---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, July 20, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 142

                            Headlines


ALCOA INC: Motion to Dismiss Medical Monitoring Suit Denied
ATICO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coffeemakers Due to Fire Hazard
DITECH COMMS: Hearing Set for Dismissal Motion in Calif. Lawsuit
FIFTH THIRD: Sued for Negligence in Customer Data Disclosure
GAINSCO INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Fla. Insurance Suit

GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Suit Over Delinquency Fees Temporarily Stayed
GOOGLE INC: Sued in Ill. for Allegedly Infringing on Trademarks
INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Reaches Settlement in Ind. Landowners' Suit
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: ERISA Violations Suit’s Dismissal Appealed

MAGURA USA: Recalls Faulty Brake Cylinders for Motorcycles
MAXWELL’S BY THE SEA: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
METABANK: Sued for Funding “Fraudulent” Vehicle Sales in S.D.
MOTOROLA INC: Settles Ill. Securities Fraud Suit for $190M
NEW YORK: Vulcan Society Joins Justice Dept.’s Racial Bias Suit

NORTHERN MARIANAS: Judge Extends GOB’s Term Until End of 2007
PARMALAT SPA: $50M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS: “Insurance Discount” Suit Ruling Appealed
PUERTO RICO: Final Order in Nixed Touchtone Service Suit Pending
SALTON INC: Still Faces N.Y. Injury Litigation Over Teakettles

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Mass. Suit Over Intron-Related Kickbacks
SUNNYSIDE APARTMENTS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
TRAVELCLICK INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
UNITED STATES: Reverses Stance on Green Card Applications
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: N.Y. Court Dismisses “Kemp” Securities Suit

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $5.5M
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Calif., N.J., Ohio, Wash. Consumer Suits
VS HOLDINGS: Faces Multiple Suits Over Multivitamins for Women
YANKEE CANDLE: Mass. Suit Over Madison Dearborn Merger Dismissed
ZENITH INSURANCE: Chiropractors File Suit in Cal. Federal Court


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Board in Veteran’s Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits in La.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Casualty’s Leave Motion Granted
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Pretrial Order in Grace Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. County to Settle Federal Case for $150T

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers, ACandS Hearing Set for August 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Shipworker’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laborer Launches GBP250T Case v. Employers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingston Building Cleanup to Cost CDN75,400
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: San Diego Gas Found Guilty in Federal Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Ontario Victims Not Compensated
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Denies “Poor” Post-Katrina Hazard Check
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Marine Sues 43 Companies in Texas Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Residual Asbestos Found at Old Boiler House
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Corp. Still Faces Inactive Ohio Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Real Estate Reserves $200T for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $873.7M Receivable in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Scaffolder’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. DaimlerChrysler in D’Ulisse
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GBP500T Removal Work Completed in Tonedale

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lung Cancer Victim Sues Australian Gov’t.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues Texaco, Chevron in Texas Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Diseases to Claim 10T Yearly in US   
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Gov’t. Urged to Prioritize Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cites $642.6Mil Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pipefitter Gets More Than $1M Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capitol Steamfitters Settle Dispute W/ AoC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parkland Offers Free Tests to Dallas Locals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee OKs ASARCO Exclusivity Extension
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Deny ASARCO’s Compel Motion

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Board Ruling in Leary Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Clean Up N.Y. City After Explosion
ASBESTOS ALERT: DEQ Imposes $1,500 Fine to Sona Motor Inn, Mass.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN CAPITAL: Shareholders File Neb. Securities Fraud Suit
THRESHHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********


ALCOA INC: Motion to Dismiss Medical Monitoring Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor John F. Weaver of the Knox County (Tenn.) Chancery Court denied
ALCOA Inc.’s request to dismiss a class action filed by seven current and
former ALCOA employees over exposure to coal tar pitch used in the aluminum
smelting process, Rick Laney of The Daily Times Staff reports.

In Sept. 2006, current and former employees of ALCOA’s Tennessee Operations
filed the suit requiring the company to establish a medical monitoring
program for employees exposed to coal tar pitch.

The lawsuit claims the workers and retirees have coal tar pitch-related
carcinogens in their bodies resulting in an excess risk of various cancers,
including cancers of the skin, scrotum, lung, bladder and kidney as well as
non-Hodgkins lymphoma and leukemia.

The plaintiffs did not request a cash settlement. They asked for:

     -- a court-administered medical monitoring program funded
        by ALCOA in the form of a trust fund;

     -- reimbursement of medical and/or diagnostic tests to
        monitor the plaintiff’s medical condition relating to
        contracting cancer;

     -- a program to educate the plaintiffs about treatment
        strategies once a diagnosis of cancer has been
        established;

     -- the company to pay the costs of the lawsuit and
        attorneys’ fees; and

     -- “further relief as the court deems just and equitable.”

Judge Weaver heard the case in February.  At the time, attorney John Lucas,
who represents ALCOA, argued that the lawsuit does not merit a class-action
status, and invoked the statute of limitations to block it from proceeding.  
He warned in the February hearing that allowing the case could increase
workers’ compensation premiums for all Tennessee employers and “open the
floodgates to litigation.”

But Greg Coleman, a Knoxville-based attorney representing the workers,
countered that class actions are available in Tennessee for all fields of
civil litigation.

Six of the plaintiffs are Maryville residents: Stanley Janeway, Robert K.
Whitehead, Reba Orr, Glen Gregory, Joe Bible and Mike Rutherford.  The
seventh is Ray Pryor, a Knoxville resident.


Representing ALCOA is:

          John A. Lucas
          Hunton & Williams, LLP  
          2000 Riverview Tower
          900 South Gay Street
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: (865) 549-7750
          Fax: (865) 549-7704

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gregory F. Coleman
          Dunn, MacDonald, Coleman & Reynolds, P.C.  
          6204 Baum Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Phone: (865) 525-0505
          Fax: (865) 525-6001


ATICO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coffeemakers Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atico International USA Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 392,000
units of Signature Gourmet and Kitchen Gourmet 12-cup coffeemakers.

The company said the coffeemaker can ignite due to an electrical failure,
posing a fire hazard.  Atico International USA, Inc. has received 14 reports
of electrical failures, including six reports in which the unit ignited
causing minor property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

The coffeemaker is white with a glass coffeepot. Signature Gourmet or Kitchen
Gourmet is printed on the front of the unit. The Model Number (XQ-673B), Item
Number (W14A4984) and date code are located on the bottom of the unit. Only
units with date codes from May 2003 (0503) through July 2006 (0706) are
affected by this recall.

These recalled coffeemakers were manufactured in China and are being sold at
Walgreens stores nationwide from August 2003 through December 2006. The
Signature Gourmet model sold for about $16 and the Kitchen Gourmet model sold
for about $10.

Pictures of the recalled coffeemakers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07244a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07244b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled coffeemakers immediately and
contact Atico International USA for instructions on returning the product for
a full refund.

For more information, call Atico International USA toll-free at (877) 546-
4835 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
company’s Web site: http://www.aticousa.com


DITECH COMMS: Hearing Set for Dismissal Motion in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 19, 2007 hearing is set for a motion to dismiss a third amended
complaint in a securities fraud class action filed against Ditech
Communications Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class actions were filed
purportedly on behalf of a class of investors, who purchased the company's
stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer in connection with alleged
misrepresentations concerning Voice Quality Assurance orders and the
potential effect on the company of the merger between Sprint and Nextel.

All of the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, "In re Ditech
Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406-JSW."  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on
Feb. 2, 2006.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion was granted on
Aug. 10, 2006, with leave to amend.  A second consolidated amended complaint
was filed on Sept. 11, 2006.  

Defendants again moved to dismiss, and by order dated March 22, 2007, the
court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on April 23, 2007.  On May 14,
2007, Defendant again moved to dismiss.  This latest motion has been set for
a hearing on Aug. 19, 2007, according to the company’s July 16, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2007.

The suit is “In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C.
         425 California Street, Suite 2025
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382
         E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         William S. Freeman, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155
         Phone: 650 843-5000
         Fax: 650 857-0663
         E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com


FIFTH THIRD: Sued for Negligence in Customer Data Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is facing a class-action complaint filed July 10 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida accusing it of failing
to prevent predators from stealing customers’ identities by e-mail phishing,
and draining victims’ accounts.

Phishing is a form of email fraud where senders impersonate legitimate
organizations to try to get recipients to divulge personal information such
as passwords and account numbers so the senders can steal the recipient's
identity and/or funds from the recipient's account.

Named plaintiff Edify LLC, pursuant to Rule 213 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, brings this action on behalf of all Fifth Third customers who have
conducted or otherwise qualified to utilize the online banking services of
Fifth Third, whose bank accounts were compromised and the privacy or security
of whose transactions or non-public information was compromised.

This case has arisen because defendants have a statutory, regulatory, and
common law duty to adequately protect their customer's non-public and private
financial information, as well as protect the funds which Edify and the class
members have entrusted to Fifth Third.

Upon information and belief, Fifth Third allegedly did not fulfill its
regulatory duty to implement or install the latest equipment available that
met the requirements of its circumstances, taking into consideration the
exceedingly high incidence of phishing crimes against it and its clients.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether Fifth Third breached duties and was negligent
         in failing to institute appropriate security measures
         in response to widely publicized security breaches
         relating to "phishing" scams;

     (b) whether Fifth Third breached duties and was negligent
         in failing to immediately recognize, stop, and/or
         report suspicious transaction activity relating to
         unauthorized wire transfers;

     (c) whether the consumer class is entitled to notice as to
         whether their financial banking information or other
         non-public information was compromised as a result of
         Fifth Third's failure to adequately maintain
         appropriate security measures;

     (d) whether the class is entitled to declaratory relief;

     (e) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief;

     (f) whether the class is entitled to an award of reasonable
         attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and

     (g) whether the consumer class is entitled to any other
         remedies as a result of the breach of duties of Fifth
         Third.

Plaintiff prays that the court will enter judgment in their favor and against
defendants for:

     -- Edify's and the class members' damages namely:

             (i) as to Edify, $224,848 plus interest since April
                 12, 2007;

            (ii) as to the remaining members of the class, a yet
                 to be identified sum representing funds
                 misappropriated from their Fifth Third accounts
                 as described;

     -- Edify's and the class members' costs in pursuing this
        action;

     -- Edify's and the class members' attorneys' fees as this
        is an exceptional case warranting such an award;

     -- declaratory judgment that Fifth Third is not and cannot
        be held harmless by the TM Agreement for its negligence
        in failing to adequately protect Edify and the class
        members' funds in Fifth Third accounts;

     -- punitive damages; and

     -- such additional relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is “Edify, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00434-
JES-DNF,” filed in the U.S. District court for the Middle District of
Florida, under Judge John E. Steele, with referral to Judge Douglas N.
Frazier.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Frank Herrera
          Herrera & Regalado-Herrera, P.A.
          12 N.E. 3rd Street
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305/860-8910
          Fax: 305/860-8944
          E-mail: fh@frankherrerapa.com

          - and -  

          Scott W. Rothstein
          Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler*
          Suite 1650, 401 E Las Olas Blvd
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954/522-3456
          Fax: 954/527-8663
          E-mail: srothstein@rra-law.com


GAINSCO INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Fla. Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action pending against Gainsco, Inc. in U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida are appealing the dismissal
of their case over allegations that the company violated state insurance laws.
  
Early in the third quarter 2006, the company and two subsidiaries were served
with the putative lawsuit filed by Ruth R. Arbelo, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against:

      -- Gainsco, Inc.,
      -- National Specialty Lines, Inc., and
      -- MGA Insurance Co., Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of Florida
insurance laws with respect to the manner in which finance charges are
imposed on Florida residents in connection with installment payments of
insurance premiums.  It thus seeks damages in an unspecified amount in excess
of $5 million and other relief.

The Company and its two subsidiaries moved for dismissal of the lawsuit on
various grounds, including on the basis of the filed rate doctrine and the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

On April 9, 2007, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the
Company’s and its subsidiaries’ motion to dismiss without prejudice on the
basis that the plaintiff was first required to seek relief from the Florida
Office of Insurance Regulation.

The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration, according to the
company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
  
The suit is “Arbelo v. Gainsco, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00263-JES-DNF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to
Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Marcus W. Viles, Esq.
         Viles & Beckman, LLC
         6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
         Ft. Myers, FL 33919
         Phone: 239/334-3933
         Fax: 239/334-7105
         E-mail: marcus@vilesandbeckman.com

              - and -

         Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq.
         Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, PA,
         Suite 303, 2400 First St.
         Ft. Myers, FL 33901
         Phone: 239/334-8844
         Fax: 239-334-1289
         E-mail: scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Christopher S. Carver, Esq.
         Akerman Senterfitt
         28th Floor, 1 SE 3rd Ave.
         Miami, FL 33131-1714
         Phone: 305/374-5600
         Fax: 305/374-5095
         E-mail: christopher.carver@akerman.com


GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Suit Over Delinquency Fees Temporarily Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania against GLS Capital, Inc., a subsidiary of Dynex Capital
Inc., has been stayed, according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Plaintiffs allege that GLS illegally charged the taxpayers of Allegheny
County certain attorney fees, costs and expenses, and interest in the
collection of delinquent property tax receivables owned by GLS.   

On Oct. 27, 2006, the Court granted class-action status to the litigation,
which was originally filed in 1998.  In its Order, the Court left open the
possible decertification of the class if the fees, costs and expenses charged
by GLS are in accordance with public policy considerations as well as the
statute and relevant ordinance.

The Company successfully sought the stay of this action pending the outcome
of other litigation before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which GLS is not
directly involved but has filed an Amicus brief in support of the
defendants.  

Several of the allegations in that lawsuit are similar to those being made
against GLS in this litigation.  Plaintiffs have not enumerated its damages
in this matter.

Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized as a real estate
investment trust that invests in loans and securities consisting principally
of single-family residential and commercial mortgage loans.


GOOGLE INC: Sued in Ill. for Allegedly Infringing on Trademarks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Golf is suing four major domainer firms and Google Inc. for filling
unused sites with ads.  The custom club manufacturer filed the suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
on June 15 against:

     -- Google Inc.,
     -- Oversee.net,
     -- Sedo LLC,
     -- Dotster Inc., aka RevenueDirect.com,
     -- Internet Reit, Inc., d/b/a IREIT Inc., and
     -- John Does J-X

The plaintiff is accusing the defendants of "shocking and egregious
intentional, bad faith scheme to generate revenue, and profit from their
illegal and deceptive actions in deliberately hijacking, diluting, infringing
and otherwise unlawfully using lead plaintiff's and the class's vulnerable,
valuable, distinctive and famous, registered marks, trade names, logos,
famous names, and other distinctive/valuable marks for their own commercial
gain."

They allegedly directly collude and conspire to commercially profit from this
massive "illegal Infringement Scheme," carried out through defendant Google's
well-established and actively developed international online/Internet
marketing and advertising networks and programs for the knowing purpose of
illegal commercial gain.

The plaintiff raises 12 class action complaint under the Lanham Act,
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, trademark infringement under 15
USC S1114(1), false designation of origin under 15 USC 1125(a), dilution
under USC 1125(c), Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the identical or substantially similar
consumer fraud and fair trade practices act of the various state, and variou
states' common law.

The purported class consists of "the owners of the Distinctive and Valuable
Marks which have been infringed by one or more of the defendants by means of
Deceptive Domains through the Illegal Infringement Scheme."

The case is docketed as 07cv3371.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Robert Foote, Esq.
          Stephen W. Fung, Esq.
          Foote Meyers Meilke & Flowers LLC
          28 North First St.
          Suite 2
          Geneva IL 60134
          Phone: 630-232-6333

          Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
          Chavez Law Firm, P.C.
          28 North First St.
          Suite 2
          Geneva IL 60134
          Phone: 630-232-4480


INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Reaches Settlement in Ind. Landowners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Power & Light Co., a subsidiary of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.
settled a lawsuit filed in Morgan County Superior Court, Indiana over the
sale of lands it previously acquired.

Many years ago, Indianapolis Power obtained, through purchases from several
owners, a substantial tract of land as a potential site for a future power
plant.  Indianapolis Power later determined it no longer intended to build a
power plant on that land and sold it in 2004.  

In September 2004, a former owner of a parcel included within Indianapolis
Power's land sued Indianapolis Power in Morgan County Superior Court in a
purported class action to force Indianapolis Power to pay any profit on the
sale to the various former owners, as well as profits received from ground
leases and timber sales.

The plaintiffs contended, in essence, that IPL obtained the various parcels
through the threat of eminent domain under circumstances where eminent domain
would have been inappropriate.

In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent
inducement to contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and
fraudulent concealment, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

IPL settled the case for a nominal amount on March 29, 2007, according to the
company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.ipalco.com/-- is a holding company  
that operates through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Indianapolis Power &
Light Company (IPL) and Mid-America Capital Resources, Inc. (Mid-America).  
IPL is a regulated electric utility.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interlink Electronics, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of amended complaint in
the securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Filed on Nov. 15, 2005, the suit, "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink
Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against
the company and two of its current and former officers.  

It alleges that between April 24, 2003 and Nov. 1, 2005, the company and two
of its current and former officers made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information regarding the company's results of
operations and financial condition.  

The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to
the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price.  
It seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs.  On
Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint also includes claims under the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses.

On Feb. 22, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  A June 2007 hearing was set on the motion, according to the
company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is “Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Percy
Anderson with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: service@ssbla.com

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and –

         Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
         Roy L. Jacobs and Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212-867-1156

Representing the defendants is:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: ERISA Violations Suit’s Dismissal Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in “Nelson, et al. v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB,” are appealing the dismissal of their suit, alleging
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, that was
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.

The class action, filed on March 29, 2002 against Indianapolis Power & Light
Co., a wholly owned unit of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., and certain of its
former officers and directors, alleged that the value of employees' 401(k)
and retirement plans plummeted when Virginia-based AES Corp. acquired the
utility in a stock swap in 2001.  

It also alleged company officers dumped IPALCO shares about the time
employees were prohibited from selling company stocks owned through their
benefit plans.

In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a class action.  
The court granted the motion for class certification on Sept. 30, 2003 (Class
Action Reporter, Reporter, May 31, 2006).

A bench trial was held in February 2006 to determine whether there were any
breaches of fiduciary duties. On March 28, 2007 the court issued its
judgment, finding for the defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, according to the company’s May 15,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is, “Nelson, et al. v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David
Frank Hamilton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Nicholas Styant-Browne, Esq.
         Andrew M. Volk, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: (206) 623-7292
         Fax: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 nick@hagens-berman.com
                 andrew@hbsslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Dane Hal Butswinkas, Esq.
         Williams & Connolly, LLP
         725 Twelfth Street NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 434-5110
         Fax: (202) 434-5029
         E-mail: dbutswinkas@wc.com
         Web site: http://www.wc.com

              - and -

         James H. Ham, III, Esq.
         Baker & Daniels
         300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 237-1256
         Fax: (317) 237-1000
         E-mail: jhham@bakerd.com
         Web site: http://www.bakerd.com


MAGURA USA: Recalls Faulty Brake Cylinders for Motorcycles
----------------------------------------------------------
Magura USA, of Olney, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 200 units of 190 radial brake master
cylinders used on off-road motorcycles, which are manufactured by Gustav
Magenwirth GmbH, of Bad Urach, Germany.

The company said the brake cylinder on the off-road motorcycle can crack and
result in brake failure. This poses a risk of severe injury or death to the
driver.  No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 190 Radial Brake Master Cylinders used on off-road
motorcycles. The brake cylinders have an “A” or “B” code on the underside of
the lever’s pivot bolt. The Magura logo is printed on the cylinder. Brake
cylinders without the “A” or “B” markings are not included in this recall.

These recalled brake cylinders were manufactured in Germany and are being
sold by motorcycle dealers nationwide, mail-order catalogues and Web
retailers from August 2005 through May 2007 for about $420.

Pictures of the recalled brake cylinders:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07242a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07242b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the off-road motorcycles with
recalled brake cylinders and contact Magura USA to receive a replacement
product.

For additional information, contact Magura USA at (800) 448-3876 between 7
a.m. and 4 p.m. CT, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.magurausa.com-  
consumers can also email the firm: techquestion@magurausa.com or write to
Magura USA at 724 West Clem Street, Olney, Ill. 62450.


MAXWELL’S BY THE SEA: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell’s By the Sea, and the City of Fort Lauderdale are facing a class
action filed July 9 in Fort Lauderdale Federal Court.

Plaintiff Salomao Soares De Freitas allege Labor Code violations.

The suit is “De Freitas v. Maxwell's By The Sea, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-
cv-60959-JIC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge James I. Cohn, with referral to Judge Lurana S. Snow.

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


METABANK: Sued for Funding “Fraudulent” Vehicle Sales in S.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetaBank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Meta Financial Group, Inc., is named
defendant in a lawsuit filed by purchasers of vehicles in South Dakota,
according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.

On or about April 26, 2006, MetaBank, Meta Financial Group, Inc., Meta Trust
Co., and J. Tyler Haahr were named as defendants in “Dengler, Flute, et al v.
Prairie Auto Group, Inc.,” a class action filed in Circuit Court for the
Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County, South Dakota.  

This lawsuit appears to be a successor suit to a series of two state and
three tribal court lawsuits that were filed in 2006, but apparently
subsequently abandoned by the plaintiffs.

In this action, plaintiff class is comprised of individuals who purchased
vehicles and/or obtained financing from the J.D. Byrider franchise in
Pennington County, which was owned and operated by companies controlled by
Dan Nelson.  

Plaintiffs allege that the Dan Nelson companies, including the Dan Nelson
Auto Group and the South Dakota Acceptance Corp. and other affiliates,
operated under the J.D. Byrider franchise and business model and engaged in
abusive sales, lending and consumer practices, the bulk of the complaint
addresses the various alleged fraudulent schemes perpetrated by the Nelson
companies against their customers, principally the “buy here, pay here” model
in which individuals with poor credit histories were allegedly sold poor
quality vehicles at high prices with worthless warranties on usurious loan
terms.

Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.metacash.com/-- through its banking  
subsidiaries MetaBank and MetaBank WC, provides a range of financial
services.  The principal business of MetaBank is attracting retail deposits
from the general public and investing those funds primarily in one- to four-
family residential mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real estate,
agricultural operating and real estate, construction, consumer and commercial
business loans primarily in MetaBank's market area.  

The principal business of MetaBank WC is attracting retail deposits from the
general public and investing those funds in commercial and multi-family real
estate and commercial operating loans and, to a lesser extent, one- to four-
family residential, consumer and agriculture loans.  The Banks also purchase
mortgage-backed securities and other investments permissible under applicable
regulations.  Meta Financial also owns Meta Trust Company, a South Dakota
trust corporation.


MOTOROLA INC: Settles Ill. Securities Fraud Suit for $190M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. proposed to settle the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The settlement will provide $190,000,000 for the benefit of investors who
purchased the following six classes of Motorola securities during the Class
Period -- February 3, 2000 and May 14, 2001-- inclusive, plus interest
accrued on that amount from May 14, 2007:

     -- Publicly traded Motorola common stock (CUSIP:
        620076109);

     -- Motorola 8.40% Debentures due August 15, 2031 (CUSIP:
        620076AC3);

     -- Motorola 6.5% Notes due March 1, 2008 (CUSIP:
        620076AG4);

     -- Motorola 6.5% Debentures due September 1, 2025 (CUSIP:
        620076AK5);

     -- Motorola 5.80% Notes due October 15, 2008 (CUSIP:
        620076AN9); and

     -- Motorola 6.5% Debentures due November 15, 2028 (CUSIP:
        620076AP4).

The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether Motorola misled investors
about its financial performance related to its business with a Turkish
customer known as Telsim.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is not later than August 14,
2007.  Deadline to file claims is on November 7, 2007.

The court will hold a hearing on September 7, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in the
courtroom of the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

                        Case Background

A purported class action, "Barry Family LP v. Carl F. Koenemann," was filed
against the former chief financial officer of Motorola on Dec. 24, 2002 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5.

In 2003, the case was consolidated with a number of related cases as, "In re
Motorola Securities Litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  

The plaintiffs allege that the price of Motorola's stock was artificially
inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S., in connection with the sale of
telecommunications equipment by Motorola as well as other related aspects of
Motorola's dealings with Telsim.

On Aug. 25, 2004, the Illinois District Court issued its decision on
Motorola's motion to dismiss, granting the motion in part and denying it in
part.  The court dismissed without prejudice the fraud claims against the
individual defendants and denied the motion to dismiss as to Motorola.

The plaintiffs chose not to file an amended complaint; therefore, the fraud
claims against the individual defendants are dismissed.  The court, however,
declined to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims that the individual defendants
were "controlling persons of Motorola."

During 2005, the court certified the case as a class action.

Motorola Securities Settlement on the net:
http://www.motorolasecuritiessettlement.com./motorola/default.htm

The suit is "In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, Case No. 03 C 00287,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Robert C. Finkel
          James A. Harrod
          Lester Levy
          Wolf Popper, LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 759-4600 and (877) 370-7703
          Fax: (212) 486-2093 and (877) 370-7704

          - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 623-3000

Representing the defendants are:  

          Timothy F. Haley
          Ian H. Morrison
          Camille Annette Olson
          Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
          55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
          Chicago, IL 60603-4205
          Phone: (312) 346-8000
          E-mail: thaley@seyfarth.com, imorrison@seyfarth.com
                  and colson@seyfarth.com
          - and -

          Emily M. Pasquinelli
          Arnold & Porter
          555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-1202
          Phone: (202) 942-5000


NEW YORK: Vulcan Society Joins Justice Dept.’s Racial Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Vulcan Society of the New York’s fire department has joined a class
action against the City of New York over alleged racial discrimination in the
department’s hiring practices, The New York Daily News reports.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York a suit against the city charging that two
written exams administered by the Fired Department of New York (FDNY) in 1999
and 2002 were unfair to black and Hispanic candidates.

The suit seeks to represent approximately 335 black employees who "were and
continue to be affected by the fact that they were delayed and impeded in
their ability to obtain employment with the FDNY."

The suit is “United States of America v. City of New York, Case No. 1:07-cv-
02067-NGG-RLM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, under Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, with referral to Judge Roanne L.
Mann.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Allyson L. Belovin
          Levy Ratner, P.C.
          80 Eighth Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-627-8100
          Fax: 212-627-8182
          E-mail: abelovin@lrbpc.com

          Clare F. Geller
          U.S. Department of Justice
          601 D Street, Nw, Room 4926
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202)353-1817
          Fax: (202)514-1005
          E-mail: clare.geller@usdoj.gov
          - and -

          Michael J. Goldberger
          United States Attorneys Office
          Eastern District of New York
          One Pierrepont Plaza, 14th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (718)254-6052
          Fax: (718)254-6083
          E-mail: Michael.Goldberger@usdoj.gov

Representing defendants are:

          Michael N. Block
          Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C
          120 Broadway- 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-732-9000
          Fax: 212-266-4148
          E-mail: mblock@triallaw1.com

          - and -

          Georgia Mary Pestana
          Office of the Corporation Counsel
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-788-0862
          Fax: 212-788-0940
          E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Judge Extends GOB’s Term Until End of 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Alex R. Munson of the U.S. District Court of the  
Northern Mariana Islands extended the Garment Oversight Board’s term to Dec.
31, 2007, Ferdie de la Torre of the Saipan Tribune reports.

Originally set to expire on July 29, the term-set extension will enable GOB
to receive and dispose of the undistributed funds pursuant to the settlement
agreement.  

In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed the
suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, on behalf of
some garment workers who were allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions
(Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006).     

A settlement reached five years after, provides an award close to $20 million
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).  The money is to be distributed as:

  Payment to workers                            $5.8 million      
  Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000      
  Repatriation fund for garment workers         $400,000      
  Monitoring fund                               $4 million      
  Milberg Trust fund                            $565,254.80      
  Plaintiffs lawyer                             $8.75 million     

At Sept. 29, 2006 status conference in federal court, lawyer   
Pamela Parker told the U.S. District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
that a total of over $5 million in checks have been mailed to about 29,700
workers for the settlement of the class action against the Commonwealth's
garment factories (Class   
Action Reporter, Oct. 4, 2006).   

Subsequently, plaintiffs' lawyer Joyce C. H. Tang, in court papers filed in
the U.S. District Court of the Northern  
Mariana Islands, stated that only about 40 percent of the total amount
distributed to workers in the $5 million settlement have been cashed (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2006)

Judge Munson then ordered the garment manufacturers to just send back to
claims administrator Gilardi and Co. the undistributable checks that are part
of the over $5 million being sent to 29,700 workers in connection with the
settlement of the class action against the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands' (CNMI) garment factories (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6,
2006).

In recent developments, Ms. Tang stated in her report that of the 29,771
checks originally issued for the workers, 13,725 checks were cashed.  The
total cash distribution, Ms. Tang said, represented by these checks is
$2,282,835.89 out of an initial net fund of $3,977,674.68.

Ms. Tang said Gilardi reissued or has plans to issue checks to those
plaintiffs who did not receive their checks originally and for whom Gilardi
now has current addresses, representing a total of $65,198.24.

In a written order on July 16, Judge Munson cited GOB's “on the ground”
presence on Saipan, its physical proximity to China, and its current
relationship with garment workers, factories, and local governmental entities
as the most efficient and cost-effective means of identifying more workers
eligible to receive settlement money.

The judge further said that even if settlement funds still remain after such
efforts are undertaken, the GOB may use those undistributed money for
repatriation efforts or other purposes consistent with the settlement
agreement.  

He ordered the counsel for the plaintiffs in the class-action to transfer the
undistributed settlement money to GOB within 30 days, and the claims
administrator to transfer to GOB its computerized database of settlement
class members, and any other databases it has created that will facilitate
the board's efforts to identify eligible workers and avoid duplication of
payments.

The plaintiffs' counsel and the claims administrator estimate that the
unencumbered portion of the undistributed settlement funds may reach $2
million, according to Judge Munson.

A Sept. 14, 2007 status hearing at 10 a.m. is set for the plaintiffs' counsel
and the GOB to discuss the $280,000 tax-related reserve.  The counsel will
report to the court how the $280,000 was disposed.  It will be decided
whether it is necessary to continue to hold this sum in reserve or have it
transferred to GOB.

For more details, contact:    

          Pamela M. Parker
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          
          Steven P. Pixley
          2nd Floor, CIC Centre
          Beach Rd., Garapan
          P.O. Box 7757
          SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950
          Phone: (670) 233-2898/5175
          Fax: (670) 233-4716
          E-mail: sppixley@aol.com

          - and -

          Joyce C. H. Tang
          Civille & Tang, PLLC
          330 Hernan Cortez Avenue, Suite 200
          Hagatna 96910, Guam
          Phone: 671-472-8868
          Fax: 671-477-2511


PARMALAT SPA: $50M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York gave final approval to a proposed $50 million settlement by:

     * Banca Nazionale del Lavoro S.p.A. (BNL),
     * Credit Suisse Group,
     * Credit Suisse,
     * Credit Suisse International, and
     * Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd.

in the matter, "In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-0030
(LAK),” Reuters reports.

During a July 19 brief hearing, Judge Kaplan approved the settlement, under
which Credit Suisse and Italy's bank BNL will each pay $25 million.  BNL of
Italy is now owned by France's BNP Paribas.  The judge also approved a
reimbursement of $6 million to the plaintiff's attorneys.

                         Case Background

Generally, the lawsuit alleges that Parmalat and numerous other defendants
participated in a fraudulent financial scheme, resulting in the
understatement of Parmalat's debt by nearly $10 billion and the overstatement
of its net assets by over $16 billion.  Parmalat ultimately filed for
bankruptcy, and the value of its stock and bonds dramatically declined.

Though some defendants agreed to settle the case, it will still proceed
against Parmalat S.p.A. (the successor to Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A.),
financial institutions, two auditing firms, and certain individuals.

In particular, the defendants not settling, against whom claims are still
pending in the class action, are:
  
      -- Bank of America Corp.,
      -- Bank of America, N.A.,
      -- Banc of America Securities Ltd.,
      -- Citigroup Inc.,
      -- Citibank N.A.,
      -- Eureka Securitisation plc,
      -- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,
      -- Deloitte & Touche USA LLP,
      -- Grant Thornton International,
      -- Grant Thornton LLP,
      -- Pavia e Ansaldo,
      -- Parmalat S.p.A., and
      -- numerous individuals.

In May 2004, the court appointed the law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C, of Washington, D.C., Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., of Wilmington,
Del., and Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., of Philadelphia, Pa., to represent
the plaintiffs in the case.  These firms have been litigating this case since
that time, and they negotiated the partial settlement.

The settlement covers all investors, brokers, financial institutions, and
other nominees who bought the common stock or bonds of Parmalat Finanziaria
S.p.A. and its subsidiaries and affiliates from Jan. 5, 1999, through and
including Dec. 18, 2003 (Class Action Reporter, April 19, 2007).

For more details, contact:

          Parmalat Notice Administrator
          P.O. Box 4068
          Portland, OR 97208-4068
          Web site: http://www.ParmalatSettlement.com

          Mark S. Willis, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          Phone: +1-202-408-4606

          James Sabella, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          Phone: +1-646-722-8500
          
          - and -

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          Phone: +1-215-496-0300


PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS: “Insurance Discount” Suit Ruling Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the plaintiff in a suit alleging Progressive Express bills
customers an illegal finance charge have appealed to the 2nd District Court
of Appeal a decision by a regulatory agency to declare it otherwise, Karen
Branch-Brioso of The Tampa Tribune reports.

Plaintiff Michelle Reaume of Plant City, Florida filed a class action
claiming Progressive’s paid-in-full auto insurance discount for customers who
pay their bill in one lump sum is a hidden finance charge beyond the 18
percent allowed by law.

In 2005, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Perry Little agreed with Ms. Reaume’s
lawyers James Felman and Katherine Earle Yanes.  Progressive asked the Second
District Court of Appeal to intervene.  The lawyers argued that since Ms.
Reaume’s complaint dealt with a discount that was part of premiums approved
by the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR), it was the OIR and not the
courts that should hear the complaint.

The OIR regulates insurance premiums, but state law sets limits on finance
charges for people who pay their bill in installments.

OIR General Counsel Steven Parton signed off on a friend-of-the-court brief
agreeing with Progressive that his department had jurisdiction over the
issue.  

On July 2, the Office of Insurance Regulation, which oversees insurance
companies in Florida, agreed with Progressive lawyers’ assertion that the
discount is not a finance charge but “a break based on statistical proof that
people who pay in full file less claims than people who don’t,” according to
Ms. Branch-Brioso.

In that decision, OIR Assistant General Counsel Diane Zecchino-Lukin wrote
that the discount is part of Progressive’s premium and “not a premium finance
charge,” according to the report.  

Ms. Reaume filed her appeal on July 10.  Mr. Felman estimated potential
damages to be $242 million, just for the difference between paid-in-full
premiums and the higher premiums paid by installment customers.


PUERTO RICO: Final Order in Nixed Touchtone Service Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final determination is yet to be issued in a case against Puerto Rico
Telephone Co., Inc. that was dismissed by the court of First Instance of
Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico Telephone Co., Inc. is a fixed-line subsidiary of
Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc.  

On Nov. 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight business service
subscribers filed a class action with the court of First Instance of Puerto
Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico
Class Action Act of 1971.

Plaintiffs claimed that the company's charges for touchtone service are not
based on cost, and therefore violate the Act.
Thus, they requested that the court:

      -- issue an order certifying the case as a class action;
      
      -- designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class;

      -- find that the charges are illegal; and

      -- order the company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996.

On Nov. 1, 2004 Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion for summary judgment
requesting the dismissal of plaintiff's claim due to plaintiff's failure to
follow the procedure to object to charges, established by Law 33.

Law 33 establishes that a telecommunication services user has 20 days from
the receipt of the telecommunications service company invoice to object to
charges in the invoice.  

In the motion, Puerto Rico Telephone has argued that since plaintiffs
admittedly failed to comply with said procedure their claims are time-
barred.  The motion is still under the consideration by the court.

On May 10, 2005 the court issued an order certifying the case as a class
action.  Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of that decision and a
hearing was held on June 20, 2005 to discuss the merits of Puerto Rico
Telephone's position.

On June 22, 2005 the court issued an order confirming its previous decision.  
As a consequence, a certiorari writ was filed on June 22, 2005.

On Sept. 19, 2005 the P.R. Appeals Court denied the same. Puerto Rico
Telephone sought reconsideration of that decision on Oct. 4, 2005.

The reconsideration request was denied on Oct. 11, 2005.
Therefore Puerto Rico Telephone filed a certiorari writ with the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court on Nov. 10, 2005.  The certiorari writ was denied
on Jan. 18, 2006.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion to dismiss alleging
lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the enactment of Law No. 138 of
Nov. 4, 2005.  This new law grants the Puerto Rico Telecommunications
Regulatory Board (TRB) exclusive primary jurisdiction to entertain class
actions related to telecommunication services.

The hearing scheduled for Jan. 24, 2006 was rescheduled for May
16, 2006 in response to plaintiff's request for time to oppose
Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss.  

The court granted the plaintiffs until March 24, 2006 to submit their motions
opposing Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss.  In addition the court
granted Puerto Rico Telephone until April 24, 2006 to submit its reply.  

On March 24, 2006 plaintiffs filed a request for 60 additional days to submit
their opposing motion.  On March 29, 2006 Puerto Rico Telephone opposed this
request and asked the court to rule on the jurisdictional matter brought by
the company.

On April 3, 2006, the court denied plaintiff's request for extension of time,
but did not rule on Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss.  On April 12,
2006, plaintiff's filed for reconsideration, which was not considered by the
court.

Consequently, on April 28, 2006, plaintiff's filed an opposition to Puerto
Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss arguing that Law 138 is unconstitutional.  
Puerto Rico Telephone filed an urgent motion, arguing that the opposition was
untimely filed, and as a result the court has lost jurisdiction of said
motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the alternative, and due to the fact that this is an interlocutory
proceeding, Puerto Rico Telephone requested additional time to file a reply
and a new date for the argumentative hearing.  On May 9, 2006, plaintiffs
filed opposition to Puerto Rico Telephone's request.

On May 9, 2006, the judge issued a final judgment dismissing the proceeding.  
The judge acknowledged that with the enactment of Law 138, the TRB has
primary jurisdiction to hear the case.  On June 8, 2006 the plaintiffs filed
an appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals.

On July 10, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed its corresponding opposition to
the appeal.  Plaintiffs filed a request for oral hearing.  

On Oct. 12, 2006, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for
oral hearing and acknowledged the brief filed by Puerto Rico Telephone.  The
case has been submitted and pending for a final determination.

The company provided no development in the matter in its May 15, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

Guaynabo, Puerto Rico-based Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc. --
http://www.telefonicapr.com/is telecommunications services provider in  
Puerto Rico, the company's fixed-line subsidiary, Puerto Rico Telephone
Company (PRT), is the island nation's incumbent local-exchange carrier with
more than 1 million residential and business access lines in services.  The
company also offers wireless communications services under the Verizon
Wireless brand, as well as long-distance, Internet access, and directory
services. Verizon Communications owns 52% of Telecomunicaciones de Puerto
Rico through its purchase of GTE Corporation's GTE Holdings (Puerto Rico);
the government of Puerto Rico owns 28% through its Government Development
Bank.


SALTON INC: Still Faces N.Y. Injury Litigation Over Teakettles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed in New York
State Supreme Court seeking damages for claims that the plaintiffs were
injured by water contaminated with lead from teakettles the company sold
under its Russell Hobbs brand.

The suit, "DiNatale v. Salton, Inc.," filed on or about Oct. 27,
2004, seeks unspecified damages.  The plaintiffs' attorney was asking to
convert the lawsuit into a class action, but no class action has since been
filed.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 15, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

Salton, Inc. -- http://www.saltoninc.com-- is a designer, marketer and  
distributor of branded small appliances, home decor and personal care
products.  The Company's product mix includes a range of small kitchen and
home appliances, electronics for the home, tabletop products, time products,
lighting products, picture frames, and personal care and wellness products.  


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Mass. Suit Over Intron-Related Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 12 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts accusing it of paying
illegal kickbacks to doctors to push the prescription drugs Intron, Rebetol
and Eulexin.

Named plaintiff, Teamsters Local 346 Health Fund, brings this action on
behalf of all persons and legal entities in the United States and its
territories that, for purposes other than resale, purchased, reimbursed
and/or paid for Eulexin, Intron A, Rebetol/Intron A Combination Therapy,
Temodar, PEG-Intron, Rebetol and Rebetol/PEG-Intron Combination Therapy,
Integrilin and/or Fareston from January 1, 1995 through June 2005 based upon
payments that were approved only because of Defendants’ illegal off-label
marketing scheme for which Defendants were unjustly enriched.

Plaintiff alleges damages resulting from payments it made for drugs illegally
marketed by Defendants.

Among other things, Defendants allegedly engaged in the following general
types of acts and omissions as part of their illegal marketing, promotion and
sales scheme and conspiracy:

     (1) they promoted certain of the Subject Drugs to
         physicians by offering and paying various types of
         improper bribes, kickbacks and other illegal
         remuneration, whether or not such Subject Drugs were
         promoted, prescribed and used for indicated/approved
         medical conditions and in doses and/or for durations
         that were indicated/approved;

     (2) they promoted certain of the Subject Drugs at doses
         and/or for durations of use that were not medically
         safe, efficacious, effective, or useful, whether or not
         such Subject Drugs were promoted, prescribed, and used
         for an indicated/approved medical condition; and

     (3) they promoted certain of the Subject Drugs for non-
         indicated/unapproved or “off-label” uses.

More specifically, among other things, the Complaint details numerous
kickbacks provided by Defendants to physicians and other medical providers to
induce them to prescribe certain pharmaceutical products.

Defendants’ practices were allegedly part of a highly organized and
orchestrated campaign, which, among other things, included:

      1. offering kickbacks to physicians and healthcare
         providers in the form of samples;

      2. offering kickbacks to physicians in the form of
         “overfilled vials”;

      3. offering kickbacks to physicians and healthcare
         providers in the form of clinical drug trials;

      4. providing lavish entertainment to physicians and
         healthcare providers;

      5. providing physicians and healthcare providers with sham
         speaker fees a/k/a “honorariums”;

      6. providing physicians and healthcare providers with sham
         grants;

      7. providing physicians and healthcare providers with sham
         preceptorships;
     
      8. using “investigator meetings” as inducements;

      9. using “advisory board meetings” as inducements;

     10. creating sham paperwork programs as a means to provide
         kickbacks to physicians;

     11. providing remuneration as inducements to physicians and
         healthcare providers through the Commitment to Care
         program;

     12. providing remuneration to a select handful of
         physicians through the Consultant Care Network; and

     13. providing free full-time Physician Assistants to
         physician practices.

In addition, the Complaint alleges violations of the federal False Claims
Act, among other violations of law, by Defendants in actively promoting
certain products for “off-label” uses and for which Plaintiff and/or members
of the Classes were, by way of Defendants’ illegal scheme and conspiracy,
caused to make payments.

Defendants’ motive in creating and operating the fraudulent scheme and
conspiracy, including and/or in addition to the provision of illegal
remuneration and illegal inducements to physicians as described herein, was
to obtain additional revenues and profits from the marketing, promotion and
sale of the Subject Drugs.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether Defendants engaged in the fraudulent marketing,
         promotion and sales scheme and conspiracy alleged
         herein;

     (b) Whether the conspiracy was implemented;

     (c) Whether Intron A, Temodar and combination therapy are
         medically necessary for uses not approved by the FDA;

     (d) Whether Defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or
         unfair deceptive scheme of improperly marketing,
         promoting and selling Intron A, Temodar and/or
         combination therapy to treat conditions for which these
         Subject Drugs were not approved by the FDA;

     (e) Whether Defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or
         unfair deceptive scheme of improperly marketing,
         promoting and selling Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron
         Combination Therapy for conditions for which these
         Subject Drugs were not medically safe, efficacious,
         effective or useful;

     (f) Whether Defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or
         unfair deceptive scheme of improperly marketing,
         promoting and selling any of the Subject Drugs for
         durations of use or in dosages that exceeded or were
         otherwise outside the scope of FDA approval or that
         were not medically safe, efficacious, effective or
         useful;

     (g) Whether Defendants coached or instructed physicians or
         others on how to conceal the off-label nature of Intron
         A, Temodar and/or combination therapy on claim forms
         submitted by or to patients and members of the Class;

     (h) Whether Defendants prepared, funded and published
         studies and other materials which contained false
         information and misrepresentations regarding off-label
         uses, or the validity of or propriety of or scientific
         and other support for, off-label uses of Intron A,
         Temodar and/or combination therapy;

     (i) Whether, and on how many these Subject Drugs were not
         medically safe, efficacious, effective or useful;

     (j) Whether Defendants utilized others and/or engaged in
         conspiracies to assist in the publication and
         dissemination of false statements, or fraudulent
         studies, to physicians concerning off-label uses of
         Intron A, Temodar and/or combination therapy;

     (k) Whether Defendants used kickbacks, bribes and/or other
         payments or provision of illegal remuneration to induce
         physicians to prescribe, administer, or otherwise treat
         patients with any of the Subject Drugs, whether or not
         such prescribing, administration, or treatment was for
         medical conditions that were FDA-approved;

     (l) Whether Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
         with the intent of deceiving and defrauding Plaintiff
         and the Class and with the intent of suppressing the
         unlawful conduct and conspiracy;

     (m) Whether Defendants violated state consumer protection
         statutes including the Consumer Protection Act of
         Massachusetts;

     (n) Whether Defendants are liable under state conspiracy
         and/or state concert of action laws;

     (o) Whether Defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the
         expense of Plaintiff and members of the Class;

     (p) Whether Defendants’ illegal bribes, kickbacks, payments
         of illegal remuneration and/or other illegal
         inducements provided to physicians and other medical
         providers directly and proximately caused Plaintiff and
         members of the Class to pay for any of the Subject
         Drugs, or to pay more for the Subject Drugs than they
         otherwise would have paid either for those specific
         Subject Drugs or for an alternative drug or treatment,
         whether or not the Subject Drugs for which Plaintiff
         and the members of the Class paid were for FDA-approved
         uses;

     (q) Whether Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice
         that directly and proximately caused Plaintiff and
         members of the Class to pay for any of the Subject
         Drugs for non-medically necessary uses, for uses not
         Approved by the FDA, or in doses or for durations of
         use that were not approved by the FDA or that were not
         medically necessary;

     (r) Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to
         compensatory damages, and, if so, the nature of such
         damages;

     (s) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled
         to punitive damages, treble damages or exemplary
         damages and, if so, the nature of such damages;

     (t) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled
         to equitable relief pursuant to their claim for unjust
         enrichment or otherwise; and

     (u) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled
         to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, prejudgment
         interest, post-judgment interest and costs of suit.

Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Class demands judgment against
Defendants in each claim for relief, jointly and severally, and as follows:

     -- On the claim under the consumer protection statutes of
        Massachusetts, compensatory damages, treble damages,
        punitive damages, and any other damages permitted under
        such statutes, such amounts to be determined at trial,
        plus Plaintiff’s costs in this suit and reasonable
        attorneys’ fees;

     -- On the conspiracy/concert of action claim, compensatory
        damages, treble damages and punitive damages, such
        amounts to be determined at trial, plus Plaintiff’s
        costs in this suit and all reasonable attorneys’ fees;

     -- On the claim for unjust enrichment, recovery in the
        amount of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s

        (i) payments for these Subject Drugs to treat conditions
            for which these drugs were not approved by the FDA;

       (ii) over-payments for these Subject Drugs resulting from
            Defendant-promoted treatment with excessive dosages
            or over excessive durations that were not
            FDA-approved, even if treating the underlying  
            medical condition with these Subject Drugs was
            FDA-approved; and

      (iii) payments or over-payments for these Subject Drugs
            where Plaintiff’s and the Class’s purchases arose
            from bribes, kickbacks, illegal remuneration or
            other illegal inducements paid or provided to
            physicians by the Defendants, such amounts to be
            determined at trial, plus Plaintiff’s costs in this
            suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

     -- Awarding Plaintiff and the Class other appropriate
        equitable relief, including, but not limited to,
        disgorgement of all profits obtained from their wrongful
        conduct nd declaratory relief;

     -- Awarding Plaintiff and the Class pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

     -- Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their costs and
        expenses in this litigation, including expert fees, and
        reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

     -- Awarding Plaintiff and the Class such other and further
        relief as may be just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is “Teamsters Local 346 Health Fund v. Schering-Plough Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-11283-MLW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Judge Mark L. Wolf.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kristin A. Suga
          Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP
          Suite 1300, 950 Winter Street
          Waltham, MA 02451
          Phone: 781-466-0700
          Fax: 781-466-0701
          E-mail: ksuga@zelle.com


SUNNYSIDE APARTMENTS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunnyside Apartments and Double G Corp. are facing a class action filed July
9 in Tampa Federal Court.

Plaintiff Frank Jorge alleges Labor Code violations.

The suit is “Jorge v. Sunnyside Apartments, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
01191-SCB-MSS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida under Judge Susan C. Bucklew with referral to Judge Mary S. Scriven.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group, PA
          Suite 404
          1515 S Federal Hwy
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: n561/447-8888
          Fax: 561/447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com


TRAVELCLICK INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCLICK Inc. is facing a class action filed in Chicago Federal Court.

Plaintiffs Ann Sykora and Stephanie Pavisic allege Labor Code violations.

The suits is “Pavisic et al. v. TravelCLICK, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-03895,’
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Ruben Castillo.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          Billhorn Law Firm
          515 N. State Street
          Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: (312) 464-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Reverses Stance on Green Card Applications
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to the class action filed by Chicago's largest immigration firm,
Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC, the federal government announced plans to accept
green card applications from skilled legal immigrants.

Earlier this summer, the State Department and Citizenship & Immigration
Services (CIS) announced that eligible skilled workers could submit
applications to become legal residents. However, on July 2, the government
claimed that green cards were no longer available because CIS had reduced its
backlog of green card applications, and all properly submitted applications
would be rejected.  The distribution of green cards was indefinitely
suspended.

On July 6, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of its clients
and all those like them, against:

     -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

     -- the Department of State,

     -- Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff,

     -- the Department of Homeland Security,

     -- U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship
        and Immigration Services (USCIS), and

     -- Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS

for announcing that they would refuse to accept employer-sponsored green card
applications on behalf of the skilled workers (Class Action Reporter, July
11, 2007).

The CIS now said they will accept employment based petitions under the July
Visa Bulletin, at the pre-fee increase rates until August 17, 2007.
Applications already filed, which the agency planned to reject, will be
accepted.

With this decision, tens of thousands of immigrants who had thought their
chances to become legal citizens were dashed will now be able to apply for
permanent residency.

"Azulay, Horn & Seiden was happy to pave the way for the government's
reversal of its decision with our class action," said Ira Azulay, firm
CEO. "We are pleased that the State Department and CIS acknowledged their
mistakes and are taking the appropriate steps to correct their mishaps. Now,
deserving U.S. residents will have the opportunity to attain the citizenship
they have worked so hard to achieve. We want to thank everyone who worked
with us to achieve this result during this difficult process."

Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a
complaint.

The suit is “Ptasinska v. U.S. Department of State et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03795,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge Charles P. Kocoras.

Representing defendants is:

          AUSA
          United States Attorney's Office (NDIL)
          219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 353-5300
          E-mail: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Judd Azulay
          Sara M. Collins
          Roland C Lara
          Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312)832-9200
          Fax: (312)832-9212
          E-mail: scollins@ahslaw.com or rlara@ahslaw.com


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: N.Y. Court Dismisses “Kemp” Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice a consolidated securities class action filed against Universal
American Financial Corp.

Several actions containing related factual allegations were filed against the
company and certain of its officers and directors between Nov. 22, 2005 and
Feb. 2, 2006.  Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew one of these actions, while
some of the remaining ones were later consolidated.

In the first action, Robert Kemp filed a purported class action complaint on
Nov. 22, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  "Kemp" is a purported class action asserted on behalf of those
shareholders of the company who acquired the company's common stock between
Feb. 16, 2005 and  Oct. 28, 2005.   

Plaintiffs in the "Kemp" seek unspecified damages under Section 10(b) and 20
(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based upon allegedly false
statements by the company and Richard A. Barasch, Robert A. Waegelein and
Gary W. Bryant in press releases, financial statements and analyst
conferences during the class period.  

Another purported class action was filed by Western Trust Laborers-Employers
Pension Trust, a putative class member in the Kemp Action who had filed a
motion to be named as lead plaintiff in that action, on Feb. 2, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The factual and legal allegations in the Western Trust Action, which also
purports to be a class action, are similar to those in the Kemp Action.

By order dated May 1, 2006, the Kemp Action and the Western Trust Action were
consolidated, and Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was
named lead plaintiff.

On June 26, 2006, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in
the Kemp Action), which will now subsume the Western Trust Action.

The Amended Complaint asserts the same legal claims as in the original Kemp
and Western Trust Actions, but also names an additional defendant and
includes additional allegations.  The additional defendant is William E.
Wehner, a former director and former president of Pennsylvania Life Insurance
Co., a subsidiary of the company.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Wehner is liable for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on grounds
similar to those asserted against the Officer Defendants.

The additional assertions are supposedly based in part upon information from
six former employees and agents of the company and its subsidiaries
concerning, among other things, the company's medical loss ratio.  Like the
original complaints in the Kemp and Western Trust Actions, the Amended
Complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 14, 2006, defendants served a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
in the Kemp Action.  The lead plaintiff served opposition papers to the
motion on Oct. 17, 2006.

Earlier, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the suit with prejudice following a ruling by the Court in favor of
the company defendants.

The first identified complaint is "Kemp v. Universal American Financial
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-09883-JFK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge John F. Keenan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven G. Schulman
          Peter Edward Seidman
          David Avi Rosenfeld
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP (NYC)
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-946-9356 or (212) 613-5625 or 631-367-7100
          Fax: 212-273-4406 or (212) 868-1229 or 631-367-1173
          E-mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com or
                  pseidman@milberg.com or
                  drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Joseph Francis Donley
          Andrew J. Levander
          Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Phone: (212) 891-9524 or (212) 698-3500
          Fax: (212) 891-9598 or (212) 698-3500
          E-mail: joseph.donley@dechert.com and
                  andrew.levander@dechert.com


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $5.5M
---------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on July 5,
2007 to settle and fully resolve the securities class action litigation, “In
re Veeco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litigation, No. 05MD1695,” for a payment of
$5.5 million.  

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Veeco and other defendants, including certain of its current
and former officers.

Veeco expects that insurance proceeds will cover the settlement amount and
any significant legal expenses related to the settlement.  The settlement
agreement is subject to court approval and would dismiss all pending claims
against Veeco and the other defendants with no admission or finding of
wrongdoing by Veeco or any of the other defendants, and Veeco and the other
defendants would receive a full release of all claims pending in the
litigation.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Phyllis Maza, Esq.
         Parker of Berger & Montague, PC
         1622 Locust St., Philadelphia
         PA 19103-6365, U.S.
         Phone: (215) 875-4647
         Fax: (215) 875-4674
         E-mail: pparker@bm.net

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892
         E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com

and -

         Sherrie Raiken, Esq.
         Savett of Berg & Androphy (Houston),  
         3704 Travis Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: (215) 875-3071
         Fax: (215)-875-5715

Representing the company is:

         Robert F. Serio, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP (NYC)
         200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-351-3917
         Fax: 212-351-5246
         E-mail: rserio@gibsondunn.com


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Calif., N.J., Ohio, Wash. Consumer Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. was named in several purported class actions in
California, New Jersey, Ohio and Washington, alleging a wide variety of
deficiencies with respect to its business practices, marketing disclosures,
email marketing and quality issues for both phone and fax service.

These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection statutes,
federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories.  Some of the actions allege
that the company failed to adequately disclose terms of service, including
how the money-back guarantee and the free month of service operate.  Various
plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that we failed to
honor promised rebates.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely represented cost
savings for its customers and deceptively describe the nature and quality of
our service.  Other plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective,
according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider of broadband  
telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber lines as of Dec. 31,
2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) technology platform,
the Company offers low-cost communications services.  


VS HOLDINGS: Faces Multiple Suits Over Multivitamins for Women
--------------------------------------------------------------
VS Holdings, Inc. faces several purported class actions over certain of its
multivitamins for women, according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.

On Jan. 19, 2007, media reports noted that an organization called
Consumerlab.com had tested various nutritional supplements and found the
Company’s private label brand of multivitamins Especially for Women to
contain less calcium than specified on the product label and to contain
levels of lead that are above acceptable parameters.

As a precaution, the Company voluntarily and temporarily ceased selling the
Product pending an internal investigation and offered a full refund for those
have purchased the Product.

On Jan. 22, 2007, plaintiffs Angelique Odum and Sharilyn Castro, represented
by different counsel, filed separate lawsuits against the Company in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California and for the Southern
District of California, respectively.

On March 7, 2007, plaintiffs Sara Pineda and Zara Jellicoe, both represented
by other counsel, filed a third lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The Odum and Castro suits allege violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and other California consumer protection laws.  

The Castro complaint also alleges various common law torts.  The
Pineda/Jellicoe suit alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition
and False Advertising Laws, but not the CLRA.  

The Odum, Castro and Pineda/Jellicoe plaintiffs all claim to represent a
class of California consumers who purchased the Product, and their complaints
are premised on the factual allegations stated in the prior media reports.

On March 9, 2007, a fourth plaintiff, Elena Klyachman, filed a purported
national class action complaint against the Company, and its affiliates:

         -- VS Direct, Inc.,
         -- VS Holdings, Inc., and
         -- VS Parent, Inc.,
         -- Nature's Value, Inc., a supplier of the Product

in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Bergen County.

The Klyachman complaint is based on the same general allegations about the
Product as the earlier complaints, but alleges violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, common law, statutory and common law warranties, the
Uniform Commercial Code and the Federal Magnusson Moss Act on behalf of all
persons in the United States who purchased the Product.

In addition, on April 19, 2007, two other plaintiffs, Catherine Guittard and
Frances Von Koenig, represented by the same counsel as plaintiffs Pineda and
Jellicoe, filed a purported national class action against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and unjust enrichment based on the same
allegations about the Product as in the prior cases.

All pending actions seek restitution on behalf of purchasers of the Products
as well as an injunction and attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.  

The Castro complaint also seeks actual and punitive damages, the Klyachman
complaint seeks actual, treble, and punitive damages, and the Guittard/Von
Koenig complaint seeks actual and treble damages. There is no claim of
personal injury in any of the actions.

The Company was served with the Odum complaint on Jan. 24, 2007, but on April
19, 2007, plaintiff Odum filed a Request for Dismissal of the case, and
Odum's counsel has announced that they will be associating in as counsel for
plaintiff Castro.

The Company has been served with the other Complaints, but has not yet filed
a response.  The Company is continuing its investigation so it may respond to
Plaintiffs’ claims.

VS Holdings, Inc. is a specialty retailer and direct marketer of vitamins,
minerals, herbs, supplements, sports nutrition and other health and wellness
products.


YANKEE CANDLE: Mass. Suit Over Madison Dearborn Merger Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative shareholder class action in relation to The Yankee Candle Co.
Inc.’s definitive merger agreement with Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC has
been dismissed.

On Oct. 25, 2006, The Yankee Candle Co. Inc. announced that it had entered
into a definitive merger agreement to sell outstanding shares of the company
for approximately $34.75 per share in cash.  

On the same day as the announcement of the merger, a putative shareholder
class action was filed against the company and its directors, as well as
against Madison Dearborn, in state court in Massachusetts.   

The complaint alleged that the company and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders in approving the proposed
transaction between the company and Madison Dearborn, and that Madison
Dearborn aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.  

Specifically, among other things, the complaint alleged that the directors:

     -- failed to properly value the company;  
  
     -- failed to take steps to maximize the value of the  
        company by failing to adequately solicit alternative  
        potential acquirers or alternative transactions; and  

     -- favored the Madison Dearborn transaction over other  
        potential transactions due to loyalty to current  
        management.  

The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction preventing the
completion of the proposed transaction, rescission if the transaction is
consummated, monetary damages, attorneys' fees and expenses associated with
the lawsuit, and any other further equitable relief as the court may deem
just and proper.  

The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a Stipulation of
Dismissal with Prejudice filed with the court on Jan. 31, 2007, according to
the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The Yankee Candle Company, Inc. -- http://www.yankeecandle.com-- is a  
designer, manufacturer and branded marketer of scented candles in the
giftware industry.  


ZENITH INSURANCE: Chiropractors File Suit in Cal. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith Insurance Co. is facing a class action filed by chiropractors in Los
Angeles Federal Court.

Plaintiff Kathleen Roche, D.C. alleges that the company improperly reduced
their payments for medical services.

The suit is “Kathleen Roche v. Zenith Insurance Co. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
04492-AHM-VBK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge A. Howard Matz with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Eric C Brunick, Esq.
          Freed and Weiss
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-220-0000

          -- and --   

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Richard J. Burke Law Offices
          1010 Market Street, Suite 650
          St Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-621-8647


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Board in Veteran’s Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld an Oct. 14, 2005 Board
of Veterans’ Appeals, in which the Board denied Rodney G. Grace’s claims for
entitlement to service connection for a lung disability, claimed as a result
of exposure to asbestos.

Judge Lance entered decision of Case No. 05-3369 on June 26, 2007.

Mr. Grace served in the U.S. Air Force from April 1971 to July 1975. He
claimed asbestos exposure while repairing aerospace ground equipment and
working in asbestos-laden buildings during service.

In July 1990, Mr. Grace was diagnosed with "mediastinal lymph nodes, showing
fibrosis and anthracosis." In September 2004, a VA examiner diagnosed Mr.
Grace with "idiopathic progressive pneumonopathy marked by evidence of
fibrosis, necrosis, and vasculitis."

In June 2005, Mr. Grace was afforded a VA compensation and pension
examination. The VA examiner observed a significant and longstanding right
lung mass. The VA examiner determined that Mr. Grace’s lung condition was
likely not related to asbestos exposure as there had been numerous diagnostic
studies that have failed to locate asbestos fibers in the lung despite
multiple biopsies.

The examiner dismissed reference to anthracosis in the July 1990 private
hospital records because Mr. Grace had never worked in a coal mine.  

The Board, in the decision on appeal, denied entitlement to service
connection because a June 2005 chest x-ray was negative for "asbestos
changes," as well as all previous diagnostic evaluations.

Although the Board acknowledged that Mr. Grace served as an aerospace ground
equipment repairman, the Board rejected Mr. Grace’s lay assertion of in-
service asbestos exposure because his service medical records (SMRs) did not
contain any documentation for asbestos exposure.

The Board determined that there was no competent medical evidence to suggest
a relationship between Mr. Grace’s lung disability, to include exposure to
asbestos, and service.

Mr. Grace argued that the Board failed to consider July 1990 medical records
that indicated a finding of fibrosis and anthracosis.

R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, argued in response that
the Board did indeed consider evidence of fibrosis, but that the evidence
cited by Mr. Grace did not pertain to the lungs, but rather the lymph nodes.

Mr. Nicholson contended that the Mr. Grace’s claim was rejected because of a
lack of medical nexus evidence rather than a failure to establish evidence of
a current disability.

After consideration of Mr. Grace’s and Mr. Nicholson’s briefs, and a review
of the record, the Board's Oct. 14, 2005, decision is vacated as to Mr.
Grace’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder.

That matter is remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with
this decision.

The Board's Oct. 14, 2005 decision is otherwise affirmed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm and Haas Co. states that subsidiary Morton International Inc. faces
pending lawsuits related to employee exposure to asbestos at a manufacturing
facility in Weeks Island, La. with more suits expected.

The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed because they
are barred under workers’ compensation laws. However, cases involving
asbestos-caused malignancies may not be barred under Louisiana law.

Subsequent to the Morton acquisition, the Company commissioned medical
studies to estimate possible future claims and recorded accruals based on the
results.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related matters in the
former Friction Division of the former Thiokol Corp., which merged with
Morton in 1982.

Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have closed with
no payment. The Company estimates that all costs associated with future
Friction Division claims, including defense costs, will be well below its
insurance limits.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs’ attorneys
have focused on peripheral defendants, including the Company, which had
asbestos on its premises.

Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or settled for minimal
amounts because of the minimal likelihood of exposure at Company facilities.
The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases that it believes
are probable and estimable.

Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Co.’s operations are divided into six
segments. The paints and coatings materials group makes additives and
binders. The performance materials unit makes plastics additives and
antimicrobials. The electronic materials division makes photoresists and
materials for making printed wiring boards. Acrylates make up most of the
Company’s primary materials division. Its group markets salt for road ice
control, table salt (Morton Salt), and water softening. The Company’s
smallest unit makes packaging and building materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Casualty’s Leave Motion Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. West Virginia, granted Continental Casualty
Co.’s motion for leave to file an amended answer, in an asbestos-related
action filed by numerous plaintiffs against Continental Casualty and
Allegheny Insurance Co.

U.S. District Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. entered decision of Civil Action
No. 5:05CV95 on July 3, 2007.

This action stemmed from litigation initiated by the plaintiffs in the
Circuit Court of Ohio County, W.Va. The complaint in the underlying state
court action asserted claims against Valley Supply Co. for allegedly exposing
the plaintiffs to asbestos fibers.

At the time of these events, Valley Supply was insured by Continental
Casualty. The underlying state court action proceeded to trial and a verdict
was rendered.

Plaintiffs in this civil action alleged that the verdict in the underlying
action was “approximately 7.2 million dollars.”

The plaintiffs then filed a complaint, which was later removed to the
District Court, alleging that Allegheny and Continental Casualty violated the
West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act and various West Virginia insurance
regulations.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that Valley Supply was insured by
Continental Casualty and that Continental Casualty obtained the insurance
through Allegheny.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint to assert an
additional cause of action for fraud against Continental Casualty.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment
interest and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs.

On April 26, 2007, Continental Casualty filed a motion for leave to file an
amended answer to the first amended complaint, to which the plaintiffs
responded and Continental Casualty replied.

After considering the parties' arguments, the District Court found that
Continental Casualty’s motion for leave to file an amended answer should be
granted. First, the District Court found that Continental Casualty’s motion
was timely.

Next, the District Court found that the plaintiffs will not be unduly
prejudiced if the amendment is permitted.

Finally, the District Court found no evidence that Continental Casualty acted
in bad faith nor have the plaintiffs provided any evidence that Continental
Casualty has acted in bad faith.

Paul J. Harris of Wheeling, W.Va., John J. Wallace IV and Joseph A. Wallace
of Wallace Law Offices, LC, Inc. in Elkins, W.Va., represented the plaintiffs.

Adam M. Chud, John Moustakas, Mary E. Kostel, Michael S. Giannotto, and Nia
M. Fripp of Goodwin Procter, LLP in Washington, D.C., Larry W. Blalock of
Jackson Kelly PLLC in Wheeling, W.Va., represented Continental Casualty Co.
and Allegheny Insurance Co. Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Pretrial Order in Grace Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, on July 12, 2007, reversed a
pretrial ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, in
the U.S. Government’s asbestos case against W.R. Grace & Co., Great Falls
Tribune reports.

At issue was U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's ruling that required federal
prosecutors to produce a pretrial list of non-expert witnesses.

In the Appeals Court decision, the three-judge panel said the district court
had “exceeded its authority.”

The case involves public exposure to asbestos in the Libby area, where Grace
used to operate a mine. The ruling was one of two appeals stemming from
pretrial decisions. The other has not been decided.

Bill Mercer, the U.S. attorney for Montana, said in a statement, “I am
gratified by today's decision by the 9th Circuit. It moves the United States
closer to the ultimate goal of trying the grand jury's charge against W.R.
Grace, and the individual defendants, to a jury with a full complement of
evidence.”

A 2005 indictment charged Grace and seven of its former managers, one of whom
died in February 2007, with conspiring to conceal health risks posed years
ago by the Company's Libby vermiculite mine, closed since 1990.

Hundreds of people in Libby have fallen sick, some fatally, from exposure to
asbestos in vermiculite.

Trial has been scheduled for Sept. 3, 2007 in Missoula, Mont.

Circuit Judges J. Clifford Wallace, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Raymond C. Fisher
entered judgment of Case No. 06-30192 on July 12, 2007. The matter was argued
and submitted on July 26, 2006.

Sue Ellen Woolridge, Assistant Attorney General, William W. Mercer, U.S.
Attorney, Kris McLean, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Todd S. Aagaard, Kevin M.
Cassidy, Allen M. Brabender (argued), Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,
Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., represented
the United States of America.

Laurence A Urgenson, William B. Jacobson, Tyler D. Mace, Michael D. Shumsky
(argued), Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C., represented W.R. Grace &
Co. Alan R. Stringer, Henry A. Eschenbach, Jack W. Wolter, J. McCaig, Robert
J. Bettacchi, O. Mario Favorito, and Robert C. Walsh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. County to Settle Federal Case for $150T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The County of York in Pennsylvania would pay US$150,000 to settle a federal
lawsuit filed by John J. Herbst, Jr., who claimed he was fired for reporting
allegedly hazardous asbestos levels found in the flooring of the Pleasant
Acres Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, The York Dispatch reports.

Under a settlement approved by commissioners on July 11, 2007, the county
will pay Mr. Herbst US$150,000 to settle the suit, or almost six times his
annual salary of US$26,145.60 at the time he was fired.

Mr. Herbst, a former carpenter at the nursing home, also says in the suit
that he was fired for telling county officials about inadequate asbestos-
related safety precautions.

The case was tentatively scheduled to go to trial in 2008.

Mr. Herbst maintains the ability to make a claim against the county for
asbestos-related illness due to his time working at the nursing home.

The settlement comes after two attempts by the county to get the lawsuit
dismissed were denied by presiding U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones
III.

Mr. Herbst was hired in November 2002 as a carpenter at the nursing home,
according to the lawsuit. Part of his job was to remove floor tiles from the
home.

According to the suit, in September 2003, Mr. Herbst was warned by a painter
at the home that the floor tiles contained asbestos.

Concerned about the health implications, Mr. Herbst asked his supervisor for
safety equipment to remove the tiles and requested that the tiles be tested
for asbestos.

Mr. Herbst’s supervisor, John Cadek, refused to test the tiles and told him
to wear a dust mask, according to the lawsuit. Despite concerns that the dust
mask did not provide adequate protection, Mr. Herbst continued to remove
tiles for fear he would lose his job, he contends.

A letter from a representative of his union, Teamsters Local 776, said the
dispute was resolved and that Mr. Cadek agreed to have tile tested and to
provide appropriate protective gear.

According to the suit, Mr. Herbst stopped removing the tile after a piece he
took for independent testing showed the flooring contained hazardous levels
of asbestos.

Mr. Herbst's suit says the county's official reason for firing him on Aug.
15, 2006, was because he allegedly falsified records by misrepresenting when
he had arrived at work on his time clock adjustment form.

According to Mr. Herbst’s suit, the real reason is that he spoke up about the
asbestos and the lack of protection offered by the county and its nursing
home.

Nursing home administrator Marlin Peck has said state testing has shown that
the small amount of asbestos in the home's flooring is safe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers, ACandS Hearing Set for August 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 28, 2007 hearing is set for Motion For Approval of Settlement and
Buyback Agreement Among Travelers, ACandS Parties, and Other Parties,
according to a Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub LLP press
release dated July 16, 2007.

The motion would be heard before the Honorable Judith K. Fitzgerald, U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge, at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 5490 U.S. Steel Tower, 600
Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219.

A hearing will be held on the motion by ACandS Inc. (the Debtor), filed on
July 9, 2007, for the entry of an order approving a settlement agreement.

The parties are: the Debtor; certain of its affiliates (the "ACandS
Parties"); certain of its former affiliates (the "Former Irex Entities");
certain other entities (all as more fully set forth and defined in the
Settlement Agreement); and The Travelers Indemnity Co., Travelers Casualty
and Surety Co. (f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety C.), The Standard Fire
Insurance Co., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., U.S. Fidelity and
Guaranty Co., and certain of their affiliates (collectively and as further
defined in the Settlement Agreement, "Travelers").

As part of the Settlement, the Approval Order will authorize and approve the
sale of certain insurance policies issued by Travelers (the "Travelers
Insurance Policies," as defined in the Settlement Agreement), free and clear
of any and all claims, liens, encumbrances and interests of any kind, to
Travelers.

The Settlement Agreement provides for payment to ACandS Asbestos Settlement
Trust.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. will pay US$449 million (the "Settlement
Amount") into escrow within five business days after the bankruptcy court has
approved the Settlement Agreement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and subject to satisfaction of
the conditions specified therein, including confirmation of a plan of
reorganization to be filed by the Debtor (the "Plan"), the Settlement Amount
and any earnings thereon will be paid to the ACandS Asbestos Settlement Trust
(as defined in the Settlement Agreement), which is contemplated to be created
under the Plan.

The Plan will direct the resolution of asbestos personal injury claims in
accordance with the terms of the Plan and establish trust distribution
procedures for such claims to be approved in connection with the Plan.

A complete copy of the documents is also posted at www.ACSbankruptcy.com.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Shipworker’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Burnley Magistrates’ Court heard that James Barclay, a former
Cammell Laird shipworker, died from asbestos poisoning, Rossendale Free Press
reports.

Mr. Barclay, of Newchurch Road, Rawtenstall, U.K. died on April 4 as a result
of mesothelioma after working in engine rooms between the ages of 16 and 21.

The 76-year-old Mr. Barclay had been diagnosed with mesothelioma in November
2006.

Coroner Richard Taylor recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease and
told the court, “He was exposed to asbestos during his working life.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laborer Launches GBP250T Case v. Employers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Park, of Seaton Sluice, U.K., has launched a legal battle for
compensation of up to GBP250,000, New Post Leader reports.

Mr. Park has developed malignant mesothelioma, according to a writ at
London's High Court. He is claiming damages from Turney-Wylde (Construction)
Ltd. in Wallsend.

The writ says Mr. Park developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos
when he worked for the Company as a plasterer from 1978, and for predecessors
S. McCullough Ltd. between 1963 and 1971.

Mr. Park accuses the Company of negligence and breach of statutory duty and
says this caused his illness.

Mr. Park's claim is the latest in a series of legal actions brought by cancer
victims, or their relatives, from all over the country.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingston Building Cleanup to Cost CDN75,400
----------------------------------------------------------------
To hasten the asbestos cleanup at the municipal building in Kingston,
Ontario, Canada, the City would have to spend CDN75,400, The Kingston Whig-
Standard reports.

However, it could cost CDN200,000 and more for the city to comply with all
provincial regulations when it comes to the dangerous substance.

The extra money would cover the cost to do an audit of about 70 city-owned
buildings and what substances lie within their walls. City councilors set
aside CDN60,000 this year for the project, on the advice of staff.

The CDN200,000 is just an estimate, staff said.

Bids for the cleanup were about CDN20,000 higher than expected and the same
could happen with the review, which will also recommend any work needed to
deal with the asbestos issue.

Commissioner of corporate services Denis Leger said, “Whether we're going to
remove the asbestos is undetermined. If we decide to remove it, there's going
to be additional costs.”

The review will target buildings constructed before 1980 that are highly
used, Mr. Leger said. The CDN60,000 to be spent in 2007 will cover
inspections at about half of the 70 sites targeted in the review. The
remaining money would be spent in 2008.

Mr. Leger said that a draft asbestos-management plan is nearly completed. It
will include protocols on identifying the substance, handling it and training
programs for staff.

The city needs to complete the cleanup and management plan before work can
continue at the John Counter Boulevard building after the province put a
pause on construction.

On June 13, 2007, workers renovating the building found asbestos while
working on the ceiling in the lobby of the first floor. Tests revealed
asbestos in the ceiling and in the air. Air tests in other parts of the
building showed no signs of asbestos.

The Ministry of Labor was notified and work was shut down. The stop-work
order can only be lifted once the city complies with the ministry orders.

Cleanup at the site will include removal of the bulkhead where the asbestos
was found, spanning about 900 square feet, along with the removal of all
ceiling tiles and some vinyl flooring in the area.

According to a Ministry of Labor report, the city thought any asbestos in the
building had been removed when work was done in the early 1990s. At the start
of that decade, municipal officials conducted an asbestos survey of 30 city-
owned buildings, but since amalgamation, buildings have been bought and sold
and there isn't as much information available.

Mr. Leger said work inside the building and the review of other buildings
will be completed by October 2007. He further stated that the second phase of
the review will be done by next March.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: San Diego Gas Found Guilty in Federal Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Co., on July 13, 2007, was convicted in federal
court of violating safety standards while removing asbestos from property it
once owned in Lemon Grove, Calif., SignOnSanDiego.com reports.

A jury found the Company guilty of four criminal counts: three counts of
improperly removing asbestos and one count of making false statements.

Before the case went to the jury on July 11, 2007, U.S. District Judge Dana
Sabraw dismissed a fifth count of conspiracy to violate safety standards.

Three workers also faced criminal charges for allegedly violating safety
standards.

Jacquelyn McHugh, a supervisor in SDG&E's environmental department, was
acquitted of the one count against her.

David Williamson, an SDG&E environmental specialist, and Kyle Rhuebottom, the
project superintendent for contractor IT Corp., were acquitted of some
charges and convicted of others. The jury could not decide whether Mr.
Williamson falsely identified himself as a certified environmental consultant.

The Company faces a fine of up to US$2 million, or US$500,000 per count. The
workers face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine
for each charge for which there is a conviction.

Both sides are due back in court Sept. 6, 2007 for post-trial motions.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie Pierson said that at that time, attorneys for
the Company and the individuals could file motions for acquittal or a new
trial.

An SDG&E attorney said the case is not over. Former U.S. attorney Greg Vega
said, “We intend to vigorously fight on post-trial motions and on appeal.”

The Company had owned the Encanto Gas Holder Facility, a 16-acre site near
the Lemon Grove-San Diego boundary, since the 1950s and had stored natural
gas in the pipes. It sold the land to a developer and, as a requirement of
the sale, began removing nine miles of pipe in 2000.

Ms. Pierson argued during the trial that the Company cut corners by using a
cheaper machine to scrape chunks of coating containing asbestos off the pipes.

Defense attorneys said the charges stemmed from a disagreement between the
utility's experts and government regulators over whether the asbestos posed a
danger.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Ontario Victims Not Compensated
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a new research paper published in the current issue of the
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, almost 1,000
of the 1,500 residents of Ontario, Canada, who developed mesothelioma between
1980 and 2002 were not compensated, Ontario Workplace Insurance reports.

The report says that this allowed the province's Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board to shortchange victims of the disease, and taxpayers, out of
hundreds of millions of dollars.

Contracting mesothelioma is supposed to mean being placed on a fast track for
compensation from the province's workplace insurance plan, since there is a
presumption that the asbestos exposure came from being on the job.

The paper provides some of the first estimates of the human and financial
toll in Canada caused by exposure to asbestos.

The paper, written by a research team headed by Jim Brophy, one of Canada's
top occupational health experts, said Ontario taxpayers have been covering
huge medical bills for people with mesothelioma and thousands of other
asbestos-caused cancers, costs that should have been covered by fees the WSIB
charges employers to cover workplace diseases.

The WSIB said in a statement to The Globe and Mail that most people with the
disease do not apply for compensation and, out of those who do, about 90
percent are compensated.

In an interview, Dr. Brophy, director of the Occupational Health Clinics for
Ontario Workers in Sarnia, said doctors in Ontario are not required to notify
the WSIB that they are dealing with mesothelioma cases.

The incidence and compensation figures are based on data recently by Cancer
Care Ontario and the WSIB, which found from 1980 to 2002 nearly 1,500 men in
Ontario were diagnosed with mesothelioma. However, about 550 claims were
filed for the illness with the WSIB.

In Ontario, mesothelioma is among three occupational diseases - the others
being asbestosis and a rare nasal cancer - for which those who contract it
are assumed to have had a workplace exposure to a hazardous substance.

Canada continues to mine asbestos, but the paper said about 95 percent of the
output is exported, mainly to poor, developing countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Denies “Poor” Post-Katrina Hazard Check
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McDaniel, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, on July 12, 2007, denied that not enough was done to monitor the
risk from asbestos in the cleanup from Hurricane Katrina, The Associated
Press reports.

Mr. McDaniel called a Government Accountability Office report critical of
asbestos monitoring "riddled with unsubstantiated editorial comments,
misleading statements and inaccuracies." He made those comments in a letter
sent July 12, 2007 to the GAO, Congress' investigative arm.

It was common for New Orleans to be described as a toxic zone after Katrina
hit on Aug. 29, 2005, and flooded 80 percent of the city.

The GAO issued its report in June 2007 and it said environmental regulators
potentially exposed scores of residents, volunteers and workers to asbestos
fibers by not doing more to monitor the contaminant in the cleanup after
Katrina.

The GAO report was aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency, but DEQ has
been more aggressive than the EPA in defending the way the Katrina cleanup
has been handled.

Contrary to GAO's findings, state officials on July 12, 2007 said that there
has been an exhaustive effort to monitor for asbestos. DEQ said that no
measurable amounts of asbestos showed up in more than 20,000 samples, most of
them taken during demolitions.

John B. Stephenson, the director of the GAO's natural resources and
environment office, acknowledged that monitoring had taken place at
government-sponsored demolitions, but he said officials were not doing enough
to monitor for asbestos at demolitions conducted by citizens.

Mr. Stephenson said asbestos contamination was of particular concern because
many of the buildings being torn down in New Orleans are old and would likely
contain asbestos fibers.

The GAO report also said the environmental regulators at times
issued "unclear and inconsistent" information on the potential danger of
asbestos, mold, and other contaminants as people went about gutting and
demolishing homes.

Again, DEQ countered that regulators were quick to issue information on
potential hazards and promptly made sampling data available.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Marine Sues 43 Companies in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former U.S. Merchant Marine Thomas Holmes’ benefactor, Linda Carrell, is
suing A.O. Smith Corp., along with 42 other major corporations, for
distributing products containing asbestos throughout Jefferson County, Tex.,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.

When he was alive, Mr. Holmes sued several companies and received a claim for
his non-malignant asbestos-related disease. Ms. Carrell seeks compensation
for a "different asbestos-related injury."

Brian Blevins of Provost Umphrey will represent Ms. Carrell.

On July 10, 2007, Mr. Blevins filed the suit on behalf of Ms. Carrell with
the Jefferson County District Court. Judge Bob Wortham, 58th Judicial
District, will preside over Case No. A179-638.

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

A lung cancer patient, Mr. Holmes was a "heavy smoker." Medical documents
attached to the suit said Mr. Holmes was a "greater than 40 pack-year smoking
history and significant history of the consumption of alcoholic beverages."

The suit and medical documents stated that Mr. Holmes was diagnosed with an
asbestos disease in 1993. He sued and received a claim. In 2005, 64-year-old
Mr. Holmes died.

The petition says the 43 defendants entangled in Mr. Holmes’ lawsuit were
negligent, failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products before
flooding the market with dangerous goods.

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

Ms. Carrell is suing for Mr. Holmes' physical pain and suffering in the past
and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of
earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment
in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Residual Asbestos Found at Old Boiler House
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE grounds outside the old Boiler House at New Norfolk, Tasmania, Australia,
are still tainted by asbestos, despite assurances by the property owner Peter
Johnson that it had been cleared away, Mercury reports.

Mr. Johnson said on July 7, 2007 that inspectors from Workplace Standards
Tasmania had given the site the all-clear.

However, Workplace Standards general manager Roy Ormerod, on July 12, 2007,
said no clearance had been given and significant amounts of asbestos were
still present.

Mr. Ormerod said, “While some of the asbestos has been removed, there are
still areas around the outside of the building littered with asbestos. The
owner is aware of this and is aware of his obligations to remove all of the
contamination.”

Mr. Johnson, who plans to convert the building into a cooking oil recycling
plant, had said the only asbestos outside the sealed-off building was on a
piece of copper pipe outside the front entrance, facing homes across the
road. He said the pipe was covered in plastic and removed on July 7, 2007.

After more complaints from residents and comments from Workplace Standards
that the site had not been cleared, Mr. Johnson agreed there had indeed been
more piles of loose asbestos at the rear of the building.

Mr. Johnson said another pile of loose asbestos of the same size still
remains on the site under plastic in a fenced-off area at the rear of the
building and would be removed soon. Two of the contaminated patches of ground
have been concreted over to seal any remaining fibers.

The Derwent Valley Council has jurisdiction over the clean-up and is aware of
the situation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Corp. Still Faces Inactive Ohio Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corp. continues to be one of more than 100 defendants in a personal
injury lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from exposure
to asbestos contained in certain Company products.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company in August
2005, to which the Company timely responded in September 2005.

The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007. However,
that date has since been postponed and no new trial date has been set.

Since that time, the Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to Chase,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2007.

Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corp. makes tapes and protective coatings used
by the electronic, public utility, and oil industries. Products include
insulating and conducting materials for electrical wire; electrical repair
tapes; protective pipe coatings; thermoelectric insulation for electrical
equipment; and moisture protective coatings for electronics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Real Estate Reserves $200T for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has reserved US$200,000 for
asbestos-related remediation and groundwater contamination in its properties,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2007.

The Company has, in the past, performed remediation of such environmental
matters, and is not aware of any significant remaining potential liability
relating to these environmental matters. The Company may be required in the
future to perform testing relating to these matters.

The Company has insurance coverage for certain environmental claims up to
US$5 million per occurrence and up to US$5 million in the aggregate.

Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has a primary
investment focus on retail shopping malls and power and strip centers located
in the Mid-Atlantic region or in the eastern half of the U.S. The Company’s
operating portfolio consists of a total of 50 properties. The retail portion
of its portfolio contains 49 properties in 13 states and includes 38 shopping
malls and 11 power and strip centers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $873.7M Receivable in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp.’s asbestos-related insurance recoverable, as of June 30,
2007, amounted to US$873.7 million, according to a Company press release
dated July 17, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s asbestos-related insurance receivable
amounted to US$859 million.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$860.1 million asbestos-related
insurance recoverable. (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007).

Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. is a supplier, serving the
world's foremost original equipment manufacturers of automotive, light
commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, aerospace, off-road and
industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket. The Company
employs 45,000 people in 35 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Scaffolder’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 17, 2007 inquest at the Croydon Coroner’s Court heard that the death
of retired scaffolder Charles Adams was linked to asbestos, This Is Local
London reports.

The inquest heard that the 74-year-old Mr. Adams, of Carshalton, U.K., died
from breathing in asbestos fibers at St. Paul’s Cathedral 30 years ago.

Coroner Dr. Roy Palmer said that Mr. Adams died of industrial disease.

A report made by Mr. Adams before he died revealed he spent seven years
working at St Paul's. Asbestos was being installed because of a fire risk to
ancient timbers in its famous dome.

Mr. Adams' report also said he was in charge of a three-man gang responsible
for cutting up asbestos sheeting.

Mr. Adams was diagnosed with mesothelioma at the Royal Marsden Hospital after
he had been complaining of shortness of breath. He died in St Raphael's
Hospice on May 4, 2007.

Pathologist Dr. Peter Wilkins said cause of death was cardiac respiratory
failure due to mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. DaimlerChrysler in D’Ulisse
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York trial court has refused to vacate a US$25 million jury verdict in
favor of Alfred D’Ulisse, who developed lung cancer after working with
DaimlerChrysler Corp.’s asbestos-containing brake products, Thomson West
reports.

Because the jury had found DaimlerChrysler acted "with reckless disregard for
the safety of others" in exposing Mr. D'Ulisse to products known to be
dangerous, the automaker was held liable for the entire award even though
found 10 percent liable.  The jury also found four other defendants liable
for Mr. D’Ulisse’s injuries.

The New York Supreme Court said DaimlerChrysler did not overcome the "great
deference" that should be given to jury verdicts.

The Court said it was certain the jury had exercised great care in reaching
its conclusions, noting that in a companion case the same jury returned a
verdict for the defendant.

The Company challenged the finding of recklessness and the size of the
verdict in two post-trial motions. The Court said the evidence against the
defendant was strong.

"There are abundant examples in the record of Chrysler's knowledge of the
lethal nature of asbestos which it knew about, but, nevertheless [it] failed
to stamp a warning on its products," the Court said.

The trial court said there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably
conclude that the defendant acted in "reckless disregard" for people who were
engaged in grinding and installing its asbestos-containing products.

The trial court offered a vivid description of Mr. D'Ulisse's health status
as a result of the lung cancer, noting that Mr. D’Ulisse said, "I'm on death
row for a crime I didn't commit," and that Mr. D'Ulisse knows "he is going to
suffer a horrible death."

The trial court denied both of DaimlerChrysler's motions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GBP500T Removal Work Completed in Tonedale --------------
--------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal work worth GBP500,000 has been completed at Tonedale Mill in
the U.K. as part of a GBP20 million redevelopment, Somerset County Gazette
reports.

Working with the Health and Safety Executive and specialist contractors the
new owners of Tonedale Mill, Hydon, announced they have just completed the
contract to remove asbestos.

The contract took place over a six-month period as each building had to be
carefully sealed and asbestos taken to licensed waste tips.

Tim Wadsworth, Director of Hydon said he was pleased that the delicate
operation was now complete. He added, “The HSE were very helpful with
formulating our working practices to deal with this amount of asbestos, we
now have clean air certificates for all of the buildings. This underlines our
commitment to Tonedale and signifies our first major step forward in the
restoration of these fabulous buildings.”

The project will see the refurbishment of eight existing Grade II listed
buildings on the 12.6-acre site and conversion into 210 residential houses
and apartments along with 13 commercial units.

The contract was awarded to Cowlin Construction by Hydon and the first phase
is due for completion in September 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lung Cancer Victim Sues Australian Gov’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alec Hinter, an elderly man who is dying of lung cancer is suing the South
Australian Government, which he blames for his terminal illness, ABC News
reports.

The 71-year-old Mr. Hinter was a crane and forklift driver and moved cargoes
of raw asbestos when he worked for Government authorities at the Port
Adelaide shipping berths for 11 years from the late 1950s.

In District Court documents, Mr. Hilter says the dangerous dust frequently
spilled and he often inhaled the fibers.

The Crown Solicitor says Mr. Hinter smoked for many years before and after
his exposure to asbestos and he should have known the dangers to his health
from tobacco.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues Texaco, Chevron in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Holmes’ benefactor, Joy Holmes, is suing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and
Texaco Inc. for negligently exposing Mr. Holmes to asbestos during his
employment at the plant in Port Arthur, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

Mr. Holmes, a local refinery worker, died of colon cancer on March 1, 2006.

Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde filed the personal injury lawsuit on Ms.
Holmes’ behalf with the Jefferson County District Court, Tex. on July 12,
2007.

According to the American Cancer Society, colorectal (colon) cancer is one of
the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. There is no single
cause for colon cancer. Nearly all colon cancers begin as benign polyps,
which slowly develop into cancer. And in almost all cases, early diagnosis
can lead to a complete cure.

However, Ms. Holmes and her attorney are confident Mr. Holmes’ colon cancer
developed from asbestos exposure.

The suit said, “During Holmes employment as a laborer and outside machinist,
he used and was exposed to toxic materials including asbestos dust and/or
fibers. As a result of such exposure, Holmes developed an asbestos-related
disease, specifically colon cancer, for which he died a painful and terrible
death on March 1, 2006.”

The suit alleges that the oil conglomerate knew for decades that asbestos-
containing products could cause the disease asbestosis and other asbestos-
related cancers but still allowed its employees to work with and around the
naturally occurring mineral.

Ms. Holmes is suing for exemplary damages and seeks "to recover from the
defendant an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

Ms. Holmes is demanding a trial by jury.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, will preside over Case No. B179-
651


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Diseases to Claim 10T Yearly in US  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Working Group says that 10,000 Americans die each year from
asbestos-related diseases, and those diseases are responsible for one out of
125 deaths in men over age 50, says the Environmental Working Group,
according to a About Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. press release dated July 17,
2007.

Faced with these staggering statistics and projections that asbestos-related
illnesses will claim the lives of 100,000 Americans in the next decade, the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is evaluating
future scientific research needs and answers to current scientific questions
about asbestos, occupational exposures and the diseases caused by asbestos.

NIOSH presented its research strategy, "Asbestos and Other Mineral Fibers: A
Roadmap for Scientific Research," for public comment in May 2007. The
organization is evaluating submissions received from experts in fields such
as business, engineering, bioscience, medicine and law.

"While the results of the Roadmap will provide NIOSH with an important
research tool, their efforts are decades too late for the thousands that have
died from mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer," said Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C. attorney Joseph Patrick Williams.

Weitz & Luxenberg is known for its role in the prosecution of asbestos cases.
In 2007, the firm won a US$37 million asbestos verdict in two lung cancer
cases in a reverse bifurcated trial.

The firm also secured a US$25 million jury verdict in 2006 in a trial against
DaimlerChrysler AG for a New York City brake reliner who lost his right lung
to mesothelioma.

In 2002, the firm won a US$53 million verdict for a brake mechanic suffering
from mesothelioma, and a US$49 million verdict for a boilermaker who died
from mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Gov’t. Urged to Prioritize Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Queensland opposition urges the Queensland State Government in Australia
to prioritize the identifying and removal of asbestos from teacher
accommodation, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Queensland Education Minister Rod Welford told a parliamentary estimates
committee no money had been allocated in 2007’s state budget to replace
asbestos in state government-funded teacher housing.

This was despite a government-run AUD120 million program to replace asbestos-
based roof sheeting in all state schools.

Opposition education spokesman Stuart Copeland said he was concerned no money
was being spent to identify risks and remove any asbestos from teachers'
housing.

Mr. Copeland said, “Asbestos products were used extensively in Queensland
buildings constructed during the last century, including houses, office
buildings and schools.”

Mr. Copeland further said, “The education department has a stock of 2,236
houses and units to accommodate teachers, many of which would be very old.
Yet the minister doesn't appear to be interested in finding out what asbestos
is in these houses and what risks, if any, there are to teachers.”

Mr. Welford said the government offered housing to teaching staff in areas
with shortfalls in the private rental market, or areas where rents were
excessive.

Mr. Welford said AUD8 million had been allocated in the budget to upgrade and
construct new housing for teachers.

Meanwhile, Mr. Welford said the government's asbestos roof replacement
program in schools would be completed later this year - two-and-a-half years
after it began.

Mr. Welford said a further 58 asbestos roofs at 20 state schools would be
replaced between July 2007 and December 2007.

Mr. Welford said, “Almost 95 percent of the identified asbestos roofs have
been replaced across Queensland.”

The government would continue to replace asbestos building products in state
schools as they became worn or deteriorated, Mr. Welford said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cites $642.6Mil Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc.’s long-term asbestos liability, as of June
30, 2007, amounted to US$642.6 million, compared with US$652.8 million as of
Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated July 18, 2007.

The Company’s long-term asbestos liability, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to
US$647.1 million. (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007)

As of June 20, 2007, the Company’s long-term asbestos receivable amounted to
US$336.9 million, compared with US$336.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos receivable amounted to
US$336.2 million. (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007)

Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. is a US$11.2 billion
global manufacturer with market-leading positions in three businesses: air
conditioning systems and services, bath and kitchen products, and vehicle
control systems including electronic braking and air suspension systems. The
Company employs about 62,000 people and has manufacturing operations in 28
countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pipefitter Gets More Than $1M Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California-based law firm of Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason has
settled the case of a Washington pipe fitter for more than US$1 million with
additional compensation pending, according to the law firm’s press release
dated July 18, 2007.

The unnamed 70-year-old pipe fitter worked from 1959 to 1992 in Port Angeles,
Wash., in a now defunct pulp mill. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
November 1996.

Pipe fitters were typically exposed to asbestos because pipes were covered
with asbestos material both to contain heat and to keep workers from being
burned if they contacted the pipes. However, only those companies that
actually supplied or manufactured the asbestos in question are legally
responsible.

Because the pipe fitter's asbestos exposure occurred so long ago, and the
pulp mill had been closed for a number of years, determining which companies
were responsible was very difficult.

According to Steven J. Patti, lead attorney in the case, due to the law
firm's over two decades of experience in representing mesothelioma victims
and their families, as well as the data the firm has compiled about asbestos
companies, almost two dozen companies responsible for the asbestos products
involved were identified.

The total settlements have already exceeded US$1 million. While the law firm
is based in Sausalito, Calif., this case was filed in Washington State, where
the pulp mill had been located and the asbestos exposure occurred.

Several more companies responsible for causing the pipe fitter's mesothelioma
are currently undergoing bankruptcy reorganization. These companies will
begin to pay settlements to claimants in the near future. These settlements
will substantially add to the pipe fitter's total financial recovery.

The case was filed at Superior Court, King County, State of Washington #06-2-
02421-4SEA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capitol Steamfitters Settle Dispute W/ AoC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ten steamfitters working in the U.S. Capitol tunnels have agreed with the
Architect of the Capitol to end a whistleblower retaliation case after the
steamfitters complaining of asbestos exposure in the tunnels, The Associated
Press reports.

The terms of the settlement, including the money involved, were not disclosed.

However, lawyer David J. Marshall called the out-of-court settlement a "big
victory for federal workers."

The 10 steamfitters "complained about hazardous working conditions at an
agency of the U.S. Congress, stood strong for over a year in pursuing their
complaints and achieved a great outcome," Mr. Marshall said.

The Government Accountability Project, a watchdog group, helped represent the
workers.

Architect of the Capitol spokeswoman Eva Malecki said that while the
settlement's specific details will remain confidential, "each settlement
resolves the reprisal and other claims to the parties' mutual satisfaction."

The 10 workers were responsible for maintaining the plumbing that provides
steam and chilled water to Congress, the Library of Congress, the Supreme
Court and other federal buildings and they work for the Architect of the
Capitol.

Most of the workers have retired, resigned or moved to other assignments.

In 2006, the workers complained publicly that the asbestos levels in the
tunnels under the Capitol were unacceptably high and were affecting the
health of workers. After they complained, the workers alleged that the AoC
retaliated against them.

The retaliation involved describing the Tunnel Shop workers as troublemakers
to members of Congress, threatening their jobs and cutting off supplies they
need to work in an environment where the temperature can exceed 130 degrees,
according to the complaint filed with the Congressional Office of Compliance.

The Office of Compliance oversees the civil rights and employment laws
affecting congressional workers.

Mr. Marshall said the settlement covers only the whistle-blowers' complaints.
The workers intend to ask Congress to compensate them for any asbestos injury
and for medical monitoring for themselves and their families.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parkland Offers Free Tests to Dallas Locals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parkland Health and Hospital System is offering residents of West Dallas,
Tex., free medical testing (chest x-rays) for asbestos-related disease, CBS
11 News reports.

Program organizers are seeking people who may have been exposed to asbestos
fibers from the W.R. Grace & Co.’s Texas Vermiculite plant on Manila Road in
West Dallas.

The plant was in operation from 1953 to 1992.

Residents eligible for testing include plant workers, those living in
workers' households, anyone who played on or handled waste rock from the
plant and people who lived, worked or went to school within a quarter-mile of
the plant.

Those affected could also include anyone who attended Thomas Edison Middle
Learning Center or Pinkston High School from 1953 to 1992.

The program is in response to a community health alert from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention that found that the West Dallas plant exposed
employees, their families and others in the community to asbestos fibers.

Medical authorities say that for those exposed to asbestos, quitting smoking
and getting regular chest x-rays every few years can help identify and stop
future lung disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee OKs ASARCO Exclusivity Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Asbestos Subsidiary
Debtors tells the Court that it supports ASARCO LLC’s request to further
extend the Exclusive Periods.

The Asbestos Committee notes that the Debtors' bankruptcy proceedings are
complex and involve a myriad of important issues that must all be resolved
before any meaningful plan discussions.  

Moreover, the Debtors are embroiled in substantive litigation that has the
potential to exponentially increase the size of the bankruptcy estate, the
Asbestos Committee points out.

In light of the current developments and although the Debtors have made
substantial progress in their reorganization, the Asbestos Committee does not
believe that the Debtors are in a position to formulate and propose a plan of
reorganization.  

Also, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of ASARCO LLC tells the
Court that it has engaged in discussions with the
Debtors to reach a compromise of certain issues relating to the Exclusivity
Motion.

As a result of those discussions, the ASARCO Committee has agreed to support
further extension of the Exclusive Periods subject to these conditions:

(a) Going forward, the Debtors will require each party that will be granted
access to the data room they established to execute a confidentiality
agreement.

(b) Prior to the hearing on the Exclusivity Motion, the Debtors will execute
a letter agreement and, going forward, will abide by the terms of the letter
agreement, including, without limitation, the requirement that no party that
has already executed a confidentiality agreement in connection with access to
the data room will be held by the Debtors to terms any more restrictive with
regard to communications than those found in the Confidentiality Agreement
and the Letter Agreement.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 50; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Deny ASARCO’s Compel Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Inc. served to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors and the Future Claims Representative several
interrogatories in April 2007.  

The Interrogatories, according to Charles A. Beckham, Jr., Esq., at Haynes
and Boone, LLP, in Houston were directed toward the basis for the factual
allegations in the Amended Complaint, including contention interrogatories.

Mr. Beckham says the Asbestos Committee and the FCR did not substantively
reply to a single Interrogatory. Instead, the Asbestos Committee and the FCR
objected to the Interrogatories in full and purported to assert various
privileges and work product protection.

The Asbestos Committee and the FCR also asserted that answers to the
Interrogatories could be found in the documents produced by the Debtors and
several third parties.

Asarco Inc. asks the Court to compel the Asbestos Committee and the FCR to
fully and completely respond to the Interrogatories.

The FCR and the Asbestos Committee argue that Asarco Inc. is trying to
improperly exploit their efforts in preparing for the estimation hearing.  

The FCR and the Asbestos Committee have provided Asarco Inc. with all of the
documentary evidence that the Debtors have, Jo E. Hartwick, Esq., at
Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, APC, in Dallas, maintains.

Mr. Hartwick adds that the information that Asarco Inc. further seeks
reflects the thought processes of counsel for the FCR and the Asbestos
Committee and is protected by attorney work product.

Accordingly, the FCR and the Asbestos Committee ask the Court to deny Asarco
Inc.'s Motion to Compel.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 50; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Board Ruling in Leary Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, New York, reversed a
Workers’ Compensation Board ruling, which ruled that the claim of John W.
Leary could not be reopened.

Judges Mercure, Peters, Spain, Rose, and Lahtinen entered decision on July
12, 2007.

Mr. Leary was employed for about 20 years as a steam fitter working on
boilers and pipes. The duties of his job allegedly resulted in frequent
exposure to asbestos and to a dusty environment.

Mr. Leary reportedly suffered from asthma and, upon learning from a doctor in
September 1995 that an X ray of his lungs indicated asbestosis, he filed a
workers' compensation claim in May 1996 alleging exposure to asbestos at the
job. He did not contend at that time that he was unable to work.

By decision rendered in February 1997, which became final in May 1997, the
Workers' Compensation Board found "[n]o medical evidence of causally related
disability" and stated that the case could be "reopened upon receipt of prima
facie medical evidence," but that "[n]o further action is planned or expected
by the Board at this time."

In October 2003, Mr. Leary requested that his claim be reopened because he
had obtained prima facie medical evidence to establish occupational lung
disease and he had stopped working in September 2003.

The employer raised the defense of Workers' Compensation Law ss 25-a and
notice was given to the Special Funds Conservation Committee, which asserted
Workers' Compensation Law ss 123 as a defense to reopening the claim.

After a hearing, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge authorized a CT scan,
found section 25-a inapplicable, did not address section 123, and did not
establish a date of disablement.

Upon review, the Board determined that Workers' Compensation Law ss 123
prohibited reopening the claim based on its determination that the case had
been closed without a finding on the merits and without an award, and more
than seven years had elapsed since the accident. Mr. Leary appealed.

The Supreme Court ordered that the decision is reversed.

The Court also ordered the matter remitted to the Worker's Compensation Board
for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's decision.

Brecher, Fishman, Pasternack, Popish, Heller, Reiff & Walsh, New York City
(Michael K. Gruber of counsel), represented John W. Leary.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Cheryl Payer of
counsel) represented NYC Board of Education.

Steven Licht, Special Funds Conservation Committee, Albany (Melissa A. Day of
counsel), represented Special Funds Conservation Committee.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Clean Up N.Y. City After Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers cleared asbestos-contaminated debris on July 19, 2007 from a steam
pipe explosion that rocked Manhattan a day earlier, Reuters reports.

Some New Yorkers questioned if the air was safe after false assurances
following the Sept. 11 attacks and after utility Consolidated Edison admitted
covering up that a steam pipe explosion in 1989, which claimed three lives,
spewed asbestos into a residential neighborhood.

An area beside Manhattan's Grand Central Station remained closed following
the blast that shook buildings on July 18, 2007, creating debris and sending
people fleeing in scenes reminiscent of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Authorities said while the debris from the blast contained asbestos, no
airborne samples of the dangerous carcinogen were detected after the blast.
The incident killed one person and injured more than 30.

Residents and workers at Ground Zero were reassured by the Environmental
Protection Agency in the days after the September 11 attacks that the air was
safe, but dust samples taken at the time found dangerous levels of asbestos.

New York City's Office of Emergency Management said that of eight air samples
taken from near July 18, 2007's steam pipe blast, none had tested positive
for asbestos. However, OEM said brief exposure to asbestos is unlikely to
have long-term health consequences.

ConEd appealed for anyone in the explosion area to hand in any belongings
covered in dust or debris in a plastic bag, so they can be disposed of
safely, and urged people still inside buildings in the blast zone to keep
windows closed.

Officials ruled out terrorism for the blast which sent boiling, brownish
water and steam gushing some 120 feet (36 meters) high, suggesting cold water
on the pipe as the cause.

The steam pipe of 24 inches in diameter was installed under Lexington Avenue
in 1924. Its explosion is the latest public embarrassment for ConEd, which is
under scrutiny for power blackouts.

While most New York buildings use electricity, there remains an aging network
of steam pipes beneath the city which is used to power ConEd turbines to make
electricity.

ConEd took over New York Steam Corp. in the 1950s. The steam also provides
heat to some large buildings and air conditioning with the use of compressors.


ASBESTOS ALERT: DEQ Imposes $1,500 Fine to Sona Motor Inn, Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has issued a
US$1,500 penalty to the Sona Motor Inn Hotel for asbestos removal violations,
Worcester Business Journal reports.

The DEQ’s original penalty amounted to US$50,412.40.

According to the DEP, an inspection of the hotel while it was being renovated
in August 2006, found that flooring panels that contained asbestos had been
removed from the property without notification to the DEP and without proper
removal, handling, packaging and disposal procedures.

The DEP said its inspectors saw dry asbestos fragments throughout the
renovation area and outside on the ground.

The hotel's owner, One Seventy-Five LLC was forced by DEP to hire a
Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety-licensed asbestos removal
contractor and inspector to complete the job.

The DEP recently finalized a consent order with the hotel, and agreed to
knock the penalty for the violations down to US$1,500 as long as the hotel
has no repeat violations for one year and because the hotel "provided
documentation indicating a financial inability to pay the entire penalty."


COMPANY PROFILE

Sona Motor Inn Hotel
175 West Boylston St.
West Boylston MA
United States

            
                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Shareholders File Neb. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Koley Jessen P.C., L.L.O. announces that a class action was
filed on June 29, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska, on behalf of purchasers of the securities issued from the American
Capital Corp. and Royal Palm Capital Group, Inc., during the period between
Sept. 2002 though June 2005.

The action is pending against defendants:

          -- Capital Growth Financial, Inc.,
          -- Rebecca Engle,
          -- Brian Schuster,
          -- Engle & Schuster Financial, Inc.,
          -- American Capital Corporation,
          -- Royal Palm Capital Group, Inc.,
          -- Capital Growth Equity Fund I, LLC,
          -- Alan Jacobs,
          -- Michael Jacobs,
          -- Gerald Parker,
          -- John Boyce,
          -- Geraldine Magalnick,
          -- Patrick Harrington,
          -- Peter Kirschner, and
          -- Stark Winter Schenkein & Co., LLP.

The action seeks to pursue remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, Section 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for a claim of unsuitability.

The complaint alleges that defendants made numerous materially false and
misleading statements and fraudulently concealed facts regarding investments
in American Capital and Royal Palm.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the
financial stability of American Capital and Royal Palm and misrepresented the
financial stability of investments in American Capital and Royal Palm.

Further, the complaint alleges that named individuals in control positions of
various entities used inter-company transactions including but not limited
to “consulting” arrangements, placement agreements, and inter-company loans
to artificially inflate the financial conditions of American Capital and
Royal Palm, while siphoning off money from these entities through such inter-
company dealings.

For example, the complaint alleges American Capital loaned $1.3 million to a
company called AEI Holding Corporation, entered a placement agreement with
Advanced Equities, Inc., an AEI affiliate, and then subsequently repaid the
loan directly to the senior manager of American Capital, rather than to
American Capital. Likewise, American Capital is alleged to have issued a
dividend in the form of stock in a subsidiary, SSI-PM Holdings, Inc., an
entity purportedly formed to acquire another entity, Sunshine Industries,
Inc. (“Sunshine”). Another entity, owned by defendants Boyce, Magalnick, and
Harrington, who were also principals of American Capital, was paid $150,000
to “restructure” Sunshine. However, Sunshine filed for bankruptcy in 2005.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 16, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Greg Scaglione
          Koley Jessen P.C., L.L.O.
          Phone: 402-390-9500


THRESHHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all common stock purchasers of Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pursuant or
traceable to the Company's February 4, 2005 Initial Public Offering through
July 14, 2006, inclusive, including purchasers in the Company's October 12,
2005 Follow-On Offering (the Follow-On Offering).

The Complaint charges Threshold and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the defendants, Metabolic Targeting could be used in the
treatment of cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia ("BPH"). During the
Class Period, the Company's "lead product candidate" was TH-070, a product
that was supposed to selectively target and treat dividing tumor cells. In
preparation for the Company's IPO in February 2005, the Company conducted
a "Phase II" study of TH-070 on 30 men in Europe (the "European Phase II"
study). Based on the ostensible success reportedly achieved in the European
Phase II study, the Company successfully completed its $37 million IPO on
February 4, 2005, and a $65 million Follow-On Offering on October 12, 2005.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that results of the European Phase II study failed to
         properly reflect TH-070's impact on the different types
         of BPH;

     (2) that based on clinical study results, TH-070's actual
         treatment population would be significantly lower than
         previously indicated;

     (3) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that TH-070 as a treatment for moderate BPH would not
         yield positive results because of efficacy and safety
         problems associated with the drug; and

     (4) that the defendants knew of previous studies which
         illustrated that TH-070 would promote high liver
         toxicity.

On May 11, 2006, the Company shocked investors when it revealed that, as a
result of "abnormalities observed in liver enzyme levels" in multiple test
subjects in ongoing clinical trials of the product, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had placed the Company's U.S. TH-070 program on
partial clinical hold. These abnormalities included three "serious adverse
events" observed in the Company's Phase-3 European/Canadian clinical trial,
and three additional observations of elevated liver enzymes that occurred in
other ongoing clinical trials.

The FDA also requested that the Company provide additional information
regarding the drug's acceptable dose and duration of treatment in BPH
patients. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $10.56 per share,
or over 75.4 percent, to close on May 12, 2006 at $3.44 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on July 17, 2006, the Company admitted that clinical trials failed to
demonstrate statistically different results between TH-070 and the placebo in
the alleviation of prostate enlargement. Based on the safety and efficacy
results of the trials, the Company discontinued its development of TH-070 for
BPH. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell an additional $1.63 per
share, or over 51 percent, to close on July 17, 2006 at $1.55 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 4, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

Threshold is a biotechnology company that focuses on the discovery and
development of drugs based on "Metabolic Targeting," an approach that targets
fundamental differences in metabolism between normal and certain diseased
cells.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *