CAR_Public/070629.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 29, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 128

                           Headlines
     

AIRLINES: Asian Airlines Face Suit Over Inflated Freight Charges
AIRLINES: International Carriers Face Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
BIOPURE CORP: Sept. 24 Hearing Set in Mass. Securities Suit Deal
BURNS INT’L: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Alleged labor Code Violations
DEL MONTE: Settles Antitrust Suits by Banana Buyers for $2.5M

EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices
GENESCO INC: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Rejected Foot Locker Bid
GOOGLE INC: EPFL Backs French Sports Groups’ Infringement Suit
HOGLA-KIMBERLY LTD: Suit Over Content of "Kleenex" Abandoned
INDONESIA: Islamic Advocates Want Anti-Terrorism Squad Dissolved

KENTUCKY: Kenton County Gets Sued over Insurance Tax Collection
KFC: Faces Federal Suit in Okla. Over Employees’ Unpaid Overtime
KRAFT FOODS: Jell-0 Pudding Ad Fraudulent, Calif. Suit Claims
LML PAYMENT: Subsidiary Faces DPPA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in N.J.

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Md. Securities Suit
MICHIGAN: Judge Dismisses Suit Over City’s $300 Annual Trash Fee
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Employees Laid off in Shutdowns File Lawsuit
NAVARRE CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Minn.
PM BEEF: Minn. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Denied Overtime Wages

PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Grant Thornton's Spoliation Claims Junked
PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion
QUICKSILVER INC: Continues to Face Calif. FACTA Violations Suit
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Calif. Court Certifies Lawsuit by Uninsured
SHUFFLE MASTER: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada

SONY COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Overtime Pay Lawsuit for $8.5M
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss St. Clair Shores Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Still Faces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Certification Bid in GTA Suit Proceeding


                         Asbestos Alert                 

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Plan Ruling Set for July 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wharf Worker Files Suit v. Aussie Authority
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GAO Says Locals Misled on WTC Contamination
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Carpenter’s Death to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov’t. Releases Bill to Assist Victims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arkansas Hospital Cleanup to Cost $238,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Teachers’ Group Calls for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Liability Trial Set in Jan. 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ameron Int’l. Drop to 132 in 2Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Casella Unit Talks w/ N.H. AG on Disposal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Receives $3.8M for Husband’s Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lords Urged to Bring Justice to Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S. Africa Extends Deadline for Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Favors Plaintiff in Futch Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chesterton Seeks to Transfer Delafosse Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Injury Suit v. Japan Gov’t. Begins
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Worker’s Kin Gets Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe Still to Produce, Export Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs New Trial in Kinsman Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Records 6,350 New Claimants in 2006

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Has $89M Insurance Asset in ‘06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Records GBP32.6M Recoverable in 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. to Profit After Ch. 11
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Worker’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker’s Kin Pursues Action v. Ex-Employers

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Appeal in Lunsford’s Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oklahoman Sues 107 Defendants in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court OKs July 7 Trial for Melvin Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Sufferers Await House of Lords Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Con Edison in Croteau Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Extends Grace Exclusivity to July 23
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Resolves $45,000 in Damage Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Hulsing Hotels to Pay $300T for Removal Breaches
ASBESTOS ALERT: Court Issues GBP3,000 Fine to Doonin for Breach


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

BRISTOL-MYERS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********

AIRLINES: Asian Airlines Face Suit Over Inflated Freight Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several international Asian airlines have been named in an antitrust class-
action complaint filed June 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Asiana Airlines, Inc.,  
     -- Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.,  
     -- China Airlines,  
     -- Eva Airways Corp.,  
     -- Korean Air,  
     -- Philippine Airlines, Inc.

Named plaintiffs -- Crismina Garments, Inc. and Angeles Garments Corp. --
bring this action for damages, injunctive relief and other appropriate relief
arising under the Federal antitrust Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, the
State of New York Donnelly Act, NY CLS Gen. Bus. Section 340, and the State
of New York General Business Law, NY CLS Gen Bus. Section 349.

The complaint accuses airlines of fixing prices for cargo services and
driving up prices by forming a global alliance, known as WOW.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment as follows:

     -- holding that defendants' contract, combination or
        conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by
        defendants and their co-conspirators, jointly and/or
        severally, were in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
        Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- holding that defendants' contract agreement, arrangement
        or combination, and the acts done in furtherance thereof
        by defendants and their co-conspirators, jointly and/or
        severally, were in violation of the New York Donnelly
        Act, NY CLS Gen. Bus. Section 340;

     -- holding that defendants' deceptive acts were in
        violation of NY CLS Gen Bus. Section 349;

     -- awarding plaintiffs with three times the amount of
        damages it sustained, as allowed by law, together with
        the costs of this action, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- permanently enjoining and restraining defendants, their
        affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the
        officers, directors, partners, agents, and employees
        thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act
        on their behalf from, in any manner:

        (i) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            combination, conspiracy, or deception alleged
            herein, or from engaging in any other contract,
            combination, conspiracy, or deception having a
            similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or
            following any practice, plan, program, or device
            having a similar purpose or effect; and

       (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the manufacture,
            distribution, or sale of any product except to the
            extent necessary in connection with a bona fide sale
            transaction between the parties to such
            communications.

The suit is “Crismina Garments, Inc. et al. v. Asiana Airlines, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-02529-JG-VVP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under Judge John Gleeson, with referral to
Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth N. Wolf
          Edward M. Joffe
          Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
          551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-883-1300
          Fax: 212-883-0068
          E-mail: kwolf@strtrade.com


AIRLINES: International Carriers Face Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Several international airlines have been named in an antitrust class-action
complaint filed June 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.,  
     -- China Airlines, Ltd.,  
     -- Eva Airways Corp.,  
     -- Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.,  
     -- Qantas Airways Ltd.

Named plaintiffs -- Alfred Angelo, Inc. and DJ Fashions, LLC -- bring this
action for damages, injunctive relief and other appropriate relief arising
under the Federal antitrust Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, the State of
New York Donnelly Act, NY CLS Gen. Bus. Section 340, and the State of New
York General Business Law, NY CLS Gen Bus. Section 349.

The complaint accuses airlines of fixing prices for cargo services and
driving up the price by forming a global alliance, known as WOW.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment as follows:

     -- holding that defendants' contract, combination or
        conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by
        defendants and their co-conspirators, jointly and/or
        severally, were in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
        Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- holding that defendants' contract agreement, arrangement
        or combination, and the acts done in furtherance thereof
        by defendants and their co-conspirators, jointly and/or
        severally, were in violation of the New York Donnelly
        Act, NY CLS Gen. Bus. Section 340;

     -- holding that defendants' deceptive acts were in
        violation of NY CLS Gen Bus. Section 349;

     -- awarding plaintiffs with three times the amount of
        damages it sustained, as allowed by law, together with
        the costs of this action, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- permanently enjoining and restraining defendants, their
        affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the
        officers, directors, partners, agents, and employees
        thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act
        on their behalf from, in any manner:

        (i) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            combination, conspiracy, or deception alleged
            herein, or from engaging in any other contract,
            combination, conspiracy, or deception having a
            similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or
            following any practice, plan, program, or device
            having a similar purpose or effect; and

       (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the manufacture,
            distribution, or sale of any product except to the
            extent necessary in connection with a bona fide sale
            transaction between the parties to such
            communications.

The suit is “Alfred Angelo, Inc. et al. v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02528-JG-VVP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under Judge John Gleeson, with referral to
Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth N. Wolf
          Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
          551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-883-1300
          Fax: 212-883-0068
          E-mail: kwolf@strtrade.com


BIOPURE CORP: Sept. 24 Hearing Set in Mass. Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 24, 2007 fairness hearing is scheduled for the proposed settlement in
a securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against Biopure Corp., according to the company’s June 14,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007.

Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was being
investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director), its former
chief executive officer, former chief technology officer and former chief
financial officer were named as defendants in a number of similar, purported
class action complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by
alleged purchasers of the company's common stock.

According to the complaint, Biopure artificially inflated its stock price by
misrepresenting the prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval
of the marketing of the company's main product, Hemopure (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 7, 2007).

The lawsuit says that the company knew by virtue of its ongoing
communications with the U.S. FDA that regulators had strong reservations
about Hemopure's safety but continued to publicly hype the product throughout
the class period.

Hemopure is an investigational product for the treatment of acutely anemic
surgical patients and for the elimination, delay or reduction of red blood
cell transfusions in these patients.

It is a human blood substitute derived from cow's blood, which acts like red
blood cells to deliver oxygen to the body.  Unlike donated blood, Hemopure
does not have to be matched to a patient's blood type.

The truth about Hemopure began to emerge on Dec. 24, 2003.  After the close
of the markets on Christmas Eve, Biopure announced a potential SEC inquiry
for securities fraud and, for the first time, disclosed substantial problems
with its Hemopure product and the FDA approval process.

Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action as, "Biopure
Corp. Securities Litigation."

On July 23, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who acquired the
common stock of Biopure during the period of March 17, 2003 through Dec. 24,
2003 and names as additional defendants Ronald F. Richards, Howard P.
Richman, Charles A. Sanders and J. Richard Crout.

On Oct. 6, 2004, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and on Dec. 7, 2004 lead plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants' motions.  Defendants filed their replies in further support of
their motions on Jan. 24, 2005.

On Feb. 2, 2006 the Judge heard oral arguments on all outstanding motions.  
On March 28, 2006 Judge Nancy Gertner issued an order denying the motions to
dismiss and on the same date the plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint, which the defendants filed answers to on April 28, 2006.

On May 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  
Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion for class
certification on July 25, 2006.

The consolidated matter has since been settled and the District Court entered
an Order of Preliminary Approval of the settlement on May 23, 2007.  A
fairness hearing is scheduled for September 24, 2007 for final approval.

The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Gilman and Pastor, LLP
         Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate Center, 999 Broadway
         Saugus, MA 01906
         Phone: 781-231-7850
         Fax: 781-231-7840
         Web site: http://www.gilmanpastor.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Bingham McCutchen LLP, Esq.
         150 Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-8717
         Fax: 617-951-8736
         E-mail: robert.buhlman@bingham.com

              - and -  

         Mary P. Cormier, Esq.
         Edwards & Angell, LLP
         101 Federal St.
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-2225
         Fax: 617-439-4170
         E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com


BURNS INT’L: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Alleged labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burns International Security Services Corp. is facing a class-action
complaint filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ahamad Khan alleges he was denied overtime compensation, a
violation of labor laws.

The suit is “Khan v. Burns International Security Services Corp., Case No.
1:07-cv-02502-FB-JO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, under Judge Frederic Block, with referral to Judge
James Orenstein.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Abdool K. Hassad, Jr.
          Law Office of Abdool Hassad, Esq.
          175-61 Hillside Avenue, Suite 306
          Jamaica, NY 11431
          Phone: 718-725-2820
          Fax: 718-725-2821
          E-mail: courtpoint@courtpoint.com


DEL MONTE: Settles Antitrust Suits by Banana Buyers for $2.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., and its subsidiary, Del Monte Fresh Produce
Co., entered into settlement agreements to dismiss the two putative class
actions brought on behalf of all direct and indirect U.S. purchasers of
bananas from Fresh Del Monte and other banana producers.

Under the settlement agreement with the direct purchasers of bananas, Fresh
Del Monte has agreed to pay a total of no more than $2.5 million to the class
and the attorneys for the class.

Between July 25, 2005 and Aug. 22, 2005, several plaintiffs served putative
class action complaints against the company, certain subsidiaries and several
other corporations all in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on behalf of all direct purchasers of bananas for the period from
May 2003 to the present.  

The complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing agreement,
understanding and conspiracy to restrain trade by artificially raising,
fixing and maintaining the prices of, and otherwise restricting the sale of,
bananas in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

A similar action was brought by a New York corporation for the period from
July 2001 to the present.

Additionally, between Oct. 21, 2005 and Nov. 10, 2005, Arizona, California,
Minnesota, New York, Tennessee and Kansas residents filed a putative class
action complaint against the company, one of its subsidiaries and several
other corporations in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all indirect purchasers of bananas in their respective
states for the period from May 2003 to the present.

That complaint alleges violations of numerous state antitrust, competition,
and unjust enrichment statutes.  A similar action was brought by a California
resident for the period from July 2001 to the present.

The cases on behalf of the direct purchasers have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The cases on behalf of the indirect purchasers have been assigned to the same
judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The recent settlement with the indirect banana purchasers is for donations of
fruit or other food products to a charity over the next twelve months and a
payment of money towards attorneys' fees and the cost of notice to the class.
The total retail value of the donations to be made is $833,334; the payment
toward attorneys' fees and notice costs will not exceed $108,334.

"Fresh Del Monte has always maintained that these lawsuits are without merit
and that the Company has done absolutely no wrong with respect to its sales
of bananas," said Mohammad Abu-Ghazaleh, Fresh Del Monte's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer. "However, Fresh Del Monte believes the settlement of these
lawsuits, once finally approved by the Court, is in the best interest of the
Company because it will dispose of these class action litigations and
eliminate the continued burden, disruption, and expense of responding to and
defending against the claims."

Fresh Del Monte noted that it is not aware of any other civil litigation or
government investigation relating to its banana sales in the U.S. The Company
believes that this settlement ends all legal actions relating to its banana
business in North America.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.freshdelmonte.com/.


EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in class actions against Excelsior Private Equity Fund
II, Inc., (Managing Investment Adviser) that were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.

The Managing Investment Adviser certain of its affiliates and others were
named in five class actions, which allege that the defendants allowed certain
parties to engage in illegal and improper mutual fund trading practices,
which allegedly caused financial injury to the shareholders of certain mutual
funds managed by Excelsior.

Each suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and related equitable relief.

The class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  
The cases now fall under the title, "In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation, MDL-1586."

In November 2005, the Maryland court dismissed many of the plaintiffs' claims
in both the fund shareholder class action.   Several affiliates of the former
Managing Investment Adviser and individual defendants have also been
dismissed.

Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 36(b) and 48(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.

The company provided no development in the matter in its June 14, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2007.


GENESCO INC: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Rejected Foot Locker Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. faces a purported class action in Tennessee Chancery Court over
a proposal by Foot Locker, Inc. to acquire the company, according to the
company’s June 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

Maxine Phillips filed the suit on April 24, 2007.  Generally, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants (directors of the
Company) refused to consider properly the proposal.

The complaint seeks class certification, a declaration that defendants have
breached their fiduciary and other duties, an order requiring defendants to
implement a process to obtain the highest possible price for shareholders’
shares, and an award of costs and attorney’s fees.

Genesco Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com-- is a retailer of branded footwear,  
licensed and branded headwear, and a wholesaler of branded footwear.  


GOOGLE INC: EPFL Backs French Sports Groups’ Infringement Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Association of European Professional Football Leagues strongly supports
The Football Association Premier League Limited and Bourne Co. on their
copyright class action against YouTube and Google Inc.

In May, the Football Association Premier League Limited, the premier league
of English soccer, and independent music publisher Bourne Co. filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
stop the alleged unauthorized and uncompensated use of their creative and
other copyrighted works and those of all other similarly situated copyright
holders on the YouTube.com website (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2007).

The lawsuit names as defendants:

     -- YouTube, Inc.;
  
     -- YouTube LLC; as well as

     -- YouTube's corporate parent, Google, Inc.

According to the complaint, "Defendants are pursuing a deliberate strategy of
engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and facilitating massive copyright
infringement on the YouTube website" in order to build traffic to the site.

The complaint alleges that the YouTube defendants have long been aware of
this pattern of massive infringement yet purposefully refrain from employing
readily available measures to curb it because the defendants understand that
the popularity of ouTube.com (and its value as a platform for other uses)
derive primarily from the ability of website visitors to access, view, and
otherwise exploit copyrighted materials without having to pay the owners of
those materials.

The complaint further alleges that it was this very business model that
persuaded defendant Google to pay $1.65 billion to purchase YouTube in
November 2006, and that Google has endorsed and directed YouTube's infringing
conduct since becoming its corporate parent.

The EPFL, representing the interests of 19 Member and Associate Member
Leagues across Europe and more than 500 affiliated clubs, in countries such
as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Republic of Ireland, England, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Slovenia, Spain,
Switzerland, Sweden and Scotland, has joined other recent supporters,
including Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co., one of the world's leading
independent music publishers -- responsible for catalogues of world famous
artists such as Elvis Presley, Quincy Jones, The Black Eyed Peas, John
Legend, and more than 65,000 other copyrights -- the national French Tennis
Federation (Federation Francaise de Tennis), and the French Professional
Football League (Ligue de Football Professionnel).

The EPFL is encouraging all its members to actively join the suit, demanding
YouTube/Google to immediately cease their massive and rampant infringement of
the copyrighted works of the European football leagues. The EPFL is concerned
that YouTube has launched localized sites across the world including in
France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the U.K., and is
inviting its members, who arrange collectively football games viewed annually
by billions of people in approximately 204 countries around the world, to
take action with the intention of protecting its legitimate rights.

The YouTube Class Action on the net: http://www.youtubeclassaction.com/

The suit is "The Football Association Premier League Limited, et al. v.
YouTube, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Louis M. Solomon, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Phone: (212) 969-3000

          - and -

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400


HOGLA-KIMBERLY LTD: Suit Over Content of "Kleenex" Abandoned
------------------------------------------------------------
Hogla-Kimberly Ltd. reported that a court has approved plaintiff's
abandonment of the petition for the approval of a class action against the
company regarding the reduction of the quantity of paper in the toilet
packages of its "Kleenex(R) Premium" brand.

In December 2006, American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd. announced that a petition
for approval of a class action was filed against Hogla-Kimberly Ltd., an
affiliated company (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006).

According to the petition three and a half years ago, Hogla-Kimberly reduced
the quantity of paper in the toilet packages of its "Kleenex(R) Premium"
brand and thus misled the public according to the Israeli Consumer Protection
Act.

The plaintiff estimates the scope of the class action to be approximately
$10.2 million.

For more information, contact:

          Philip Y. Sardoff
          American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd.
          Phone: +1-908-686-7500


INDONESIA: Islamic Advocates Want Anti-Terrorism Squad Dissolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for a group of Indonesian Islamic militants filed a class action suit
Wednesday accusing it of human rights violations, according to M&C News.

Team for the Defense of Muslims attorneys and militant cleric Abu Bakar
Ba'asyir filed the suit in the South Jakarta District Court.

One of the attorneys who filed the suit said many of the arrested terrorist
suspects claimed to have been tortured in order for them to confess and
gather information.

The complaint wants the Indonesian government to dissolve a special anti-
terror team that has taken into custody hundreds of terrorist suspects.

The lawsuit alleges that the U.S.-funded counter-terrorism squad Detachment
88, made arbitrary arrests and demands the court ‘declare the actions of the
antiterrorism squad ... against the law and as gross human rights violations.'

Several members of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a known terrorist group linked to
al-Qaeda, have been arrested since the 2002 bombing in Bali that killed many
foreign visitors.  Their group was also linked to a series of bombings in the
last few years.


KENTUCKY: Kenton County Gets Sued over Insurance Tax Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class-action status against Kenton County, Kentucky was
filed in Kenton Circuit Court on Friday, Tom Mckee of wcpo.com reports.

The suit questions the legality of the 8% insurance tax to be collected
starting July 1, 2007.  The additional tax, passed by Kenton County's Fiscal
Court, is only applicable in the county’s unincorporated areas.  

Eric Deters, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, claims that in the last
two weeks insurance bills that already include the tax have begun showing up
in incorporated areas like Independence, Covington and Taylor Mill.

He is seeking compensatory as well as punitive damages.  He also wants an
injunction forbidding the county to send out insurance bills with the tax.

According to Deputy Judge Executive Scott Kimmich the tax is legitimate
because the ordinance was correctly approved and was even sent on to the
Kentucky Department of Insurance.

Plaintiffs’ counsel contact information:

          Eric Deters, Esq.
          5247 Madison Pike
          Independence, Kentucky 41051-7941
          Phone: 859-363-1900
          Fax: 859-363-1444
          Web Site: http://www.EricDeters.com


KFC: Faces Federal Suit in Okla. Over Employees’ Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen current and former employees are suing KFC over uncompensated
overtime hours, Trisha Evans of NewsOK.com reports.

The suit, filed as a collective complaint, was brought to the federal court
in Oklahoma City on June 5.

It was initially part of a consolidated suit in Minnesota in August 2005,
involving nearly 1,000 assistant managers.  When the Minn. Court denied class
action, each case has been filed in 27 states.

The plaintiffs are composed of all present and previous assistant managers,
who do not actually manage any employee, at different KFC establishments
across the state.

According to plaintiffs’ attorney Michele Fisher, "It's our position that
they were misclassified as exempt, and they should have been hourly.”

She added that the nature of the plaintiffs’ duties is exactly the same to
that of KFC’s hourly employees, but often work 50-70 hours per week.  

The complaint alleges the fast food company violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, stipulating that employers must pay at least time and a half for
employee overtime pay.

It seeks to recover damages up to three years back when they first filed the
lawsuit.

KFC Spokesman Rick Maynard said "KFC's policy is to pay all of its workers
fairly and to comply with all state and federal wage and hour laws.”  He
added the company is confident it will prevail in the lawsuit.

For more information, contact the plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Michele Fisher, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          Telephone: 612-338-1919
          Fax: 612-338-4878


KRAFT FOODS: Jell-0 Pudding Ad Fraudulent, Calif. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods is being sued in a Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly
falsely advertising its Jell-0 pudding as “‘a good source of calcium,’ when
in fact Jell-O brand pudding contains no calcium” at all, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Larry Canterbury claims Kraft knowingly violates consumer and
advertising laws by misrepresenting its product, and “has even gone so far as
to trademark the deceptive term ‘Calci-YUM!’” The only calcium in it, he
says, comes from the milk added to it by the consumer.

He demands punitive damages.

Plaintiffs are represented by San Diego, California attorney John Davis.


LML PAYMENT: Subsidiary Faces DPPA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of LML Payment Systems, Inc. faces a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging
violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), according to the
company’s June 13, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

DPPA regulates the use of personal information such as driver’s license
numbers and home addresses contained in motor vehicle records held by motor
vehicle departments, by not having a permissible use in obtaining the State
of Texas’ entire database of names, addresses and other personal
information.    

LML Payment Systems Inc. -- http://www.lmlpayment.com-- is a financial  
payment processor that primarily provides consumer financial payment
processing solutions to retailers and other clients in the U.S.


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Majesco Entertainment Co. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, according to the company’s June 14, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007.

In July 2005, four purported class action complaints were filed against the
company and several of its current and former directors and officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

On Sept. 12, 2005, a fifth purported class action complaint was filed in the
same court on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased shares of the
company's common stock on Jan. 26, 2005 offering of six million shares of
common stock.  

The complaint named as defendants the company, current and former officers of
the company, and certain financial institutions who served as underwriters
with respect to the offering.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the court consolidated the five cases and appointed a lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff is Diker M&S Cap Master Ltd.  On Dec. 14,
2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint, which is
now the operative complaint.  

The complaint names as defendants:  

     -- the company,  
     -- Carl Yankowski,  
     -- Jan E. Chason,  
     -- Jesse Sutton,  
     -- Joseph Sutton,  
     -- Morris Sutton,  
     -- Laurence Aronson,  
     -- F. Peter Cuneo,  
     -- James Halpin,  
     -- Louis Lipschitz,  
     -- Marc Weisman,  
     -- RBC Capital Markets Corp.,  
     -- JMP Securities LLC,  
     -- Harris Nesbitt & Corp.,  
     -- Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., and  
     -- Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and  
Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange  
Commission in connection with the company's offering and certain of the
company's press releases and other public filings contained material
misstatements and omissions about the company's financial condition and
prospects as well as its products.  

The lead plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities
Act against all the defendants on behalf of investors who purchased in the
offering.  

It asserts a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the company and the financial
institutions who served as underwriters in connection with the offering, and
a Section 15 control person claim against defendants Carl Yankowski, Jan
Chason, Jesse Sutton, Joseph
Sutton, and Morris Sutton.  

The lead plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under against the company and
the defendants and a claim under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act
against the defendants.  

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The proposed class
period for the Exchange Act claims is Dec. 8,  
2004 through Sept. 12, 2005.  

In February 2006, defendants filed various motions to dismiss this action.  
Plaintiff filed a response to defendants' motions and on Sept. 29, 2006, the
court denied the motions to dismiss.  

Defendants filed their answer to plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint
on Nov. 29, 2006 and plaintiff's class certification was filed on Nov. 30,
2006.  

The suit is "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Majesco Entertainment Co., et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.   

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq.
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Ave., P.O. BOX 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: (973) 775-8997
         E-mail: procco@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph Domenick Giacoia, Esq.
         Capuder Fazio Giacoia, 90 Broad Street
         New York, NY 10004
         Phone: 212-509-9595
         E-mail: jgiacoia@cfgny.com


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Md. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Martek Biosciences Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.

Since May 4, 2005, several other putative class actions making similar
allegations were filed against the company and certain of its officers.

The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing lead
plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in "In re Martek
Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."

While the court has not made a determination of whether a putative class can
be certified, the consolidated complaint claims to be filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the company's common stock during a purported class period
beginning Dec. 9, 2004 and ending April 28, 2005.

At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages they are
seeking in the actions.  The consolidated complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b- 5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section
11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements and failed
to disclose material facts regarding its business and prospects in public
statements the company made or failed to make during the period and, in the
case of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005
prospectus.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Feb. 3,
2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion was held on May 22, 2006.

On June 14, 2006, the court denied our motion to dismiss and on July 25,
2006, the court entered a scheduling order for further proceedings in the
case.  

Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the claims arising
under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving only the alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the
action.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933 Act claims.  
Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approved the parties' stipulation
certifying a class to prosecute claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generally consists of all
persons who either purchased Martek common stock during the class period of
Dec. 9, 2004 through April 28, 2005, inclusive or otherwise acquired, without
purchasing, Martek common stock during the class period from a person or
entity who purchased those particular shares of Martek stock during the class
period.

Discovery is proceeding and is not expected to be complete until 2008,
according to the company’s June 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2007.

The suit is "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corp. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01224-
MJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under
Judge Marvin J. Garbis.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
         Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 16108220262
         Fax: 16106677056
         E-mail: cnelson@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Charles J. Piven, PA
         The World Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 14103320030
         Fax: 14106851300
         E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Steven F. Barley, Esq.
         Hogan and Hartson, LLP
         111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 14106592700
         Fax: 14105396981
         E-mail: sfbarley@hhlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Judge Dismisses Suit Over City’s $300 Annual Trash Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Wayne County Circuit Court judge in Michigan has dismissed a class action
over the city of Detroit’s $300 annual trash fee, Detroit Free Press’s Ben
Schmitt reports.

According to Judge Robert Ziolkowski, the trash fee is just fair and not
excessive.

Lead plaintiff Valerie Weems and the Awake and Alert group intend to appeal
the judge’s decision.

The plaintiffs claim the trash fee levied last year is illegal.  Instead of
paying the 3 mills in property taxes, residents would now have to pay for the
trash fee for garbage collection.

For Ms. Weems, the fee is only disguised as a tax and is undeniably unfair.


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Employees Laid off in Shutdowns File Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Caccamo and Robie-Lyn Harnois filed a complaint before the Court on
behalf of themselves and of a class composed of employees of Mortgage Lenders
Network USA, Inc. (Debtor), who asserts that they were terminated without
cause as a result of plant shutdowns and mass layoffs, which took place
concurrently with the shutdown of several of the Debtor's facilities
nationwide.

Christopher A. Ward, Esq., at Klehr, Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers LLP,
in Wilmington, Delaware, tells the Court that the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated former employees constitute a class within the meaning of
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7023
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.  He says that the Class is so
numerous -- at least 1,200 employees who suffered from the
Termination -- so that for all the members to render a joinder is
impracticable.

Mr. Ward contends that the questions of law and fact common to the members of
the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and thus, this class action adversary proceeding is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the Class'
interests; and have no interest in conflict with those of other Class
members, Mr. Ward assures the Court.  He says that the Plaintiffs have the
time and resources to prosecute the Class Action and have retained qualified
counsel who have had extensive experience in matters involving employee
rights, the WARN Act, bankruptcy, and federal court litigation.  He adds that
the Plaintiffs intend to prosecute the action vigorously for the benefit of
the Class.

According to Mr. Ward, class treatment is proper in the present case so as to
avoid inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class
members.  Separate actions by individual members would create a risk that
adjudication of disputed issues of law or fact as to some of the former
employees would be binding on other Class members not party to the
adjudication, or would otherwise substantially impair or impede their ability
to protect their interests.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated former employees
ask the Court to certify that they constitute a single class.

The Class meets all the requirements for class certification under Section 23
(a) and Rule 7023, Mr. Ward assures Judge Walsh.

On behalf of the Class, the Plaintiffs allege that the Debtor violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, in Section 2101 of the
U.S. Labor Code by failing to give them at least 60 days prior termination
notice.  The Debtor also failed to make pension and 401(k) contributions, and
failed to provide health insurance coverage and other employee benefits under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for 60 calendar days from and
after the Terminations.   

Pursuant to Sections 507(a)(4) and (5) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Plaintiffs
and the Class members are entitled to a priority unsecured claim against the
Debtor as to the first $10,000 of their WARN Act claims, or any higher
priority amount as may be allowed, Mr. Ward asserts.  The balance of the WARN
Act Claims are entitled to treatment as a general unsecured claim.

Mr. Ward relates that certain members of the Class are employees of the
Debtor, whose employment was terminated after the Petition Date without being
given 60 days advance notice, which is in violation of the WARN Act.  He
asserts that pursuant to Section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code, the employees
provided the Debtor with labor and services postpetition, thus, each of them
is entitled to an administrative expense claim including 60 days of pay and
benefits as provided by the WARN Act.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class ask the Court:

  (a) to allow and direct payment of an administrative expense
      claim to each affected person, in an amount including the
      value of fair and paid wages and benefits, and other
      employee benefits, which the Debtor failed to provide 60
      days following the Termination;

  (b) for a money judgment equal to the sum of:

      -- their lost wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses,
         accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension
         contributions and 401(K) contributions for 60 working
         days;

      -- the health and medical insurance and other fringe
         benefits under the ERISA that they would have received
         for a period of 60 working days after the Termination;
         and

      -- the medical expenses incurred during the period that
         would have been covered and paid under the Debtor's
         employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for
         that period;

  (c) to allow the employees terminated (i) prepetition, a
      priority unsecured claim as to the first $10,000 or any
      higher priority amount, with respect to their WARN Act
      claims and a general unsecured claim with respect to its
      balance; and (ii) postpetition, the full amount of their
      WARN Act claim as an allowed administrative expense under
      Section 503(b)(1)(A);

  (d) to allow interest on the amounts owed by the Debtor; and

  (e) to allow the Plaintiffs and Class members attorneys' fees
      and costs incurred in prosecuting the Class Action as
      administrative priority claims pursuant to Section 507(b)
      of the Bankruptcy Code.

(Mortgage Lenders Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 13/
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


NAVARRE CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, according to the company’s June
14, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

Two groups filed lead plaintiff motions for the consolidated class action
litigation against Navarre Corp., which were initially commenced in June
2005.  

The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities benefited company
insiders including the individual defendants. It further alleged that the
company failed to properly recognize executive deferred compensation and
improperly recognized a deferred tax benefit as income.  

Plaintiffs sought compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly sustained as
a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs, counsel fees and experts
fees.   

The actions are identified as:  

      -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"  

      -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211   
         (MJD/JGL);" and  

      -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-  
         1260 (DWF/JSM)."

Defendants entered into a stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs in each of
these cases to postpone the time for bringing a motion to dismiss until after
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed by the court, and an amended
consolidated complaint is filed.

By memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 12, 2005, the court appointed, as
Lead Plaintiff:

     * "The Pension Group," comprised of the Operating Engineers
       Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund; and

     * Ms. Grace W. Lai.

The court also appointed, as lead counsel:

     * the Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm
       as liaison counsel, and

     * the Lerach, Coughlin law firm.  

In addition, the court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the
caption, "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation," and further ordered
that a consolidated amended complaint be filed.

On Feb. 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint with the
court.  This consolidated amended complaint reiterates the allegations made
in the individual complaints and extends these allegations to the company's
restatements of its previously issued financial statements that were made in
November 2005.  A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on May
10, 2006.

And by an order dated June 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota dismissed the amended class action brought against Navarre Corp.
which alleges securities fraud by the company and certain of its officers and
directors (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2006).

The dismissal by the court was without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs
were granted 30 days if so desired to amend their complaint to cure its
deficiencies.  If not, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

On July 28, 2006, plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended
complaint against defendants.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
renewed complaint on Sept. 22, 2006, asserting, among other things, that
plaintiffs had not sufficiently cured the defects present in the original
consolidated amended complaint.

By a Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2006, the court granted defendants'
motion in part, denied it in part, and specifically removed Cary L. Deacon,
Brian M.T. Burke and Charles Cheney as individual defendants.

Defendants answered the complaint on Jan. 26, 2007 and anticipate that
typical disclosure requirements and discovery will proceed.

The consolidated suit is "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson with referral to Judge Raymond L.
Erickson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W Broadway Ste 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858
         E-mail: lauraa@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. Esq.
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250,
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         David A. Davenport, Esq.
         Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
         225 S. 6th St., Ste. 3500,
         Mpls, MN 55402-4629
         Phone: 612-604-6716
         Fax: 612-604-6816
         E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com


PM BEEF: Minn. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Denied Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
PM Beef Holdings, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed June 26 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs -- Alberto Contreras, Flor Gonzales, Ricarte Montez and
Gilbert Montiel – allege they were denied overtime compensation, a violation
of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Contreras et al. v. PM Beef Holdings, LLC, Case No. 0:07-cv-
03087-PAM-JSM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, under Judge Paul A. Magnuson, with referral to Judge Janie S.
Mayeron.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert D Metcalf
          Metcalf Kaspari Howard Engdahl & Lazarus P.A.
          1660 S. Highway 100 #333W
          Mpls, MN 55416-1573
          Phone: 952-591-9444
          Fax: 952-591-5806
          E-mail: rdmetcalf@metcalf-law.com


PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Grant Thornton's Spoliation Claims Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of Dr. Enrico Bondi, Extraordinary Administrator of Parmalat
Finanziaria S.p.A., et al., U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
dismissed Grant Thornton, LLP's counterclaims for spoliation.

Dr. Bondi had asked for the dismissal of the counterclaims for GT-US's
alleged "spoliation" of evidence for failure to state a claim.

GT-US, joined by Grant Thornton International, opposed the request, asserting
that Dr. Bondi's arguments push Illinois law beyond its limits.  Linda T.
Coberly, Esq., at Winston & Strawn LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, counsel to GT-
US, states that GT-US's Claim is based on "special circumstance" -- the fact
that Parmalat possessed and controlled key evidence of its own wrongdoing,
and deliberately destroyed it.

Ms. Coberly pointed out that as a direct and proximate result of Parmalat's
failure to preserve evidence, Grant Thornton has been deprived of material
evidence that is important to its ability to defend against Dr. Bondi's
claims.

Dr. Bondi countered that GTI and GT-US's arguments alleging a "special
circumstance" are unsupported by any authority.  To assert the Claim, Dr.
Bondi says, the Grant Thornton defendants must show that there was a duty to
preserve operative evidence, which they have failed to do.

              Grant Thornton Opposes Bondi Motion
               to Dismiss Third Party Complaints

In a separate filing, Grant Thornton International balked at Dr. Bondi's
request to dismiss third-party complaints asserting a claim for contribution
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4,
et seq.

James L. Bernard, Esq., at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, in New York,
counsel to GTI, argued that Dr. Bondi's request is supported by neither law
nor fact.  Mr. Bernard explained that Dr. Bondi treats GTI's Complaint as if
it were directed to Reorganized Parmalat.  This attack is a red herring, he
said, since Dr. Bondi knows the Complaint was brought against him and pre-
bankruptcy Parmalat, and not against Reorganized Parmalat.

Unlike the other class plaintiffs, GTI went to the trouble of seeking and
obtaining leave of court to assert its claims against Dr. Bondi and Old
Parmalat, not Reorganized Parmalat, according to Mr. Bernard.

Mr. Bernard argued that as Extraordinary Administrator, Dr. Bondi has been
well aware, and would have more knowledge, of the facts on which the Claims
are based, contrary to Dr. Bondi's argument that GTI did not provide fair
notice of the facts.

Since Dr. Bondi did not challenge a previous request to dismiss a complaint
commenced by the class action plaintiffs, on which
GTI's Complaint is based, there is nothing insufficient about GTI's
allegations.  The fact that GTI's fraud allegations are incorporated in
another complaint is not a basis for dismissal,
Mr. Bernard argued.

GT-US supported GTI's arguments.

In response, Dr. Bondi asserted that the Grant Thornton defendants failed to
allege claims for contribution properly under the heightened pleading
standards for securities fraud.   Dr. Bondi explained his awareness of the
specifics of the Complaint does not mean they do not need to plead Old
Parmalat's involvement.

Dr. Bondi further pointed out that a party can never incorporate elements of
another pleading by reference.  The Grant Thornton defendants rely entirely
on the allegations of the amended complaint, and should therefore be
dismissed.

           BofA Wants Bondi to Disclose PwC Hiring Terms

The Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America NT & SA, Bank of America
N.A., Banc of America Securities LLC, Banc of America
Securities Limited, and Bank of America International Limited ask Judge
Kaplan to compel Dr. Enrico Bondi, Extraordinary
Administrator of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A., et al., to disclose all
writings containing the terms of agreement between him and any entity
affiliated with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has been the Bank's auditor since 1999, and was the
financial statement auditor at the time of many transactions at issue in the
Parmalat Securities Litigation.

Dr. Bondi designated Roberto Megna, Oliver Galea, and Franco
Lagro of PricewaterhouseCoopers S.p.A. as witnesses in the Parmalat
Securities Litigation, despite the fact that the Bank had not consented to
PwC's appearance due to an issue of potential conflict of interest.

Grant Thornton, LLC, and Grant Thornton International support the Bank's
arguments.

                      Dr. Bondi Objects

Loren Kieve, Esq., at Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, in New
York, on behalf of Dr. Bondi, states that BofA's request is only an attempt
to dissuade Dr. Bondi's witnesses from testifying.

Ms. Kieve argues that the Bank is seeking privileged information, and that it
already has all the information to which it is entitled, including all the
engagement letters between Dr. Bondi and PwC Italy.  She further adds that
PwC US has done work for neither Dr. Bondi nor Parmalat.

(Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 89 http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000)


PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule
on a motion for class certification in a shareholder lawsuit against Prestige
Brands Holdings, Inc.

The first of the six cases that were later consolidated was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and directors on Aug. 3, 2005.  

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders of the company that
purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005 and Nov. 15, 2005.

Plaintiffs also name as defendants the underwriters in the company's initial
public offering (IPO) and a private equity fund that was a selling
stockholder in the offering.  The district court has appointed a lead
plaintiff.

On Dec. 23, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements in connection with its initial
public offering and thereafter in regard to:

      -- the accounting issues described in the company's press
         release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

      -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
         of the company's products was declining and that the
         company was planning to withdraw several products from
         the market.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
in February 2006.  In a pretrial ruling in July 10, 2006, the court dismissed
claims that management acted fraudulently.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
in February 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the Court dismissed all claims against
the Company and the individual defendants arising under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The parties have commenced the discovery process, which is ongoing.  On June
1, 2007, a hearing before the Court was held regarding Plaintiffs’ pending
motion for class certification in the Consolidated Action on which no
decision has been rendered at this time, according to the company’s June 14,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Charles L. Brieant.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Samuel Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         50 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com
                 malba@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Todd R. David, Esq.
         Alston & Bird, L.L.P.
         One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
         Phone: (404) 881-7357
         Fax: (404) 527-8717


QUICKSILVER INC: Continues to Face Calif. FACTA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quicksilver Inc. remains a defendant in a purported federal class action
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA).

The suit, "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No. CV07-
01326," was filed on Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  

The company has yet to be served with the complaint.  The suit specifically
alleges willful violation of FACTA based upon certain of the company's retail
stores' alleged electronic printing of receipts on which appeared more than
the last five digits of customers' credit or debit card number and/or the
expiration of such customers' credit or debit card.

The complaint seeks statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than
$1,000 for each violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction from further engaging in
violations of FACTA.  It does not allege that any class member has suffered
actual damages.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its June 11, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2007.

The suit is "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No. CV07-
01326," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Jeffrey W.
Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Herbert Hafif Law Offices
         269 W. Bonita Ave.
         Claremont, CA 91711-4784
         Phone: 909-624-1671
         Web site: http://www.hafif.com


SCRIPPS HEALTH: Calif. Court Certifies Lawsuit by Uninsured
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that
San Diego County Superior Court Judge Steven Denton entered an order granting
class certification to claims by Phillip Franklin that Scripps Health charges
its uninsured patients unreasonable and unconscionable prices.

This Order means that the case will continue on behalf of potentially one
hundred thousand uninsured patients, most living in the San Diego and
Southern California region, who challenge alleged price gouging by Scripps
hospitals since 2002.

Phillip Franklin, Cross-Complainant, and Court-appointed Class Representative
said, "After Scripps overcharged me, I attempted to work it out with Scripps
informally. I only got the run-around. Then Scripps sued me in collections
for the full price of the bill. Knowing what I went through, I realized that
Scripps must be doing the same thing to other uninsured patients, and I
wanted to do something about it.

“I am delighted that the Court is allowing me to pursue these claims on
behalf of other uninsured patients at Scripps. I am not trying to get a free
ride for uninsureds here. I'm just trying to seek fairness in pricing across
the board so that I and other uninsured patients don't get charged so much
more than Scripps charges its other patients with insurance for the very same
treatment."

"We are pleased that the Court recognized that Scripps has engaged in
systemic pricing practices toward the uninsured which are suitable for
systemic review. California law prohibits companies, like Scripps, from price
gouging, and we intend to prove at trial that Scripps' pricing practices
toward these financially vulnerable uninsureds were unreasonable,
unconscionable, and violated California law," said Kelly M. Dermody, a
partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, lead attorneys for Mr.
Franklin.

                            Background

This class action originated on July 19, 2006, when uninsured patient,
Phillip Franklin filed a class action cross-complaint against Scripps Health,
a self-proclaimed not-for-profit hospital system based in San Diego, after
Scripps sued Mr. Franklin through a collection agency. Mr. Franklin was
uninsured at the time of treatment.

Mr. Franklin alleged that he, like all other uninsured patients at Scripps,
was charged unreasonable, unconscionable and excessive rates for his
treatment. Mr. Franklin asked the Court to grant the case class action
status, allowing him to represent a class of uninsured patients at Scripps'
hospitals who were also overcharged for treatment.

Mr. Franklin put forward evidence that Scripps has routinely overcharged
uninsured patients back to 2002. For example, Mr. Franklin's expert,
healthcare economist Robb Cohen, testified that in 2004 Scripps charged its
uninsured patients, on average, more than four times what Medicare paid for
the same treatment at Scripps. Scripps also charged, on average, more than
what approximately 90% of other hospitals nationwide charged for treatments.

In 2004, Scripps charged prices to uninsureds that were, on average, also
330% higher than Scripps' own costs for providing the treatment. Throughout
the period 2002 - 2005, Scripps similarly applied high and unreasonable mark-
ups over its costs to uninsured patients. By contrast, Scripps charged its
other patients with private or government insurance only a fraction of its
charges to uninsureds, offering average automatic discounts to those other
patients of between 55% to 80% off billed charges.

This means that Scripps charged uninsured patients, on average, between 2-5
times more than it charged other patients for the very same treatment.
Uninsured patients account for less than 10% of all of the patients seen at
Scripps' hospitals.
In the class certification order, the Court ordered that Mr. Franklin could
represent the following class:

All individuals (or their guardians or representatives) residing in the
United States who, from July 19, 2002 through the date of judgment: (a)
received any form of medical treatment as a result of initially presenting at
the Emergency Department of a Scripps hospital or affiliate; (b) were
uninsured at the time of treatment; and (c) were charged the amount set forth
on the applicable Charge Description Master, and did not receive any discount
or waiver of the charges.

The Court also appointed Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP to serve as
Class Counsel.

Scripps Health operates the following hospitals in the San Diego area:
Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas, Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista,
Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, Scripps Mercy Hospital, and Scripps Green
Hospital. Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista became a campus of Scripps Mercy
Hospital in October 2004.

For more information, contact: Kelly M. Dermody at (415) 956-1000.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on the Net:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com.


SHUFFLE MASTER: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shuffle Master, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, according to the company’s June 11, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2007.

On June 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws against the company and its CEO and CFO was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of persons who
purchased the company’s stock between December 22, 2006, and March 12, 2007.

The case is entitled “Joseph Stocke v. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff
and Richard L. Baldwin.”  The company as well as, Dr. Yoseloff and Mr.
Baldwin, were served with the complaint on June 6, 2007.

The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

These claims relate to the company’s March 12, 2007, announcement that it
would restate our Fiscal Fourth Quarter and full year financial results.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unstated amount.

Shuffle Master, Inc. -- http://www.shufflemaster.com/-- is a gaming supply  
company.  The Company specializes in the provision of utility products,
including automatic card shufflers, Table iD components, and roulette chip
sorters.  It also provides entertainment products, including live table
games, electronic multi-player table game platforms, traditional video slot
machines for select markets, live table game tournaments and wireless gaming
solutions.


SONY COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Overtime Pay Lawsuit for $8.5M
------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. has reached a conditional settlement
of a class action in which it was alleged that the company had improperly
failed to pay overtime wages to employees responsible for creating, producing
and copying images in video games.

Under the terms of the settlement, payments will be made to a class of
current and former employees from a $8.5 million settlement fund. In
addition, SCEA will reclassify class members with a job title of Associate
Artist and Artist 1 as nonexempt employees under the wage and hour laws of
California and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The settlement is contingent upon court approval, and the settlement may be
rescinded if a sufficient number of class members opt out of the settlement.
Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. denies the allegations in the
lawsuit and admits no liability or wrongdoing in settlement.

The suit is “Andrew Wilson v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Case
No. CIV 444815,” filed in San Mateo Superior Court.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas V. Urmy, Jr.
          Todd S. Heyman
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone:  (617) 439-3939 or (800) 287-8119 (Toll Free)
          Fax:  (617) 439-0134

          Robert C. Schubert
          Justice Reed
          Miranda Kolbe
          Schubert & Reed LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA  94111
          Phone:  (415) 788-4220
          Fax:   (415) 788-0161
          Website: http://www.schubert-reed.com

          Peter Rukin
          Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP
          100 Pine St., Ste. 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone:  (415) 421-1800
          Fax:  (415) 421-1700
          Website: http://www.rhddlaw.com
          Blogs: http://www.thepersonnelfiles.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss St. Clair Shores Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Special Litigation Committee in the suit against Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc., "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v.
Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688- MBM," which is pending against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
expects discovery and briefing on its motion to dismiss the complaint to be
completed by Sept. 17, 2007.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System
filed a suit against the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the
its officers and directors and certain former officers and directors.  

The factual allegations in this action are similar to the allegations
contained in the federal securities class actions pending in New York.

Plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duty by
selling company stock while in possession of certain material non-public
information and breached their fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and
Rule 14a-9 of the U.S. Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in
the company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the company
solicited approval to increase share availability under its 2002 Stock Option
Plan.

Plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged insider trading
conducted by the individual defendants who sold company stock, unspecified
compensatory damages with interest and their costs in the action.

A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an investigation by
the Special Committee was filed with the court. On Oct. 4, 2006, the court
issued an order granting the motion and staying the proceedings for a period
of 150 days from the date of the order.

On Jan. 17, 2007, plaintiffs moved for an order granting limited relief from
the court's Oct. 4, 2006 stay of the proceedings in order to file an amended
derivative and class action complaint.

On Feb. 22, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee advised the
Court that the Special Litigation Committee had completed its investigation
and rendered a report.

On March 23, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee moved to
dismiss the complaint based on, among other things, its conclusion
that “future pursuit of this action is not in the best interests of Take-Two
or its shareholders.”

The plaintiff subsequently served a document demand seeking numerous
documents concerning the Special Litigation Committee and its work.

The Special Litigation Committee has responded to the document demand, and
anticipates that discovery and briefing on its motion to dismiss the
complaint will be completed by Sept. 17, 2007, according to the company’s
June 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007.


The suit is "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-MBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Michael B. Mukasey.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         James Joseph Sabella, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
         45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10111
         Phone: 646-722-8520     
         Fax: 212-755-6503
         E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

        Leonard D. Steinman, Esq.
        Blank Rome, LLP
        The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue
        New York, NY 10174
        Phone: 212-885-5524
        Fax: 917 332-3746
        E-mail: lsteinman@blankrome.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Still Faces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In February and March 2006, an aggregate of four purported class action
complaints were filed against the company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Global
Operating Officer, and four of its former directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  A fourth complaint brought in
Michigan was voluntarily dismissed.  

The complaints allege that we violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making or causing us to make
untrue statements or failing to disclose in certain press releases and SEC
periodic reports that, among other things, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
contained ”hidden” content which should have resulted in the game receiving
an ”AO” rating from the ESRB rather than an ”M” rating.  The plaintiffs seek
to recover unspecified damages and their costs.

In July 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. In September 2006, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which included claims
regarding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as well as claims relating to the
backdating of stock options.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the
Board, and two officers of its Rockstar Games subsidiary.

On April 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
included additional allegations based on an investigation conducted by the
Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors, currently comprised
of Strauss Zelnick, John Levy and Grover Brown of options backdating and the
Company’s restatement of financial statements relating to options
backdating.  

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, our former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the
Board, three of its directors, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and two
officers of Rockstar Games. The Company’s response was due on June 18, 2007,
according to the company’s June 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2007.

The suit is “IN RE Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00803-SWK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Molly S. Boast, Esq.
         Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
         919 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212 909-6000
         Fax: 212 909-6836
         E-mail: msboast@debevoise.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Certification Bid in GTA Suit Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. continues to face the consumer fraud
class action, "In Re: Grand Theft Auto (GTA) Video Game Consumer Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," according to the company’s June 11, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007.

In July 2005, three purported class action complaints were filed against the
company and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games.  Two of the complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  A third
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  

On Sept. 8, 2005, another similar complaint was filed in the Circuit Court
for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois.  

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the company's Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas game, allege that the company and Rockstar Games engaged in consumer
deception, false advertising and common law fraud and were unjustly enriched
as a result of the alleged failure of the company and Rockstar Games to
disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden" content, which
resulted in the game receiving an "M" rating from the Entertainment Software
Rating Board rather than an "AO" rating.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various violations
of law and litigation costs.

The New York and Pennsylvania actions, together with an action commenced
against the company and Rockstar Games in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York in August 2006, have been consolidated in the Southern
District of New York under the caption, "In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game
Consumer Litigation, (05-CV-6734 (BSJ))" and the Illinois action has been
transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordinated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to an Order of Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

These cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings under the
caption, "In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-
MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)."

On June 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint.  On
July 31, 2006, the company and Rockstar Games filed a partial motion to
dismiss those claims brought under the laws of states other than states where
the named plaintiffs reside and were purportedly injured.

By an opinion and order dated Oct. 25, 2006, the partial motion to dismiss
was denied.  On Nov. 10, 2006, the company and Rockstar Games filed a motion
to deny certification of the proposed nationwide class.

On Nov. 17, 2006, the company and Rockstar Games served an answer denying the
allegations in the consolidated and amended complaint and asserting various
affirmative defenses.

On Jan. 24, 2007, plaintiffs cross-moved for certification of the proposed
nationwide class.  Motion practice on the Plaintiffs’ certification motion is
proceeding, as are parallel settlement discussions.

The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No.
1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0790
         Fax: (212) 883-7579
         E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
  
             - and -

         Andrew Palmer Bell, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735
         E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven L. Caponi, Esq.
         Blank Rome LLP
         1201 North Market Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302)-425-6408
         Fax: (302)-425-6464
         E-mail: caponi@blankrome.com

              - and -

         Dan Chammas, Esq.
         McDermott Will & Emery
         2049 Century Park E., 34th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
         Phone: (310) 277-4110


                         Asbestos Alert

               
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Plan Ruling Set for July 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd., on June 21, 2007, said that the confirmation hearing
to approve the Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy plan, which commenced on June
18, 2007, did not conclude, according to a Company press release dated June
21, 2007.

The judge overseeing the case has set aside July 9, 2007 and July 10, 2007
for the purpose of concluding the hearing.

In 1998, Cooper sold its Automotive Products business, including its Abex
Friction Products business, to Federal-Mogul. As part of the transaction,
Cooper was indemnified for liabilities related to the divested business,
under a Purchase and Sale Agreement.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter
11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that Federal-Mogul may not honor its
indemnity obligations to Cooper, including its obligations for claims related
to the Abex Friction Products business.

The Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy plan incorporates the settlement reached
by Cooper, Federal-Mogul and other parties to the bankruptcy proceeding to
resolve Cooper's liabilities for the Abex Friction Products business,
including the Abex asbestos-related claims.

Further information about this is set forth in Cooper's Annual Report on Form
l0-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Houston-based Cooper Industries Ltd. is a global manufacturer with 2006
revenues of US$5.2 billion, about 85 percent of which are from electrical
products. The Company employs about 31,000 people and operates eight
divisions: Cooper B-Line, Cooper Bussmann, Cooper Crouse-Hinds, Cooper
Lighting, Cooper Menvier, Cooper Power Systems, Cooper Wiring Devices and
Cooper Tools Group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wharf Worker Files Suit v. Aussie Authority
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexley James Opie, of South Australia, is suing the former Australian
Stevedoring Industry Authority, citing negligence that led him to contract
lung cancer from asbestos exposure, ABC News reports.

Mr. Opie says the Authority failed to provide him with a safe workplace.

Mr. Opie, 78 years old, worked on the wharves at Port Adelaide from 1953
until 1987.

In his District Court claim, Mr. Opie says he was exposed to asbestos fibers
during unloading from ships and also handled material around the docks.

Mr. Opie says it was exposure to asbestos which led to him being diagnosed
with lung cancer in 2006.

Mr. Opie is suing the Commonwealth's equivalent body Comcare, which is yet to
lodge its statement of defense, for damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GAO Says Locals Misled on WTC Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
A report by the Government Accountability Office states that federal
officials misled New York residents about contamination from the World Trade
Center collapse, United Press International reports.

The GAO report says the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to
disclose that 80 percent of air samples taken to test the safety of 4,000
lower Manhattan apartments were taken after the residences had been
professionally decontaminated, The New York Times reported on June 21, 2007.

The report said the EPA's claim that a "very small" number of air samples
revealed unsafe levels of asbestos led residents to underestimate the risk of
contamination in their homes.

The report said only 295 residents and apartment building owners opted to
take advantage of a cleanup program that ended registration in March 2007,
far less than the 20,000 apartments eligible for the program.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who led the Senate subcommittee hearing where
the report’s findings were revealed, said, “Residents are understandably
reluctant to participate in what they consider to be a waste of time.”

Sen. Clinton said the report offered "a very different picture from what the
White House would like us to believe."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Carpenter’s Death to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 84-year-old Fred Smith, a retired
carpenter from Stanton Drew, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos,
this is somerset reports.

Pathologist Roger James told the hearing that Mr. Smith was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in November 2006 and died at Paulton Hospital on Feb. 24, 2007.

The court was told that Mr. Smith had trained as a carpenter in the 1930s
before joining the Army. He returned form the Second World War to work as a
carpenter in Somerset.

As was the norm at the time, Mr. Smith did not wear protective clothing or
masks while working.

The inquest heard that Mr. Smith did not think that he was in contact with
asbestos.

The judge ruled the cause of death was the industrial disease mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov’t. Releases Bill to Assist Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.K. Government has published the Child Maintenance Bill, in June 2007,
to assist mesothelioma victims in line with recommendations made by law firm
Thompsons Solicitors, Workplace Law reports.

The Bill paves the way for changes put forward by Thompsons to relax the
eligibility criteria for entitlement to State Benefits for mesothelioma
victims.

In November 2006, Thompsons made the recommendations in its response to the
Department for Work and Pensions consultation on Improving Mesothelioma
Claims Handling.

Early in 2007, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, John Hutton MP,
announced that everyone with mesothelioma, including previously excluded
groups like the self employed and family members exposed to asbestos on
workers' overalls, would soon be able to claim an up-front lump sum payment.

Now the Government has confirmed it will make this change in Part Four of the
Child Maintenance Bill, which is set to become law in 2008.

Thompsons Solicitors' head of asbestos policy, Ian McFall said, “We see
hundreds of tragic cases each year for mesothelioma victims and their
families. We have highlighted to the Government a number of areas where we
believe improvements could be made to the system to provide fairer and faster
compensation to sufferers and their families.”

In May 2007, the Department for Constitutional Affairs launched a
consultation on the Law on Damages after Thompsons highlighted an injustice
in the way compensation for bereavement is paid to mesothelioma victims’
families in the U.K.

Thompsons' Justice for Asbestos Families campaign revealed that families in
England and Wales are receiving tens of thousands of pounds less in
compensation than their Scottish counterparts.

Mr. McFall added, “The Law on Damages consultation gives Thompsons an
opportunity to express our views about how bereavement payments should be
improved. We are calling for the law to be changed in England and Wales to
give family members the right to act against a sense of grievous injustice.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arkansas Hospital Cleanup to Cost $238,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an April 25, 2007 investigation by Environmental Enterprise
Group Inc., asbestos removal from Howard Memorial Hospital could cost Howard
County US$238,312, The Nashville News reports.

Howard Memorial Hospital is located in Nashville, Ark.

By law, asbestos would have to be removed from HMH before it is torn down by
the County in two years when a new HMH opens on the corner of Highway 371 and
Honeycutt Road.

Howard County Judge Max Tackett told Quorum Court members, on June 18, 2007,
that he was worried about releasing the estimate to the public because of a
worry of potential bidders to remove the asbestos starting at the US$238,312
price and going up.

It is still unknown whether the building that was built in 1949 with
additions in 1961, 1972 and 1987, will actually be destroyed or if the county
will entertain business offerings for the building described to
be “approximately 54,340 square feet” in EEG’s investigation report.

According to the report, EEG was unable to access “areas above hard ceilings
throughout the original 1949 building and the 1961 addition where they exist.”

Three of the four items listed as unreachable carried assume costs totaling
US$63,750. Costs for the fourth item, an exhaust stack off a boiler room in
the 1961 expansion of the hospital, was labeled as to be determined.

According to the report, an area of at least 49,190 square feet contained
asbestos needing removal.

In the 1987 wing, the emergency, radiology, physical therapy and dialysis
center contained no concentrations of asbestos greater than 1 percent, which
is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory limit.

The investigation was conducted by Bob Smith, vice president and senior
project manager, and James Waldo, environmental professional, for EEG out of
Little Rock, Ark.

Thirteen of 24 sampling groups were classified as friable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Teachers’ Group Calls for Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Trades Union Congress Risks Newsletter, the National Union
of Teachers has issued a circular calling for the removal of asbestos in all
schools.

The circular was issued after Derby City Council was prosecuted for exposing
staff and teachers to asbestos at a school in Mickleover, U.K.

The message is that asbestos should be completely removed rather than simply
contained and managed.

The NUT sees the U.K. Government's school building initiative ‘Building
Schools for the Future’ as “an opportunity to remove asbestos which must not
be wasted.”

The circular states, “Many local authorities will not be benefiting from the
BSF program for many years and it is important that progress is made in these
schools too.”

The circular adds, “The NUT would urge its health and safety advisers to
include making progress on asbestos removal a priority for their 2007 work.”

In April 2007, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women
Teachers issued the results of a survey showing that asbestos was not being
properly managed while the Health and Safety Executive has published
additional guidance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Liability Trial Set in Jan. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial for estimating the asbestos personal injury liability of W.R. Grace
& Co. and its subsidiaries (Grace) is now scheduled to begin in January 2008,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2007.

In connection with the bankruptcy court process for estimating Grace’s
asbestos personal injury liability, Grace, the official committee of asbestos
personal injury claimants and the representative of future asbestos claimants
have submitted expert reports that each party will rely upon to support its
respective estimate of such liability.

The estimate of such liability is expected to provide the basis for
determining the appropriate funding amount to resolve current and future
asbestos personal injury claims in a plan of reorganization.

Copies of the Grace and PI Committee estimation expert reports and portions
of the FCR report are available through the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.

The expert reports submitted by the parties are subject to supplementation,
rebuttal and discovery. They are based on data, methodologies and assumptions
that may or may not be accepted by the Bankruptcy Court.

Grace’s current recorded asbestos-related liability reflects its proposed
plan of reorganization. Because the plan remains pending and because the
estimation litigation is ongoing, Grace does not intend to adjust its
recorded asbestos-related liability unless developments in the bankruptcy
proceeding justify a change.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured from six product groups
into two major units. Grace's Davison Chemicals unit makes silica-based
products, chemical catalysts, and refining catalysts that help produce
refined products from crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes
concrete and cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ameron Int’l. Drop to 132 in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Inc., as of May 27, 2007, was a defendant in asbestos-
related cases involving 132 claimants, compared with 145 claimants as of Feb.
25, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2007.

As of Nov. 30, 2006, the Company faced asbestos-related cases involving 145
claimants, compared with 8,906 claimants as of Nov. 30, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 16, 2007)

The Company is one of numerous defendants in various asbestos-related
personal injury suits. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for
asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously
made by the Company and others.

For the quarter ended May 27, 2007, there were new claims involving 11
claimants, dismissals or settlements involving 24 claimants, and no judgments.

Net costs and expenses incurred by the Company for the quarter ended May 27,
2007 in connection with asbestos-related claims amounted to US$486,000.

Pasadena, Calif.-based Ameron International Inc. makes steel pipe, fiberglass-
composite pipe, and reinforced concrete pipe for various industrial uses,
including chemical and petrochemical processing, water transmission, and
sewage collection.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Casella Unit Talks w/ N.H. AG on Disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Country Environmental Services Inc., a Casella Waste Systems Inc.
subsidiary, continues to cooperate with the Office of the Attorney General of
the State of New Hampshire’s investigation over asbestos-related disposal
matters.

On July 12, 2005, NCES received notice from the Office of the Attorney
General that it has commenced an official investigation into allegations that
asbestos was concealed in loads of construction and demolition debris from a
hotel renovation, delivered to the NCES landfill by a third party, and
disposed there on several occasions between 1999 and 2002.

NCES is engaged in discussions with the Office of the Attorney General over
the terms of a possible civil settlement regarding this matter, according to
the Company’s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 22, 2007.

Rutland, Vt.-based Casella Waste Systems Inc. is a vertically-integrated
regional solid waste services company that provides collection, transfer,
disposal and recycling services to residential, industrial and commercial
customers, primarily in the eastern U.S. As of May 31, 2007, the Company
owned or operated 38 solid waste collection operations, 32 transfer stations,
38 recycling facilities, eight Subtitle D landfills, two landfills permitted
to accept construction and demolition materials, and one waste-to-energy
facility.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Receives $3.8M for Husband’s Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to McLean County Circuit Court documents, Daniel Malcolm, a
Bloomington High School teacher, received about US$3.8 million in settlements
from an asbestos lawsuit filed in 2006, Pantagraph reports.

Mr. Malcolm died of mesothelioma in March 2007.

Mr. Malcolm and his wife, Nancy, agreed to settle claims against several
defendants, including asbestos manufacturer Pneumo Abex Corp.

Mr. Malcolm taught in the Illinois school from 1968 to July 1994 and worked
at a foundry at Caterpillar’s East Peoria plant from June 1964 to August 1964.

The complaint filed in May 2006 stated that Mr. Malcolm was exposed to
asbestos at the school and foundry assignments. That same year, Mr. Malcolm
was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Court documents stated that the settlement agreements allocate a portion of
the funds to Mrs. Malcolm, who has been obligated for Mr. Malcolm’s medical
expenses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lords Urged to Bring Justice to Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unite the Union, the majority backer of the legal challenge to restore
compensation for the asbestos related condition pleural plaques, is urging
the House of Lords to deliver justice to thousands, according to a Unite
press release dated June 22, 2007.

The House of Lords is due to rule on compensation for the asbestos related
condition pleural plaques on June 25, 2007.

In 2005, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision by the High Court, where
it was decided claimants with pleural plaques should continue to receive
compensation.

The decision, unless overturned, means the end to an established right to
compensation, which existed for 20 years, for pleural plaques, which are in
almost every case caused by workers being exposed to asbestos due to
negligence of their employers.

Pleural plaques seldom cause immediate symptoms but are associated with an
increased risk of developing conditions like mesothelioma or asbestosis.

Diagnosis of pleural plaques often leads to extreme distress for the victims,
as they fear they may develop fatal asbestos related diseases which can often
lead to a slow and painful death.

In the past, claimants could receive compensation worth up to GBP15,000.

If the decision is upheld by the Law Lords, it will result in a substantial
windfall saving for insurance firms who have brought the test case in an
attempt to end compensation for pleural plaques.

Unite Joint General Secretary Derek Simpson says, "Unite has led this
campaign and taken this case on behalf of our members. We are urging the
House of Lords to restore compensation for pleural plaques sufferers. People
with pleural plaques should be compensated for the genuine injury that
asbestos exposure has caused. That is why Unite has taken the lead on behalf
of our members and all pleural plaques sufferers to get this cruel decision
reversed."

Insurers are claiming that an increase in pleural plaques cases is evidence
of the so-called compensation culture. However, the real cause of the
increase is the widespread and indiscriminate use of asbestos in many
industries until the early 1980s, and a failure by employers to protect
workers.

One of the worst affected industries was shipbuilding, in which several of
the men whose cases will be decided worked. A lagger who worked with asbestos
has a one in 10 lifetime risk of developing mesothelioma, the risk increasing
as he gets older.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S. Africa Extends Deadline for Asbestos Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
To enable further consultations with stakeholders, South Africa has extended
the June 2007 deadline on the ban on the use of asbestos, The Herald reports.

Zimbabwe will also have an opportunity to send its submissions within the 30-
day window that has been created.

The position was taken at the end of a two-day meeting of the Zimbabwe-South
Africa Joint Taskforce on chrysotile asbestos in Cape Town, South Africa on
June 22, 2007.

Dr. Nzuki Gwayi, South Africa’s Department of Environmental and Tourism
director spearheading the legislation process against asbestos trade, said
the government had resolved to take back the draft legislation for public
comment.

The South African government had set the end of June 2007 as the deadline to
end asbestos trade with Zimbabwe in keeping with a global campaign against
the use of asbestos.

South Africa is Zimbabwe’s largest consumer for chrysotile cement products,
consuming almost 90 percent of the product.

Earnings from chrysotile fiber alone are in the region of US$60 million a
year while exports of chrysotile cement products predominantly to South
Africa rake in close to ZAR50 million annually.

Zimbabwe’s major asbestos fiber cement products manufacturer, Turnall
Holdings, has been at the forefront of campaigning against the ban.

In November 2005, South Africa documented the Draft Asbestos Regulations that
sought to ban the production, importation and exportation of asbestos
products.

South Africa has indicated that the country wants to ban the continued mining
and use of chrysotile asbestos products as they regard it as harmful to human
health. However, scientific evidence has proved that white asbestos is
harmless if used in a responsible manner.

Chrysotile asbestos is also confused with the blue and brown types of
asbestos, which are banned because they are harmful to human health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Favors Plaintiff in Futch Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois, granted Sandra Futch’s motion for
voluntary dismissal, thereby dismissing Tennessee Valley Authority from the
case.

The District Court also granted Ms. Futch’s motion for remand.

Chief District Judge Murphy handed down the decision of Civil Case No. 07-402-
GPM on June 15, 2007.

This case is an action for wrongful death under Illinois law arising from the
death of Hershel B. Sheffield Sr., Ms. Futch's decedent, from mesothelioma,
allegedly as a result of employment-related exposure to asbestos.

This action was originally filed in the Circuit Court of the 3rd Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Ill. However, on Feb. 28, 2007, Ms. Futch's counsel
obtained leave from the state court to join Tennessee Valley Authority,
whereupon TVA removed the case to the District Court in so-called "federal
officer" jurisdiction.

Ms. Futch did not contest TVA's right to remove this case and instead sought
voluntary dismissal of her claims against TVA. Additionally, Ms. Futch
requested that, if the Court grants voluntary dismissal of her claims against
TVA, then the Court grant discretionary remand of her remaining claims in the
case to state court.

TVA did not oppose Ms. Futch's motion for voluntary dismissal.

The District Court concluded in its discretion that Ms. Futch's remaining
claims should be remanded to state court.

This action is remanded to the Circuit Court of the 3rd Judicial Circuit,
Madison County, Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chesterton Seeks to Transfer Delafosse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to transfer venue was filed on behalf of A.W. Chesterton Co.,
requesting that the asbestos-related action filed by Lula Delafosse be moved
out of Jefferson County, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

In the motion filed on June 8, 2007, Chesterton claims that venue is proper
in Harris County because one or more of the defendants has its principal
office in that county.

A.W. Chesterton manufactures gaskets and packaging materials.

Mrs. Delafosse, the wife of the deceased Louis Delafosse, sued A.O. Smith
Corp. and 42 other companies on May 2, 2007 in Jefferson County District
Court (Case No. E179-226)

The suit alleges that Mr. Delafosse's exposure to asbestos caused his death
from lung cancer. Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey is representing
Mrs. Delafosse.

The suit names corporations from aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. to
iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc. for manufacturing and distributing
asbestos-laced products.

Chesterton’s attorney Melody Wilkinson, of Cooley Manion Jones LLP in Fort
Worth, wrote, “Plaintiffs petition does not allege sufficient facts to
establish proper venue in Jefferson County. There is no statutory or factual
basis for maintaining this lawsuit in Jefferson County.”

Chesterton further denies that venue is proper in Jefferson County because:

-- Jefferson County is not the county in which all or a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred.

-- Jefferson County is not the county of any defendants' principal office in
this state.

-- Plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent did not reside in Jefferson County at
the time of the accrual of this cause of action.

-- Finally, no mandatory or permissive venue provision authorizes maintenance
of this action in Jefferson County.

A lung cancer patient, Mr. Delafosse was around 87 years of age when he
passed away, Mrs. Delafosse’s original petition said.

Medical records attached to his suit state Mr. Delafosse, a WWII veteran, had
occupational exposure to asbestos, probably while working at John Dallinger
Steel Inc. from 1941 to 1942 and 1955 to 1983.

The document also says Mr. Delafosse was an avid cigar smoker.

The original petition says the 43 defendants entangled in his suit were
negligent, failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products before
flooding the market with dangerous goods.

Mrs. Delafosse is suing for physical pain and suffering in the past and
future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning
capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the
past and future, and past and future medical expenses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Injury Suit v. Japan Gov’t. Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
The first hearing of an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Hitoshi Taima
against the Japanese Government was held on June 25, 2007 at Yokohama
District Court, Stars and Stripes reports.

Mr. Taima was the first active Yokosuka worker to file a lawsuit seeking
compensation for an asbestos-related illness.

Mr. Taima had alleged that he contracted lung problems from asbestos exposure
while working at Yokosuka Naval Base. He died on May 19, 2007, at the age of
51, from malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Mr. Taima filed the suit on May 9, 2007 and asking for JPY86.5 million (about
US$700,000).

Mr. Taima’s family is seeking compensation from the Japanese government,
accusing it and the U.S. Navy of failing to take precautions or provide him
with protective equipment.

According to Takeshi Furukawa, Mr. Taima’s family’s lawyer, the family
inherited the suit but had not determined the amount of the compensation
request.

According to Mr. Furukawa, his client was exposed to asbestos particles
between 1977 and 1995, when he repaired refrigerators and air conditioners
for U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Yokosuka. Mr. Taima
continued to work at the base until last year and was diagnosed with a lung-
related illness in April 2006, Mr. Furukawa said.

Mr. Furukawa asked the court to recognize as a fact that no asbestos-related
safety measures were taken at NAVFAC until recently, unlike at Yokosuka’s
Ship Repair Facility, where many Japanese workers had contracted lung
problems.

While the majority of Yokosuka’s Japanese workers who contracted lung
problems worked at SRF, Mr. Furukawa said, the number of NAVFAC workers
contracting illness could increase.

The Japanese government submitted a statement to the court asking it to
reject the claim.

Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Japan spokesman Jon Nylander said it would be
inappropriate for the Navy to weigh in on the proceedings because it is not
officially involved in the suit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Worker’s Kin Gets Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Bill Bulled, a former British Rail worker from Croydon,
England, has won an undisclosed compensation amount following his death from
mesothelioma in November 2005, Croydon Advertiser reports.

Mr. Bulled died a month after he married his second wife Elaine, and just a
few months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Bulled was exposed to asbestos when he worked for British Rail at the
Selhurst Depot, near Croydon between 1963 and 1993 as a fitter and overseer.

Mr. Bulled removed asbestos brake shoes and linings and oversaw the stripping
out of asbestos panels from trains and carriages.

Mrs. Bulled said, “Bill was not angry when he found out he had mesothelioma.
He was the sort of person who took everything in his stride but he felt it
was important to claim compensation for his family. He would have been
pleased to know his union’s solicitors have made sure that we have received
full compensation.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe Still to Produce, Export Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The African country of Zimbabwe has been granted to continue producing,
using, and exporting chrysotile asbestos products, as long as it complies
with the provisions of the International Labor Organization conventions, The
Herald reports.

The position was adopted at the end of a two-day meeting of the Zimbabwe-
South Africa Joint Taskforce on chrysotile asbestos in Cape Town, South
Africa.

A joint statement read, “The joint technical taskforce recognizes and
respects that Zimbabwe still produces, uses and exports and handles
chrysotile asbestos related products in accordance with the provisions of
their own laws and international conventions such as the ILO conventions 162
and 155.”

The two sections of the ILO conventions stipulate that countries mining
asbestos should do so responsibly. The sections also call for protection of
people from environmental health risk, occupational related and any other
diseases.

Zimbabwe and South Africa also agreed to work on a framework that allows the
two countries to work together in coming up with safety regulations and
guidelines on the use of alternatives to replace white asbestos.

The two countries also pledged to work on the new fiber technology, which has
been proposed as a substitute for white asbestos. The countries will
particularly look at the occupational and environmental health risk factors
of the fiber implements.

The joint taskforce recommended both governments to implement legislation
that ensures the physical, sound and psychological well being of their people
both at work and in the community in general with due regard to new
technology with its occupational and environmental health risk factors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs New Trial in Kinsman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3, California, remanded, for a
new, trial an asbestos-related action filed by Ray Kinsman against Unocal
Corp.

The matter has been remanded in accordance with the Supreme Court’s
directions.

Judges Parrilli, McGuiness, and Siggins handed down the decision of Case Nos.
A093424, A093649 on June 20, 2007.

In the 1950s, Mr. Kinsman was a carpenter at Unocal's refinery in Wilmington,
Calif. He worked for Burke & Reynolds, an independent contractor Unocal had
hired to perform scaffolding work during periods of "shut down" and repair at
the refinery.

Mr. Kinsman built and dismantled scaffolding used by other trades. This work
exposed him to airborne asbestos.

Decades later, Mr. Kinsman developed mesothelioma. He sued product
manufacturers and distributors, as well as several premises owners.
Ultimately, the case proceeded to a jury trial against Unocal, a "premises
defendant," alone.

The San Francisco County Superior Court granted a directed verdict for Mr.
Kinsman on the issue of causation.

Thereafter, the trial court denied Unocal's post-trial motions for new trial
and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

This case was returned to the Appeals Court on a remand from the Supreme
Court.

Although the Supreme Court also concluded a new trial was required due to
instructional error, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Appeals Court
to decide a sufficiency of evidence issue the Appeals Court did not reach in
its first opinion.
     
Unocal contended insufficient evidence supports the jury's finding of
negligence, and therefore it is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
Unocal argued no evidence was presented showing that Mr. Kinsman's work as a
carpenter exposed him to asbestos levels above this limit, or that Unocal
knew or should have known Kinsman's exposure to asbestos levels below this
limit was actually hazardous.

The Appeals Court concluded substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict
of negligence and the trial court properly denied Unocal's motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The Appeals Court affirmed the order denying Unocal's motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.

Harry Fred Wartnick of Wartnick, Chaber, et. al., San Francisco, Daniel Upham
Smith of Law Office of Daniel U. Smith, Kentfield, Calif., represented Ray
Kinsman and other plaintiffs-respondents.

Michael Todd McCall of Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, Cyrian Tabuena
and Allan W. Ruggles of San Francisco, David M. Axelrad of Horvitz & Levy,
Encino, Calif., represented Unocal Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Records 6,350 New Claimants in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson PLC, in 2006, recorded about 6,350 new claimants in asbestos-related
cases against it, compared with 10,350 new claimants in 2005 and 18,700 new
claimants in 2004, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2007.

For 2006, the Company expected the number of new asbestos claimants would be
around 6,000. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006)

At the end of 2006, outstanding claimants amounted to about 107,600, compared
with 131,350 in 2005, and 135,750 in 2004. Of the 30,100 claimants whose
cases were resolved during 2006, over 90 percent were dismissed without
payment.

Various U.S. subsidiaries of the Company are defendants in lawsuits filed in
state and federal courts by claimants who allege that they have suffered
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, the
manufacture of which by such subsidiaries ceased, depending on the subsidiary
involved, between 1973 and 1984, which was before the time that these
subsidiaries became members of the group.

The gross cost of resolving asbestos claims in 2006 was US$54.5 million,
compared with US$43.2 million in 2005, and US$59.3 million in 2004. The
amounts included legal fees of US$25.4 million in 2006, US$26.3 million in
2005, and US$27.4 million in 2004.

The 2006 net pre-tax cost of asbestos insurance amounted to US$51.1 million
(US$31.7 million in 2005 and US$12.8 million in 2004), equivalent to a
sterling cost of GBP16.9 million after tax.

The asbestos provision of US$496.8 million at Jan. 1, 2006 was increased by
US$60 million and reduced by the gross cost incurred in 2006 of US$54.5
million, to give a closing provision at Dec. 31, 2006 of US$502.3 million.

This represents the estimated gross cost of asbestos for the next eight
years, and is equivalent to US$398.7 million on a discounted basis, or
GBP203.7 million (GBP232.2 million in 2005).

London, U.K.-based Hanson PLC operates as a heavy building materials company.
It has units devoted to building products and aggregates in the U.S. and the
U.K. The Company also has operations in continental Europe, Asia, and
Australia. Products include aggregates, asphalt, bricks, concrete products,
ready-mixed concrete, and roof tiles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Has $89M Insurance Asset in ‘06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson PLC, at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded an asbestos-related closing insurance
asset amounting to US$89.7 million, equivalent to GBP32.4 million on a
discounted basis, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2007.

The insurance asset of US$14.6 million at Jan. 1, 2006 was reduced by
insurance utilization during the year of US$3.4 million, on an undiscounted
basis.

Most of the Company’s U.S. subsidiaries involved with asbestos claims have
had agreements with their respective insurance carriers regarding the defense
and settlement of asbestos claims, the terms of which varied for each such
subsidiary.

These insurance arrangements have resulted in the insurance companies having
met substantially all of the amounts such subsidiaries have paid before 2006
in settlements and defense costs. In 2006, most of these costs were borne by
the relevant subsidiaries.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the Company announced that one of its U.S. subsidiaries,
responsible for about 20 percent of the group’s present asbestos costs, had
reached a settlement with its insurers.

The settlement is effective from Jan. 1, 2006 and resolves a number of issues
relating to historic insurance policies which provided insurance cover for a
range of claims, including those relating to asbestos.

Under the settlement, the subsidiary will pay the first US$35 million of its
future asbestos costs, which the subsidiary estimates will be paid over about
four years from Jan. 1, 2006. Thereafter the subsidiary’s asbestos costs will
be paid in full by the insurance carriers up to agreed limits.

These limits have not been disclosed as they are subject to a confidentiality
agreement between the subsidiary and the insurance carriers. These limits,
assuming they are not utilized for non-asbestos claims, are expected to
provide asbestos insurance cover for this subsidiary well beyond 2020.

The receivable recognized as a result of this settlement increased the
insurance asset by US$58.5 million, or GBP23 million on a discounted basis.

The net cost of asbestos is deductible for U.S. taxation at an estimated rate
of 39 percent. At Dec. 31, 2006, the deferred tax asset relating to the
discounted asbestos provision, net of insurance, amounted to GBP66.1 million.

London, U.K.-based Hanson PLC operates as a heavy building materials company.
It has units devoted to building products and aggregates in the U.S. and the
U.K. The Company also has operations in continental Europe, Asia, and
Australia. Products include aggregates, asphalt, bricks, concrete products,
ready-mixed concrete, and roof tiles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Records GBP32.6M Recoverable in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson PLC’s non-current asbestos recoverable from insurers, in 2006,
amounted to GBP32.6 million, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2007.

The Company’s current asbestos recoverable from insurers, in 2006, amounted
to GBP1.6 million, compared with GBP7.1 million in 2005.

In 2006, the Company recorded GBP1.1 million as net asbestos credit, after
tax, compared with a GBP13.7 million charge, after tax, in 2005.

In 2006, the Company recorded (GBP2 million), after tax, for ancillary
litigation and bodily injury claims, compared with (GBP7.9 million), after
tax, in 2005.

London, U.K.-based Hanson PLC operates as a heavy building materials company.
It has units devoted to building products and aggregates in the U.S. and the
U.K. The Company also has operations in continental Europe, Asia, and
Australia. Products include aggregates, asphalt, bricks, concrete products,
ready-mixed concrete, and roof tiles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. to Profit After Ch. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Maria Alapont, Federal-Mogul Corp.’s Chief Executive Officer, told
Bloomberg News that the Company will be profitable after emerging from U.S.
bankruptcy, The Detroit News reports.

In the 2007-1st quarter, the Company posted net income of US$4.5 million,
after a US$68.4 million net loss a year earlier. The Company entered Chapter
11 protection in October 2001.

The Company is seeking U.S. bankruptcy court approval for a reorganization
plan including a victims' trust fund to resolve as much as US$9.4 billion in
asbestos claims.

The Company used asbestos, a heat-resistant material that causes respiratory
illness, in brake pads.

Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars,
trucks, and construction vehicles. Its 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 primarily in the Americas and Europe. The Company also distributes
auto parts to aftermarket customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Worker’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Peter Clarke, a retired construction
worker from New Addington, U.K., was due to mesothelioma, Croydon Guardian
reports.

Mr. Clarke, 80 years old, had been exposed to asbestos more than 30 years ago.

Coroner Dr. Roy Palmer said it could be more than 30 years before the effect
on the lungs is detected.

Dr. Palmer recorded Mr. Clarke's death on April 18, 2007 as cardiac
respiratory failure due to mesothelioma, which had been diagnosed two months
earlier.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker’s Kin Pursues Action v. Ex-Employers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solicitor Graeme Chisolm, representing the family of asbestos victim Terence
Parsons, said that they are pursuing legal action against one or more of Mr.
Parsons’ previous employers, Swindon Advertiser reports.

Mr. Parsons, a former carpenter, was exposed to asbestos while fitting shops
in Swindon, England, U.K. He wrote a statement giving the details of his
exposure to asbestos during the 1950s and 1960s.

Wiltshire coroner David Masters read Mr. Parsons' statement at an inquest
into his death at the Civic Offices on June 25, 2007.

Mr. Parsons described fitting asbestos tiles and cutting asbestos sheets
while fitting ceiling tiles at the Swindon and District Co-operative, BHS
store and offices in Shrivenham Road and Percy Street.

Mr. Parsons gave up his shop-fitting job in the 1970s and started his own
business so he could travel less and see his family more. He was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in February 2005.

In June 2006, Mr. Parsons collapsed suddenly at his home and was rushed to
the Great Western Hospital. He died at the hospital less than a month later,
aged 68.

Pathologist Dr. Jeanette Armstrong told the inquest that tumors found in Mr.
Parsons' lung and colon were both mesothelioma, known as the Swindon disease
because of the number of railway workers who developed the asbestos-related
cancer.

Giving a ruling of death by the industrial disease mesothelioma, Mr. Masters
said, “It is evident from his own statement that he was exposed to asbestos
and/or asbestos dust.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Appeal in Lunsford’s Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed an appeal to favor
the plaintiffs in an asbestos-related action filed by Ronald Lunsford and his
wife Esther, against Saberhagen Holdings Inc. and other defendants.

Judges Appelwick, Dwyer, and Schindler handed down the decision of Case No.
57293-8-I on June 25, 2007.

The Lunsfords contended that Mr. Lunsford’s mesothelioma was caused in part
by respirable asbestos released from insulation supplied by the Brower
Co./Saberhagen Holdings Inc.

The claims in this appeal concerned household exposure to asbestos in 1958,
carried in Mr. Lunsford's father's clothing from his employment at the Texaco
refinery in Anacortes, Wash.

In its first appearance, Saberhagen moved for summary judgment, arguing that
because Mr. Lunsford himself was not a "user or consumer" of a defective
product, he was not entitled to strict liability coverage.

The trial court agreed and entered partial summary judgment. The Lunsfords
appealed. On appeal, Saberhagen argued that the trial court correctly
dismissed Mr. Lunsford's strict product liability claims because he failed to
show that he was a "user" or "consumer" of Brower-supplied asbestos products.

The Appeals Court reversed, holding that, "policy rationales support
application of strict liability to a household family member of a user of an
asbestos-containing product, if it is reasonably foreseeable that household
members would be exposed in this manner."

Because Saberhagen had not presented its retroactivity argument to the trial
court, the Appeals Court declined to address that issue, leaving it to
Saberhagen to raise on remand.

On remand, Saberhagen brought this argument before the court in its second
motion for summary judgment.

On Oct. 21, 2005, the trial court granted Saberhagen's motion for partial
summary judgment. The Lunsfords appealed.

At issue is whether strict product liability retroactively applies to claims
arising from injuries caused by exposure to asbestos that occurred before
Washington's adoption of strict product liability.

The Appeals court concluded because strict product liability was
retroactively applied to litigants in previous asbestos exposure cases, it
retroactively applies to all subsequent litigants. It cannot be selectively
prospectively applied.

The trial court erred when it held as a matter of law that Saberhagen cannot
be held liable to Mr. Lunsford under a strict liability theory.

The Appeals Court reversed and remanded.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oklahoman Sues 107 Defendants in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gertrude Lowe of Oklahoma, on June 21, 2007, sued 107 defendants in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., alleging she was exposed to airborne asbestos
fibers from family members’ clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Lowe claims that her late husband, Howard, served in the U.S. Army from
1959 to 1975 and was self-employed from 1976 to 1977 as an independent
contractor refueling airplanes and doing home remodeling.

Mrs. Lowe claims her father also was in the Army from 1950 through 1960. She
alleges that her family members worked with and around asbestos-containing
products.

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

Mrs. Lowe was employed from 1970 through 1980 as a seamstress and from 1980
through 1995 as a teacher's aide. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos
during non-occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs,
maintenance and remodeling.

According to Mrs. Lowe, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 14, 2007,
and subsequently became aware her illness was wrongfully caused, the suit
claims.

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

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

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

Case No. 07 L 556 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court OKs July 7 Trial for Melvin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related action filed by Shirley Melvin, a plaintiff severed from
a massive lawsuit (Case No. B150-374), has been set for trial on July 7, 2007
in the Jefferson Country District Court in Texas, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

With Provost Umphrey attorney Brian Blevins leading the charge, Ms. Melvin,
representing the estate of Joyce Myers, along with Herbert Myers, will battle
the Mobil Oil Corp. and Mobil Oil Refining Corp. in Judge Gary Sanderson's
60th District Court.

First filed in 1994, Case No. B150-374’s original petition has been amended
141 times, with the number of plaintiffs attached to the suit steadily
growing every year.

The original 1994 suit, styled Harold Daniels v. Pittsburg Corning Corp. et
al, has been severed roughly 220 times, with pieces of the suit being shipped
to Harris County along the way.

The suit's 141st amended petition, filed in August 2006, accuses 68
corporations of mining, manufacturing and distributing asbestos products
throughout Jefferson County, naming 31 more defendants than the first suit.

Some of the defendants named include Viacom Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp.,
Westinghouse Electric, and General Electric Co.

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

In the upcoming trial, the plaintiffs will ask jurors to award them a
substantial amount of money for physical pain and suffering in the past and
future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning
capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the
past and future, and past and future medical expenses.

Since June 20, 2007, Blevins has filed 13 new severances and added two new
plaintiffs to the suit.

The case number going to trial is B150-374-BE.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Sufferers Await House of Lords Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
People who contracted asbestos-related illnesses from factories and companies
in Oxfordshire, England are waiting a House of Lords ruling, which may enable
them to claims compensation for their health problems, The Didcot Herald
reports.

Dennis Walmesley, who worked at UKAEA Harwell in the 1950s and 1960s, has
scars on his lung caused by pleural plaque. Until 2006, he could have been
entitled to money for his condition, but judges ruled in 2006 that pleural
plaque was not serious enough to merit compensation.

Mr. Walmesley, 80 years old, is one of many Oxfordshire residents now waiting
to hear whether the decision will be overturned.

Victims of pleural plaque may be symptom-free for decades. However, their
condition can develop into asbestosis or lung cancer because the deadly
fibers sometimes lie dormant in the lungs for 30 years or more.

Angela Vincent, of UKAEA Harwell, said the organization did not want to
comment about pleural plaque cases until after the outcome of the House of
Lords case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Con Edison in Croteau Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, in its decision and
order in an asbestos action filed by Robert Croteau, said that the finding of
negligence against Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. does not stop
Con Edison from obtaining indemnification from Treadwell Corp.

Judges Tom, Andrias, Saxe, Marlow, and Nardelli entered decision on June 26,
2007.
                                     
The issue presented here is whether Con Edison has established its
entitlement to contractual indemnification against Treadwell.

The underlying personal injury action was filed by Mr. Croteau and his wife
against various defendants, including Treadwell, his employer, and Con
Edison, owner of two of the sites where Mr. Croteau worked.

At trial, it was found that Mr. Croteau contracted mesothelioma.  Treadwell
had been hired by Con Edison to erect equipment at various powerhouses in the
New York City area, including the Bowline Point Generating Station and two
projects at Astoria Powerhouse Unit 6. Mr. Croteau was employed by Treadwell
on all three projects.

Mr. Croteau also performed work for Treadwell at projects for the Long Island
Lighting Co. at the Northport Powerhouse, work unconnected with Con Edison,
but which was also covered by the suit.

The jury found Con Edison 34 percent negligent (17 percent at each site), and
Treadwell four percent negligent, with the balance of the liability
apportioned among 23 other defendants.

In its post-trial motion for a judgment of indemnification against Treadwell
for the sums it paid to Mr. Croteau, Con Edison relied upon both common-law
indemnification and the indemnification provisions of its three contracts
with Treadwell.

The motion court properly found that Con Edison was not entitled to common-
law indemnification because the jury found Con Edison had controlled the
various worksites and committed common-law negligence.

The court went on to grant Con Edison indemnification in reliance on the
terms of the Astoria Unit 6 Steam Generating contract between Con Edison and
Treadwell.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, found that negligence on the part of
other parties present at the worksites does not alter Con Edison's
entitlement to indemnification against Treadwell.

McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York (Richard E. Leff of counsel), represented
Robert Croteau.

Davis Polk and Wardwell, New York (Guy Miller Struve of counsel), represented
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Extends Grace Exclusivity to July 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
By this motion, W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors ask Judge Judith
Fitzgerald to further extend their exclusive period to:

(i) File a plan of reorganization until 90 days after the Court issues a
final order on the personal injury claims estimation trial; and

(ii) Solicit acceptances of that plan until 60 days after a reorganization
plan is filed.

The trial dates for the estimation of the Debtors' personal injury
liabilities will begin January 2008, Timothy P Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski
Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., relates.

Mr. Cairns asserts that the PI Estimation Trial remains the key event in the
Debtors' Chapter 11 cases and is required for the confirmation of any
reorganization plan. It is through the PI Estimation Trial and other asbestos
claims litigation that the issue of insolvency will be resolved, Mr. Cairns
contends.

Competing plans of reorganization will only distract the parties and the
Court, and create yet more litigation, Mr. Cairns asserts. The Debtors
suspect that various other constituents including the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Future Claims Representative want
to file a competing plan that presumes the Debtors' insolvency to send a
message to the market that the Debtors appear substantially insolvent thereby
eroding the Debtors' stock price and, in turn, possibly weakening the equity
holders' ability to negotiate effectively.

"Lifting exclusivity will not advance formulation of a confirmable
reorganization plan and a quicker exit from Chapter 11," Mr. Cairns
says. "The other constituents in the Debtors' cases could not confirm a plan
without incorporating the results from the PI Estimation Trial."

Accordingly, the Debtors insist that exclusivity should be extended to allow
the results from the PI Estimation Trial to be incorporated into a plan of
reorganization

Mr. Cairns points out that the Debtors have made significant progress in
their bankruptcy cases. Among other things, the pool of property damage
claims have been reduced from 4,042 in March 2003 to 483 PD Claims as of June
11, 2007. From 2003 to June 2007, the Debtors have also settled several of
the PD Claims. Other PD Claims have been withdrawn or disallowed by the
Court. Of the remaining 483 PD Claims, about 268 are subject to settlements
and 215 are not.

Mr. Cairns adds that as of June 1, 2007, the Debtors have resolved about
2,900 non-asbestos claims, leaving only about 348 open and unresolved non-
asbestos claims. More than 14,000 non-asbestos claims were filed against the
Debtors in March 2003.

By application of Delaware Local Rule 9006-2, the Debtors' exclusive period
is automatically extended until July 23, 2007, when the Court will convene a
hearing on the extension request.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 132; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Resolves $45,000 in Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
From 2005 through 2006, USG Corp. and its debtor-affiliates filed multiple
omnibus objections and requests to disallow asbestos property damage proofs
of claim filed by various claimants in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases.

Paul N. Heath, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., in
Wilmington, Del., informs the Court that the Reorganized
Debtors have settled with these PD claimants, resolving about US$45,725 in
claims.

These claimants are: David and Peggy Pajak, Robert and Linda Melchione, Sunil
Bafna, Luther Ballou, Rosie J. and Jonnie B. Day, Bernice D. Harden,
Ernestine Haynes, James and Nancy Hogue, Shirley L. Keys, and Mona and David
Williams.

(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 134; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS ALERT: Hulsing Hotels to Pay $300T for Removal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hulsing Hotels Missouri Inc. would pay US$300,000 in penalties for illegally
removing asbestos during a remodeling project in 2006 at the former Clarion
Hotel near Kansas City International Airport, The Kansas City Star reports.

It would have cost the Company US$35,000 to properly clean up the asbestos, a
defense attorney said on June 25, 2007 in response to questions from U.S.
District Judge Dean Whipple.

Daniel Hulsing, the project manager, pleaded guilty on behalf of the Company
for a Clean Air Act violation.

The Company admitted to knowingly removing asbestos illegally from the
Clarion Hotel in 2006 during a two-month remodeling project, the plea
agreement stated.

The plea agreement said the Company would pay US$100,000 and pay an
additional US$100,000 within the next year. In addition, an agreement with
the state of Missouri that will require the Company to pay a US$100,000 civil
penalty is being finalized, the agreement said.

Mr. Hulsing acknowledged to investigators that he was not licensed to remove
asbestos nor did he have a licensed asbestos abatement contractor.

On June 25, 2007, Kansas City Health Department officials said Del R.
Hedgepath, owner of the Congress Building at 3535 Broadway, has been cited
with five asbestos violations.

The notices of violation state that after the Health Department received an
anonymous call in June 2007, asbestos-containing materials were found
throughout a public garage in the Congress Building, said Mike Manning,
manager of the department’s air quality program.

A large debris pile containing asbestos-containing materials was found in the
lower garage area, according to the notices of violation.

The owner has 10 working days to respond.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Court Issues GBP3,000 Fine to Doonin for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GBP3,000 penalty has been issued to Doonin Plant Ltd. for dumping
corrugated cement asbestos sheeting at Woodend Washer, in Armadale, Scotland,
West Lothian Courier reports.

Doonin was handed the fine at Linlithgow Sheriff Court after it pleaded
guilty to knowingly causing the deposit of the potentially dangerous material
at its Armadale site.

The case was reported to the Procurator Fiscal by the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency after a routine inspection at the site in February 2005.

Commenting on the incident, SEPA’s Catriona Walker said, “Inspections of the
site by SEPA officers identified that Doonin Plant Limited had allowed
quantities of corrugated cement asbestos sheeting to be deposited at their
West Lothian site.”

West Lothian anti-asbestos campaigner Alex Horne, who is also chairman of
Armadale Community Council, said, “I am glad this case has reached a
conclusion.”


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BRISTOL-MYERS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action on June 20 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of
all persons who purchased securities of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company between
March 22, 2006 and August 8, 2006, inclusive and alleges violations of the
federal securities laws by BMY and certain of its present and/or former
executives.

As alleged in the Complaint, on March 22, 2006, BMY announced that it, along
with Sanofi-Aventis SA, entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex, Inc.
(Apotex) to resolve a patent infringement lawsuit (Apotex Settlement) related
to the drug Plavix. The Complaint further alleges that throughout the Class
Period, BMY failed to disclose material facts regarding the Apotex Settlement
including:

     (1) that BMY had relinquished material rights in connection
         with the settlement, including the right to treble
         damages;

     (2) that if the Apotex Settlement was not approved, Apotex
         could flood the market with its generic version of
         Plavix; and

     (3) that BMY had negotiated improper side agreements in
         connection with the Apotex Settlement.

On July 27, 2006, BMY revealed that the Antitrust Division of the United
States Department of Justice ("DOJ") was conducting a criminal investigation
into the Apotex Settlement and, as alleged, as a result of this disclosure,
the price of BMY's securities declined $1.95 per share, or 7.5%, to close at
$24.04 per share. On August 8, 2006, BMY disclosed additional material facts
regarding the Apotex Settlement. As a result of this disclosure, it is
alleged that BMY's securities declined $1.56 per share, or approximately 7%,
to close at $21.21 per share.

The Complaint also alleges that on May 10, 2007 BMY issued a press release
disclosing that the Company agreed to plead guilty to federal charges of
making false statements to a government agency in connection with the Apotex
Settlement.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 27, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & KIlsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & KIlsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707


                            *********


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  * * *