan. 14, 2005.

The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.  Four actions were filed in
New York and one Michigan, which were transferred to the District of
Arizona.   

Judge Susan Bolton consolidated the class actions and lead plaintiff and
lead counsel were selected.   

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which became the
operative complaint for all of the class actions, on Aug. 29, 2005.  The
operative class period is May 29, 2003 to Jan. 11, 2005.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which has
been fully briefed for the court but has not yet been decided.  

It alleged, among other things, violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief against all defendants.   

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the company and
the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding, among other things, the safety of the company's products and the
company's ability to meet its sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5
million sales order with the company's distributor, Davidson's, in the
fourth quarter of 2004.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that
product defects were leading to excessive product returns by customers.

On July 25, 2006, lead plaintiff, lead counsel, defendants and defendants'
counsel engaged in a mediation conference, and in subsequent discussions, in
an attempt to settle the consolidated securities class actions.  

On Aug. 9, 2006, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement stating,
among other things, that the parties had reached an agreement in principal
setting all consolidated actions, subject to documentation, notice and court
approval.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the court issued an order staying the class action for 60
days to allow the parties to complete and submit settlement documents, and
further denying as moot the defendants' pending motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2006, the parties filed a joint stipulation of settlement and
related documents, and plaintiff filed a motion in support of the proposed
order preliminarily approving the settlement, to which motion the defendants
consented.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the court, upon the joint stipulation of the parties to
the action, entered an order continuing the stay of the action through Nov.
6, 2006 to complete and submit settlement documents.

The stipulation of settlement and related documents filed on
Oct. 11, 2006 set forth terms of settlement including, among other things,
full releases of any and all related known or unknown claims among the
plaintiff, plaintiff class and the defendants, and payment of $20 million
from TASER for the benefit of the plaintiff class to be comprised of:

     -- $12 million in cash (approximately $4.1 million to be
        provided from the Directors' and Officers' Liability
        Insurance policy), and

     -- $8 million in company common stock valued as of the date
        at which the stock is transferred (1,103,448 shares
        based on a closing market price of $7.25 at Sept. 29,
        2006).

On December 14, 2006, the Court entered an order, which among other things,
approved preliminarily the Stipulation of Settlement, provided for notice of
the Settlement, set forth for the submissions of objections to and
exclusions from the Settlement, and set a final Settlement Hearing.

On March 19, 2007, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice, which, among other things, approved the settlement
terms as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and dismissed with
prejudice the consolidated securities class actions.

The Company made the final payment of $8 million in cash in settlement of
the shareholder class action litigation in March 2007.

On April 17, 2007, the Court entered an additional order, which, among other
things, awarded plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The suit is "In re Taser International Securities Litigation,  
Master File No. CV 05-115-PHX-SRB," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              - and –

         Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-776-5903
         Fax: 602-274-1199
         E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Maureen Beyers, Esq.
         Osborn Maledon P.A.
         2929 North Central Avenue
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
         Phone: 602-640-9305
         Fax: 602-664-2053
         E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com

              - and -

         David A. McCarthy, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Rd.
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-493-6811
         E-mail: dmccarthy@wsgr.com


TERAYON COMM: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss I.B.L. Suit Set July
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to
rule on a motion by Terayon Communication Systems, Inc., seeking for the
dismissal of a purported class action field against it.

On June 23, 2006, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by I.B.L. Investments Ltd. purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between
Oct. 28, 2004 and March 1, 2006.

Zaki Rakib, Jerry D. Chase, Mark Richman and Edward Lopez are named as
individual defendants.  The lawsuit focuses on the company's March 1, 2006
announcement of the restatement of financial statements for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2004, and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters
of 2005.

On Nov. 8, 2006, Adrian G. Mongeli was appointed lead plaintiff in the case,
replacing I.B.L. Investments Ltd.  On Jan. 8, 2007, Mongeli filed an amended
complaint, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
common stock between June 28, 2001 and March 1, 2006.

The amended complaint adds as defendants:

     * Ernst & Young,
     * Ray Fritz,
     * Carol Lustenader,
     * Matthew Miller,
     * Shlomo Rakib,
     * Doug Sabella,
     * Christopher Schaepe,
     * Mark Slaven,
     * Lewis Solomon,
     * Howard W. Speaks,
     * Arthur T. Taylor, and
     * David Woodro.

The amended complaint incorporates the prior allegations and includes new
allegations relating to the restatement of the Company's consolidated
historical financial statements as reported in the Company's Form 10-K filed
on Dec. 29, 2006.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages, interest, costs and any other relief
deemed proper by the court.

On March 9, 2007, Terayon and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  That motion is to be heard on June 5, 2007.

On March 23, 2007, Ernst & Young filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Both motions are scheduled to be heard on July 24, 2007, according to the
company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Adrian G. Mongeli, et al. v. Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Michael David Braun, Esq.
         Braun Law Group, P.C.
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-442-7755
         Fax: (310) 442-7756
         E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


TIME WARNER: $2.65B Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York signed an order
approving a partial modification of the distribution order in the $2.65
billion settlement of the lawsuit, "AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities
& 'ERISA' Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575.

A group called BizProLink LLC filed an appeal against the settlement. In
response, Lead Securities Counsel entered into a stipulation with BizProLink
which asked the Court to modify its prior distribution order to create a
reserve from the DOJ Funds in the amount of $10.6 million (the DOJ Funds
Reserve), the amount to which BizProLink claims that it is entitled.

U.S. District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram ordered that California-based claim-
processing firm, Gilardi & Co., under the supervision of Lead Securities
Counsel, is authorized and directed to make an initial distribution to
Authorized Claimants of the DOJ Funds, plus accrued interest, with the
exception of $10.6 million. This initial distribution will be made
simultaneously with the initial distribution of the Net Settlement Sum and
the entire distribution of the SEC Fair Funds in accordance with the
Distribution Order.

The DOJ Fund Reserve will remain on deposit in an interest-earning escrow
account for the purpose of satisfying any judgment that may be entered in
favor of BizProLink. Any balance of the DOJ Funds remaining after final
adjudication of BizProLink's claim will be distributed to Authorized
Claimants.

Gilardi will commence processing checks for distribution to Authorized
Claimants and estimates that this process will be completed by the end of
July.

On April 6, 2006 the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York
granted final approval to a $2.65 billion settlement of a consolidated class
action alleging that Time Warner, Inc. and America Online Inc.
inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of transactions.

The lead counsel for the class is Heins, Mills, & Olson of
Minneapolis.

                        Case Background

As of July 31, 2006, 30 shareholder class actions have been filed naming as
defendants the company, certain current and former executives of the company
and, in several instances, AOL.

These lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Eastern District of
Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain shareholders of the
company and allege that the company made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the company failed to disclose AOL's declining
advertising revenues and that the company and AOL inappropriately inflated
advertising revenues in a series of transactions.

Certain of the lawsuits also allege that certain of the individual
defendants and other insiders at the company improperly sold their personal
holdings of Time Warner stock, that the company failed to disclose that the
AOL-Historic Time Warner Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated
at the time of the announcement of the merger and, further, that the company
inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings -- along with the federal derivative lawsuits and certain
lawsuits brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act -- under the
caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and 'ERISA' Litigation."

Additional lawsuits brought by individual shareholders have also been filed,
and the federal actions have been, or are in the process of being
transferred and/or consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead plaintiff for
the consolidated securities actions and filed a consolidated amended
complaint on April 15, 2003, adding additional defendants, including:

      -- additional officers and directors of the company,
      -- Morgan Stanley & Co.,
      -- Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,
      -- Citigroup Inc.,
      -- Banc of America Securities LLC, and
      -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the company
made material misrepresentations in its registration statements and joint
proxy statement-prospectus related to the AOL-Historic Time Warner Merger
and in its registration statements pursuant to which debt securities were
issued in April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11
and Section 12 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle for the
settlement of the case.  The court granted initial approval to the
settlement in September 2005.  On April 6, 2006, the court entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement.

The class consists of those who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
publicly traded common stock of AOL, and/or bought or sold options on AOL
common stock during the period Jan. 27, 1999 through Jan. 11, 2001, and/or
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and
bonds of Time Warner and/or bought or sold options on Time Warner common
stock during the period Jan. 11, 2001 through and including Aug. 27, 2002.

                        Settlement Terms

In exchange for the dismissal of all claims against all Defendants, Time
Warner and Ernst & Young have paid $2.4 billion and $100 million,
respectively, into the Settlement Account.  In addition, $150 million set
aside as part of the Time Warner settlement with the U.S. Department of
Justice (the DOJ Funds), has also been placed in the settlement account as
part of this settlement.

The $2.65 billion in settlement monies have been earning interest for the
securities class since Oct. 7, 2005.  Another $300 million Time Warner paid
to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC Fair Fund), or the SEC
for distribution as part of the settlement thereof, may also make a portion
available.

For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA
949475-8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-mail:
aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web site:  
http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/.


TOLT TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Tolt Technologies Service Group, LLC is facing a class-action complaint
filed June 18 in the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Cedrick K. Sampeur alleges denial of overtime compensation,
thus a violation of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Sampeur v. Tolt Technologies Service Group, LLC, Case No. 8:07-
cv-01055-SDM-TGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, under Judge Steven D. Merryday, with referral to Judge Thomas G.
Wilson.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Richard Bernard Celler
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954/318-0268
          Fax: 954/333-3515
          E-mail: rceller@forthepeople.com


UNITED STATES: Illegal Immigrants’ Kids Sue to Halt Deportations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action has been filed against the state on behalf about 300
U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants, WBBM's Debra Dale reports.  

The plaintiffs include some 70 Chicago children on behalf of Four Million
Kids, a project of Centro Sin Fronteras, a Chicago-based immigrant rights
group, according to Jessica Pupovac of AHN.  It is a reference to the
estimated 4 million children whose citizenship derives from the 14th
Amendment provision declaring anyone born on U.S. soil a citizen, the report
said.  The only current exception is for those whose parents are not subject
to U.S. jurisdiction, such as the children of foreign diplomats.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys requested on June 15 an emergency hearing before the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The complaint alleges that the deportation of illegal immigrant parents
violates the constitutional rights of their U.S. citizen children.  

According to the report, the suit further asserts that the law subjects the
citizen children to de facto deportation.

The suit, which seeks to stop the deportation of illegal immigrant parents
of U.S. citizens, specifically names President Bush, U.S. Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Homeland Security, among other officers.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Trial in Sawlog Market Antitrust Suit Set 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2008 trial is slated for the civil antitrust class action "Morelock
Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co."

The suit was filed in April 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon claiming that as a result of its alleged monopolization of the
alder sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest as determined in the Initial
Alder Case, the company monopolized the market for finished alder and
charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.   

In December 2004, the Judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a
class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber
between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of awarding
monetary damages.  The company denies the allegations in the complaint and
intends to vigorously defend the matter.  

In December 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a
class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber
between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of awarding
monetary damages.  The claimed value of this matter, with trebling, is $59
million.

The company denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to
vigorously defend the matter.

In February 2005, class counsel notified the court that approximately 5
percent of the class members opted out of the class action.

In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended
complaint, extended the claims period to Dec. 31, 2006 and scheduled trial
on the matter for April 2008, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2007.

The suit is "Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,  
Case No. 3:04-cv-00583-PA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon under Judge Owen M. Panner.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Gregory Baruch, Esq.
         R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
         Berry & Leftwich
         1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 450
         Washington, DC 20006
         Phone: (202) 296-3020
         Fax: (202) 296-3038
         E-mail: gbaruch@berry-leftwich.com
                 sberry@berry-leftwich.com

              - and -

         Charles E. Corrigan, Esq.
         Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP
         1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
         Portland, OR 97209
         Phone: (503) 222-4402
         Fax: (503) 243-2944
         E-mail: chuckc@rcclawyers.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         Kevin J. Arquit, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 455-7680
         Fax: (212) 455-2502
         E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com

              - and -

         George J. Cooper, III, Esq.
         Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP
         851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500
         Portland, OR 97204-1357
         Phone: (503) 224-6440
         Fax: (503) 224-7324
         E-mail: gjc@dunn-carney.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Opposes Motions in Pa. OSB Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Co. and several companies are opposing class certification
motion filed in the consolidated antitrust class action pending against them
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In February and March 2006, seven lawsuits were filed seeking class action
status for persons and entities that purchased oriented strand boards (OSB)
directly from the company,  
Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific, Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber,  
Norbord and J.M. Huber Corp. from June 2002 through the present.  

The lawsuit alleges the defendants conspired to fix and raise  
OSB prices in the U.S. during the class period and as a result, class
members paid artificially inflated prices for OSB during that period.  

Additional lawsuits have also been filed and have been consolidated in the
same court for discovery purposes on behalf of "indirect purchasers" of OSB
in different states that have laws permitting such actions on behalf of
indirect purchasers.  
No specific damage amounts have been claimed.   

In the third quarter 2006, the court dismissed with prejudice the claims
filed by Pennsylvania indirect purchasers.

In January 2007 both the direct and indirect purchasers requested class
certification.

The company has filed motions opposing class certification for both the
direct and indirect purchaser claims, according to the company’s May 10,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007.

The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvani under Judge Paul S. Diamond.   

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com

              - and –

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300
         E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com

Representing the company are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq.
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq.
         James H. Schink, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350
         E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com
                 jmutchnik@kirkland.com

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq.
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475
         E-mail: sswirsky@schnader.com


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Court Gives Final OK to Ariz. Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona gave final approval to
the $5.7 million settlement of the consolidated securities fraud suit filed
against White Electronic Designs Corp.

On July 22, 2004, July 29, 2004, Aug. 6, 2004 and Aug. 20, 2004, shareholder
class actions were filed against the company and certain of its current and
former officers.  

The suits are:

      -- "McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et  
         al. Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB;"  

      -- "Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et  
         al., Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS;"  

      -- "Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et  
         al., Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT;" and  

      -- "Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et  
         al., Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC.  

The actions were consolidated and the Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff.  A consolidated complaint
was filed on or about Feb. 14, 2005.  

The defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were granted
on Feb. 14, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 17, 2006.

Like the dismissed complaint, the new complaint alleged, among other things,
that between Jan. 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the company made false and
misleading statements concerning its financial results and business, and
issued a misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with
the company's July 2003 secondary offering.  The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint in June 2006.  While
defendants' motions were pending, the parties reached an agreement to settle
the lawsuit.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the company's insurance carrier will
pay the entire $5.7 million settlement amount.  The court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on Dec. 16, 2006.  

The members of the settlement class were notified of the settlement and
allowed an opportunity to object before the Court granted final approval of
the settlement agreement.

The Court held a hearing on May 7, 2007 at which time the Court granted
final approval of the settlement, entered judgment and dismissed the lawsuit
with prejudice.

The suit is "McJimsey, et al. v. White Electronic Des, et al.,  
Case No. 2:04-cv-01499-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Russell J. Gunyan, Esq.
         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         401 B. St., Ste. 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058

              - and -

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
         Patrick James Van Zanen, Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
                 afriedman@bffb.com
                 pvanzanen@bffb.com

Representing the company are:  

         Joseph G. Adams, Esq.
         Joel Philip Hoxie of Snell & Wilmer, LLP
         1 Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
         Phone: 602-382-6207
         Fax: 602-382-6070
         E-mail: jgadams@swlaw.com
                 jhoxie@swlaw.com

              - and -

         Boris Feldman, Esq.
         Sherry Hartel Haus, Esq.
         Nicole Healy, Esq.
         Rodney G. Strickland, Jr., Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Rd.
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-496-4334
         Fax: 650-565-5100
         E-mail: nhealy@wsgr.com


ZIPREALTY INC: Former Employee Agents File Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Four former employee agents of ZipRealty, Inc. filed a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The suit, “Lubocki, et al. v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” was filed on
May 4, 2007.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company’s
policies for expense allowances, expense reimbursements and commission
payments to agents for transactions that do not close during the period of
employment violate federal and California state laws.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and equitable relief
but does not specify the amount of damages sought.

The suit is “Lubocki, et al v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge S.
James Otero with referral to Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Sandeep Baweja, Esq.
         Sandeep Baweja Law Offices
         445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-426-2112
         E-mail: sbaweja@walialaw.com

              - and -

         Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., Esq.
         Ernest J. Franceschi Jr. Law Offices
         445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-612-7723

Representing the defendant is:

         Holly A. Hogan
         Kerr and Wagstaffe
         100 Spear Street, Suite 1800
         San Francisco, CA 94105-1528
         Phone: 415-371-8500
         E-mail: hogan@kerrwagstaffe.com


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 504
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corp., as of April 1, 2007, faces about 504 asbestos-related
claims, of which about 19 are “malignant” claims and about 485 are “non-
malignant” claims, according to the Company’s annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2007.

The Company faced about 568 asbestos-related claims, of which about 22
are "malignant" and about 546 are "non-malignant." (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 16, 2007)

The Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos,
at its Seattle shipyard and closed former Company facilities.

The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the Company, other
ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers,
distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from
injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other
toxic substances.

Included in about 424 cases open as of April 1, 2007 are about 504
claimants. About 204 cases do not assert any specific amount of relief
sought.

About 154 cases assert on behalf of each claimant a claim for compensatory
damages of US$2 million and punitive damages of US$20 million against about
20-100 defendants.

About 37 cases assert US$5 million to US$20 million in compensatory and US$5
million to US$20 million in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant
against about 20 to 100 defendants.

About 25 cases assert US$1 million to US$5 million in compensatory and US$5
million to US$10 million in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant
against about 20 to 100 defendants.

About four cases seek compensatory damages of less than US$1 million per
claim.

Bodily injury reserves declined from US$7.3 million at April 2, 2006 to
US$5.8 million at April 1, 2007. Bodily injury insurance receivables also
decreased from US$5.5 million at April 2, 2006 to US$4.3 million at April 1,
2007.

The Company resolved 19 malignant claims in 2007 compared with 9 in 2006 and
11 in 2005.

Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corp. operates through its wholly owned unit,
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., which historically has been engaged in the
repair/overhaul, conversion and construction of commercial and military
ships. Today, the Company is the largest private shipyard in the Pacific
Northwest. A substantial amount of its business is repair and maintenance
work on commercial and federal government vessels engaged in various
maritime activities in the Pacific Northwest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waste Mgmt. Director Fined GBP2T for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Bendall, a director of Lyndley Land Resources Ltd., faces asbestos-
related charges brought by the Environment Agency and was fined GBP2,000 and
ordered to pay cost of GBP1,000, Environment Times reports.

At Gloucester Magistrates Court, on June 8, 2007, the 67-year-old Mr.
Bendall, of Rangemoor Farm, Aylburton, U.K., pleaded guilty to knowingly
permitting asbestos waste to be deposited on land without a waste management
license.

This is an offense under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Mr. Bendall is a director of both Bendalls of Lydney Ltd., a waste
management company based at Harbour Road, Lydney, and Lydney Land Resources
Ltd.

Bendalls of Lydney also pleaded guilty to breaching their waste management
license by storing End of Life vehicles. The company was fined GBP500 and
ordered to pay costs of GBP350.

At the same hearing, Lydney Land Resources Ltd. pleaded guilty to depositing
asbestos waste on land off Harbour Road at Lydney without a proper waste
management license and also failing to produce proper waste transfer notes.
The company was fined GBP2,200 and ordered to pay costs of GBP2,000.

The solicitor representing the Agency told the court that on Sept. 23, 2005,
officers from the Agency visited land owned by Lydney Land Resources Ltd.
next to Bendalls of Lydney Ltd.’s waste transfer station.

They noticed, scattered over the surface of the raised land, asbestos like
material. Samples of this material were taken and analysis proved them to
contain asbestos fibers of the white, brown and blue forms above the
threshold for hazardous waste.

When officers again inspected the site on Dec. 1, 2005, they found
stockpiled loads of construction and demolition waste among which were
pieces of fiber reinforced cement sheeting and roofing tiles that appeared
to contain asbestos. Again analysis proved them to contain asbestos.

Ian Skuse, an Agency officer involved in the investigation said, “It is
vital that hazardous waste, in this case asbestos which can cause cancer, is
separated from inert construction and demolition waste and disposed of
safely.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mechanic Gets GBP135T Payout for Illness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ex-motor mechanic Graham Mansfield has been awarded GBP135,000 in
compensation after losing the use of his right kidney through an asbestos-
related illness, Evening Post reports.

The case was settled in February 2007, shortly before trial.

Mr. Mansfield, 67 years old, developed retroperitoneal fibrosis, a rare
condition which causes damage to other organs.

Mr. Mansfield, from Sutton-in-Ashfield, U.K., worked for the Trent Motor
Traction Co., Speeds Motor Group, and Evans Halshaw (Northern) between 1955
and 1977. He claimed he was exposed to the asbestos fibers in the dust from
brake linings, which in turn caused his illness.

Mr. Mansfield's doctor stated it was exposure to asbestos which caused Mr.
Mansfield's condition, including the loss of function in his right kidney
and damage to the lining of his lungs.

In addition, an epidemiology expert reported on the potential link between
asbestos exposure and Mr. Mansfield's illness. The report concluded that the
disease can be attributed to asbestos in cases where lifetime exposure
exceeds five years.

It is thought Mr. Mansfield was exposed through his work for more than 16
years.

Denis O'Gorman, a solicitor at law firm Irwin Mitchell, said, “It now seems
unmistakable that Mr. Mansfield's illness is solely down to the exposure to
asbestos fibers he received between 1955 and 1977.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Contractor’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Cork Coroner’s Court inquest, on June 14, 2007, heard that the death of
plumbing contractor Patrick Whelan to lung cancer was linked to asbestos,
Irish Examiner.com reports.

Mr. Whelan, aged 69, from St, Luke’s in Cork, Ireland, died surrounded by
his family at Marymount Hospice on Dec. 24, 2005. The cause of death was
invasive malignant mesothelioma.

Mr. Whelan’s widow, Cora, told city coroner Dr. Myra Cullinane that her late
husband loved his job, never smoked, and looked after his health.

The Whelans’ son, Des, told the inquest that after his father served his
time in the 1950s, the elder Mr. Whelan worked on the construction of oil
refineries in England. Pipes used at that time were lined with asbestos, the
younger Mr. Whelan said.

The elder Mr. Whelan returned to Ireland in the late 1950s and worked on the
construction of the oil refinery in Whitegate, Co Cork.

Dr. Cullinane recorded a verdict of death due to occupational disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Summary Judgment to Favor Sequoia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, New York, affirmed
the summary judgment motion filed by Sequoia Ventures Inc. f/k/a Bechtel
Corp. in an asbestos-related action filed by Claire Held and other
plaintiffs.

On June 12, 2007, the Panel, comprised of Judges Mazzarelli, Andrias,
Nardelli, Williams, and Gonzales, handed down the decision of the case.

Ms. Held's claim that her decedent's mesothelioma was caused by Sequoia’s
engineer's issuance of insulation specifications requiring or allowing the
use of asbestos at the work site, and that those specifications fell below
the then-existing professional standard of care for engineers, is improperly
raised for the first time on appeal.

In any event, the record establishes that months before Ms. Held’s decedent
began working at the site in October 1972, Sequoia’s specifications were
superseded by interim insulation specifications issued by the site owner
that, while indicating a preference for asbestos-free insulation, allowed
for their continued use if the owner deemed no available substitute to be
acceptable.

These superseding specifications would also preclude any Labor Laws 200
claim against respondent based on unsafe work site conditions created by its
insulation specifications.

The Supreme Court has considered and rejected Ms. Held’s other arguments.

Stephen J. Riegel of Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., New York, represented Claire
Held.

William G. Ballaine of Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York,
represented Sequoia Ventures Inc. f/k/a Bechtel Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Dowman in Nagl Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon upheld a prior court ruling, which granted
summary judgment in favor of Dowman Products Inc. in an asbestos-related
suit filed by The Union Bank of California, N.A., the personal
representative of Morris Nagl's estate and his three surviving children:
Bruce, Corrina, and Philip.

On June 13, 2007, the Panel, comprised of Judges Landau, Schuman, and
Ortega, handed down the decision of Case No. 050707909; A131135.

Mr. Nagl installed floors from 1953 to 1991. During that time, he was
exposed to asbestos-containing building materials, including joint compound,
filler, and leveling and patching products.

In 2001, Mr. Nagl was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease. In 2003,
he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

In 2004, Mr. Nagl and his wife, Donna, filed a personal injury action
against a number of companies engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and
sale of asbestos-containing materials. Dowman was among those companies
named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged claims of negligence, product liability, and loss of
consortium, based on Mr. Nagl's exposure to asbestos-containing products
that Dowman manufactured, delivered, or sold.

The Nagls settled with other defendants and then obtained a verdict against
Dowman for a total of US$659,720.87, consisting of US$274,720.87 in economic
damages to Mr. Nagl, US$350,000 in noneconomic damages to Mr. Nagl, and
US$35,000 in loss of consortium damages to his wife. About five months after
the judgment was entered in the personal injury action, Mr. Nagl died.

In 2005, the Union Bank of California initiated this wrongful death action
against Dowman. The complaint alleges claims of negligence and product
liability, based on Mr. Nagl's exposure to asbestos-containing products that
Dowman made, delivered, or sold.

Dowman moved for summary judgment on the ground that the wrongful death
action was not permitted by statute. According to Dowman, the statute
permits a wrongful death action only "if the decedent might have maintained
an action, had the decedent lived, against the wrongdoer for an injury done
by the same act or omission."

The Appeals Court concluded that Mr. Nagl's successful prosecution of a
personal injury claim for exposure to asbestos-containing products bars
Union Bank from bringing another claim on behalf of Mr. Nagl's estate and
children on the basis of the same exposure because plaintiffs cannot satisfy
the requirement of the wrongful death statute that, Mr. Nagl, had he not
died, might have brought the claim.

Therefore, the trial court therefore did not err in granting Dowman's motion
for summary judgment.

Robyn L. Stein argued the cause for the Union Bank of California, N.A. On
the opening brief were Scott Niebling and Brayton Purcell LLP. With them on
the reply brief was James Shadduck.

Jay W. Beattie argued the cause for Dowman Products Inc. With him on the
brief was Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler, LLP.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Rise to 171
----------------------------------------------------------------
BNS Holding Inc., as of May 31, 2007, recorded 171 known open and active
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007.

As of Feb. 28, 2007, the Company recorded 158 known open and active asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007)

Since 1994, the Company’s BNS Co. subsidiary has been served notice that it
has been named as a defendant in a total of 690 known asbestos-related toxic-
tort claims (as of May 31, 2007). In many cases these claims involve more
than 100 other defendants. Fifty-four of those claims were filed before Dec.
31, 2001. As of May 31, 2007, 26 more claims were filed.

In 2006, 11 were granted Summary Judgment and were closed, 10 claims were
settled for an aggregate of US$8,000 and 122 more claims were dismissed. As
of May 31, 2007, three more claims were granted Summary Judgment and were
closed, 29 claims were dismissed, and one claim was settled for US$1,000.

The Company has recorded a liability of US$569,000 on the consolidated
balance sheet relating to the open and active claims against BNS Co. as of
April 30, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2006.

To date, no toxic tort or asbestos claims have been filed against BNS, which
came into existence in December 2004 and has never conducted any active
business operations.

Middletown, R.I.-based BNS Holding Inc. acquired 80 percent of bus
manufacturer Collins Industries Inc. in 2006. Formerly Brown & Sharpe
Manufacturing, the Company changed its name in 2001 when debt and a history
of losses prompted it to sell its metrology instrument business to Hexagon
AB.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Has EUR1.176B Reserves for Loss in ‘06
----------------------------------------------------------------
AXA, at end of Dec. 31, 2006, reserved EUR1.176 billion, gross of
reinsurance, for asbestos and environmental losses and loss expenses,
compared with EUR1.046 billion, gross of reinsurance, at end of Dec. 31,
2005, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007.

At end of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s A&E reserves for losses and loss
expenses amounted to EUR1.123 billion, net of reinsurance, compared with
EUR966 million, net of reinsurance, at end of Dec. 31, 2005.

At constant scope and on a net of reinsurance basis, the Company paid claims
and legal costs of EUR126 million in 2006 (including EUR98 million in
respect of asbestos).

During the year, and on a constant scope basis, the Company incurred losses
and loss expenses of EUR211 million net of reinsurance, including EUR224
million in respect of asbestos and (EUR13 million) in respect of
environmental pollution.

As a result of the integration of Winterthur, the Company also assumed
additional reserves for A&E exposures. On a net of reinsurance basis, these
reserves amount to EUR87 million, of which EUR77 million related to asbestos.

Based in Paris, AXA offers life insurance, personal and commercial property
and casualty insurance, reinsurance, financial services, and real estate
investment services. In the U.S., the Company owns AXA Financial, which owns
majority of investment manager AllianceBernstein. The Company has major
subsidiaries in the U.K. (AXA UK), Australia (AXA Asia Pacific), and Belgium
(AXA Belgium).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Units Face Actions in U.S., Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several AXA subsidiaries face litigation in the Netherlands and in the U.S.,
in relation to asbestos claims made by Philips (on behalf of one of its US
subsidiaries) under its worldwide liability program, according to a Company
report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 14, 2007.

Certain insurance companies taking part into this program seek the
cancellation of this program for misrepresentation claiming that Philips
failed to disclose information material to the program and, in particular,
the fact that one of its subsidiaries distributed asbestos.

After the acquisition of Winterthur, the Company’s exposure to the Philips
program increased because Winterthur and some of its subsidiaries held a
significant participation in Philips program.

Philips commenced proceedings in the U.S. seeking a judgment that a U.S.
court and not a Dutch court should have jurisdiction over the claim. The
transfer of the proceedings to U.S. courts would increase the Company’s
exposure to this risk.

Based in Paris, AXA offers life insurance, personal and commercial property
and casualty insurance, reinsurance, financial services, and real estate
investment services. In the U.S., the Company owns AXA Financial, which owns
majority of investment manager AllianceBernstein. The Company has major
subsidiaries in the U.K. (AXA UK), Australia (AXA Asia Pacific), and Belgium
(AXA Belgium).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Blast Health Dept. Over Info Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some health experts are criticizing the Minnesota Department of Health over
the decision to withhold asbestos-related information about cancers among
Iron Range miners, The Associated Press reports.

On June 17, 2007, The Star Tribune reported that the Health Department
suppressed the research for a year, finally releasing it in March 2007.

The department discovered in March 2006 that a rare, asbestos-related cancer
had stricken 35 more miners. Seventeen cases had been previously known. All
the miners have died.

According to documents, officials had planned in 2006 to reveal the
information. However, state Health Commissioner Dianne Mandernach rejected
those plans in fall 2006.

Ms. Mandernach told the newspaper that the department had needed time to
plan new studies of mining and disease. She said that releasing the
findings, without having a plan for further studies, could "excite and cause
tremendous concern before you have all of your ducks in a row."

Mesothelioma strikes the lung lining and develops decades after exposure to
asbestos fibers. The findings have renewed concern about taconite dust and
lung cancer among the 4,000 workers in Minnesota's iron-ore industry. Mine
dust has long been a concern because some taconite fibers are chemically
identical to asbestos. Mine operations also used commercial asbestos on
things as pipes and boilers, creating another source of exposure.

In 2003, Health Department researchers found that 17 miners had developed
mesothelioma between 1988 and 1996, and that commercial asbestos, not
taconite dust, was a more likely culprit.

The Star Tribune reported that, according to department e-mails, memos and
notes released under the state public-records law, officials worried about
public reaction to the latest research, which covered 1997 to 2005.

The Health Department has regularly released public-health research. In May
2007, the department quickly released another study based on the same cancer-
tracking registry used in the Iron Range research.

State Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, serves on a committee that reviewed
the Iron Range findings in April 2006. He said he did not know the release
of the mesothelioma research had been delayed a year until a reporter called
him. He said the Legislature should have been told earlier.

According to the Star Tribune, internal documents show that the Health
Department drafted a news release in June 2006 about the 35 additional cases
of mesothelioma, but planned to release it only if word of the findings
leaked out.

The newspaper reported the documents reveal that department officials were
so concerned about a possible leak that they excluded two prominent
University of Minnesota researchers from scientific consultation because
they had been critical of the Health Department in the past.

The two scientists are Greaves, the lung-disease expert, and Professor
William Toscano, head of the division of environmental health sciences in
the School of Public Health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Kingston, Ontario Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Kingston in Ontario, Canada and Utilities Kingston informed
staff members that asbestos has been found in a construction area during the
renovation of a city property, according to a City of Kingston press release
dated June 15, 2007.

Ceiling stipple in the first floor lobby area of 1211 John Counter
Boulevard, now undergoing renovations, was removed by contractors prior to
learning that the material had asbestos.

As a result of the discovery, air quality tests were conducted which showed
that the level of fiber found in the air on June 14, 2007 was 10 times less
than the level at which the Ministry of Labour has identified as safe.

Jim Keech, President and CEO of Utilities Kingston, said, "Tests show there
is now no danger to our staff. We have informed our employees about the
current situation and we will continue to monitor and provide updates as
soon as we receive information."

There is also no danger for members of the general public who may have
visited the building in the past to pay utility bills. Ministry of Labour
guidelines say asbestos is considered safe in its dormant state.

Construction has halted on the building, which is home to Utilities
Kingston, while the City develops a plan to clean up existing material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Official Pleads Guilty to Removal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Powell Jr. pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis,
Mo., to a conspiracy charge and a charge of failing to notify authorities
before removing asbestos, St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

Mr. Powell is a former East St. Louis councilman, St. Clair County Board
member and a head of the Democratic Party in East St. Louis.

Court documents state that Mr. Powell admitted that he had been hired to
renovate the Spivey Building, at 417 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, and
that he had hired a man named Isaiah Newton.

Documents say that although both men knew the building contained asbestos,
they improperly removed and disposed of hundreds of feet of asbestos-covered
pipes and other asbestos-containing material in 2002.

The two men did not notify the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, as
required, and did not tell refuse haulers that "numerous" trash bins that
they were taking to the Milam Landfill contained asbestos.

The indictment also says that Mr. Powell told workers the building contained
asbestos, but not the "dangerous kind," and gave them paper masks instead of
respirators.

The indictment says that workers, who were paid in cash, threw building
materials out the windows, scattering debris down Missouri Avenue, and were
told to lie and tell anyone who asked that they were not tearing out walls
and removing pipes.

Illinois EPA investigators later found asbestos-containing debris on the
sidewalk and asbestos-contaminated dust inside the building.

Philip H. Cohn, owner of the 12-story structure built in 1929, pleaded
guilty in 2004 of improperly removing asbestos from the building and other
charges, and was sentenced to five years in prison.

Mr. Powell agreed to cooperate with the government and testify if
necessary "concerning all criminal activity about which he knows, whether or
not defendant was himself involved," the plea agreement says.

Prosecutors agreed not to charge Mr. Powell for "activities concerning
violations of the Clean Air Act for demolition procedures at the Roy Weiss
Building . . . and the facility at 17th and Broadway (sometimes referred to
as the 'Cahokia Common Fields')," both located in East St. Louis.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Mr. Powell faces 15 to 21 months in
prison and a fine of US$3,000 to US$30,000. However, prosecutors agreed to
recommend no fine, and a sentence at the low end of the range.

The agreement states that Mr. Powell could win a reduction of his sentence
if his cooperation is helpful enough. In exchange for the plea, prosecutors
will dismiss seven other CAA-related charges at sentencing.

On June 15, 2007, Mr. Powell appeared in court for the hearing. He is
serving a 21-month sentence at the prison camp in Marion after being
convicted in 2005 of conspiracy to commit election fraud in a vote-buying
scandal.

Mr. Powell and Mr. Newton were indicted in January 2007. Charges against Mr.
Newton are pending.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Governor Reviews Statute Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the governor
is in the process of reviewing the details of a bill that would eliminate
the 10-year statute of limitations on environmental crimes, The Times
reports.

The package of bills was sparked by the asbestos contamination of W.R. Grace
& Co.’s Zonolite factory.

The Assembly has approved the bill. It is the third of six bills proposed by
Assembly members Linda Greenstein and John McKeon in the wake of the
discovery of asbestos contamination at the former Industrial Drive plant to
land on Gov. Corzine's desk.

"The W.R. Grace fiasco unmasked a weakness in our environmental protection
system and underscored the fear in several communities that the company
(has) knowingly hid contamination from state authorities," said Ms.
Greenstein, who along with McKeon spearheaded a 2005 Assembly committee
hearing on the plant, which has been the subject of an active cleanup by the
Environmental Protection Agency for the past three years.

"The culture of indifference that has given some corporate polluters a free
pass on being held responsible for their actions must be changed."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workplace Standards Hit for Botched Inquiry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workplace Standards Tasmania is again under fire, accused of bungling a
major asbestos investigation, ABC News Online reports.

It has been found that Workplace Standards did not take samples from a Huon
Valley demolition site, believed to have contained asbestos. The bottle shop
in the Huon Valley, south of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, was demolished in
2005.

Workplace Standards investigated, but internal memos obtained through
Freedom of Information have revealed samples were not taken at the site.

Bill White from the Construction Union says it highlights under-resourcing
within Workplace Standards.

Roy Ormerod from Workplace Standards concedes that a mistake was made, but
says the site was secured and cleaned promptly. He said, "The important
point is that the site was secured within one hour of the demolition
commencing, and no one sustained any ongoing injury or damage to their
health."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants 3 Firms’ Summary Judgment Move
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted the summary
judgment motions filed by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., DaimlerChrysler
Corp., and Delmarva Power and Light over the asbestos-related claims filed
by John Helm, Joseph Pennington, Robert Stymerski, and Harry Toy.

Judge Slights handed down the decision of Civil Action Nos. 01C-11-239, 02C-
03-219, 01C-06-151, and 02C-08-093 on May 31, 2007.

From 1973 to present, Mr. Helm has been a member of the Local 100 of the
International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. He worked as a
painter in several buildings at the DuPont Louviers facility in January 1974
and February 1974 doing renovation work. He believed he was exposed to
asbestos while working near drywallers, pipe fitters and insulators who were
also on the job.

Mr. Helm worked at the DuPont Newport facility from March 1974 to June 1974
as an apprentice painter doing maintenance and new construction. He also
worked at the DuPont Nemours Building in March 1976 and April 1976 as an
apprentice painter doing maintenance work.

Mr. Pennington has sued both DuPont and Delmarva over his alleged exposure
to asbestos while working on their premises. DuPont and Delmarva sought
summary judgment on all claims. He alleged exposure to asbestos when he
worked at the Hotel DuPont from September 1966 to April 1967. He was an
apprentice ironworker/welder for Steel Suppliers when he was sent to the
Hotel DuPont to work on a new construction project followed by renovation
and maintenance.

Mr. Stymerski alleged that he was exposed to asbestos at the DuPont
Brandywine Building while he was working as an ironworker on a new
construction project for Cornell & Co. Inc. from November 1969 to January
1970.

Mr. Toy was a sheet metal worker out of the Local 19 Sheet Metal Workers
union and worked in that capacity on seven different occasions at several
DuPont locations. At each DuPont facility, Mr. Toy performed various tasks
in proximity to other trades who were working with various products such as
pipe covering, block, cement, gaskets, packing, and plaster.

The Court has determined that the Plaintiffs have not developed sufficient
facts upon which a reasonable fact-finder could determine that the
Plaintiffs and their employers did not know of the asbestos hazard on the
Defendants' properties before the Plaintiffs' exposures.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to
the Plaintiffs' claims were granted.

The record did not contain facts that would allow a reasonable fact-finder
to conclude that Chrysler exercised active control over the means and
methods by which Mr. Toy performed his work on Chrysler's property or that
Chrysler undertook responsibility to implement safety measures with respect
to such work on the job site.

Chrysler's motion for summary judgment as to these theories of
Liability was also granted.

Kathleen D. Hadley of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Wilmington, Del., represented
the plaintiffs.

John C. Phillips, Jr. of Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Del.,
represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.

Robert S. Goldman and Lisa C. McLaughlin of Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A.
of Wilmington, Del. represented Delmarva Power & Light Co.

Somers S. Price, Jr. and James M. Kron of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP in
Wilmington, Del. represented DaimlerChrysler Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Exposed at Calif. Plant, ATSDR Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a report by the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry, former workers who processed vermiculite from a mine in Libby,
Mont., at a Glendale, Calif., plant were exposed to asbestos, The Student
Operated Press reports.

Located at 5440 West San Fernando Road in Glendale, the former California
Zonolite/W.R. Grace & Co. processed vermiculite from Libby between 1950 and
1977. ATSDR estimates that from 70 to 150 former workers were exposed during
the time the plant operated.

Most people who work or live near the site are not at risk for asbestos
exposure from the site. Not enough information exists to determine if
people, workers included, took asbestos-contaminated waste rock from the
plant to their homes and used it in gardens, in children’s play areas, and
for fill or paving material.

The vermiculite from Libby contained asbestos. While exposure to asbestos
does not mean a person will develop health problems, ATSDR has linked some
exposures to Libby vermiculite to respiratory illnesses.

When Libby vermiculite was being processed at the plant between 1950 and
1977, emissions containing asbestos dust and fibers might have reached the
downwind residential area.

The California Department of Health Services completed a review of existing
health statistics for the community surrounding the site and found no
evidence of increased cancer incidence or mortality for asbestos-related
diseases.

ATSDR and CDHS cannot establish that the surrounding community was not
exposed to Libby asbestos from the site or the extent of the exposure.

ATSDR, a public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, evaluates the human health effects from exposure to hazardous
substances.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Public Schools to be Checked for Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public schools in New South Wales, Australia, numbering to 2,000, would be
checked for asbestos, amid concerns that people could be at risk if the
potentially deadly material is disturbed, The Daily Telegraph reports.

The Department of Education and Training would call tenders in July 2007 for
a multi-million-dollar contract to audit every school building built before
1988.

More than AUD19 million has been spent in the last four years on asbestos
safety measures at 287 schools across NSW.

A register showing the location of asbestos material at primary and
secondary schools will be created so teachers, parents or trades people do
not hammer or drill into it unwittingly.

The Daily Telegraph reported that more than AUD3 million has been allocated
in the NSW Budget for the asbestos inspections. However, remedial works are
expected to cost tens of millions of dollars extra.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Remands Bessire Action v. Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, remanded an asbestos-related
action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, in favor of plaintiffs Jack Bessire and Geraldine Bessire.

District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong handed down the decision of Case No.
C 07 1563 SBA on June 12, 2007.

On March 22, 2006, Jack and Geraldine Bessire filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of California for the City and County of San Francisco
against defendants, alleging injuries from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-
containing products.

The claim against removing Union Carbide Corp. alleged that Mr. Bessire was
para-occupationally exposed to asbestos when he handled the dirty work
clothes of his father, who worked at a mine owned by Union Carbide in Rifle,
Colo. Union Carbide was served with the summons and complaint on April 4,
2006.

The Bessires propounded discovery to Defendants which included requests for
admissions that asbestos was contained in the vanadium and uranium ore
tailings from Union Carbide’s mine. These requests for admissions were
deemed admitted on Dec. 26, 2006.

On March 23, 2007, Union Carbide removed the matter to federal court based
on concerns about potential allegations of injuries related to nuclear
materials at its plant.

The Bessires sought remand arguing that Union Carbide’s removal was
untimely. Union Carbide opposed remand, or alternatively, argued for
dismissal, on the grounds that no viable state court claim exists because
the claim arises out of a "nuclear incident" over which federal courts have
original jurisdiction.

The Bessires sought remand on procedural grounds, and do not concede that
the action arose out of a "nuclear incident" or was removable.

The 30-day clock started on Dec. 26, 2006, but Union Carbide’s Notice of
Removal was served to the Bessires on March 19, 2007. The motion for removal
was therefore untimely, and based on this defect, the District Court granted
remand.

The clerk is directed to terminate any pending matters and to close the file.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Mulls Palermo Certiorari Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Louisiana considers granting Jake Palermo’s application
for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, 4th Circuit, Parish of
Orleans, in an asbestos related-action filed against The Port of New Orleans
and other defendants.

Chief Justice Calogero would grant the writ application and assign reasons.

The Supreme Court would grant Mr. Palermo’s writ application to consider Mr.
Palermo’s and the other plaintiffs’ assignments of error. The District Court
had found that the ship repair companies were liable for plaintiffs’ damages
because they failed to warn of dangers of asbestos exposure, failed to
segregate their activities from the plaintiffs' decedents, and failed to
provide a safe workplace.

Although the Appeals Court found evidence that the plaintiffs' decedents
might have been exposed to asbestos because of the fault of the ship repair
companies, it reversed the district court's finding of liability, stating
that the record contained no evidence that such exposure was "substantial."

Since Chief Justice Calogero said he believed that the Appeals Court may not
have given proper deference to the district court's factual findings on this
issue, he would grant the plaintiffs' writ to review the evidence on the
liability of the ship repair companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks THAN’s Appeal in Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, affirmed a ruling by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, and dismissed an appeal filed by
TH Agriculture & Nutrition LLC, in an asbestos-related insurance action
filed against various defendants.

The Panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Tacha, Baldock, and Lucero, handed
down the decision of Case No. 06-3105 on June 12, 2007.

THAN is a subsidiary of Philips Electronics North America Corp. ("PENAC"),
which in turn is a subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
("Philips"), a Dutch corporation.

The Insurers subscribed to primary and excess general liability insurance
policies known as the World-Wide Liability Insurance Programme. A Dutch
insurance broker, AON Nederland, placed the insurance policies under the
Programme with individual insurers, and the Defendant-Insurers subsequently
issued the policies to Philips in the Netherlands.

The Programme provides worldwide insurance coverage to Philips, the named
insured, and its unnamed direct and indirect subsidiaries for the period
from Dec. 31, 1997, through Dec. 31, 2001. THAN is insured under the
Programme.

Under the Programme, the Insurers agreed to indemnify the insured against
product liability claims involving "personal or bodily injury, including
death."

From at least 1961 to 1981, THAN's predecessor and a Philips subsidiary,
Thompson Hayward Chemical Co. of Kansas City, Mo., distributed raw asbestos.
Most of company's operations were sold to third parties before 1985.

THAN has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in more than 14,000
claims filed in state and federal courts across the United States alleging
bodily injury and wrongful death for exposure to asbestos allegedly
distributed by Thompson Hayward.

One claim was filed in Kansas, and THAN's regular business activities with
respect to the asbestos claims take place in Lenexa, Kans. Philips first
provided notice of the asbestos claims to the Programme on Nov. 21, 2002.

Thereafter, the Insurers purportedly rescinded their policies, claiming
Philips failed during negotiations over the Programme to disclose relevant
information known to it regarding the asbestos claims.

On Aug. 10, 2005, 12 of the 13 Insurers (all but XL Insurance Co. Ltd.) sued
Philips, PENAC, and THAN in the Netherlands, seeking declaratory relief and
confirmation of their rescission of the Programme.

On Sept. 29, 2005, THAN brought the instant action in the District Court,
seeking damages for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment that the
Insurers are obligated to indemnify THAN for losses resulting from the
asbestos claims and to pay the costs of defending against these claims.

The District Court granted the Insurers' motions to dismiss based on lack of
personal jurisdiction over the Insurers and improper venue. THAN appealed.
Because it concluded that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction
over the Insurers, the Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's ruling
and dismissed THAN’s appeal.

The Appeals Court also granted the Insurers' motion requesting that this
Court take judicial notice of the "Statements of Defence" filed on April 26,
2006, in the District Court for Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Kenneth H. Frenchman, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, New York, N.Y.
(Robin L. Cohen, Dorothy A. Thomas, and Andrew N. Bourne, Dickstein Shapiro
Morin & Oshinsky LLP, New York, N.Y., and Michael J. Abrams, Lathrop & Gage,
LLC, Kansas City, Mo., with him on the briefs), represented TH Agriculture &
Nutrition LLC.

Thomas W. Brunner, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, DC (Richard A.
Ifft and Karalee C. Morell, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, DC; Dan
Biles, Gates Biles Shields & Ryan P.A., Overland Park, Kansas; Norman C.
Kleinberg, Derek J.T. Adler, William J. Beausoleil, Hughes Hubbard & Reed,
New York, N.Y., with him on the brief), represented the Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. Local Sues 96 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma sufferer Tammy Schwartz of Arkansas, on June 14, 2007, sued 96
defendants in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, alleging she was
exposed to airborne asbestos from family members’ clothing, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Schwartz claims that her current husband, Joseph Schwartz, was self-
employed from 1989 to 2007 as a pipefitter and electrician at various
locations and her former husband performed his own automotive maintenance on
family vehicles.

Mrs. Schwartz also claims her father was employed as a heavy machine
operator from 1954 through 1995. She alleges that family members worked with
and around asbestos-containing products.

Mrs. Schwartz claims family members would carry the asbestos dust on their
clothing home with them where it would again become airborne.

From 1982 through 2006, Mrs. Schwartz worked as a machine operator and
cashier at various locations. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos
during non-occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs,
maintenance and remodeling.

Mrs. Schwartz said she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 18, 2006,
and subsequently became aware her illness was wrongfully caused, the suit
claims.

Schwartz claims the 96 defendant corporations:

-- Included asbestos in their products, when the defendants knew or should
have known that the asbestos fibers would have a toxic, poisonous and highly
deleterious effect upon his health;

-- Included asbestos in their products when adequate substitutions were
available;

-- Failed to provide adequate warning to people working with and around the
products of the dangers of inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbed fibers
in them;

-- Failed to provide adequate instruction concerning the safe methods of
working with and around asbestos products; and

-- Failed to conduct tests on the asbestos-containing products,
manufactured, sold or delivered by the defendants to determine the hazards
to which workers might be exposed.

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

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

Mrs. Schwartz seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$200,000, plus
punitive damages.

Trent Miracle, John Barnerd, Perry Browder, and John Foley of SimmonsCooper
in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Schwartz.

Circuit Judge Dan Stack has been assigned Case No. 07 L 542.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Motion for Leave in Anderson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, granted Christopher John Anderson’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, in a pro se asbestos-related
action filed against Owens Corning, John Mansville Corp., W.R. Grace & Co.,
and other defendants. However, the Court denied Mr. Anderson’s motion to
appoint counsel.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein handed down the decision of Case
No. 07-C-203 on June 13, 2007.

Mr. Anderson is detained at Racine Correctional Institution. He alleged that
that, before his incarceration, he was injured by on-the-job exposure to
asbestos manufactured by the defendants.

Mr. Anderson is required to pay the statutory filing fee of US$350 for this
action. In this case, he has filed a certified copy of his prison trust
account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing
of his complaint. He has been assessed and paid an initial partial filing
fee of US$12.54. He has also made additional payments of US$36.10.

Mr. Anderson alleged that between May 1, 1999 and July 30, 1999, he was
employed by Schauer and Associates Inc. to remove asbestos materials through
abatement of the defendants' products from sites in Wisconsin.

Mr. Anderson has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. He has stated
that he has been unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain legal counsel on his
own. On June 11, 2007, this case was reported to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, Asbestos Products Liability Litigation.

The Panel will notify Mr. Anderson and this court whether this action is
subject to transfer at a later date, not sooner than 90 days from the date
the action was reported to the Panel. If the case is accepted, it will be
transferred to the Panel for all pretrial processing, thus making moot Mr.
Anderson’s request for appointment of counsel by this court.

Pending notification from the Panel, Mr. Anderson’s motion for appointment
of counsel will be denied without prejudice.

Christopher John Anderson of Sturtevant, Wis., pro se.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Payout Recipients Remain “Poor”
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an Asbestos Relief Trust study, even after getting payout for
asbestos-related diseases, claimants remain poor and many have already
exhausted their lump sum compensation, according to Business Report.

The fund was set up after investment holding company Gencor and British
multinational Cape plc settled litigation for damages by paying ZAR587.5
million. They did not accept liability.

The ART study found that with an average-sized household of seven members
and an income of ZAR2,000 a month, individuals in claimants' families
survived off an average of less than ZAR300 per person per month, or as low
as ZAR185 in one area.

Nearly 20 percent of claimants said their families suffered food shortages
daily. The compensation provided immediate short-term relief for many
claimants.

The study found that 60 percent of claimants invested no part of their
awards. An average of 12 percent, or ZAR6,000, was formally invested per
claimant, although in fairly short-term banking products.

While more than 80 percent of claimants still required medical treatment,
very few - and none in one area - made provisions for future medical costs.
Two-thirds accessed public medical care, while a surprising 25 percent could
afford private medical attention, at least temporarily.

The majority of potential claimants were found to have non-compensable
asbestos-related illnesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Mining Town Closed Over Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos mining town of Wittenoom, Western Australia has finally been
closed with the site de-gazetted by the government, The Sunday Times reports.

The announcement coincided with the release of the latest report into
asbestos contamination. Regional Development Minister Jon Ford said the
report indicated that the risks for most types of land users in and around
Wittenoom were in a medium-to-high risk.

Mr. Ford said, “The Department of Health has independently examined the
report and indicated that these levels of risk of exposure to asbestos
contamination represent an unacceptable public health risk.”

However, eight residents who still live in the Pilbara ghost town have vowed
to stay.

The State Government turned off electricity in 2006.

Mr. Ford said the removal of townsite status would help the Shire of
Ashburton progress the closure of the town including closing all roads into
the area.

The government announced in 2006 that it was pressing ahead with the closure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richland, Ga. Faces Contamination Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
The town of Richland, Ga. is facing a contamination crisis, with asbestos
found in the town’s water pipes, American Chronicle reports.

In the 1950s and 1960s, cement and asbestos mixtures were commonly used to
strengthen water pipes and generally pose no health risk if properly
maintained. However, the town’s naturally acidic water scours the pipes
causing asbestos fibers to flake into the water.

In 1997, workers with the state’s Environmental Protection Division tested
the water supply after asbestos fibers began clogging water filters and
meters. The initial tests indicated the presence of asbestos but that it
posed no potential harm.

Nearly 300 water systems in Georgia may contain asbestos laden pipes but
records are not kept and the state does not require regular testing for
asbestos in water supplies.

After the initial testing community officials applied for funding to replace
the pipes but their request was denied.

Since then the pipes have begun to crumble and when another round of testing
was conducted in 2002 the results showed the concentration of asbestos
exceeded seven times the safe limit for drinking water.

In a December 2003 test, results showed asbestos levels were 3,132 times the
Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for safe drinking water.

A sample taken in February 2007 showed contamination at 5.1 billion fibers
per liter nearly 728 times the maximum EPA level. Despite these results,
mayor Adolph Mclendon says the state has ignored his pleas during the 24
years as mayor.

Funding has been approved to replace the estimated two miles of asbestos
lined pipe still used in Richland but the lasting effects of the
contamination may not be known for years to come.

Once a bustling railroad hub south of Columbus, Ga., Richland is now one of
Georgia’s poorest communities with nearly 25 percent of its 1,700 residents
living in poverty.

According to the American Water Works Association, around 15 percent of
water pipes in the United States contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belluck & Fox Supports Bill to Ban Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Belluck & Fox LLP strongly supports Senator Patty Murray's efforts
to ban asbestos and fully endorses the "Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007"
bill, according to the firm’s press release dated June 15, 2007.

Scientists have known since the 1930s how deadly asbestos can be to those
who work with it and to those who live with asbestos workers. Yet asbestos
continues to be a scourge to the welfare of all Americans.

Asbestos is still a major component in multiple products, so many workers
and their families are continually at risk for the terrible diseases it can
cause: lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.

While Europe and most of South America have already banned asbestos, the
U.S. continues to put people at risk by building products with asbestos and
by importing large amounts of it.

According to Sen. Barbara Boxer's opening statements to the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works EPW Hearing on the Health Effects of
Asbestos, in 2005 the United States, "... imported 2,530 metric tons of
asbestos, and ... more than 90,000 metric tons of products that may contain
asbestos."

These products include cement and gaskets, as well as brakes and clutch
parts for automobiles.

Sen. Murray's "Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007" is an important step in
protecting the lives of Americans and their families.

Congress has the responsibility to protect American lives and turning this
bill into law is a strong statement that it takes this responsibility
seriously.

A copy of this release can be found at: http://www.belluckfox.com/recent-
news/2007/06/belluck-fox-llp-strongly-supports.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Inks $10.5M Deal w/ Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. has reached a US$10.5 million deal with two of its
insurers, Everest Reinsurance Co. and Mt. McKinley Insurance Co., ending a
nearly six-year long legal battle over asbestos coverage, Associated Press
reports.

In a June 19, 2007 court filing, the settlement calls for Everest and Mt.
McKinley to collectively pay US$10.5 million into a trust in exchange for
the Company’s release of rights for asbestos claim coverage under the
insurers' policies.

The two insurers will pull out of all pending litigation with the Company
and drop their opposition to various matters in the Company’s bankruptcy
case, under way since October 2001.

Federal-Mogul said that the settlement results from several months of
negotiations with the insurers, Cooper Industries LLC, the asbestos
claimants committee and the legal representative for future asbestos
claimants.

As part of the deal, the insurers will receive a release from any asbestos
claims that Cooper might be able to assert against them. In the 1990s,
Cooper sold a brake-pad division to Federal-Mogul and some of its asbestos
damage claims stem from that unit.

In asking the bankruptcy court to approve the settlement, Federal-Mogul said
that the deal provides for a "substantial payment" to the asbestos trust
while limiting further litigation costs.

The Company is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald to hold a July
9, 2007 expedited hearing on the settlement.

Judge Fitzgerald began hearings in Pittsburgh on the Company's Chapter 11
reorganization proposal. The plan would shift billions of dollars in
asbestos damage claims off the Company's balance sheet and into a trust to
be funded with half the equity in the Company and the proceeds of insurance
policies.

One of the Company's other insurers, The Travelers Indemnity Co., has been
vocal in protesting the plan, as have a few of the Company's creditors,
including Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Volkswagen of America
Inc.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Court Favors 7 Firms in Henderson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the ruling of the Greenville
County Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of seven
defendant companies, in an asbestos-related action filed by James W.
Henderson, Jr. and Betty Lee Henderson.

The seven firms are: Allied Signal Inc., DaimlerChrysler Corp., Ford Motor
Co., General Motors Corp., North American Refractories Co., Pneumo Abex
Corp., and Uniroyal Holding Inc.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Burnett, Toal, Moore, Pleicones, and Edward
B. Cottingham, handed down the decision of Case No. 26322 on April 30, 2007.

The Hendersons, of North Carolina, filed a complaint in 1997 arising out of
Mr. Henderson's exposure to asbestos containing products while working as a
boilermaker, pipefitter, and sheet metal worker for many years at various
industrial sites in South Carolina. Mrs. Henderson's claims arose out of her
loss of consortium and enjoyment of life.

According to the complaint, Respondents "mined, manufactured, processed,
imported, converted, compounded and/or retailed substantial amounts of
asbestos and asbestos-related materials" and caused those materials to be
placed in the stream of interstate commerce with the result that the
materials were sold, distributed and used in South Carolina.

The Hendersons alleged that Mr. Henderson "used, worked with, was in the
vicinity of, and was exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products"
during the course of his employment and, as a result, contracted
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. He was diagnosed in North
Carolina.

After dismissing certain defendants and granting summary judgment in favor
of others the trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for remaining
defendant. The Hendersons appealed.

Mr. Henderson died shortly after trial, and Mrs. Henderson, as personal
representative of his estate, proceeded with this appeal.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Hendersons failed to produce evidence of
regular and frequent exposure to foreign manufacturers' asbestos-containing
products in South Carolina, as required under Door Closing Statute, and
evidence of asbestos-related diseases other than mesothelioma was cumulative
of evidence showing a link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary
judgment to Respondents based on the Door Closing statute.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the decision of the trial court excluding
certain affidavits as cumulative.

Mona Lisa Wallace, of Wallace and Graham, P.A., of Salisbury, N.C.,
represented James W. Henderson, Jr. and Betty Lee Henderson.

C. Mitchell Brown and W. Thomas Causby, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, &
Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, S.C.; James H. Elliott, Jr., of Pritchard &
Elliot, LLC, of Charleston, S.C.; W. David Conner, James B. Pressley, Jr.,
and Moffatt G.McDonald, all of Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd, P.A., of
Greenville, S.C.; Daniel B. White, of Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., of
Greenville, S.C.;  and G. Mark Phillips, of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, of Charleston, S.C., represented the Respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician’s Mate Gets GBP102,500 Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken McDonald, a former electrician’s mate, has been awarded GBP102,500 in
compensation for his exposure to asbestos while working at Vickers shipyard
in Barrow, U.K., in the 1960s North-West Evening Mail reports.

Mr. McDonald was awarded the GBP102,500 compensation after contacting the
Barrow Asbestos Related Disease Support group.

Mr. McDonald, now 67 years old, who worked on the U.K.’s first nuclear
submarine, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2006.

Working on HMS Dreadnought from 1961 to 1963, Mr. McDonald used to carry
bags of asbestos for the electricians to use when lagging pipes on the sub.
He would come home covered in asbestos dust.

BARDS put Mr. McDonald in touch with his former union, the GMB and their
legal experts Thompsons Solicitors. He urged anyone who suspects they have
mesothelioma to contact BARDS.

Client representative at Thompsons Solicitors, Andrew Venn, said, “We are
pleased we have finalized this case quickly. It is important Mr. McDonald
knew his family would be financially secure.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. School District OKs Asbestos Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustees of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District in California, on
June 19, 2007, approved an investigation into allegations that Troy High
School’s asbestos abatement was improperly handled during modernization, The
Orange County Register reports.

School employees prompted the inquiry into potential health risks linked to
asbestos removal, pesticide spraying and unauthorized paint from 2005 to
2007 and from carpeting removal from 1997 to 1999.

The Air Quality Management District is also investigating.

On June 18, 2007, during a parent/staff forum at Troy, Superintendent George
Giokaris repeatedly conceded the district mistakenly failed to properly
notify parents and teachers of the abatement schedules.

The district also brought environmental attorney Curtis Coleman and board
certified occupational medicine Dr. Robert Maurer of St. Jude Medical Center
on board to answer questions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Seeks Reorganization Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. urges U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald to approve
a reorganization plan that would resolve as much as US$9.41 billion in
health claims using insurance proceeds and stock, The Detroit News reports.

The Company, on June 18, 2007, made its request at the start of a three-day
hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh.

At least 10 major insurance companies and three carmakers oppose the plan,
claiming it would increase their asbestos liability.

Peter Van. N. Lockwood, who represents asbestos victims supporting the plan
said that the insurance companies "are trying to blow up the reorganization
plan based on the idea that their rights are being violated."

The Company and 156 affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and the U.K.
in 2001 to resolve at least 114,000 asbestos-related suits.

According to court records, the Company has proposed a victims' trust fund
that would be granted 50.1 percent of the stock in the reorganized company
and the right to pursue insurance payments.

Under the reorganization plan, billionaire investor Carl Icahn and other
creditors would gain 49.9 percent of the Company's new stock and control of
its board of directors in exchange for abandoning their claims.

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


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


NYSE: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Becker Meisel, LLC and Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., filed a
lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who placed market
orders to purchase or sell securities on the New York Stock Exchange through
the New York Stock Exchange's Super Designated Order Turnaround System
between October 17, 1998 and the present.

The Complaint alleges securities fraud claims against:

          -- the New York Stock Exchange;
          -- Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.;
          -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists, LLC;
          -- Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P.;
          -- Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.;
          -- Bear Waggner Specialists, LLC;
          -- Bear, Stearns Securities Corporation;
          -- Bank of America Corporation;
          -- Fleet Specialists, Inc.;
          -- Bank of America Securities LLC;
          -- LaBranche & Co, Inc.;
          -- LaBranche & Co, LLC;
          -- Susquehanna International Group, LLC;
          -- SIG Specialists, Inc.;
          -- Van der Moolen Holding, N.V.;
          -- Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC;
          -- Merrill Lynch, Pierece, Fenner & Smith, Inc.;
          -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.;
          -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.;
          -- Citigroup, Inc.;
          -- Morgan Stanley Co., Inc.;
          -- UBS Securities LLC;
          -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC;
          -- Credit Suisse Group, Inc.;
          -- Jeffries Execution Services, Inc.;
          -- Jeffries Group, Inc.;
          -- Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.;
          -- Fidelity Investments;
          -- Fidelity Management & Research Co.; and
          -- National Financial Services, Inc.

Additional claims for violation of federal antitrust law and breach of
fiduciary duty were also filed against certain of these Defendants.

In its securities fraud claims, the Complaint alleges that Defendants
violated federal securities laws by employing manipulative or deceptive
devices or contrivances with regard to the market for trade execution
services on the New York Stock Exchange and the costs of those executions.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants exploited their control over order execution and publication of
the data relating to order execution to create, maintain and conceal the
existence of two distinct submarkets on the New York Stock Exchange: a
dominant "insider" submarket comprised of trades executed for the benefit of
those members of the New York Stock Exchange who operated on the floor of
the exchange and an inferior, "outsider" submarket comprised of SuperDOT
trades.

The Complaint alleges that in order to accomplish the intentional,
systematic subordination of SuperDOT trades, Defendants made material
misrepresentations and concealed material information concerning the
fairness and efficiency of trade executions on the New York Stock Exchange
and used various other contrivances including:

          (1) filling floor orders ahead of simultaneously or
              previously placed SuperDOT orders;

          (2) allowing floor brokers to see incoming SuperDOT
              orders; and

          (3) routinely slowing or accelerating the execution of
              SuperDOT orders for the benefit of floor orders.

The Complaint alleges that as a result of Defendants' illegal activity,
members of the Class suffered approximately $1 billion in damages per year
throughout the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 20, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Martin L. Borosko
          Becker Meisel LLC
          Phone: (973) 422-1100
          E-mail: info@beckermeisel.com

          - and -

          Seth R. Klein
          Schatz Nobel Izard PC
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: firm@snilaw.com


STERLING FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Files Penna. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all common stock purchasers of Sterling Financial Corporation
(Nasdaq: SLFI) between April 27, 2004 and May 24, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Sterling Financial and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following:

          (1) that alleged "irregularities" at EFI were in fact
              a deliberately orchestrated and sophisticated loan
              scheme which materially misstated Sterling
              Financial's financial statements;

          (2) that the sophisticated loan scheme concealed
              credit delinquencies, falsified financing
              contracts and related documentation, and subverted
              established internal controls and reporting  
              systems;

          (3) as a result of the above, the Company's net income
              and earnings were materially overstated by as much
              as $165 million;

          (4) that the Company's financial statements were not
              prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
              Accounting Principles (GAAP);

          (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and
              financial controls; and

          (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
              financial statements were materially false and
              misleading at all relevant times.

On April 30, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it
would restate its previously issued financial statements for the years of
2004 through 2006, and that it was postponing its 2007 annual shareholder
meeting "as a result of information obtained from an internal
investigation."

The Company announced that it had received information
suggesting "irregularities" in financing contracts at EFI. In connection
with the investigation, two senior EFI executives were placed on leave, and
a new Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Chief Operating Officer were
installed. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $4.07 per share,
or 19.6 percent, to close on April 30, 2007 at $16.65 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, shares of the Company's
stock declined an additional $2.00 per share, or 12 percent, to close on May
1, 2007 at $14.65 per share.

Then on May 24, 2007, the Company further revealed that Sterling Financial's
shareholders were subjected to a "sophisticated loan scheme ... to conceal
credit delinquencies, falsify financing contracts and related documents, and
subvert Sterling's established internal controls and reporting systems."

As a result of the scheme, the Company stated that it would record a charge
of up to $165 million on its financial statements, it would have to restate
multiple years of financial results, and it would have to suspend its
dividend payments to shareholders. On this news, shares of the Company's
stock fell an additional $6.19 per share, or 38.3 percent, to close on May
25, 2007 at $9.97 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 24, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Sterling Financial, through its subsidiaries, provides banking and financial
services to individuals and businesses in the U.S. One of the Company's
affiliates is Equipment Finance LLC ("EFI"). EFI specializes in financing
the purchases of income producing equipment for companies and
owner/operators in the forestry, land clearing, and construction industries.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
          Website: http://www.sbtklaw.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  * * *