CAR_Public/070713.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, July 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 137

                            Headlines


AG EDWARDS: Settles Ex-Brokers' Overtime Litigation in Calif.
AGILE SOFTWARE: Shareholder Files Suit Over Disposal to Oracle
AMERICAN HONDA: Pianist Files Suit Over “Misleading” Mileage Ads
AUDIOVOX CORP: Settles Del. Suits Over Asset Sale to UTStarcom
AUSTRALIAN JOCKEY: Suit Planned Over Use of Randwick Racetrack

CASTLETON OLIVE: Customers File Suit Over Illness After Dining
CHATTEM INC: Court Enters Favorable Ruling in “Bullfrog” Case
CONTINENTAL PAINTING: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
DEPENDABLE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Tex. Suit Over Labor Code Breach
FEDEX HOME: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Unlawful Employment Practices

FLORIDA ALUMINUM: Fla. Suit Alleges Denied Overtime Compensation
GOODYEAR TIRE: Asks Court to Identify Health Care Trust Class
INDIANA: Marion County Sued Over Preferential Property Taxes
KARLIN FOOD: Recalls Pancake & Waffle Mix Due to Undeclared Milk
LINKUS ENTERPRISES: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations

M.A. MORTENSON: Accused of Unfair Labor Practices in Fla. Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over Recalled ICDs, CRT-Ds
MENU FOODS: Kan. Lawyer Files Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
METLIFE AUTO: Accused of Reducing Insured’s Claim Payments
MEYER CORP: Recalls Culinary Torches After Fuel Leak Reports

MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Xbox Defects-Related Lawsuit in Florida
MIDAS INC: Franchisees File $168M Suit in Canada Over Shut Down
MINNESOTA: MAC, Cities Have Until July 23 to Reach Settlement
MISSISSIPPI: Human Services Reaches Settlement in “Olivia Y.”
MORTGAGE LENDERS: NAACP Files Suit Over “Biased” Loan Practices

OKLAHOMA: Tulsa Police Oversight Might End 2008, Report Says
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.J.
RED HAT: N.C. Court Refuses to Certify Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SAFE HURRICANE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SILTON MANAGEMENT: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida

SIRIUS SATELLITE: Faces Massive Copyright Violations Lawsuit
SOUTHERN GARDNERS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida
SUPERIOR WASH: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Records $444T for Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Postpones N.Y. Carpenter’s Sentencing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Physicist’s Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal from Ky. Hospital to Cost $198,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Botched Removal Work Prompts Contamination

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Victim to Join Bid to Ban Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Govt. Hears Bill’s Second Reading
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links U.K. Roofer’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ, EPA Releases Final Plan for Wyo. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish School Closes After Hazard Discovery

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. School Abatement to Cost $180,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Inspections Available in Nebraska
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USGS Bares Map of 61 Rocky Mountain Sites
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenn. Worker Sues 118 Companies in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Seeks to End Grace’s Hold on Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Inks Deal to Settle ACandS Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Federal-Mogul Plan Set for Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Records EUR2.99B A&E Net Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Cornhill Records EUR21M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fireman’s Fund Has EUR72Mil for A&E Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Has EUR23M for Workers Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $405.5M Asbestos Adjustment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Courthouse Cleanup to Cost More than $60T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Plant Manager Gets GBP86,000 in Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Rail Employee Seeks Justice for Victims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victims to Wait for Ruling Until Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks THAN Appeal in AXA U.S. Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Group Urges Gov’t. to Ban Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Plant Worker’s Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Identifies 10 Motley Rice P.D. Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Bar 15 P.D. Claims in Canada
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Colleagues of U.K. Fitter’s Mate Sought
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Woman’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Hilberts in Suit v. Northrop


                            *********


AG EDWARDS: Settles Ex-Brokers' Overtime Litigation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A.G. Edwards, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported overtime pay class
action filed by two former brokers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, according to the company’s July 10, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2007.

Edwards is a defendant in a complaint that seeks to be a class action on
behalf of all financial consultants and trainees who worked for Edwards in
California after June 30, 2000.

The action, among other relief, seeks overtime pay for financial consultants,
including trainees, on the basis that the financial consultants should be
classified as non-exempt employees under California law, restitution of
amounts that were deducted from commissions owed to financial consultants to
repay advances made in prior months, payment for meal rest breaks to which
financial consultants are claimed to be entitled, and reimbursement for
certain alleged business-related expenses paid by financial consultants.

Edwards and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement concerning the
litigation.  The Court entered an order giving preliminary approval to the
settlement in June 2007.  

The settlement provides for Edwards to pay up to $20 million, plus interest,
which, after payment of attorney fees and certain specified expenses, and
subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement, will be paid to
eligible financial consultants who file timely and valid claims under the
settlement in accordance with a formula agreed to by the parties.

Any portion of the settlement consideration not approved or awarded by the
Court or claimed by eligible financial consultants shall remain the property
of Edwards.

The suit is "Takacs, et al. v. AG Edwards and Sons, et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-01852-JAH-NLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge John A. Houston with referral to Judge
Nita L. Stormes.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         James F. Clapp, Esq.  
         Dostart Clapp and Coveney
         4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
         San Diego, CA 92122-1253
         Phone: (858) 623-4200
         Fax: (858) 623-4299

Representing the defendants is:

         Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis and Bockius
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: (415) 442-1000
         Fax: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: bantonucci@morganlewis.com


AGILE SOFTWARE: Shareholder Files Suit Over Disposal to Oracle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agile Software Corp. and company directors are facing a stockholder class
action in relation to an agreement to sell Agile to Oracle Corp.

The suit is case no. 107CV–085992.  It was filed by purported shareholder
Carl Sulzberger in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara against Agile Software Corp., Klaus-Dieter Laidig, Gareth Chang, Jay
B.Fulcher, Nancy j. Schoendorf, Ronald E.F. Codd, Bryan D. Stolle, Paul Wahl
and Does 1-25.

The suit states that in pursuing the alleged unlawful plan to solicit
shareholder approval of their proposed sale of Agile arising out of an unfair
process, each of the defendants violated applicable law by directly breaching
and/or aiding the other defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good faith and fair dealing. This
action seeks equitable relief only.

On May 15, 2007, Agile announced it entered into a merger agreement with
Oracle in a transaction valued at approximately $495 million.  Federal
antitrust regulators approved Oracle's purchase of Agile for $495 million in
June.

The complaint filed May 16 states:

“Agile’s first quarter 2007 ended on April 30, 2007, and defendants know the
positive results for this quarter. Rather than permitting the Company’s
shares to trade freely and allowing its public shareholders to reap the
benefits of the Company’s prospects, however, defendants acted quickly for
their own benefit and the benefit of Oracle, and to the detriment of the
Company’s public shareholders.

“Defendants rushed to announce the Proposed Acquisition at $8.10 per share,
prior to announcing the financial results for the fourth quarter 2007,
effectively placing a cap on the Company’s stock price and thus ensuring that
they and Oracle, rather than the Company’s public shareholders, will be the
beneficiaries of the Company’s future prospects.”

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
         of undivided loyalty, independence or due care with
         respect to plaintiff and other members of the Class in
         connection with the Proposed Acquisition;

     (b) whether the Individual Defendants are engaging in self-
         dealing in connection with the Proposal Acquisition;

     (c) whether the Individual Defendants are unjustly
         enriching themselves and other insiders or affiliates
         of Agile;

     (d) whether defendants have breached any of their other
         fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the other members of
         the Class in connection with the Proposed Acquisition,
         including the duties of good, faith, diligence, honesty
         and fair dealing;

     (e) whether defendants, un bad faith and four improper
         motives, have impeded or created barriers to discourage
         other offers for the Company or its assets; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and the other members of the Class
         would suffer irreparable injury unless defendant’s
         conduct is enjoined.

Plaintiff demands preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in plaintiff’s
favor and in favor of the Class and against defendants as follows:

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
        class action;

     -- declaring and decreeing that the Merger Agreement was
        entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the
        defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable;

     -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees
        and all persons acting in concert with them from
        consummating the Proposed Acquisition, unless and until
        the Company adopts and implements a fair sales process;

     -- directing the Individual Defendants to exercise their
        fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the
        best interests of Agile’s shareholders;

     -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
        Proposed Acquisition or any of the terms thereof;

     -- imposing a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiff and
        members of the Class, upon any benefits improperly
        received by defendants as a result of their wrongful
        conduct;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’
        fees; and

     -- granting such other and further equitable relief as this
        Court may deem just and proper.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP
          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Daniel R. Forde, Esq.
          610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619)525-3990
          Fax: (619)525-3991

          Robert Weiser, Esq.
          The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 225-2616
          Fax: (610) 225-2678


AMERICAN HONDA: Pianist Files Suit Over “Misleading” Mileage Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
A professional jazz piano player has filed a class action against American
Honda Motor Co. in U.S. District Court in Riverside, Calif., Detroit News’
David Shepardson reports.

Convinced by the vehicle’s advertised mileage of 49 miles per gallon in the
city, 51 mpg highway, John True replaced his Mercedes-Benz E320 with a Honda
Civic Hybrid.

But contrary to what the advertisement claims, Mr. True only averaged 32mpg
in combined city and highway driving after driving 6,000 miles.

In the suit, Mr. True alleges that Honda misled consumers in its
advertisements and Web site as well.

Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency and vehicle window stickers
say “mileage will vary”, Honda’s advertisements indicate “mileage may vary.”  
The latter implies it’s possible to get the mileage in the advertisement,
according to Attorney William H. Anderson.

Court filings say this lawsuit seeks relief for tens of thousands of
consumers “who purchased the Honda Civic Hybrid expecting to benefit from
its 'remarkable' fuel efficiency, and paid thousands of dollars extra for an
Honda Civic Hybrid that looks identical and performs basically the same as
the non-hybrid Honda Civic.”

According to the report, Honda and other automobile companies claim that EPA
tests have overstated average fuel economy for all vehicles.

Honda spokesman Sage Marie said while some customers achieve the EPA mpg
figures, some don’t because of the several factors affecting its performance.

The suit is “John True v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc, Case No: 5:07-cv-
00287-VAP-OP,” under Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the Central District of
California, with referral to Judge Oswald Parada.

Representing Mr. True is:

          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

Representing American Honda is:

          Roy M. Brisbois, Esq.
          Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
          221 N Figueroa St, Ste 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601
          Phone: 213-250-1800


AUDIOVOX CORP: Settles Del. Suits Over Asset Sale to UTStarcom
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audiovox Corp. settled a purported class action over an Asset Sale to
UTStarcom, Inc., according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May
31, 2007.

In November 2004, several purported double derivative, derivative and class
actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New
Castle County challenging approximately $27,000 made in payments from the
proceeds of the Asset Sale to UTStarcom, Inc.  

These actions were subsequently consolidated into a single derivative
complaint, “In re Audiovox Corporation Derivative Litigation.”  

The Complaint challenges the payment of $16,000 to Mr. Christopher pursuant
to a Personally Held Intangibles Agreement, an additional $4,000 to Mr.
Christopher pursuant to an Agreement and General Release,  $1,916 to Mr.
Shalam pursuant to an amendment to his Long-Term Incentive Award, $5,000
distributed to ACC employees other than Mr. Christopher and the extension of
certain options to Mr. Christopher.  

The Complaint alleges that:

      -- the payments should be rescinded on grounds including,
         inter alia, material misrepresentation, breach of
         fiduciary duty and mistake,

      -- the recipients of the various payments were unjustly
         enriched,  and

      -- the directors of Audiovox breached their fiduciary
         duties to Audiovox and its shareholders.

This matter was settled in May 2007 and received final Chancery court
approval in June 2007.

Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an international distributor  
and value added service provider in the accessory, mobile and consumer
electronics industries.


AUSTRALIAN JOCKEY: Suit Planned Over Use of Randwick Racetrack
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randwick trainers are investigating a possible class action to stop Pope
Benedict XVI's planned World Youth Day at being staged on the city’s historic
racetrack, Tony Arrold of Fox Sports reports.

At a meeting attended by most of the 52 registered Randwick trainers early in
the month, members agreed to hire Macquarie Legal Partners, a Sydney legal
firm to research and report back on all conditions of the Crown grant and AJC
Act affecting Randwick racecourse.  They plan to file the suit against the
Australian Jockey Club.

Head of Macquarie Legal Partners, Tony Fleiter, said the trainers want to
find out whether the AJC Act could authorize use of Randwick and its land for
purposes other than what the Crown grant allows.

It is understood the Crown grant issued on Randwick more than 150 years ago
by the government specified use as a horse racing track, a horse training
centre, a cricket ground and a rifle range, according to the report by Mr.
Arrold.


CASTLETON OLIVE: Customers File Suit Over Illness After Dining
---------------------------------------------------------------
A restaurant in Indianapolis, Indiana has been hit with a lawsuit filed on
behalf of about 50 customers, who got sick after eating at the restaurant,
Indystar.com’s Susan Guyett reports.

The suit against Castleton Olive Garden was filed in Marion Circuit Court.  
It was certified May 29.

It seeks compensation for those people who got sick within 72 hours after
eating at the restaurant last year between Dec. 9 and Dec. 15.

Plaintiff attorney Patrick A. Elward said about 600 people were affected.  He
added the plaintiffs would be able to recover medical costs or other
expenses.  Each person would be compensated with respect to the type of
illness he suffered.

Plaintiffs counsel:

          Patrick A. Elward, Esq.
          Bingham McHale LLP
          10 West Market Street, 2700 Market Tower
          Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-4900
          Phone: (317) 968-5374
          Telecopier: (317) 236-9907
          E-mail: pelward@binghammchale.com
          Web Site: http://www.binghammchale.com


CHATTEM INC: Court Enters Favorable Ruling in “Bullfrog” Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
issued a ruling in favor of Chattem, Inc. in a suit filed over it’s marketing
of Bullfrog sun care products.

The putative class action was filed on Feb. 11, 2004, relating to the
labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of Bullfrog suncare products.  

The company filed an answer to this lawsuit on June 28, 2004.  An amended
complaint was filed March 29, 2006, pursuant to a court order formally
consolidating this lawsuit with eight existing lawsuits involving other
manufacturers of sunscreen products into a coordinated proceeding in
California state court.

The amended lawsuit seeks class certification of all persons who purchased
the company's Bullfrog sun care products in California during a four-year
period prior to Feb. 11, 2004.  

The amended lawsuit sought restitution and/or disgorgement of profits, actual
damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.  

Following the deposition of Plaintiff William C. Jordan, we filed a motion
for summary judgment, which was heard on April 18, 2007.  

The court found there was no merit to any of the causes of action that Jordan
asserted against the company.  The court entered judgment in the company’s
favor on May 8, 2007, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2007.   

Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- is a marketer and manufacturer of  
a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, toiletries
and dietary supplements.  The Company’s portfolio of products includes
brands, such as Icy Hot, Aspercreme and Capzasin (topical pain care), Gold
Bond (medicated skin care products), Selsun Blue and Selsun Salon (medicated
dandruff shampoos), Dexatrim, Garlique and New Phase (dietary supplements),
and other OTC and toiletry products, such as Pamprin, a menstrual analgesic;
Herpecin-L, a lip care product; Benzodent, a dental analgesic cream, as well
as toiletries, such as Bullfrog, a line of sunscreens; UltraSwim, a chlorine-
removing shampoo, and Sun-In, a hair lightener.


CONTINENTAL PAINTING: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Painting Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 10
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Josue Velasquez and Oscar Ramirez allege denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Velasquez et al. v. Continental Painting Corp. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-14206-DLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Donald L. Graham with referral to Judge Frank
J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Keith Michael Stern
          Shavitz Law Group
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-447-8888
          Fax: 447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


DEPENDABLE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Tex. Suit Over Labor Code Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dependable Construction Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed July 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs -- Kent M. Nudell, Michael Villegas and William Barlow --
allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is “Villegas et al. v. Dependable Construction Services, Inc., Case
No. 4:07-cv-02165,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Mark Siurek
          Warren & Siurek
          3355 W Alabama, Ste 1010
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: 713-522-0066
          Fax: 713-522-9977
          E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com


FEDEX HOME: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Unlawful Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fedex Home Delivery, a division of Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., a
subsidiary of Fedex Corp., is facing a class-action complaint filed July 10
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over alleged
unlawful employment practices.

Named plaintiff Juan Dominguez brings this action for damages in excess of
the minimal jurisdiction of the court exclusive interest and costs to enforce
the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 703(a)
(1) (Unlawful Employment Practice), as amended by 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)
(1), as well as Florida Statutes Section 760.01(2); Section 760.10(1)(a)
(Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992).

Plaintiff claims he was discriminated and discharged due to his national
origin.

He brings this action on behalf of all present and/or former independent
contractors who were subject to the contractual practices and procedures and
whose contracts were terminated without cause and/or were not allowed to sell
their routes.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for an amount in excess of
$15,000 for compensatory damages together with all costs of this action,
interest, attorney's fees and such other and additional relief as the court
may deem appropriate.

The suit is “Dominguez v. Fedex Home Delivery et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21753-
AJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Adalberto Jordan.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez
          9600 NW 38th Street, Suite 301
          Miami, FL 33178
          Phone: 786-845-3900-fax-305
          Fax: 593-0686
          E-mail: jjjteam@yahoo.com


FLORIDA ALUMINUM: Fla. Suit Alleges Denied Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Aluminum Supply, Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed July
9 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Annely Martinez alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Martinez v. Florida Aluminum Supply, Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-21748-SH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Shelby Highsmith.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Edilberto O. Marban
          782 NW LeJeune Road
          Miami, FL 33126
          Phone: 305-448-9292
          Fax: 448-2788
          E-mail: marban@bellsouth.net


GOODYEAR TIRE: Asks Court to Identify Health Care Trust Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United Steelworkers filed a class action against Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co. in federal court to determine who will be covered under the Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association aimed at creating a $1 billion independent
health care trust for the union's 30,000 retirees, Jim Mackinnon of The
Beacon Journal reports.

The trust is part of a settlement reached during the union's 85-day strike
that ended in late December.  

“It's not a Goodyear-USW conflict.  It's just procedure,'' Steelworkers
spokesman Wayne Ranick said.

“This expected lawsuit is a necessary step in the process of gaining legal
approval (for the VEBA),” Goodyear spokesman Keith Price said.

The case is to certify the class of retirees covered under the proposed
VEBA.  

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
under U.S. District Judge John R. Adams.


INDIANA: Marion County Sued Over Preferential Property Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
A group named Stop Taxing Our Property, Inc. lodged a class-action complaint
in the State of Indiana in the Marion County Court against Marion County and
the City of Indianapolis, claiming the defendants are taxing residential
property at extortionate rates while giving commercial and industrial
property a pass, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Stop Taxing our Property is an Indiana not-for-profit corporation whose
members are taxpayers and residents of the State of Indiana, including the
County of Marion, Indiana.

STOP claims commercial and industrial real estate values have increased by 12
to 25 percent in recent years, while residential rates have shot up “by as
much as 300 percent.”

They complain:

          -- that a “Kroger’s grocery store on multiple lots” is  
             assessed at a lower value than a nearby home on a
             single lot;

          -- that a Chevrolet dealer was charged $29,633 in
             property taxes while a nearby member’s residence
             was charged $26,000; and

          -- that Rolls Royce Corp.’s Marion County assessment
             increased by 18 percent while a nearby home’s
             assessment increased by 123 percent.

Because of inequitable assessments, the Legislature ordered reassessments
done in 2002 and 2006. Plaintiffs claim the new assessments are so unfair
they are unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Trial Rule 23 on
behalf of the persons who own residential real estate in the County of
Marion, State of Indiana.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged, are
         and have been in violation of the Constitution and laws
         of the State of Indiana;

     (b) whether defendants breached their legal, fiduciary and
         administrative duties owed to plaintiffs and members of
         the class by failing to properly and equitably assess
         for tax purposes the real estate located in the County
         of Marion, the State of Indiana pursuant to the
         Constitution and laws of said State;

     (c) whether defendants breached their legal, fiduciary and
         administrative duties owed to plaintiffs and members of
         the class by failing to uniformly and equally assess
         for tax purposes the real estate located in the County
         of Marion, the State of Indiana pursuant to the
         holdings of the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana,
         based on "property wealth";

     (d) whether plaintiffs and the members of the class have
         sustained injury by reason of defendants' actions and
         omissions.

Plaintiffs petition the court to:

     -- enter a Declaratory Judgment finding that the
        defendants, by their failure to properly, timely and
        legally assess the commercial and industrial real estate
        in Marion County did violate the Constitution and laws
        of the State of Indiana, which require a uniform and
        equal rate of property assessment and taxation and have
        failed to implement State regulations enacted to secure
        a just valuation for taxation of all property located
        within the State of Indiana; and finding that the only
        just and equitable solution for the said failures by the
        defendant is an immediate and proper reassessment in
        which all of the real estate in Marion County,
        commercial/industrial and residential, is assessed on an
        equal and uniform basis as required by the Constitution
        and laws of the State of Indiana;

     -- to enter an Emergency Injunctive Order requiring the
        defendants:

        (1) to immediately reassess all of the real estate in
            Marion County, Indiana, including a proper and legal
            assessment of the commercial and industrial real
            estate and reassessment of residential real estate
            not properly assessed;

        (2) to withdraw all tax assessment notifications that
            have been provided to Marion County property
            taxpayers pending the said reassessment and to send
            revised tax assessment notifications reflecting the
            adjustments arising from the reassessment; and

        (3) to report to the court the defendants' progress on
            said reassessment on a timely and regular basis
            until the ordered reassessment is concluded.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

          John R. Price
          Price-Owen Law
          9000 Keystone Crossing #150
          Indianapolis, IN 46240
          Phone: 317-844-7766
          Fax: 317-844-7766
          E-mail: john@johnpricelaw.com or price301@earthlin.net


KARLIN FOOD: Recalls Pancake & Waffle Mix Due to Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karlin Food Products, Inc., of Northfield, Ill., is recalling its 32-oz. (2-
lb.) cartons of "Market Basket Complete Pancake & Waffle Mix" because it
contains undeclared milk.  

People who have allergies to milk can run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled "Market Basket, Complete Pancake & Waffle Mix" was distributed
in the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, DeMoulas Super
Markets/Market Basket retail stores.

The product comes in a 32-oz. (2-lb.) red carton with UPC # 49705-14852 on
the bottom and an expiration date of 08 29 07 stamped on the top.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk.  
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by the discovery of
dry milk as a sub-ingredient.

Production of the product has been suspended until the company and FDA are
certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 32-oz (2-lb) cartons of "Market Basket Complete
Pancake & Waffle Mix" with this code date are urged to return them to
DeMoulas Super Market/Market Basket Stores for a full refund or dispose of
them directly.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-441-
8330.


LINKUS ENTERPRISES: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
LinkUs Enterprises, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 6 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the CoutHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Gabe Wright alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Wright v. LinkUs Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-01347-MCE-
CMK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
under Judge Morrison C. England Jr., with referral to Judge Craig M. Kellison.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert Walter Thompson
          Callahan Mccune and Willis APLC
          111 Fashion Lane
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Phone: 714-730-5700
          Fax: 714-730-1642
          E-mail: robert_thompson@cmwlaw.net


M.A. MORTENSON: Accused of Unfair Labor Practices in Fla. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
M.A. Mortenson Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 10 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff David Keef alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Keef v. M.A. Mortenson Co. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01183-MMM-
BGC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
under Judge Michael M. Mihm with referral to Judge Byron G. Cudmore.

Representing plaintiff is:

          Robert W. Thompson
          Callahan, McCune & Willis, APLC
          111 Fashion Lane
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Phone: 714-730-5700


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over Recalled ICDs, CRT-Ds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. is a defendant in several purported class actions filed in
both the U.S. and in Canada over its recalled implantable cardioverter
defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators
(CRT-Ds), according to the company’s June 25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 27,
2007.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise physicians about the
possibility that a specific battery shorting mechanism might manifest itself
in a subset of implantable ICDs and CRT-Ds.  These included certain Marquis
VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III Marquis and InSync
III CRT-D devices.

The Company provided physicians a list of potentially affected patients, and
recommended that physicians communicate with those patients to manage the
potential issue as physicians deemed medically appropriate.

The voluntary field action was classified by the FDA as a Class II recall,
defined as one where there may be temporary or medically reversible adverse
health consequences, or where the probability of serious adverse health
consequences is remote.

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits have been
filed against the Company in both federal and state courts, alleging a
variety of claims, including individuals asserting claims of personal injury
and third party payors (TPP) alleging entitlement to reimbursement (including
a claim by an individual purporting to act as a surrogate for the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, whose claim has been dismissed by the Court
for failure to state a proper cause of action).

While the number of cases filed changes continually, as of this writing,
there were approximately 1,045 federal court cases and approximately 67 state
court cases, reflecting a total of approximately 1,106 individual personal
injury cases and six TPP cases.

In addition, five purported class action personal injury suits have been
filed in Canada.

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings
before a single federal judge in the District of Minnesota pursuant to the
MultiDistrict Litigation rules (MDL).

Separate master complaints have been filed in the MDL for the personal injury
and TPP groups of cases.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the MDL court denied the Company’s threshold legal motion,
which was filed on March 26, 2006, seeking federal preemption of the
lawsuits, finding that fact issues remained for discovery and trial before
the legal question could be resolved.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the MDL court denied the Company’s March 26, 2006 motion to
dismiss the TPP litigation, thus permitting it to go forward into the
remainder of the litigation process.

The TPP master complaint contains class action allegations, which the Company
plans to rigorously challenge.  

The personal injury master complaint does not contain such allegations,
although the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee has indicated that they may
pursue class certification of those claims.

On June 7, 2007, the Court issued an amended scheduling order for the MDL
cases, setting deadlines for discovery and pretrial motions in the first half
of calendar year 2008, and a ready for trial date for bellwether personal
injury cases on July 1, 2008.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com-- is engaged in medical  
technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people
around the world.  The Company functions in eight operating segments that
manufacture and sell device-based medical therapies: Cardiac Rhythm Disease
Management, Spinal and Navigation, Vascular, Neurological, Diabetes, Cardiac
Surgery, Ear, Nose and Throat, and Physio-Control.


MENU FOODS: Kan. Lawyer Files Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emporia, Kansas attorney Thomas A. Krueger filed a class action in Lyon
County District Court on behalf of pet owners against companies selling
contaminated pet food and continued to sell the pet food after the companies
became aware of the contamination, Bobbi Mlynar of The Emporia Gazette
reports.

Named defendants in the complaint:

          -- Menu Foods Ltd. Partnership, organized under
             Ontario, Canada, law;
          -- Menu Foods Acquisition and Menu Foods Limited,
             business corporations organized under Ontario law;
          -- Menu Foods Holdings and Menu Foods Midwest Corp.,
             Delaware corporations; and
          -- Menu Foods, a New Jersey corporation.

The complaint charges these companies on three counts alleging product
liability, consumer fraud and consumer protection violations and breach of
implied warranty.

The complaint -- filed on behalf of Tamara Temple of Otis, Kan., and McKay
Perry of Dodge City -- states that “plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury
of all issues so triable.”  It alleges that the Menu companies sold
contaminated pet food and that Menu continued to sell pet food it knew was
contaminated and failed to recall that food.

The complaint identifies Ms. Temple as the owner of a female calico cat who
ate “Special Kitty” brand cat food with gravy. The cat suffered kidney
failure and was hospitalized for at least four days in March. The cat
survived the poisoning, but will need “expensive special food and
prescription medicine for the rest of her life,” the complaint alleges.

While Mr. Perry is identified as the owner of a 3-year-old female cat who ate
an unidentified cat food manufactured by Menu and was hospitalized for
approximately three days in February of this year. The cat’s recovery was
marginal and she was euthanized on March 20.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide recall of 48
brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in response to reported deaths
of cats and dogs in the U.S.

The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams, Nutro, and
Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers Wal-Mart, Safeway,
Petsmart, and others.

Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the nation will
die of kidney failure or become very sick with similar symptoms as a result
of consuming the contaminated products.

To see complete list of recalled products: http://www.menufoods.com/recall

Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in Canada and the U.S.

Plaintiffs’ attorney can be contacted at:

          Thomas A. Attorney
          501 Commercial Street
          Emporia, KS 66801
          Phone: (620)342-2499
          Fax: (620)343-8302
          Website: http://www.lawyers.com/kruegerlawoffice


METLIFE AUTO: Accused of Reducing Insured’s Claim Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
Chiropractors have filed a class-action complaint on July 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota against MetLife Auto & Home and
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co. claiming it uses a computer
program to reduce insurance claim payments for medical care.

Named plaintiff Davis Chiropractic P.A. alleges Met practices the improper
use of computer-generated bill review reports to exclude from coverage part
of otherwise covered medical charges submitted under its standard automobile
liability insurance contract.  While policy requires Met to pay
all "reasonable expenses" incurred for medically necessary medical services
arising from a covered occurrence, Met does not do so.

Instead, Met systematically excludes part of an otherwise covered charge from
policy coverage by using a computer program licensed from Mitchell Medical
(the Mitchell Software) that reduces payment for plaintiffs' claims by
capping reimbursement at a pre-determined percentile of the charge.

The Mitchell Software simply compares the amount billed for a procedure to
percentile "benchmarks" an insurer selects.  That part of the charge that
exceeds the benchmark is excluded from coverage. These percentile benchmarks,
referred to as fee schedules, are embedded into the Mitchell Software that
defendants use to adjust and audit first party claims for medical expenses,
according to the suit.

By failing to disclose its actual practices and the method by which its
scheme is implemented, Met has defrauded plaintiffs and has engaged in unfair
and deceptive practices prohibited by statute in some states, all to the
detriment of class members in those states, the suit states.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule:

     (a) whether Met reduced medical payments for medical
         expenses by application of a statistical or
         mathematical method;

     (b) whether Met had a business policy or practice to reduce
         medical payments for medical expenses by application of
         a statistical or mathematical method;

     (c) if Met reduced medical payments for medical expenses by
         application of a statistical or mathematical model or
         cap, whether the selection and particulars of such
         method were arbitrary;

     (d) whether all expenses reduced or excluded by Met from a
         medical provider that exceed a set percentile of
         charges for similar services used by Met are
         unreasonable;

     (e) whether expenses by a medical provider that exceed
         Met's percentile are reasonable due to factors that may
         not have been considered by Met;

     (f) whether Met's decision to reduce medical payments for
         medical expenses may be based solely on an arbitrarily
         selected statistical or mathematical method;

     (g) whether Met's reduction of medical payments for medical
         expenses, if done on the basis of a statistical or
         mathematical method, is a reliable and accurate basis
         for rejecting payment upon grounds of unreasonableness
         in the absence of an opinion of unreasonableness by a
         qualified medical provider with knowledge of usual and
         customary charges in the community, or any other
         evidence;

     (h) whether Met or plaintiff bears the burden of providing
         that a charge in excess of Met's percentile is
         reasonable and/or unreasonable;

     (i) whether the charged amount on a formal bill issued by a
         licensed medical provider charge is not "reasonable";

     (j) whether Met has reasons specific to each claiming why a
         particular medical provider charge is not "reasonable";

     (k) whether Met represented that it would pay all
         reasonable medical expenses up to policy limits, and
         whether such representation was deceptive, unfair
         and/or false;

     (l) whether promise of payment of reasonable expenses is
         ambiguous, and should be interpreted in favor of
         coverage;

     (m) whether Met's conduct constitutes an exclusion or
         limitation of coverage;

     (n) whether Met refuses payment for medical bills based
         upon definitions of "reasonable" and "unreasonable"
         medical bills different from those definitions (if any)
         in its policy; and

     (o) whether Met fails to disclose coverage limitations and
         exclusions for policy benefits in its Medpay policies.

Plaintiff prays for an Order as follows:

     -- finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for
        maintenance as a class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ.
        23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), and certifying the class
        defined;

     -- designating plaintiff as representative of the class and
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- declaring that defendants' conduct violates the Consumer
        Fraud Acts;

     -- awarding damages against defendants in favor of
        plaintiff and the class in an amount to be determined by
        the court as fair and just for the wrongful activities
        of defendants described;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class prejudgment interest on
        any damages awarded by the court;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class reasonable attorneys'
        fees and costs of this lawsuit; and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class such further relief as
        the court deems just and appropriate.

The suit is “Davis Chiropractic, PA v. Metlife Auto & Home et al., Case No.
0:07-cv-03248-MJD-AJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge Michael J. Davis with referral to Judge Arthur J.
Boylan.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Vincent J. Esades
          Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
          80 S 8th St Ste 3550
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

          - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan
          Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
          80 S 8th St Ste 3550
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692
          E-mail: mruan@heinsmills.com


MEYER CORP: Recalls Culinary Torches After Fuel Leak Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer Corp., U.S., of Vallejo, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of nearly 4,400
(about 40 with consumers) of BonJour Professional Culinary Torches.

The company said butane fuel can leak from the torch assembly near the
nozzle, posing a fire hazard.

Meyer has received four reports of fuel leakage.  No injuries or property
damage have been reported.

This recall involves the BonJour Professional Culinary Torch sold alone and
as part of the BonJour Bain Marie Set.  The torch is 7.5 inches high and has
a visible fuel gauge.  The base is black, and the handle is either black or
brown.  The torch assembly is silver-colored with the word “BonJour” printed
on the side.

These torches were manufactured in China and were sold at various retailers
nationwide from October 2006 through May 2007 for about $40 (when sold alone)
or about $70 (when included as part of the Bain Marie Set).

Click on the link to view product’s photo:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07235.html

Consumers who have purchased the torches should immediately stop using the
recalled product and contact Meyer for a refund.

For additional information, contact Meyer at (800) 226-6568 between 7 a.m.
and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.meyer.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Xbox Defects-Related Lawsuit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida over defects in its Xbox 360, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jorge Brouwer claims the Xbox 360 “scratches the video game
discs during normal operation and use, rendering them unreadable or otherwise
inoperable.”  He further claims this defect is separate from the “three
flashing lights” fatal defect that Microsoft just admitted, extending
warranties on Xboxes and taking a $1.1 billion earnings loss.

Mr. Brouwer alleges Microsoft knows of but has not admitted this additional
defect, caused by lack of a rubber cushion around an optical lens. He claims
Microsoft has received “thousands” of complaints that the Xbox ruins game
discs, and has offered to replace only some of them, and only those made by
Microsoft.

“However, Defendant has not replaced all of its titles that have been
scratched and refuses to replace or provide any compensation for any
scratched game discs made by third parties,” the complaint states.

Microsoft has sold 11.6 million Xboxes, for $299 to $479 apiece, and charges
more for accessories.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of all others similarly situated in
the United States who own an Xbox 360 Video Game System manufactured and
distributed by Microsoft that has caused destructive scratches to the game
discs played by the device.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether defendant sold the Xbox 360 with a defective
         laser mechanism that resulted in scratching of game
         discs;

     (b) whether defendants advertised, represented, or held
         itself out as producing or manufacturing, advertising,
         selling or distributing the defective Xbox 360 to the
         class members;

     (c) whether defendant expressly warranted the product;

     (d) whether defendant purported to disclaim any express
         warranty;

     (e) whether defendant purported to disclaim any implied
         warranty;

     (f) whether any limitation on warranty fails to meet its
         essential purpose;

     (g) whether defendant intended that the Xbox 360 be
         purchased by plaintiff, class members, or others;

     (h) whether defendants intended or foresaw that plaintiff,
         class members, or others would use the Xbox 360 as
         intended;

     (i) whether using the Xbox 360 as intended - to play game
         discs - resulted in loss, injury, damage, or damages to
         the class;

     (j) whether defendant caused the class members' damages;

     (k) whether class members suffered direct losses or
         damages; and

     (i) whether class members suffered indirect losses or
         damages.

Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against defendants as follows:

     -- for and order certifying the class under the appropriate
        provisions of Rule 23, as well as any appropriate
        subclass, and appointing plaintiff and his legal counsel
        to represent the class;

     -- awarding actual and consequential damages;

     -- requiring defendant to repair and remedy the defects in
        the Xbox 360 at no charge, or in the alternative,
        payment of the full purchase price;

     -- replacement of all damaged discs or, in the alternative,
        payment of the full purchase price of each disc;

     -- return of any money previously paid to defendant to
        replace any Microsoft-made game discs;

     -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the
        class, as allowed by law;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for
        the class if and when pecuniary and non-pecuniary
        benefits are obtained on behalf of the class; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as is just and
        proper.

The suit is “Brouwer v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 0:07-cv-60950-JIC,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
James I. Cohn.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David Lawrence Ferguson
          Hodkin Kopelowitz & Ostrow Firm PA
          350 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 980
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
          Phone: 954-525-4100
          Fax: 525-4300
          E-mail: ferguson@thkolaw.com

          Eric Lee
          Lee & Amtzis, P.L.
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 401
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-981-9988
          Fax: 981-9980
          E-mail: lee@leeamlaw.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow
          Hodkin Kopelowitz & Ostrow Firm PA
          350 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 980
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
          Phone: 954-525-4100
          Fax: 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@thkolaw.co


MIDAS INC: Franchisees File $168M Suit in Canada Over Shut Down
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Canadian franchisees have filed a lawsuit in Ontario against Itasca-based
(Illinois) Midas Inc. on June 29, Chicago Tribune’s James P. Miller reports.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that the automotive
services provider breached its franchise agreement when it closed its
manufacturing and distribution operations, the report said.

The plaintiffs ask for monetary damages of approximately $168 million.

Midas believes the case is without merit and will vigorously defend itself.


MINNESOTA: MAC, Cities Have Until July 23 to Reach Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich granted cities suing the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to seek relief from jet noise until July 23
to come up with a settlement agreement, Steve Brandt of Star Tribune reports.

The cities and a class-action group of citizens have sued separately for
housing renovations intended to provide noise relief.  Under a proposed
settlement with homeowners, MAC will provide nearly $65 million in noise
mitigation benefits to more than 4,400 homeowners in the class.  

Lawyers involved in the cities' lawsuit are also seeking to clarify an
interim order Judge Aldrich for the Airports Commission to begin insulating
by February, 900 homes annually in areas where noise levels are highest.


MISSISSIPPI: Human Services Reaches Settlement in “Olivia Y.”
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee has approved a settlement of a class action
involving Division of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS).  An Oct. 3, 2007
trial is set as to remedy.

“Olivia Y. v. Barbour” was originally filed in March of 2004 on behalf of six
plaintiffs -- children who had allegedly fallen victim to physical and
psychological harm while in the custody of the Mississippi DFCS or had simply
been neglected by DFCS altogether.  

These six plaintiffs were representative of the over 3,500 foster children
dependent upon the care of DFCS, as well as thousands more who are improperly
diverted from the system.  In May of 2004, seven more children joined in the
lawsuit through an amended complaint.

The suit alleged that the substantive constitutional due process rights of
over 3,500 Mississippi foster children in state custody had been violated
through the State's repeated failures to provide essential medical care,
protection against neglect and abuse, and minimally acceptable placement and
adoption services.  

Rather than face trial, Mississippi agreed to a court-supervised process of
reforming its child welfare system such to meet and exceed constitutional,
federal, and national child protective standards.

The suit was filed against the Governor of Mississippi, the Executive
Director of the Department of Human Services, and the Director of DHS’s
Division of Familyand Children’s Services, all in their official capacities.

The suit is “Olivia Y. v. Barbour, 04-CV-251,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 30, 2004.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marcia Lowry
          Eric Thompson
          Tara Crean
          Margaret Ross
          Children's Rights, Inc.
          404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 683-2210
          Fax: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: ethompson@childrenrights.org

          Wayne Drinkwater, Esq.
          Melody McAnally, Esq.
          Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP
          One Jackson Place, Suite 450
          188 E. Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Phone: (601) 948-8000
          Fax: (601) 948-3000
          E-mail: wdrinkwater@bradleyarant.com

          John Lang, Esq.
          Christian Carbone, Esq.
          Loeb & Loeb, LLP
          345 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10037
          Phone: (212) 407-4000
          Fax: (212) 407-4990
          E-mail: jlang@loeb.com

          Stephen H. Leech, Esq.
          P.O. Box 3623
          Jackson, MS 39207
          Phone: (601) 355-4013
          E-mail: s.leech@sleech.com


MORTGAGE LENDERS: NAACP Files Suit Over “Biased” Loan Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Civil rights group National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) sued several mortgage lenders Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles, Alex Veiga of the Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges the companies’ lending practices are unfair and discriminate
against blacks by encouraging them into applying for higher-interest,
subprime loans whereas whites have more constructive loan terms.

It further contends the mortgage lenders have taken in "institutionalized,
systematic racism," asserting that black borrowers were 30 percent more
susceptible to getting higher interest rates than white homeowners with the
same financial status.

The NAACP even mentioned studies and public statements released by government
agencies to support their claims like the one by   Durham, N.C.-based Center
for Responsible Lending.  According to the complaint, the study said blacks
were 31 to 34 percent prone to be sold subprime loans than whites.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, didn’t cite examples of how
borrowers were subjected to discrimination.

Some of the defendants named in the suit are Ameriquest Mortgage Co.,
Citigroup Inc., HSBC Finance Corp. and Washington Mutual Inc.

The first three companies denied the allegations, saying their lending
practices are fair.

Washington Mutual said it still needs to see the suit and refused to comment.

The suit wants an injunction order to stop the mortgage companies from
discriminating against blacks and to make them abide by the fair housing and
credit laws.


OKLAHOMA: Tulsa Police Oversight Might End 2008, Report Says
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action that alleged the Tulsa Police Dept. discriminated against
blacks in its ranks may be finally coming to an end after 13 years, the
Associated Press reports.

The city may file a motion to end the agreement in 2008 if it shows
significant improvement and “substantially complied” with the terms provided
in the settlement.

The Black Officers Coalition's lawsuit, filed in January 1994, alleged blacks
faced a segregated work environment, were discriminated against in hiring and
promotions, received no help when calling for backup and faced retaliation if
they complained of discrimination.  It obtained a class-action status in 1998.

U.S. District Court Judge Sven Erik Holmes approved the settlement decree,
which lists several changes within the department, between the city and the
plaintiffs in May 2003.

So far, the city has been complying with the terms in the settlement.  In
fact, it has already filed 12 progress reports regarding the required
enhancement in the department.

But plaintiff attorney Louis Bullock said that even though the city has
complied on some areas, there are still vital issues that need addressing.  
Some of these are job assignments, recruitment of officers and the city’s way
of handling information as a result of the settlement, according to the
report.

The suit is “Johnson, et al. v. Tulsa, City of, Case No: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-
FHM,” under U.S. District Judge Terence Kern for the Northern District of
Oklahoma with referral to Judge Frank H. McCarthy.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Louis Bullock, Esq.
          Miller, Keffer & Bullock
          222 S. KENOSHA
          TULSA, OK 74120
          Phone: 918-584-2001
          Fax: 918-582-7302
          E-mail: LBULLOCK@MKBLAW.NET

               -  and  -

          Jean Walpole Coulter, Esq.
          Coulter Tucker PC
          1638 S CARSON STE 1107
          TULSA, OK 74119
          Phone: 918-583-6394
          Fax: 918-583-6398
          E-mail: jeancoult@aol.com

Representing the city is:

          Joel Wohlgemuth, Esq.
          Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell
          401 S Boston Ave Ste 2900
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: 918-583-7571
          Fax: 918-584-7846
          E-mail: jlw@nwcdlaw.com


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and certain of its executive officers were
named as defendants in several purported stockholder class actions filed on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company between April 29, 2004
and July 5, 2006.

The lawsuits followed the Company’s July 5, 2006 announcement that it will
restate certain of its financial statements and allege that the Company and
certain members of its management engaged in violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company’s financial condition and results.

The class actions have been consolidated and are pending in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey.  The Court has appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

Co-lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 30, 2006,
purporting to represent purchasers of common stock of the Company between
July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006.

Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond no later than June 29,
2007, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July
10, 2007.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. -- http://www.parpharm.com/-- is a  
holding company that, principally through its wholly owned subsidiary, Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Par), is in the business of manufacturing and
distributing generic and branded drugs in the U.S.  Products are marketed
principally in solid oral dosage form consisting of tablets, caplets and two-
piece, hard-shell capsules.  The Company also distributes products in the
semi-solid form of a cream and several oral suspension products.  Generic
drugs are the pharmaceutical and therapeutic equivalents of brand name drugs
and are usually marketed under their generic (chemical) names rather than by
brand names.  In January 2006, the Company announced its divestiture of
FineTech Laboratories, Ltd. effective December 31, 2005. As a result of the
divestiture, the business is being reported as a discontinued operation.


RED HAT: N.C. Court Refuses to Certify Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina entered an
order denying class-action status for a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
pending against Red Hat, Inc.  

In the summer of 2004, 14 class actions were filed against the company and
several of its present and former officers on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's securities during various periods from June 19, 2001
through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina.  In each of the actions, plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of purchasers of the company's common stock during some or all of the
period from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All of the claims arise in connection with the company announcement on July
13, 2004 that it would restate certain of its financial statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and former officers
and the company variously violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by
issuing the financial statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of certain profits obtained by
the individual defendants from trading in the company's common stock,
disgorgement by the company's chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of
2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were consolidated into a
single action referenced as "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-CV-473 BR.  

Lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have been designated, and on May
6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the individual
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.

Also on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant, filed a
separate motion to dismiss.  On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order
granting the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims
against several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its
chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer.

The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their
entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.  A scheduling order has
been entered in the matter, and discovery is scheduled to conclude by Sept.
21, 2007.  

On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  
Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several plaintiffs have withdrawn as
potential class representatives, and the company has opposed the
certification of the remaining proposed class representatives.

On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class certification and
denying all other pending motions as moot, according to the company’s July
10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-473," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina under Judge W. Earl Britt.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         William Webb
         The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm,
         P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602
         Phone: 919-831-8700
         E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com

Representing the company is:
        
         Pressly M. Millen
         Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Esq.
         P.O. Box 831
         Raleigh, NC 27602
         Phone: 919-755-2135
         E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com


SAFE HURRICANE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July
10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Felipe Torrealba and Julio Henriquez allege denial of
overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Torrealba et al. v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-21765-UU,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jamie H. Zidell
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305-865-6766
          Fax: 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SILTON MANAGEMENT: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silton Management, Inc. and Maynard Mast face a labor-related class action
filed May 31 in Fort Lauderdale Federal Court, according to CourtHouse News
Service.

Plaintiff Tawana Smith claims violations of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Smith v. Silton Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21416-
AJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Adalberto Jordan with referral to Edwin G. Torres.

Representing the defendants is:

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

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
         Shavitz Law Group
         1515 S Federal Highway
         Suite 404
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-447-8888
         Fax: 447-8831
         E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Faces Massive Copyright Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius Satellite Radio has been accused of massive copyright violations of
old music in a class-action complaint filed recently, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiffs are:

          -- Nota Music Publishing,
          -- Cartagena Enterprises,
          -- David Grisman,
          -- Craig Miller dba Dawg Music dba Acoustic Disc,
          -- HMS Distributors dba J&N Records dba J&N
             Publishing,
          -- JVN Music dba JVN Records,
          -- The Music Force dba Full Force Music Musical
             Productions,
          -- On Top Records dba Still On Top Publishing dba Real
             Smooth Publishing,
          -- Platano Records, and
          -- Rico Records Distributing

They claim Sirius illegally distributes music copyrighted before Feb. 15,
1972 to its 6.5 million subscribers, who pay $12.95 a month, with which
Sirius is illegally enriching itself.

Plaintiffs demand compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is:

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


SOUTHERN GARDNERS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Gardners, Inc. and Michael Morrell face a labor-related class action
filed May 31 in Fort Lauderdale Federal Court, according to CourtHouse News
Service.

Plaintiff Paul Claivilus claims violations of the Labor Code.

The suit is “Claivilus v. Southern Gardners, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-
60756-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Representing the defendants is:

         Donald R. McCoy, Esq.
         600 NE 3rd Avenue
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304-2674
         Phone: 954-522-4211
         Fax: 525-9692
         E-mail: donaldmccoy@bellsouth.net

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
         Shavitz Law Group
         1515 S Federal Highway
         Suite 404
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-447-8888
         Fax: 447-8831
         E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


SUPERIOR WASH: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Superior Recruiting, Inc. and Superior Wash, Inc.-South Florida face a labor-
related class action filed May 31 in Fort Lauderdale Federal Court, according
to CourtHouse News Service.

Plaintiffs Gesner Christeme and Clonet Charman claim violations of the Labor
Code.

The suit is “Christeme v. Superior Wash, Inc.-South Florida et al., Case No.
0:07-cv-60753-WPD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Hal B. Anderson, Esq.
         Shavitz Law Group
         1515 S. Federal Hw.
         Suite 404
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-447-8888
         Fax: 561-447-8831
         E-mail: hal.anderson@shavitzlaw.com

         Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
         Shavitz Law Group
         1515 S Federal Highway
         Suite 404
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-447-8888
         Fax: 447-8831
         E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Charles David Franken, Esq.
         8181 West Broward Boulevard
         Suite 360
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Phone: 954-476-7200
         Fax: 954 424-0297
         E-mail: frankencdf@aol.com


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Records $444T for Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Co., as of June 2, 2007, recorded US$444,000 for probable
asbestos-related liabilities, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2007.

As of June 2, 2007, the Company had recorded US$161,000 for insurance
recoveries related to asbestos claims.

As of Dec. 2, 2006, the Company accrued US$1.2 million for probable asbestos-
related liabilities and accrued US$600,000 for insurance recoveries related
to asbestos claims. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007)

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products
containing asbestos manufactured more than 20 years ago.

The plaintiffs generally bring these suits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.

As a result of bankruptcy filings by numerous defendants in asbestos-related
litigation and the prospect of national and state legislative reform relating
to such litigation, the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
lawsuits against various companies (including the Company) increased in 2001,
2002 and the first half of 2003. After the second half of 2003, the rate of
these filings declined.

However, the Company expects that asbestos-related suits will continue to be
filed against the Company in the future.

During the year ended Dec. 2, 2006, the Company settled five asbestos-related
suits, totaling US$613,000. The Company’s insurers have paid or are expected
to pay US$415,000 of these settlement amounts.

During the first six months of 2007 the Company settled five asbestos-related
suits for US$404,000. The Company’s insurers have paid or are expected to pay
US$291,000 of that amount.

Known for making adhesives, the St. Paul, Minn.-based H.B. Fuller Co. also
makes sealants, powder coatings for metals (office furniture, appliances),
and liquid paints (for the Latin American market).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Postpones N.Y. Carpenter’s Sentencing
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. postponed the
sentencing of John Chick, a former carpenter of Cayuga County, N.Y., who
violated the Clean Air Act and other regulations for asbestos removal
matters, The Post-Standard reports.

Mr. Chick, 65 years old, was supposed to be sentenced to up to five years in
prison by Judge Scullin.

In January 2007, Mr. Chick admitted he supervised the illegal removal and
dumping of asbestos from the Cayuga County Board of Elections in 2006. He
might also have to pay up to a US$250,000 fine for conspiracy to violate the
federal Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chick pleaded guilty to that count of conspiracy while nine other counts,
including six Clean Air Act violations and three counts of making false
statements to federal and state investigators, and charges that he threatened
the life of a whistle-blower were dropped under the plea deal.

Mr. Chick admitted ordering Anthony Garropy, a former county building
maintenance mechanic, and later five county jail inmates to remove a faulty
boiler and piping in February 2006 with the knowledge the equipment contained
friable asbestos. The actions of the workers caused asbestos to be released
into air.

Mr. Chick admitted to taking no precautions. He also admitted to illegally
dumping the load at the Auburn landfill. In July 2006, employees in the
building learned they could have been exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Physicist’s Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Flax Bourton, Somerset, England, heard that the death of
retired industrial physicist Ian Mackley was linked to asbestos, this is
somerset reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Mackley, who retired from the cement industry in
1999, was diagnosed with the industrial form of lung cancer in April 2006
after complaining of chest pains and shortness of breath. He died at Bath's
Royal United Hospital in January 2007, at the age of 68.

Mr. Mackley had started his career as a research assistant with the
Associated Portland Cement Co., which later became Blue Circle and is now
known as Lafarge.

In a statement to the inquest, Mrs. Mackley said he had been involved in the
design, manufacture and research of control systems. She said it was this
work with heating elements in a high temperature laboratory that brought Mr.
Mackley into contact with asbestos fibers.

Mrs. Mackley explained that her husband could not remember whether he had
been given any written or verbal advice about contact with asbestos and added
that Mr. Mackley had also worked in cement dust.

Mrs. Mackley said that her husband had worked in this department until 1973,
when he took on a better paid job at the Lafarge works in Westbury, where he
had worked in the process control and electrical department.

Deputy coroner Brian Whitehouse heard that Mr. Mackley had been healthy and
had not been the type of person who would go to the doctor.

However, Mr. Mackley made an appointment in February 2006 because he started
to feel pains in his chest and breathlessness, thinking he had pulled a
muscle.

Mrs. Mackley said her husband had joined a nationwide clinical trial
involving chemotherapy after his diagnosis and that had finished in December
2006.

Mr. Mackley had been admitted to the RUH with pneumonia in November 2006 and
then again on Jan. 7, 2006. He died 10 days later.

Mr. Whitehouse said it was a clear case of a man who had contracted
mesothelioma as a result of his contact with asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal from Ky. Hospital to Cost $198,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal from the abandoned Corbin Municipal Hospital in Corbin, Ky.,
would cost about US$197,678, Corbin News Journal reports.

Micro-Analytics, a firm based in Louisville, Ky., submitted the bid.

Miles Estes, Vice-President for Advancement at Kentucky Communities Economic
Opportunity Council, on July 3, 2007, said that a single bid was received to
remove asbestos from the old hospital, but he was not disappointed because it
was cheaper than first expected.

KCEOC bought the hospital property, located off Mitchell Street, in 2005 and
immediately announced plans to tear down the hospital and use the area to
provide "blended housing" to low and moderate-income families.

Despite initial promises for funds under the federal Environmental Protection
Agency's "Brownfields" grant program, funding for the project has been
elusive.

Bids for asbestos removal were opened July 3, 2007. Mr. Estes said he plans
to wait several days before advertising for bids for total demolition of the
structure.

Mr. Estes said asbestos removal could possibly even be cheaper than the bid
price if rules regarding disposal can be worked out with state regulators.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Botched Removal Work Prompts Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a Department of Energy memo to staff, asbestos removal work at
the Federal Building in Richland, Wash., was inadequately contained, allowing
asbestos dust to leave a construction area, Tri-City Herald reports.

According to information from the General Services Administration, which
manages the building, tests show the spread was limited to two offices on the
building's third floor.

No contamination reached public areas, which include a federal courtroom and
a coffee shop, said Bill Lesh, spokesman for the General Services
Administration.

Work was being done when an unusual amount of dust was noticed in two third-
floor offices, according to a memo sent to DOE employees by Mike Weis, acting
manager for DOE's Hanford Richland Operations Office.

DOE is the building's main tenant, with about 200 employees using offices
there.

In July 5, 2007, a sample of dust from the two rooms was found to contain
asbestos. At DOE's request, about 30 air samples were collected, with at
least two samples taken on each floor of the building, according to the memo.

According to DOE, none of the samples had asbestos above levels allowed in
public areas.

According to the memo, the contamination spread from the work area where the
asbestos project contractor used an unusual method for the final step in
removing asbestos fireproofing on steel beams,.

The contractor used a machine that blasted the beam with tiny balls of dry
ice. That created a breach in the containment system for the project and dust
with asbestos entered a vent near the project, allowing the dust to escape
into two offices.

DOE has asked AdvanceMed Hanford, the occupational medicine contractor for
Hanford, to develop a plan for medical evaluation of employees concerned
about their exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Victim to Join Bid to Ban Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Clauson, an asbestos disease sufferer, plans to join U.S. Senator Patty
Murray in Seattle to support the need for laws to ban the use of asbestos in
the U.S., seattlepi.com reports.

The Seattle P-I first exposed the problems with asbestos and the W.R. Grace &
Co.'s mining in Libby, Mont., in 1999 in a series called "An Uncivil Action."

It was in the 1990s that Sen. Murray said she first learned that the U.S. was
one of the few Western countries that had not outlawed the use of asbestos.

In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency instituted a ban on almost all
uses of the disease-causing fibers but, almost immediately, the Canadian
asbestos industry succeeded in getting a federal appeals court to overturn
the EPA's effort.

Sen. Murray's staff questioned people from Washington State who had asbestos
illness, and EPA officials and those from other agencies who had the
responsibility to protect workers, their family members and the public from
exposure to the fiber.

Six years ago, Sen. Murray introduced legislation to ban the use and
importation of asbestos. The three-term Democrat was almost the lone voice on
Capitol Hill pushing for the law and for federal agencies to do more.

Sen. Murray’s efforts were fought openly and behind the scenes by lobbyists
from the asbestos and automotive industry and the White House, which was
pushing for different industry-friendly legislation that would have prevented
lawsuits against companies that used asbestos.

Health experts were telling Sen. Murray the need for the ban is increasing.
They said that the importation of raw asbestos as well as brake shoes,
roofing tiles and other material using asbestos has increased over the past
12 years.

In June 2007, with the support of 16 other senators, Sen. Murray introduced
the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Govt. Hears Bill’s Second Reading
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, on July 4, 2007, received its
Second Reading in the House of Commons, Building reports.

Mesothelioma sufferers will be able to claim compensation more easily under
new government proposals.

Under the terms of the Bill, mesothelioma sufferers will be able to more
quickly and easily claim a lump sum compensation from the government.

Payment will also be extended to relatives of deceased mesothelioma victims.

The Bill also contains provisions to compensate people who may have caught
mesothelioma by exposure to relatives working with asbestos, by such means as
washing their clothes.

Previously, suffers who contracted the disease in the workplace were eligible
for compensation.

Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) general secretary
Alan Ritchie supported the move. He said, “This legislation is warmly
welcomed. The Government is moving in the right direction in helping to
alleviate the suffering of victims of this terrible disease.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links U.K. Roofer’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sussex Coroner Martin Milward linked the death of roofer, John Davidson, to
asbestos poisoning, SurreyOnline.co.uk.

Mr. Davidson, 67 years old, died in his home in Copthorne Road after
suffering from mesothelioma.

In July 4, 2007, Sussex Coroners heard that Mr. Davidson was diagnosed with
mesothelioma at the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, U.K., in April
2003.

After the diagnosis, Mr. Davidson visited Mexico four times for holistic
treatment at the Oasis of Hope hospital.

The inquest heard that Mr. Davidson felt the medical options there were
better than in the U.K.

Mr. Milward said, “There is evidence that he was in contact with asbestos. I
conclude that he died of the industrial disease mesothelioma.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ, EPA Releases Final Plan for Wyo. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wyoming State Department of Environmental Quality and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency have released a final site sampling plan for
a lot next to Lupe Road that holds buried asbestos, Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
reports.

In March 2007, the DEQ and the EPA released a preliminary plan.

The final plan adds a few more air monitors downwind of exposed piles of
debris that are known to contain asbestos and will put air monitors inside
rather than outside the property’s fence.

The lot located between Lupe Road and Four Mile Road about a quarter mile
east of Yellowstone Road on Cheyenne, Wyo.’s north side has worried neighbors.

Those neighbors say they are disappointed by the new sampling plan because
they feel the site should be cleaned up immediately. They base that on the
opinions of independent contractors who have looked at the site, said M. Lee
Hasenauer, a neighbor of the property on Lupe Road.

To address the neighbors’ concerns, the EPA created a sampling plan for the
lot. That will include over a dozen air sampling devices around the perimeter
and three upwind of it to see how much asbestos is present in the air before
it gets to the lot.

In addition to the air samplers, an EPA environmental response team will
collect up to nine soil samples from Childs Draw, which runs through the
property.

The final plan differs from the preliminary one chiefly in that the air
monitors have been moved inside the fence. The agencies also plan to include
a monitor downwind of a suspected asbestos pile on the property.

Tim Post, project manager with the DEQ, said that once the department
determines the concentration of asbestos particles in the air, they will be
able to decide if the site poses a significant or unacceptable health threat.

The EPA plans on placing monitors on the site in the last part of July 2007,
depending on the presence of hot, dry conditions. Those provide the most
favorable environment for fibers to potentially become airborne.

A DEQ official went to the property and took 30 more samples two weeks ago to
get a better feel for how much of the debris on the lot contains asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish School Closes After Hazard Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Drumragh Integrated College in Omagh, Northern Ireland closed for the
summer holidays three days earlier than planned as a precautionary after the
discovery of asbestos in a basement, Ulster Herald reports.

School principal, Nigel Frith, in a letter to parents, said that the basement
is not used by the college and has been sealed off. He said the asbestos will
be removed from the site by experts during the summer.

Mr. Frith added that tests have been conducted within the building during the
last few days and that preliminary results would indicate that there is no
cause for alarm.

Mr. Frith said that the Board of Governors had taken the decision to close
immediately as a precautionary measure as the safety of students and staff
was a key concern.

The school which occupies part of the old Tyrone and Fermanagh psychiatric
hospital at Domaghanie Road, Omagh, is due to get a GBP10.2 million school
building.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. School Abatement to Cost $180,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Goltz, construction manager for the Coupeville School District in
Coupeville, Wash., said that the US$180,000 cost for asbestos removal of the
Coupeville High School building was approved in August 2006, Whidbey News-
Times reports.

The hazardous material removal was something expected by school officials and
the work was scheduled into the demolition of the building when the material
was discovered in 2006.

The school district performed a survey of the rundown high school during
spring break 2006.

Asbestos is in the school’s floor tile and underneath the building. Mr. Goltz
said the material underneath the building is more problematic because
asbestos has fallen off the building’s pipes and mixed in with the soil. The
soil also has to be removed before building demolition can proceed.

Workers started the asbestos removal and they are expected to finish in mid-
July 2007. Once that work is complete, demolition of the high school will
continue.

Workers have already torn up the parking lot next to South Main Street and
demolished the old vo-tech building, Mr. Goltz said.

Once the main high school building is demolished, work will begin on a
courtyard. The courtyard walkway will be composed of bricks salvaged from the
old high school.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Inspections Available in Nebraska
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos building inspections are available in the Columbus, Nebr., area;
about eight months after local engineer gave up his inspection license in an
agreement with the state, columbustelegram.com reports.

Roberta Miksch of the East-Central District Health Department has been
certified as an asbestos inspector for government, commercial and residential
structures. The department is now offering the inspection service in its four-
county area of Platte, Colfax, Nance and Boone.

In November 2006, a local engineer turned over his license to the state
following the disclosure he had worked as an asbestos designer, inspector and
management planner on a local project while serving a 60-day suspension for
sending an untrained worker to perform a 2005 inspection.

Ms. Miksch said she expected area fire departments and residents to seek out
the inspection service.

Ms. Miksch said that in smaller communities, fire departments often are
called on to demolish vacant and abandoned buildings and residences.

The health department also expects to get calls from residents who just want
to find out if a home or building has asbestos. The health department will
not be doing inspections of schools.

The department's fee is US$350 for testing of three samples and a written
report of the results. The department also will have a sliding fee schedule
based on property owners' incomes.

If an asbestos test is positive, the property owner can request information
on proper disposal of asbestos or be referred to qualified contractors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USGS Bares Map of 61 Rocky Mountain Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
A published U.S. Geological Survey report contains a regional map and
associated database that inventory 61 locations of reported natural asbestos
and fibrous amphibole occurrences in the Rocky Mountain area of the United
States, according to a USGS press release dated July 9, 2007.

These areas include the states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and
Wyoming. The map is based on a search of scientific literature and does not
identify any new occurrences of asbestos.

It is the third in a series which originated in 2005 with a similar report
for the Eastern United States and was followed in 2006 by a product that
encompasses the Central United States.

USGS Open File Report 2007-1182, "Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic
Asbestos Prospects, and Natural Asbestos Occurrences in the Rocky Mountain
States of the United States (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and
Wyoming)," corrects inaccurate locality information in previously published
maps and data compilations at regional and national scales and includes
additional published natural asbestos occurrences that appear in historic
literature.

This report is part of an ongoing effort to update existing national-scale
databases on asbestos occurrences.

This USGS publication identifies the specific types of asbestos present in
the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. Previous regional to national scale
maps do not describe the specific types of asbestos reported at many
locations (for example chrysotile versus different amphibole asbestos
varieties).

This map identifies different types of asbestos and asbestiform minerals, but
does not attempt to distinguish between substances that may or may not pose a
risk to human health.

USGS Director Mark Myers said, “This map is the third in a series aimed at
providing a better understanding of the geographic distribution of the
geologic environments in which asbestos formed across the nation.

“Due to considerable interest in this compilation effort, the first of its
kind, the USGS will continue to update information on asbestos localities.
The series has already proven to have applications for the public health,
geologic, and environmental communities."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenn. Worker Sues 118 Companies in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Weese, a mesothelioma sufferer from Tennessee, on June 27, 2007, sued
118 defendant corporations in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Madison
County Circuit Court in Illinois, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Defendants include Alcoa Inc., CBS Corp., Discount Auto Parts Inc., The Dow
Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Honeywell International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Co.
Ltd., John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois Inc., Pabst Brewing Co., Sears, and
U.S. Steel Corp.

Mr. Weese claims that his disease was wrongfully caused. He claims he was
employed from the 1940s through the 1990s as a pipefitter, laborer and welder
in various locations including Illinois.

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

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

According to Mr. Weese, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 16, 2007
and later learned his disease was wrongfully caused.

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Thompson of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Weese.

Case No. 07 L 575 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Seeks to End Grace’s Hold on Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Beaudin Stapleton, the U.S. trustee overseeing W.R. Grace & Co.’s
Chapter 11 case, has asked a judge to end the Company’s exclusive control
over its Chapter 11 case, saying the asbestos-fueled proceedings have gone on
too long, Associated Press reports.

Ms. Stapleton said the Company is not likely to file a reorganization plan
anytime soon if the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., allows it to
keep exclusive control over the case into 2008.

Ms. Stapleton said the costs of the case are piling up as fees for lawyers
and financial advisers rise to "significantly high levels." The Company’s
creditors, however, still have not been paid.

Ms. Stapleton said, “Unfortunately, the wrong people are being paid in this
case. Creditors continue to wait for money while professionals get paid on a
consistently high basis.”

The Company seeks to keep exclusive control over the case until 90 days after
a final court order establishing its asbestos liabilities. Proceedings to
determine those liabilities are set to begin in January 2008.

The Company blames the lawyers for asbestos claimants for the long delay,
saying they've "held the estimation process hostage for nearly two years."

A hearing on the Company’s request is scheduled for July 23, 2007. If the
court grants the request, creditors would be barred from filing their own
reorganization plans on the Company's behalf.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Inks Deal to Settle ACandS Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies Inc., on July 6, 2007, stated that it has entered
into a settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos-related
coverage claims against the Company and its subsidiaries relating to ACandS
Inc.

Under the settlement agreement, Travelers will contribute US$449 million to a
trust to be established under ACandS’ plan of reorganization.

In connection with the settlement, Travelers expects to cede about US$84
million to its reinsurers, for a net settlement of US$365 million.

Travelers will fund the settlement from its existing asbestos reserves and
does not anticipate any impact on earnings as a result of the settlement.

Jay S. Fishman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said, “ACandS has been
one of our most significant and longest-standing asbestos exposures.
Eliminating the uncertainty inherent in this litigation makes this a very
good outcome for our company and our shareholders.”

The settlement is subject to a number of contingencies, including final court
approval of both the settlement and a plan of reorganization for ACandS.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies Inc.’s largest segment is
commercial property/casualty insurance. The Company is the 2nd largest
business insurer in the U.S., behind AIG, and provides commercial auto,
property, workers’ compensation, marine, and general and financial liability
coverage to companies in North America and the U.K.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Federal-Mogul Plan Set for Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the post-trial written briefs required by the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, the final oral arguments regarding confirmation of Federal-Mogul
Corp.’s Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization are scheduled to take
place on Oct. 1, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 11-K, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2007.

The Plan for the Company and the other U.S. and U.K. Debtors was filed with
the Bankruptcy Court on Nov. 21, 2006. The Plan was jointly proposed by the
Company and the Plan Proponents.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the Supplemental Disclosure Statement was approved by the
Bankruptcy Court to be used in soliciting votes to accept or reject the Plan
from those classes of creditors whose treatment under the Plan has changed
since the solicitation under the Third Amended Plan. All such classes of
creditors voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Plan.

The confirmation hearing regarding the Plan commenced in the Bankruptcy Court
on June 18, 2007 and is scheduled to continue on July 9, 2007.

The Plan provides that asbestos personal injury claimants, both present and
future, will be permanently channeled to a trust or series of trusts
established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby protecting
the Company and its affiliates in the Chapter 11 Cases from existing and
future asbestos liability.

The Plan provides that all currently outstanding stock of the Company will be
cancelled, 50.1 percent of newly issued common stock of reorganized Federal-
Mogul will be distributed to the asbestos trust, and 49.9 percent of the
newly issued common stock will be distributed pro rata to the noteholders.

The holders of outstanding common and preferred stock of the Company, at the
time those shares are cancelled, will receive warrants that may be used to
purchase shares of reorganized Federal-Mogul at a predetermined exercise
price.

These warrants will only be of value if the market price of the shares of
reorganized Federal-Mogul exceeds the predetermined exercise price during the
7-year term during which the warrants will be saleable or exercisable.

Federal-Mogul filed for Chapter 11 in October 2001. At the time, it faced
more than 330,000 lawsuits, many from workers and property owners who claimed
exposure to asbestos.

At issue is a version of the Plan that includes the liabilities of a
subsidiary that Federal-Mogul bought from Cooper Industries Ltd., protecting
it from other litigation.

Ford Motor Co., Volkswagen AG, and DaimlerChrysler AG have objected to the
plan because they are co-defendants in asbestos litigation along with the
former Cooper subsidiary and worry that they would have to pay more to settle
those lawsuits.

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: Allianz Records EUR2.99B A&E Net Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz SE’s net reserves for asbestos and environmental claims, as of Dec.
31, 2006, amounted to EUR2.990 billion, compared with EUR3.174 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company’s annual report, on Form 20-F, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s gross reserves for A&E claims amounted to
EUR3.636 billion, compared with EUR3.873 billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company’s total asbestos reserves for loss and loss adjustment expenses
amounted to EUR65.464 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, compared with EUR67.005
billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE offers insurance products and services,
including life, health, and property-casualty, through some 100 subsidiaries
and affiliates. The Company has transformed itself into a Societas Europaea,
a joint stock company that operates under European Union rules.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Cornhill Records EUR21M for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz SE states that its U.K. subsidiary, Allianz Cornhill Insurance plc,
has recorded EUR21 million on its marine business where the surplus has
arisen as a result of U.S. asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company’s annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007.


At Allianz Cornhill, gross loss and Loss Adjustment Expense reserves
developed favorably during 2006 by EUR178 million.

There were releases from the more recent years for the liability account, but
these were partially offset by deterioration in older years. This was mainly
in respect of mesothelioma claims, where the Company has seen an increase in
severity of claims notified in 2006.

Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE offers insurance products and services,
including life, health, and property-casualty, through some 100 subsidiaries
and affiliates. The Company has transformed itself into a Societas Europaea,
a joint stock company that operates under European Union rules.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fireman’s Fund Has EUR72Mil for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., an Allianz SE subsidiary, in 2006, reserved
EUR72 million for asbestos and environmental claims, according to the
Company’s annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007.

For the entire NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) region, Allianz
Group’s gross loss and Loss Adjustment Expense reserves developed unfavorably
during 2006 by EUR187 million, or 2.5 percent of the reserves at Jan. 1, 2006.

Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE offers insurance products and services,
including life, health, and property-casualty, through some 100 subsidiaries
and affiliates. The Company has transformed itself into a Societas Europaea,
a joint stock company that operates under European Union rules.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Has EUR23M for Workers Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz SE’s subsidiary, Allianz Australia Ltd., has EUR23 million for
workers’ (including asbestos) compensation, according to the Company’s annual
report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 14, 2007.

The release from this portfolio is a result of continuing positive
development in workers compensation portfolios, in particular Western
Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania for prior accident years.

Legislative changes in these jurisdictions and positive return to work
outcomes as a result of the lowest Australian unemployment rate in 30 years
have contributed to this development.

These releases were offset partially by an increase in the estimate for
asbestos related claims following a review of developing experience.

Allianz Australia experienced favorable development of EUR120 million during
2006.

Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE offers insurance products and services,
including life, health, and property-casualty, through some 100 subsidiaries
and affiliates. The Company has transformed itself into a Societas Europaea,
a joint stock company that operates under European Union rules.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $405.5M Asbestos Adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V., for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007,
recorded an asbestos-related adjustment of US$405.5 million, compared with
US$715.6 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006, according to the
Company’s annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 6, 2007.

The asbestos adjustments are derived from an estimate of future Australian
asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with the Final Funding Agreement
that was signed with the NSW Government on Nov. 21, 2006 and approved by the
Company’s security holders on Feb. 7, 2007. The adjustments include the full
implementation of the Final Funding Agreement.

Following the adoption of the Final Funding Agreement, a provision of US$4.5
million was recorded for amounts the Company will pay for asbestos medical
research funding and an asbestos education campaign over the next 10 years
based on the provisions of the Final Funding Agreement.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company implemented the Final Funding Agreement (as
amended), which the Company refers to as the Final Funding Agreement, to
provide compensation for Australian asbestos-related personal injury claims
against certain former companies of the James Hardie Group.

The Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund commissioned an updated actuarial
study of potential asbestos-related liabilities as of March 31, 2007. Based
on the results of these studies, it is estimated that the discounted value of
the central estimate for claims against the Former James Hardie Companies was
about AUD1.4 billion (US$1.1 billion).

The undiscounted value of the central estimate of the asbestos-related
liabilities of Amaca and Amaba as determined by KPMG Actuaries was about
AUD2.8 billion (US$2.3 billion).

The Company, at March 31, 2007, recorded a Net Final Funding Agreement
liability of US$786.1 million (AUD974.3 million).

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Courthouse Cleanup to Cost More than $60T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Local supervisors have been told that asbestos removal from the Lafayette
County Courthouse in Oxford, Miss., is going to cost more than the original
US$60,000 reserved for the work, The Associated Press reports.

Paul Waddell of Howorth and Associates, the project architects, said, “There
was about 700-800 feet of floor tile where the asbestos was not visible
during examination.”

When it began demolition in May 2007, Panola Construction discovered asbestos
throughout the building - under floor tiles and in chalking around windows.

Supervisors approved spending up to US$60,000 to allow General Services Corp.
to remove the material.

In May 2007, the board allowed Panola and GSC to keep working and then "bill"
the county once workers could get to the asbestos and have a better idea of
how much the job will cost.

Mr. Waddell said that most of the asbestos has been removed. All that remains
is some chalking around windows.

The demolition is stalled until all the asbestos is removed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Plant Manager Gets GBP86,000 in Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Albert Birkinshaw, a former plant manager for Accordis UK Ltd. (n/k/a
Celanese Acetate) who was exposed to workplace asbestos, has been awarded
GBP86,345 in damages, Evening Telegraph reports.

On July 5, 2007, Judge Reddihough, sitting at London's High Court, ruled on
the award for Mr. Birkinshaw.

The 86-year-old Mr. Birkinshaw worked in the plant in Derby, England, U.K.,
for 34 years from 1947 and 1981, eventually rising to become manager of the
chemical plant by the time he retired.

As part of his duties, Mr. Birkinshaw’s lawyers claimed he worked close to
furnaces on which insulation material containing asbestos was regularly
applied. They said Mr. Birkinshaw had come into contact with deadly asbestos
dust through the process.

In April 2006, Mr. Birkinshaw began to experience a nagging cough and
shortness of breath. He was diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma. He was
given a year to live by his doctor and sued his former employers, who
admitted liability.

Judge Reddihough said, “It is not disputed by the defendants that he was
exposed to asbestos and that it arose from their negligence.”

"The condition he has developed most unfortunately is a pleural mesothelioma.
Sadly the courts see many of these cases arising from exposure to asbestos,
often many years ago.”

A further hearing may be necessary to decide what proportion of the damages
each of the Company's insurance policies cover.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Rail Employee Seeks Justice for Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rogan, a former coach-builder at the British Rail Carriageworks, has
returned to his home city of York, England, to step up the campaign to bring
justice to victims of York's asbestos timebomb, The Press reports.

The 65-year-old Mr. Rogan said he wanted to speak out to help his ex-
colleagues, or their widows, with compensation claims.

Mr. Rogan, who moved to Germany in 1979, said he was one of the lucky few not
to be suffering from any asbestos-related condition.

Mr. Rogan, an apprentice at York Carriageworks from 1957 to 1962, said he
worked in the area where blue asbestos was sprayed onto the inside body of
coaches as insulation.

Mr. Rogan’s outcry comes as more than 100 York victims await the decision of
a crucial appeal hearing at the House of Lords.

As the law stands, anybody suffering from scarring of the lungs caused by
exposure to asbestos, known as pleural plaques, is not able to make a claim
because the condition shows no symptoms.

Kim Daniells, a solicitor with the York firm Corries and founder of a support
group for York victims of asbestos, said, “These are men who have worked in
appalling conditions. They have seen their friends and colleagues and family
members die of asbestos-related conditions and they are facing an uncertain
future themselves. They may not have any symptoms at the moment, but the
damage to them still needs to be recognized in law and I feel very strongly
about this.”

Ms. Daniells said the appeal hearing at the House of Lords finished, but the
decision had been put on hold until October 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victims to Wait for Ruling Until Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sufferers of pleural plaques, which is caused by asbestos, may have to wait
until October 2007 to know if they can claim thousands of pounds in
compensation, North-West Evening Mail reports.

Many Furness, U.K., people, most of them former shipyard workers, claimed
compensation for the last 20 years for developing the black lung scarring,
pleural plaques.

In 2006, however, employers’ insurance companies got the payments ended at
the Court of Appeal, which decided the condition was not serious enough to
warrant those payments.

At the end of June 2007, lawyers representing several test cases made an
appeal to the House of Lords in a bid to get the right to compensation
reinstated.

Andrew Venn, a lawyer on the asbestos team of one of the solicitors involved,
Thompsons of Newcastle, said they argued for compensation for two different
types of injury: straightforward pleural plaques and psychological injury
that can be caused by anxiety over the condition.

Before payments were stopped in January 2006, shipyard workers were getting
GBP4,000 to GBP6,000 provisional payments for the condition, and up to
GBP9,000 to GBP10,000 plus if they agreed not to come back if mesothelioma
developed later.

Their appeal to the Lords was opposed by Zurich and Norwich Union. A decision
is expected in October 2007 after the summer recess of Parliament.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks THAN Appeal in AXA U.S. Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th U.S. Court of Appeals, on June 12, 2007, dismissed an appeal filed
by Thompson & Haywood Agriculture and Nutrition LLC in an asbestos-related
insurance lawsuit, which involves AXA.

From 1998 through 2001, two Company subsidiaries, along with other insurers,
participated in the Philips worldwide liability program (the “Policy”)
providing insurance cover for Philips N.V. and its subsidiaries on a
worldwide basis.

THAN, an indirect U.S. subsidiary of Philips, made a claim under the Policy
in respect of asbestos-related claims exposure resulting from its
distribution of raw asbestos fiber from 1961 to 1980.

The insurers (including several Group subsidiaries) commenced a proceeding in
The Netherlands in accordance with the forum selection clause provided in the
Policy claiming that the Policy was void for non-disclosure because Philips
failed to disclose information about the existence and nature of the business
of THAN when the Policy was entered into. This litigation is currently
pending.

THAN initiated a competing lawsuit in the U.S. federal District Court for the
District of Kansas, claiming that its asbestos exposure should be covered
under the Policy. The Kansas court dismissed the action for lack of
jurisdiction.

THAN appealed the decision, which was dismissed.

Following the acquisition of Winterthur Group on Dec. 22, 2006, the AXA
Group’s potential exposure in this matter was increased because Winterthur
Group companies held a significant participation in Philips program.

Paris, France-based AXA is one of the world’s largest insurers (alongside
Allianz and ING) and a financial management powerhouse. The Company and its
subsidiaries offer life insurance, personal and commercial property and
casualty insurance, reinsurance, financial services, and real estate
investment services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Group Urges Gov’t. to Ban Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press has learned that the danger caused by exposure to asbestos
has prompted the Canadian Cancer Society to urge the Federal Government to
ban the use and exportation of asbestos.

The cancer society's position brings it in line with labor unions,
environmentalists, medical and scientific associations and victims' groups
that have long called for a ban.

Dr. Barbara Whylie, the group’s Chief Executive Officer, on July 11, 2007,
said, “The Canadian Cancer Society is calling for our governments to start
work on developing a comprehensive strategy that will lead to Canadians no
longer being exposed to asbestos.”

The World Health Organization says that about 125 million people are exposed
to asbestos at work and that at least 90,000 die annually from asbestos-
related diseases.

The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety said that in Canada,
almost one-third of the 1,097 workplace deaths in 2005 were attributed to
asbestos.

Asbestos defenders criticized the society's move, arguing that the product is
safe when properly used. They also say no distinction is made between the
impact of chrysotile and more deadly forms of asbestos - crecodolite and
amosite - which have already been banned.

The use of asbestos in building insulation has long been eliminated in
Canada, although many older buildings still contain the material.

Health Canada says asbestos is safe as long as it is in a "controlled use."
That means it should be encapsulated in concrete or other materials that
prevent the fibers from becoming airborne and inhaled.

Successive Canadian governments have defended the industry against global
calls for restrictions in the product's use. In 1999, the former Liberal
government went to the World Trade Organization to challenge the ban on
asbestos in France.

Canada has been among the world's leading producers of asbestos for decades.
In 2002, it exported 235,000 tons of crude and milled asbestos worth CDN140
million. The country is believed to have produced more than 65 million tons
of asbestos since mining began in 1878.

More than 90 percent of the product mined exclusively in Quebec is exported
to some 60 counties in the developing world, lead by India, Indonesia and
Thailand.

A few hundred workers continue to mine asbestos, in the area surrounding
Thetford Mines, Quebec.

In an e-mail to the Canadian Press, a spokesman for Natural Resources
Minister Gary Lunn suggested an outright ban on all forms of asbestos is not
planned.

The e-mail read, “Comprehensive reviews of scientific studies over the last
40 years, has proven chrysotile to be a less potent carcinogen than other
forms of asbestos. Furthermore, at the 2006 Rotterdam Convention, Canada,
along with other countries, opposed the listing of chrysotile under the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Plant Worker’s Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 9, 2007 inquest in Dorset, England, U.K., heard that the death of
Thomas Bevan was due to exposure to asbestos, Dorset Echo reports.

Mr. Bevan died 40 years after exposure to asbestos while working at Winfrith
power station in Dorset.

Mr. Bevan worked on the construction of the power station between June 1965
and November 1967.

District coroner Sheriff Payne heard how the 71-year-old Mr. Bevan died on
June 14, 2007, less than 12 months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

It is generally agreed that all major employers should have been aware of the
dangers of the material by the mid 1960s, possibly earlier.

In a statement made before he died, Mr. Bevan told how he and his colleagues
had been exposed to asbestos dust but were not given any protective
equipment, nor were they warned of the dangers.

Recording a verdict that Mr. Bevan died as the result of industrial disease,
Mr. Payne said, “The only time he was exposed to asbestos was while working
at the Winfrith site.”

Peter Hilditch, a solicitor who specializes in such cases, said he has come
across cases in women who have simply washed their husbands' overalls. One
man died as a result of sitting on his father's lap when he got home from
work when he was a toddler.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Identifies 10 Motley Rice P.D. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors have identified 10 time-barred
asbestos property damage claims filed by Motley Rice LLC on behalf of the
Washington State University, the Port of Seattle, Edmonds Community College,
and CHP Associates Inc.

The Court will consider the Motley Rice PD Claims with respect to the
statutes of limitations in hearings scheduled for July 30, 2007, July 31,
2007, and Aug. 1, 2007.

The Debtors intend to establish at the hearing that WSU and the
Port of Seattle knew of their claims as of the 1980s and that
Edmonds and CHP knew of their claims as of 1997.

Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones &
Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., relates that WSU, the Port of Seattle
and Edmonds filed PD claims against manufacturers of asbestos-containing
materials in other bankruptcy proceedings starting with the Johns-Manville
bankruptcy in 1985.

In fact, WSU and the Port of Seattle removed ACMs from their buildings in the
early 1990s, and Edmonds removed ACM from its buildings in 1997, Mr. Cairns
notes.  CHP Associates also knew about asbestos in its building before it
purchased the property and sought removal quotes in 1997.

The statutes of limitations for Washington and Delaware, where the Motley
Rice Claimants are located, are three years. The statutes began to run when
the claimants, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should
have known of their claims, Mr. Cairns points out.

Thus, Mr. Cairns emphasizes, based on the statutes of limitations, the Motley
Rice Claimants are time-barred because they knew or should have known of
their claims by April 1998 -- three years before the Debtors filed for
bankruptcy in April
2001.

Because the Motley Rice Claims are time-barred, they should be expunged, the
Debtors assert.

The Debtors said that they do not anticipate calling any fact or expert
witnesses at the July 30 to 31 hearing in their case-in-chief.

If Motley Rice objects to the admission of any exhibits submitted by the
Debtors in their case-in-chief, the Debtors reserve the right to call one or
more witnesses to authenticate documents and lay a foundation for their
admission.  The Debtors also reserve their right to call witnesses in
rebuttal to any evidence introduced by the Motley Rice claimants at the
hearing.

Judge Judith Fitzgerald sets July 30, 2007, July 31, 2007, and Aug. 1, 2007,
as the hearing to address the Debtors' limitations period objections to the
Motley Rice PD Claims.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products
and services to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of
plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide-range of
industrial applications; specialty chemicals, additives and materials for
commercial and residential construction; and sealants and coatings for food
packaging.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 133; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Bar 15 P.D. Claims in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court handling the case of W.R. Grace & Co. disallows and
expunges 15 asbestos related property damage claims filed by Canadian
Claimants:

These claimants are: Fort Smith Convention Center, Hamilton District School
Board, Toronto District School Board (two claims), Calgary Board of
Education, Carleton University, and Hudson’s Bay Co. (seven claims).

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products
and services to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of
plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide-range of
industrial applications; specialty chemicals, additives and materials for
commercial and residential construction; and sealants and coatings for food
packaging.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 133; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Colleagues of U.K. Fitter’s Mate Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of John Cox, once a fitter’s mate at Ilkeston, England, U.K., is
trying to seek Mr. Cox’s fellow workers, Evening Post reports.

Mr. Cox, 73 years old, was an employee from 1960 to 1969. He died on Feb. 7,
2005.

Mr. Cox’s son, David, said, “My father would have been responsible for
maintaining the boilers and cooling systems. This would have exposed him to
asbestos dust. It would be very helpful if anyone who knows exactly what his
job entailed to come forward and assist us.”

Linda Millband of Nottingham firm Thompsons Solicitors in Nottingham
said, “Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. The case has been issued
in the High Court and further witness evidence is required within the next
few weeks.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Woman’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 10, 2007 inquest heard that the death of 51-year-old Linda Brown, a
shop assistant, was allegedly caused by childhood exposure to asbestos,
Rutland & Stamford Mercury reports.

On December 2006, Mrs. Brown died at the Old Hall Nursing Home in
Billingborough, England, after being ill for some time.

Coroner Gordon Ryall, at the Stamford, U.K. hearing, said the cause of death
was pleural-based malignant mesothelioma, which affects the chest and abdomen.

The hearing was told Mrs. Brown grew up in Essex and had lived near an
asbestos factory where her grandfather had worked.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Hilberts in Suit v. Northrop
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Massachusetts, granted the remand motion filed by
William J. Hilbert, Jr. and his wife Pamela R. Hilbert in an asbestos-related
lawsuit, which named Northrop Grumman Corp. as defendant.

The District Court also denied Northrop’s motion to stay.

District Judge Gertner entered decision of Civil Action No. 07-10205-NG on
April 12, 2007.

Mr. Hilbert was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2005. He contended that
his illness was caused by his exposure to asbestos through everyday contact
with asbestos-containing aircraft components.

The Hilberts commenced this action against 29 defendants in the Middlesex
Superior Court Department of the Massachusetts Trial Court on Dec. 21, 2006.
Northrop removed the action to the District Court on Feb. 2, 2007.

This matter was before the District Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand by
which the Hilberts sought to remand the action to state court or, in the
alternative, sever the case against Northrop and remand the case against the
other defendants.

In addition to opposing the remand, Northrop, on March 1, 2007, filed a
Motion to Stay requesting that the District Court stay all proceedings,
including consideration of the Motion for Remand, pending transfer of the
case by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") to the asbestos docket
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

A hearing on these motions was held on March 2, 2007 and, by agreement,
briefing was completed by the close of business on March 9, 2007.

Judge Gertner held that:

-- Stay of motion to remand pending transfer of the case to multidistrict
litigation (MDL) asbestos docket was not warranted;

-- Failure to warn claim was not removable pursuant to federal officer
removal statute; and

-- Colorable government contractor defense was not established.

Erika A. Olson, Michael C. Shepard, The Shepard Law Firm, P.C., Boston,
represented the Hilberts.

Sheryl A. Koval, Shepard M. Remis, Marcy D. Smirnoff, Goodwin Procter LLP,
Boston, represented Northrop Grumman Corp.


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *