CAR_Public/070727.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 147

                            Headlines


AAIPHARMA INC.: Proposes $7.55 Million Partial Settlement
ABLE ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over March 2003 Fire
ADVANTAGE ONE: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Remuneration
AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Canadian Plaintiffs Nix Cargo Surcharges Suit

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Could Face Air Cargo Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Calif. Transportation Surcharges Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Stop Pursuing Claim in "Marcoux"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants "Kivilaan" Suit in Tenn. Dismissed
AMERICAN BUILDING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages

AMERICAN FRUIT: Florida Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Code
AMR CORP: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeals in "Westways World" Case
BIOGEN IDEC: Sept. Hearing Set for Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
CUSTOM PAK: Recalls Buffalo Products Over E. Coli Contamination
FLORIDA ROOFING: Faces Fla. Suit Aiming to Collect Unpaid Wages

GREENFIELD ONLINE: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Connecticut
HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT: Settles Illinois Hepa A Exposure Lawsuit
ICF INTERNATIONAL: Lawsuit Over Road Home Program Dismissed
J.S. HOVNANIAN: Appeals Court Upholds $250,000 Legal Fees Award
JACOBS FIELD: Faces Ca. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations

MOODY'S CORP: CFO Faces Suit on "Subprime" Loans Ratings
NORBORD INC: Continues to Face OSB Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Dismisses Defendants in ERISA Suits
OIL COMPANIES: Individuals, Firm Files Okla. Suit Over Hot Fuel
PALMERO ITALIAN: Faces Fla. Suit Aiming to Collect Unpaid Wages

RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Carthage Resident Sues Over Plant Odors
SAUDER WOODWORKING Recalls TV Stands Due to Collapse Hazard
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Faces 1,707 Pending Cases in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Records $601M Claims Settlement in 2Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.216B Liabilities in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $946M NARCO Receivable in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 52,066 Bendix Claims in 2Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Have $1.77B Liability in 2Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers' Families Get $3.97M Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schools in NSW to be Checked for Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Operator's Family Sues Chevron for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: San Diego Gas Case Hearing Set for Sept. 6

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Has $53M Current Liability in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $418.4M Liability in 2Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $43.8M Assets, Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Group Ltd. Accrues $38M Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Californian Sues 50 Companies in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records 84,652 Pending Claims in 2Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Norris Action Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $41.3M for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $488.5M Liability in 2Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Insurance Suit Dismissed Last July 6

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liberty Mutual Records $1M A&E Loss in 2Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Californian Gets $2.1M Award for Injuries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Multi-Party Suits v. ENSCO Pending in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Burlington Northern Drop to 1,930
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois' Liabilities Drop to $444.9M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Maintains $1.7B Liability in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Records $76M Charge for PCC Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $567M for Litigation in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Couple Sue 16 companies for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker's Kin Sues Texaco, Chevron in Texas

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Engineer Sues A.O. Smith, 68 Firms in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Files Suit v. 71 Firms in Tex. Court


                            *********


AAIPHARMA INC.: Proposes $7.55 Million Partial Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
aaiPharma, Inc., proposed a $7,550,000 partial settlement for
the consolidated amended securities class action filed against
it and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina.

The class includes all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired aaiPharma Inc.'s common stock, 11% senior subordinated
notes due 2010 and/or aaiPharma put or call options during the
period between April 24, 2002 through and including June 15,
2004, inclusive.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.  By order dated April 16, 2004, the
district court consolidated the securities lawsuits into one
consolidated action, and on February 11, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint (Class Action Reporter,
May 25, 2005).

The amended securities complaint asserts claims arising under  
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from April 24, 2002
through and including June 15, 2004.  The securities complaints
allege generally that the defendants knowingly or recklessly
made false or misleading statements during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial condition and that its
financial statements did not present its true financial
condition and were not prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.  The amended securities
complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Southern Division, will hold a hearing on
October 2, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable James C.
Dever III.

Deadline to file for objections or exclusions is on September
10, 2007.

The suit is "In re AAIPHARMA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION       
Consolidated Civil Action, Case No. 7:04-cv-00027-D," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, under Judge James C. Dever, III.

Representing defendants are:

          Melanie Black Dubis
          Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
          P.O. Box 389
          Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
          Phone: 919-828-0564
          Fax: 834-4564
          E-mail: melaniedubis@parkerpoe.com

          Susan H. Hargrove
          Carl N. Patterson, Jr.
          Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP
          P. O. Box 2611
          Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
          Phone: 919-821-6716 or 919-821-1220
          Fax: 821-6800
          E-mail: shargrove@smithlaw.com or
                  cpatterson@smithlaw.com

          Douglas M. Jarrell
          Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson
          101 N. Tryon St.
          Suite 1900 Independence Ctr.
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Phone: 704-377-8309
          Fax: 704-373-3909
          E-mail: djarrell@rbh.com

          - and -

          Charles E. Raynal, IV
          Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP
          150 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 1400
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-828-0564
          Fax: 834-4564
          E-mail: charlesraynal@parkerpoe.com

Representing plaintiffs is:

          L. Bruce McDaniel
          McDaniel & Anderson, LLP
          P. O. Box 58186
          Raleigh, NC 27658
          Phone: 919-872-3000
          Fax: 919-790-9273
          E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com


ABLE ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over March 2003 Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery still on going in the purported class action, "Hicks
vs. Able Energy, Inc.," according to the company's July 23, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit was commenced after the Company's Newton, New Jersey
facility experienced an explosion and fire on March 14, 2003,
resulting in the destruction of an office building, as well as
damage to 18 company vehicles and neighboring properties, (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 4, 2003).

Due to the immediate response by employees, a quick evacuation
of all personnel occurred prior to the explosion, preventing any
serious injuries (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006).  

The preliminary results of the company's investigation indicate
that the explosion was an accident that occurred as a result of
a combination of human error, mechanical malfunction and the
failure to follow prescribed state standards for propane
delivery truck loading.

On June 13, 2005, the Court granted a motion certifying a
plaintiff class action which is defined as "All Persons and
Entities that on and after March 14, 2003, residing within a
1,000 yard radius of Able Oil Company's fuel depot facility and
were damaged as a result of the March 14, 2003 explosion."  

On Sept. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs' counsel made a settlement
demand of $10,000,000.

As of June 30, 2007, this lawsuit was still in discovery.

Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in  
the retail distribution of and the provision of services
relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel
fuels.  The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning (HVAC) installation and repair services and
markets other petroleum products to commercial customers,
including on-road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and
lubricants.  As of June 30, 2065, Able Energy serves
approximately 33,000 home heating oil customers from four
locations, particularly in Rockaway, New Jersey; Easton,
Pennsylvania; Warrensburg, New York, and Melbourne, Florida.
PriceEnergy.com, Inc. is a majority owned subsidiary of Able
Energy, through an Internet platform, facilitates the sale of
fuel oil through a network of suppliers in New England and the
Mid-Atlantic States.


ADVANTAGE ONE: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Remuneration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advantage One Mortgage Corp. is facing a class-action complaint,
filed July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Named plaintiff Denise Morales alleges Labor Code violations.
She intends to collect unpaid wages.

The suit is "Morales v. Advantage One Mortgage Corporation, Case
No. 9:07-cv-80651-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert Scott Norell
          Robert S Norell PA
          7350 NW 5th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317-1605
          Phone: 954-617-6017
          Fax: 617-6018
          E-mail: robnorell@aol.com

Representing defendants is:

          Peter Edwin Saunders Wallis
          2641 E Atlantic Boulevard
          Pompano Beach, FL 33062
          Phone: 954-941-9005
          Fax: 941-9010


AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agriprocessors, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Named plaintiffs Galit Cohen and Mariano Otero allege violations
of the Labor Code.

The suit is "Otero et al v. Agriprocessors, Inc., Case No. 1:07-
cv-21826-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Steven Frederick Grover
          1 E Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-356-0005
          Fax: 356-0010
          E-mail: lawhelp@earthlink.net


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Canadian Plaintiffs Nix Cargo Surcharges Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported Canadian class action, "McKay v. Ace
Aviation Holdings, et al.," which names American Airlines, Inc.,
as a defendant, have agreed to dismiss their claims against the
company, according to the company's July 24, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

On Jan. 23, 2007, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint filed against the company, AMR Corp., and
certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia in Canada.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages under
Canadian law.  

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims
against the Company.  The dismissal is without prejudice, and
the Company could be brought back into the litigation at a
future date.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml-- is a  
scheduled airfreight carrier providing a wide range of freight
and mail services to shippers throughout its system.  The
company is a principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Could Face Air Cargo Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit in New York alleging antitrust
violations have not released any claims that they may have
against American Airlines, Inc., raising the possibility that
the company may later be added as a defendant in the litigation.

Approximately 44 purported class actions have been filed in the
U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on
cargo shipments.

These cases, along with other purported class actions in which
the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re
Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775" on
June 20, 2006.  

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.  The company has not been named as a defendant in the
consolidated complaint filed by the plaintiffs.

However, the plaintiffs have not released any claims that they
may have against the company, and the company may later be added
as a defendant in the litigation.

If the company is sued on these claims, it will vigorously
defend the suit, but any adverse judgment could have a material
adverse impact on the company.

The company reported no development in the matter in its July
24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01775-CBA-VVP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Carol Bagley Amon with referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Lee Albert, Esq.
         Mager & Goldstein, LLP
         One Liberty Place, 21st Floor, 1650 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-640-3280
         Fax: 215-640-3281
         E-mail: lalbert@magergoldstein.com

              - and -  

         Steven A. Asher, Esq.
         Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-545-7200
         Fax: 215-545-6535
         E-mail: asher@wka-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Robert G. Badal, Esq.
         Heller Ehrman, LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 39th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-689-0200
         Fax: 213-614-1868
         E-mail: robert.badal@hellerehrman.com

              - and -

         Christian Reginald Bartholomew, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius
         200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
         Wachovia Financial Center
         Miami, Fl 33131-2339
         Phone: 305-579-0418
         Fax: 305-415-3001


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Calif. Transportation Surcharges Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. was named as a defendant in the
consolidated class action, "In re International Air
Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-
01793-CRB."

Initially, numerous cases alleging violations of U.S. antitrust
laws were filed against the company and certain foreign and
domestic air carriers, which were later, consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Approximately 52 purported class actions have been filed in the
U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.

These cases, along with other purported class actions in which
the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
M 06-01793" on Oct. 25, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.

On July 9, 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in the
consolidated complaint, according to the company's July 24, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re International Air Transportation Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Lee Albert, Esq.
         Mager & Goldstein, LLP
         One Liberty Place, 21st Fl., 1650 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-640-3280
         Fax: 215-640-3281
         E-mail: lalbert@magergoldstein.com

         Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq.
         Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
         LLP, 2280 Union Street
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Phone: 415-563-7200
         Fax: 415-346-0679
         E-mail: malioto@tatp.com

              - and -

         Steven A. Asher, Esq.
         Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-545-7200
         Fax: 215-545-6535

Representing the defendants is:

         Debra J. Pearlstein, Esq.
         Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8686
         Fax: 213-310-8007
         E-mail: debra.pearlstein@weil.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Stop Pursuing Claim in "Marcoux"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' counsel in the purported class action, "Marcoux et
al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-
KAM," which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York have decided to discontinue pursuing one of
their claims in the case.
   
The suit, filed by Ann M. Marcoux, names as defendant:

      -- the Association of Professional Flight Attendants;  

      -- the Union that represents the company's flight  
         attendants; and

      -- American Airlines, Inc.

The suit asks on behalf of all of the company's flight
attendants or various subclasses damages allegedly resulting
from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).   

The RPA was one of three labor agreements the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.   

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against Association of
Professional Flight Attendants and American Airlines relating to
the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA by individual APFA
members, including:

      -- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
         Disclosure Act and the APFA's Constitution and By-laws

      -- violation by the APFA of its duty of fair
         representation to its members, violation by American of
         provisions of the Railway Labor Act through
         improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or  
         changing their vote for ratification, and violations of
         the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
         of 1970.

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American Airlines, all but one of the
LMRDA claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of
RICO.  

This left the claimed violations of the RLA and the duty of fair
representation against American and the APFA (as well as one
LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a breach of its
constitution).  

By letter dated Feb. 9, 2007, plaintiffs' counsel informed
counsel for the defendants that plaintiffs do not intend to
pursue the LMRDA claim against APFA further, according to the
company's July 24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.,  
Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Nina Gershon
with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Emily Maruja Bass, Esq.
         Law Offices of Emily Bass
         25 Washington Street, Suite 305
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Phone: 718-522-9705
         Fax: 718-522-9707
         E-mail: eb@basslaw.us

              - and -  
  
         Martin Garbus, Esq.
         Mark J. Rachman, Esq.
         Davis & Gilbert, LLP
         1740 Broadway, 21st floor, New York, NY 10019  
         Phone: 212-468-4800
         Fax: 212-468-4888
         E-mail: mgarbus@dglaw.com
                 mrachman@dglaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr., Esq.  
         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq.
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212-309-6000
         Fax: 212- 309-6273
         E-mail: treinert@morganlewis.com
                 mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com
                 sshaulson@morganlewis.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants "Kivilaan" Suit in Tenn. Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a gender
discrimination class action brought by flight attendants against
the company, according to the company's July 24, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The purported class action is "Kelley Kivilaan v. American
Airlines, Inc.," which was filed on Sept. 16, 2004 in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.  

A flight attendant who seeks to represent a purported class of
current and former flight attendants brought it against the
company.

Generally, suit alleges that several of the company's medical
benefits plans discriminate against females on the basis of
their gender in not providing coverage in all circumstances for
prescription contraceptives.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.  A
motion for class certification has been filed, but the case has
not yet been certified as a class action.

The suit is "Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Case No. 3:04-cv-
00814," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon with referral to Judge
John S. Bryant.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gordon Ball, Esq.
         Ball & Scott
         Bank of America Center, 550 Main Avenue, Suite 750
         Knoxville, TN 37902
         Phone: (865) 525-7028

              - and -

         Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 408-4600
         Fax: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Stanley E. Graham, Esq.
         Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis
         Nashville City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Phone: (615) 244-6380
         E-mail: sgraham@wallerlaw.com

              - and -

         Melissa M. Hensley, Esq.
         Baker & McKenzie
         2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: (214) 965-7252
         Fax: (214) 978-3099
         E-mail: melissa.hensley@bakernet.com


AMERICAN BUILDING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
American Building Maintenance Company of Georgia is facing a
class-action complaint filed July 20 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

Named plaintiff Norma V. Preciado alleges Labor Code violations
and is aiming to collect unpaid wages.

The suit is "Preciado v. American Building Maintenance Company
of Georgia, Case No. 1:07-cv-21884-JLK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge
James Lawrence King.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


AMERICAN FRUIT: Florida Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Fruit and Produce Corp. is facing a class-action
complaint filed July 23 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Named plaintiff Tirso Mendosa alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The suit is "Mendosa v. American Fruit and Produce Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-21879-JAL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Joan A.
Lenard.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


AMR CORP: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeals in "Westways World" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal regarding the summary judgment made by the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
the class action, "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., et
al."

The suit names as defendants American Airlines, Inc., and:

     -- AMR Corp.,
     -- AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,  
     -- Airlines Reporting Corp., and
     -- Sabre Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit
memos to the company for violations of American's fare rules by
customers of the agencies:

     -- breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American
        and AMR Eagle and the plaintiffs;

     -- constitutes unjust enrichment; and  

     -- violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act of 1970.

The certified class includes all travel agencies who have been
or will be required to pay money to American for debit memos for
fare rules violations from July 26, 1995 to the present.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin American from enforcing the pricing
rules in question and to recover the amounts paid for debit
memos, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.   

On Feb. 24, 2005, the court decertified the class.  In September
2005, the court granted Summary Judgment in favor of the company
and all other defendants.  

Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit.

The suit is "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., et al.,
Case No. 99-cv-07689-WDK-AIJ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge William D.
Keller.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Linda S. Platisha, Esq.
         Linda S. Platisha Law Offices
         21520 Yorba Linda Blvd., Ste. G-560 Yorba
         Linda, CA 92887
         Phone: 714-694-1542
      
              - and -

         Dean Browning Webb, Esq.
         Dean Browning Webb Law Offices
         8002 NE Hwy. 99, Ste. B
         Vancouver, WA 98665-8833
         Phone: 503-629-2176
         Fax: 503-629-9527

Representing the defendants are:

         Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
         Manatt Phelps & Phillips, 11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
         Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
         Phone: 310-312-4000

              - and -

         William A. Wargo, Eqs.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


BIOGEN IDEC: Sept. Hearing Set for Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
set a Sept. 11, 2007 hearing for oral arguments regarding the
motion to dismiss a purported securities fraud class action
filed against Biogen Idec, Inc., the company disclosed in its
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 2, 2005, the company, along with William H. Rastetter,
former executive chairman, and James C. Mullen, chief executive
officer, were named as defendants in a purported class action,
captioned, "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's publicly-traded securities between Feb. 18, 2004
and Feb. 25, 2005.  

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding potentially serious side
effects of TYSABRI in order to gain accelerated approval from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the product's
distribution and sale.

The plaintiff alleges that these materially false and misleading
statements harmed the purported class by artificially inflating
the company's stock price during the purported class period and
that company insiders benefited personally from the inflated
price by selling the company's stock.  

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Substantially similar actions were also filed:

     -- "Grill v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al." and
     -- "Lobel v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.,"

Other purported class representatives brought the suits on March
10, 2005 and April 21, 2005, respectively, in the same court.
Those actions have been consolidated with the Brown case.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other amendments to the allegations,
adds as defendants:

     -- Peter N. Kellogg, chief financial officer;

     -- William R. Rohn, former chief operating officer;

     -- Burt A. Adelman, executive vice president of Portfolio
        Strategy; and

     -- Thomas J. Bucknum, former general counsel.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the company and all the other defendants who
had been served as of that date filed a motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.

The plaintiffs' opposition to our Motion to Dismiss was filed on
Dec. 18, 2006 and a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held
before a Magistrate Judge on March 12, 2007.

On June 28, 2007, prior to any further action by the Magistrate
Judge on the Motion to Dismiss, the District Court Judge
withdrew the referral to the Magistrate Judge, and ordered that
the Motion to Dismiss be argued before the District Court Judge
on Sept. 11, 2007.

The suit is "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-10400-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
         Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 646-733-5768
         Fax: 212-273-4445
         E-mail: shopkins@milbergweiss.com

              - and -
       
         David Pastor, Esq.
         Gilman and Pastor, LLP
         60 State Street, 37th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-742-9700
         Fax: 617-742-9701
         E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com

Representing the company is:

         James R. Carroll, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
         One Beacon Street, 31st Floor
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-573-4800
         Fax: 617-573-4822
         E-mail: jcarroll@skadden.com


CUSTOM PAK: Recalls Buffalo Products Over E. Coli Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Custom Pack, Inc. of Hastings, Nebraska, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 5,920 pounds of
ground beef and buffalo products because they may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

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

The products subject to recall include:

     -- 10-pound bags of "CUSTOM PACK, INC., GROUND BEEF." Each
        label bears a package date of "6-1," "6-4," "6-5," "6-
        7," "6-8," "6-11," 6-12" or "6-13."

     -- 25-pound boxes of "3.2 OZ. BEEF PATTIES." Each box bears
        the package date of "6-7-07."

     -- 25-pound boxes of "4 OZ. BEEF PATTIES." Each box bears
        the package date of "6-7-07."

     -- 25-pound boxes of "5 1/3 OZ. BEEF PATTIES." Each box
        bears the package date of "6-7-07."

     -- 25-pound boxes of "8 OZ. BEEF PATTIES." Each box bears
        the package date of "6-7-07."

     -- 6-pound boxes of "16-6 OZ. CHAR PATTIES." Each box bears
        the package date of "6-7-07."

     -- 12-pound boxes of "GROUND BUFFALO PATTIES." Each box
        bears the package date of "6-7-07."

Each package also bears the establishment number "Est. 5650"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The ground beef products were produced between June 1 and June
13, 2007, and were distributed to restaurants and institutions
in Nebraska. The ground buffalo patties were produced on June 7,
2007, and distributed to restaurants and institutions in
Colorado. None of these products were sold through grocery
stores.

The problem was discovered through sampling done by the Nebraska
Department of Health Services, in coordination with the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, as part of an investigation
into a reported illness.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company President David B. Dirks at (402) 462-2532.


FLORIDA ROOFING: Faces Fla. Suit Aiming to Collect Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Roofing Solutions, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Named plaintiff Lorenzo Aguilar alleges Labor Code violations
and is aiming to collect unpaid wages.

The suit is "Aguilar v. Florida Roofing Solutions,Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-21883-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


GREENFIELD ONLINE: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greenfield Online, Inc., disclosed that the company and certain
current and former corporate officers have been named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of Greenfield
Online Inc. common stock between February 9, 2005 and September
30, 2005, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") (Class
Action Reporter, July 26, 2007).

The complaint charges Greenfield Online and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning Greenfield
Online, its business, operations and prospects. Unbeknownst to
shareholders, the true facts were:

     (i) that the Company was experiencing several adverse       
         trends in its core business which were negatively
         impacting its revenues and earnings and causing the
         Company to miss its internal performance expectations;

    (ii) that the Ciao AG acquisition was not a success as Ciao
         AG was not performing according to expectations; and

   (iii) that the Company was materially overvaluing Ciao AG and
         should have, but did not, write down the value of Ciao
         AG on its financial statements by tens of millions of
         dollars.

While Greenfield Online has not been served with the complaint,
it understands that the allegations made therein concern
statements made by the Company in press releases and other
public statements between February 9, 2005 and September 30,
2005.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

The Company believes that the allegations in the lawsuit are
without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself
against all allegations.

Headquartered in Wilton, Connecticut, Greenfield Online, Inc. --
http://www.Greenfield.com-- supplies the increasingly urgent  
demand of industry for better understanding of consumers around
the world.


HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT: Settles Illinois Hepa A Exposure Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houlihan's Restaurants, Inc. of Geneva, Illinois, settled a
lawsuit in Kane County Circuit Court over possible exposure to
hepatitis A of certain of its customers, Paul Dailing of the
Kane County Chronicle reports.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, filed in January by
William Marler of the Seattle-based law firm Marler Clark on
behalf of Geneva resident Rebecca Johnson and her family,
claimed a Houlihan's food worker was diagnosed with hepatitis A,
a disease that attacks the liver (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
30, 2007).

According to the lawsuit, between Jan. 8 and Jan. 19 the family
of Rebecca Johnson - along with at least 3,000 people estimated
to have eaten at the restaurant - were potentially exposed to
the virus when an infected employee was working while
potentially contagious.

Most at risk are patrons who had drinks with ice, which was
potentially tainted, according to the Kane County Health
Department, which investigated the exposure.

On Jan. 19, representatives of Houlihan's Restaurants Inc. told
the Kane County Health Department about a worker who was
diagnosed with hepatitis A.

More than 2,000 shots of immunoglobulin, which can help fight
infection, have been given.

According to the lawsuit, class members will seek damages
including lost wages, medical and travel expenses, and emotional
distress related to the fear of becoming infected with the
hepatitis A virus.

The damages would compensate those who had to take off work to
receive inoculations, and those who could not get to the free
clinic offered by the Kane County Health Department and had to
seek shots from private physicians.

In March, Houlihan's sought to dismiss the lawsuit because no
one was sickened, but a judge denied the motion. Mr. Marler said
there still were damages, despite the customers' good health.

People who visited the restaurant between Jan. 8 and 19 and
subsequently received an immunoglobulin shot will receive $200
for the inconvenience, officials from the Kansas-based
restaurant chain said.

As of May, about 50 people had signed up for the lawsuit. Court
records said that notice of the settlement must be mailed by
Sept. 12 to people who might qualify for the $200.

In the settlement Houlihan's, not admitting any liability to
anyone, agreed to pay up to $300,000. This means the $200 will
be reduced if more than 1,500 people join the lawsuit.  They
also agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys 22.5 percent of the
settlement amount actually paid.

To contact plaintiffs' lawyer:

          William Marler
          Marler Clark L.L.P., P.S.
          6600 Bank of America Tower
          701 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: (866) 770 - 2032


ICF INTERNATIONAL: Lawsuit Over Road Home Program Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana dismissed a class action alleging ICF
International of Virginia is cheating thousands of Louisiana
hurricane victims out of millions of dollars in benefits, WDSU
reports.

In June, New Orleans' attorney and 99-5FM morning show host Rob
Couhig filed the complaint on behalf of New Orleans attorney and
Road Home applicant Donald C. Massey after winning a contract
from the State of Louisiana to implement the Road Home program
(Class Action Reporter, June 14, 2007).

The lawsuit, seeking class-action status, alleges Mr. Massey has
been subjected to negligence by ICF that includes lost records,
repetitive assessments, delays, and obfuscations.

The complaint is seeking changes in the administration of
Louisiana's Road Home Program and potential damages against the
program's contractor, ICF Emergency Management Services.

It further alleges that ICF has engaged in a pattern of delay,
bad faith, and conduct designed to impede, delay, and deny the
delivery of grants to applicants.

The complaint asks the court to prevent ICF from retracting or
modifying to the detriment of an applicant, any monetary award
once the amount has been offered.  Additionally, the court is
being asked to issue a permanent injunction barring ICF from
charging or billing the state for fees it incurs as a result of
erroneous award calculations and from using any Road Home funds
on advertisements or communications other than those necessary
to inform the public on how the process works and their rights
under the program.

Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and damages.

The judge tossed out the lawsuit but not before noting the
program is rife with problems.

Judge Brady said he did so "reluctantly" because those who
brought the case sued only ICF International and not the state
government.

He said the case appears to have merit, but that it rightfully
should be filed again in state District Court -- this time also
naming the state of Louisiana as a party.

The suit is "Massey v. ICF Emergency Management Services, LLC,
Case No. 3:07-cv-00462-JJB-DLD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, under Judge James J.
Brady, with referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert E. Couhig, III
          James Jerome Carter, Jr.
          Sam A. LeBlanc, III
          Lisa Lemaire Maher
          Susan Anderson Zeringue
          Couhig Partners, LLC - N.O.
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1150
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Phone: 504-588-1288
          Fax: 504-588-9750
          E-mail: rcouhig@couhigpartners.com or
                  maherl@couhigpartners.com or
                  zeringues@couhigpartners.com

Representing defendant are:

          Thomas A. Casey, Jr.
          Michael C. Drew
          Pauline F. Hardin
          Jones, Walker
          201 St Charles Ave
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-582-8000 or 504-582-8318 or 504-582-8110
          Fax: 504-582-8583 or 504-582-8011
          E-mail: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com or
                  mdrew@joneswalker.com or
                  phardin@joneswalker.com



J.S. HOVNANIAN: Appeals Court Upholds $250,000 Legal Fees Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of an appeals court in New Jersey upheld a
lower court ruling that ordered homebuilder J.S. Hovnanian &
Sons to pay legal fees in a class action filed by homeowners,
The Cherry Hill Courier Post reports.

The purported class action was originally filed in the Superior
Court in Gloucester County, New Jersey against K. Hovnanian
Southern NJ LLC.  It was over alleged faulty construction of
heating ventilation/air-conditioning systems in the Chestnut
Green community (Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2006).

Filed by Mike and Tracy D'Andrea, the suit claims that the
company knowingly installed HVAC systems that violated
construction code and were "substandard, inefficient and require
repair."  The couple sought more than $50,000 in damages.

Initially, plaintiffs sought monetary damages and a court-run
program, at J.S. Hovnanian's expense, to inspect the rooms and
make any needed repairs.  

The parties settled during the trial.  As part of the
settlement, J.S. Hovnanian agreed to conduct inspections and
repairs.

In the recent ruling, J.S. Hovnanian must pay residents'
expenses of about $250,000 under terms of the state's Consumer
Fraud Act.


JACOBS FIELD: Faces Ca. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs Field Services North America Inc. is facing a class-
action complaint filed July 12 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Named plaintiffs Clebert Yarde and Hernando Guzman allege Labor
Code violations, claiming employment discrimination.

The suit is "Guzman et al v. Jacobs Field Services North America
Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-00804-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge David O. Carter, with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John F. Hyland
          Rukin Hyland Doria and Tindall
          100 Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-421-1800
          E-mail: johnhyland@rhddlaw.com

          Ellyn Moscowitz
          Ellyn Moscowitz Law Offices
          8400 Enterprise Way, Suite 201
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510-567-8400
          E-mail: roofergal2@aol.com

          - and -

          Steven M. Tindall
          Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall
          100 Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-421-1800


MOODY'S CORP: CFO Faces Suit on "Subprime" Loans Ratings
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda S. Huber, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President of Moody's Corp., faces a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
which accuses her of overrating bonds backed by sub-prime
mortgages during the real estate boom, concealing it, and
continuing to do it after the housing market declined and
mortgage defaults mushroomed.

Raphael Nach filed the suit on July 19, 2007.  Attorney Joel
Lipman of O'Rourke Katten represents Mr. Nach in the matter.

Ms. Nach brought the action individually and on behalf of all
purchasers of common stock of Moody's between Oct. 25, 2006, and
July 10, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Moody's Corp., through its
subsidiaries, provides credit ratings, research, and analysis
covering fixed-income securities, other debt instruments and the
entities that issue such instruments in the global capital
markets.     

Among other things, the company assigns ratings to mortgage
bonds comprising risky "subprime" home loans, including bonds
packaged as "collateralized debt obligations" and other
securities backed subprime assets.  

Investors rely on these ratings to assess the value and risk of
these investments.  While the nation's housing market was
booming, Moody's reaped millions of dollars in fees for
assigning ratings to subprime-mortgage-backed securities.   

The complaint alleges that Ms. Huber misrepresented or failed to
disclose that the company assigned excessively high ratings to
bonds backed by risky subprime mortgages -- including bonds
packaged as collateralized debt obligations -- which was
materially misleading to investors concerning the quality and
relative risk of these investments.

Moreover, even as downturn in the housing marker caused rising
delinquencies of the subprime mortgages underlying such bonds,
Moody's maintained its excessively high ratings, rather than
downgrade the bonds to reflect the true risk of owning subprime-
mortgage-backed debt instruments.   

Then, on July 11, 2007, Moody's Corp shocked investors when it
announced that the Company was downgrading 399 mortgage-backed
securities issued in 2006 and reviewing an additional thirty-two
for downgrade, affecting approximately $5.2 billion of bonds.  
The company also disclosed that it had downgraded 52 bonds
issued in 2005.

In general, the complaint alleges three claims:

      -- Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

      -- Violations of Section 10(b) Of The Exchange Act And       
         Rule 10-b-5 Promulgated Thereunder; and

      -- Violations of Section 10(a) Of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks:

      -- class-action status;

      -- compensatory damages;

      -- reasonable costs and expenses; and

      -- any other relief that the court deems proper and just.

The suit is "Nach v. Huber, Case No. 1:07-cv-04071," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge Ruben Castillo.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Joel Lee Lipman, Esq.
         O'Rourke, Katten & Moody
         161 North Clark Street, Suite 2230
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 849-2020
         Fax: (312) 849-2021
         E-mail: jlipman@okmlaw.com


NORBORD INC: Continues to Face OSB Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Norbord Inc. and eight other North American OSB producers have
been named as defendants in several lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuits allege that these nine North American OSB producers
violated United States and various state antitrust and other
laws by allegedly agreeing to fix prices and reduce the supply
of OSB from June 1, 2002 through the present.

The named plaintiffs seek to have the cases certified as class
actions.

One group of plaintiffs seeks to certify a class of persons and
entities that purchased OSB in the United States directly from
any of the named North American OSB producers between June 1,
2002 and the present.

Other plaintiffs seek to certify one or more classes of persons
and entities that purchased OSB in various states and the
District of Columbia indirectly between June 1, 2002 and the
present.

Norbord believes that the lawsuits are entirely without merit
and intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Two of the suits are:  
  
     (1) "New Deal Lumber & Millwork Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-  
         Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00971-PD"  
  
     (2) "Frontier Lumber Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-pacific  
         corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00920-PD"  
  
Contact information:

          Robin Lampard, Vice President, Treasurer
          Phone: (416) 643-8843
          E-mail: robin.lampard@norbord.com
          - or -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg
          Fine, Kaplan And Black
          1835 Walnut Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-567-6565
          Fax: 215-568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Dismisses Defendants in ERISA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed Northrop Grumman Corp., and certain of its officials
from two separately filed the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act class actions, according to the company's July 24,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

The suits are:

      -- "Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.,
         previously styled Waldbuesser v. Northrop Grumman
         Corporation, et al.," and
      
      -- "Heidecker v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al."

The suits were consolidated under the caption, "In Re Northrop
Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation," for discovery and other
purposes, as each alleged similar issues of law and fact.

Plaintiffs in "Grabek" allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the
company, certain of its administrative and Board committees, all
members of the company's Board of Directors, and certain company
officers and employees with respect to alleged excessive, hidden
and/or otherwise improper fee and expense charges to the
Northrop Grumman Savings Plan and the Northrop Grumman Financial
Security and Savings Plan (both of which are 401(k) plans).

The Heidecker litigation asserts similar claims, but has
dismissed the company's Board of Directors.  

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, removal of individuals
acting as fiduciaries to such plans, payment of attorney fees
and costs, and an accounting.

On May 21, 2007, the Court granted a motion to dismiss with
prejudice the company and the Board of Directors from the Grabek
litigation.

On May 25, 2007, the Court entered an order dismissing the
company with prejudice from the Heidecker lawsuit, the Directors
having been previously dismissed.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/--  
along with its subsidiaries, provides products, services and
solutions in information and services, aerospace, electronics
and shipbuilding.


OIL COMPANIES: Individuals, Firm Files Okla. Suit Over Hot Fuel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several oil companies and station owners are facing a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma, claiming that they are overcharging customers for
hot fuel.

The suit, "Bower et al v. 7-Eleven Inc et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-
00779-F, was filed on July 13, 2007 by:

      -- Hadley Bower;
      -- Kristy Deann Mott;
      -- Larry O Bower; and
      -- TEMCO, an Oklahoma City business.

Named as defendants in the suit are:

      -- 7-Eleven, Inc.;
      -- Albertson's, LLC;
      -- ConocoPhillips Company;
      -- Flying J, Inc.;
      -- Motiva Enterprises, LLC;
      -- Murphy Oil USA, Inc.;
      -- Petro Stopping Centers LP;
      -- Pilot Travel Centers LLC;
      -- Shell Oil Co.;
      -- Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.;
      -- Travel Centers of America;
      -- Valero Energy Corp.; and
      -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;

Represented by Jona R. Hefner of Hefner & Associates, plaintiffs
are seeking class-action status and have asked the court for a
refund of the perceived overcharge.  They also want retailers to
install equipment that better measures their fuel sales.

The lawsuit centers on the fact that gasoline expands when hot,
reducing the energy provided by a set volume.  The expansion
means more gasoline is needed at higher temperatures to produce
the same energy as gasoline at lower temperatures.

The suit claims that one gallon of gasoline at 60 degrees
produces the same energy as one gallon and 2.2 ounces at 90
degrees.

It further claims, "The sellers of 'hot' motor fuel are able to
pocket these billions of additional dollars in temperature-
inflated profits merely because the fuel they are selling is
warmer than 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and customers are ignorant of
the truth."

The suit is "Bower et al v. 7-Eleven Inc et al., Case No. 5:07-
cv-00779-F," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jona R. Hefner, Esq.
         Hefner & Associates
         3441 W. Memorial Rd., Suite Four
         Oklahoma City, OK 73134
         Phone: 405-286-3000
         Fax: 405-463-0565
         E-mail: attorneyokc@hotmail.com


PALMERO ITALIAN: Faces Fla. Suit Aiming to Collect Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Palmero Italian Foods, LLC is facing a class-action complaint
filed July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Named plaintiff Ariel Betancourt alleges Labor Code violations
and is aiming to collect unpaid wages.

The suit is "Betancourt v. Palmero Italian Foods,LLC et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-21880-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Carthage Resident Sues Over Plant Odors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carthage resident Cynthia Sundy filed a lawsuit against
Renewable Environmental Solutions alleging that odors from the
plant are a nuisance and that the company has been negligent,
Susan Redden of the Joplin Globe reports.

Ms. Sundy -- represented by Ron Jones of Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis and Miles -- seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as attorney fees.

According to Mr. Jones the firm will ask that the case be heard
as a class action "to make a claim on behalf of a number of
residents who have been affected."

"It's conceivable that every single resident impacted could file
a claim," he said. "Our goal is to seek relief on behalf of the
entire group."

He added that the goal of the lawsuit is not to shut RES down,
but for "the plant to address its odor problem, and for the
people who have been affected by it all this time to be
compensated. We hope this can end with a resolution that's
better for the entire.

RES attorneys in their response filed, outlined the history of
the company and its goal, which they said is to reduce animal
waste and create an alternative energy source by converting
poultry byproducts to fuel oil and other marketable materials.

RES also said the company has yet to make any profit, although
it has been in operation for three years in Carthage.

"The members of RES intended the Carthage facility to be the
first of many similar facilities located throughout the United
States and the world ... as a result growth plans as originally
contemplated have been delayed pending additional investment and
achievement of profitability," RES stated in its filing.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ron Jones
          Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Phone: (334) 269-2343 or (800) 898-2034 (Toll-free)
          Fax: (334) 954-7555


SAUDER WOODWORKING Recalls TV Stands Due to Collapse Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sauder Woodworking Co., of Archbold, Ohio, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
414,000 TV stands.

The company said the TV stand can collapse if the fasteners used
to connect the metal legs to the lower shelf are not completely
tightened during assembly, posing a risk that the TV set can
fall onto children or adults.

Sauder has received 43 reports of TV stands collapsing. Most of
the reported incidents involved stands that had recently been
assembled.  Three injuries required medical treatment including
a broken arm, a torn rotator cuff with a concussion, and an
injured finger.  These injuries occurred when consumers
attempted to prevent a TV from falling off the stand.  In
addition, a 6-year-old child received a bruised shoulder when
the stand collapsed and a TV fell on her.

The recalled TV Stand measures 23-3/4 inches (h) x 38-1/2 inches
(w) x 19-1/2 inches (d) with a brushed maple finish.  The stand
has criss-cross, black, wrought-iron legs, a pull-out drawer,
and a lower shelf.  Model number 400205 and UPC number 42666
01958 are located on the product's carton and instructions.

These recalled TV stands were manufactured in the United States
and are being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide and online at
Wal-Mart.com from January 2005 through May 2007 for about $90.

Picture of recalled TV stands:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07251.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the TV stand immediately if
it moves from side-to-side.  Consumers should contact Sauder to
receive detailed instructions on checking the tightness of the
fasteners.

For more information, contact Sauder toll-free at (866) 218-8312
between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and
between 9:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m. ET on Saturday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.sauder.com/


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California faces a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
alleging it fails to provide equal athletic opportunities and
athletic scholarships for women students, Bill Lindelof of The
Sacramento Bee reports.

The suit, "Brust et al v. Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB," was filed on behalf
of three women:

      -- Kelsey Brust, a sophomore, who plays field hockey;
      -- Jessica Bulala, a junior, who plays field hockey; and
      -- Laura Ludwig, a junior, a rugby player and wrestler.

Noreen Farrell, with Equal Rights Advocates of San Francisco
said an ongoing problem exists at UC Davis in terms of the
university not complying with Title IX of the U.S. Code -- the
landmark 1972 federal legislation guarantees equal access to
college sports.

The suit is "Brust et al v. Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California under
Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. with referral to Judge Edmund F.
Brennan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Noreen Ann Farrell, Esq.
         Equal Rights Advocates
         1663 Mission St., Suite 250,
         San Francisco, CA 94103
         Phone: (415) 621-0672
         Fax: (415) 621-6744
         E-mail: nfarrell@equalrights.org

              - and -

         Monique Olivier, Esq.
         The Sturdevant Law Firm
         475 Sansome Street, Suite 1750
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 477-2410
         Fax: (415) 477-2420
         E-mail: molivier@sturdevantlaw.com


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Faces 1,707 Pending Cases in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
AB Electrolux, as of June 30, 2007, faced a total of 1,707
pending asbestos-related cases, representing about 2,620
plaintiffs, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18,
2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded a total of 1,701
pending asbestos-related cases, representing about 2,670
plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007)

Almost all of the cases refer to externally supplied components
used in industrial products manufactured by discontinued
operations prior to the early 1970s.

Some of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs who have made
identical allegations against many other defendants who are not
part of the Electrolux Group.

A total of 192 new cases with about 192 plaintiffs were filed
and 186 pending cases with about 245 plaintiffs were resolved
during the 2007-2nd quarter.

About 520 of the plaintiffs relate to cases pending in the state
of Mississippi.

More lawsuits may be filed against Electrolux in the future.

Stockholm, Sweden-based AB Electrolux makes household appliances
like washing machines, stoves, refrigerators, and freezers under
the AEG, Electrolux, Eureka, Frigidaire, and Zanussi names. The
Company also makes vacuum cleaners, and its products are sold in
about 90 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Records $601M Claims Settlement in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc.'s current settlement for asbestos
liabilities, as of June 30, 2007, amounted to US$601 million,
compared with US$560 million, as of June 30, 2006, according to
a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2007.

The Company's current settlement for asbestos-related
liabilities, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$565 million,
compared with US$557 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action
Reporter, April 27, 2007)

For the three-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and June 30,
2006, the Company recorded a net asbestos settlement of US$8
million.

For the six-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2006,
the Company recorded a net asbestos settlement of US$17 million.

Second quarter net income was US$249 million, or US$1.50 per
share. Net income includes an after-tax charge of US$6 million,
or three cents a share, to reflect the net increase in the
current value of the company's obligation under its proposed
asbestos settlement agreement reported in May 2002, which is
subject to pending court proceedings. The Company's tax rate for
the quarter was 31.3 percent.

That compares with second quarter 2006 net income of US$280
million, or US$1.68 a share, which included after-tax earnings
of US$12 million, or seven cents a share, for net legal and
insurance matters and an after-tax charge of US$4 million, or
three cents a share, to reflect the net increase in the value of
the Company's obligation under its asbestos settlement
agreement. Sales were US$2.8 billion. The Company's second
quarter 2006 tax rate was 26.4 percent.

For the first six months of 2007, the Company recorded net
income of US$443 million, or US$2.67 a share, which includes
after-tax charges of US$11 million, or six cents a share, to
reflect the net increase in the value of the Company's
obligation under its asbestos settlement agreement. Sales for
the first half of 2007 were US$6.1 billion. The Company's first
half 2007 tax rate was 28.4 percent.

For the first six months of 2006, PPG recorded net income of
US$464 million, or US$2.79 a share, which included after-tax
earnings of US$12 million, or 7 cents a share, for net legal and
insurance matters and after-tax charges of US$23 million, or 14
cents a share, for business restructuring and US$10 million, or
six cents a share, to reflect the net increase in the value of
the Company's obligation under its asbestos settlement
agreement. Sales for the first half of 2006 were US$5.5 billion.
The Company's first half 2006 tax rate was 25.7 percent.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries Inc. supplies paints, coatings,
chemicals, optical products, specialty materials, glass, and
fiber glass. The Company employs more than 34,000 people and has
125 manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates in more than
25 countries. Sales in 2006 were US$11 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.216B Liabilities in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities, amounted to US$1.216 billion as of June 30, 2007,
compared with US$1.262 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to
the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$1.249 billion
long-term asbestos-related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter,
April 27, 2007)

The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities, amounted to US$1.107 billion as of June 30, 2007,
compared with US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006.

In the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company recognized a charge of
US$21 million, net of probable insurance recoveries,
representing an update to its estimated liability for the
resolution of Bendix related asbestos claims as of June 30,
2007.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company recognized a charge of
US$49 million, primarily for Bendix related asbestos claims
filed and defense costs incurred, including an update of
expected resolution values with respect to claims pending as of
June 30, 2006, net of probable insurance recoveries.

In the first six months of 2007, the Company recognized a charge
of US$45 million, net of probable insurance recoveries,
representing an update to its estimated liability for the
resolution of Bendix related asbestos claims as of June 30,
2007.

In the first six months of 2006, the Company recognized a charge
of US$77 million primarily for Bendix related asbestos claims
filed and defense costs incurred during the first six months of
2006, including an update of expected resolution values with
respect to claims pending as of June 30, 2006, net of probable
insurance recoveries.

Morristown, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc.'s largest
business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. Other Company businesses are Specialty
Materials and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $946M NARCO Receivable in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of June 30, 2007, recorded
US$946 million as insurance receivable corresponding to the
liability for settlement of pending and future North America
Refractories Co. asbestos claims, compared with US$955 million
as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than two percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When the Company sold the NARCO business in 1986, it agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO
retained all liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002,
NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S
Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company estimated US$1.2 billion as
liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related
asbestos claims, compared with US$1.3 billion as of Dec. 31,
2006.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims are expected to be completed by the end of 2007. About
US$90 million of payments due under these settlements is due
only upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Co.
filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance carriers
in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, disputing
obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess
insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance
carriers.

About US$370 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
June 30, 2007.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New
Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

Morristown, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc.'s largest
business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. Other Company businesses are Specialty
Materials and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 52,066 Bendix Claims in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., for the six months ended June 30,
2007, recorded 52,066 unresolved asbestos claims for its Bendix
friction products business, compared with 57,108 claims for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
56,037 asbestos-related claims filed against Bendix. (Class
Action Reporter, April 27, 2007)

Bendix manufactured automotive brake pads that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded
1,447 Bendix claims filed and 6,489 Bendix claims resolved. For
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 4,391 Bendix
claims filed and 26,785 Bendix claims resolved.

From 1981 through June 30, 2007, the Company has resolved about
111,000 Bendix related asbestos claims including trials covering
125 plaintiffs, which resulted in 117 favorable verdicts.

Trials covering eight individuals resulted in adverse verdicts.
However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, three
are or shortly will be on appeal, and the remaining three claims
were settled.

About 45 percent of about 52,000 pending claims at June 30, 2007
are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in
some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no
impairment.

About 52,000 pending claims also include claims filed in
jurisdictions such as Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi that
historically allowed for consolidated filings.

During 2006, about 16,000 cases were dismissed. More than 85
percent of these dismissals occurred in Mississippi as a result
of judicial rulings relating to non-resident filings and venue.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims at June 30, 2007 of US$530 million and
Dec. 31, 2006 of US$528 million.

The Company has about US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage
remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix
related asbestos claims, of which US$212 million, as of June 30,
2007, and US$302 million, as of Dec. 31, 2006, are reflected as
receivables in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

Morristown, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc.'s largest
business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. Other Company businesses are Specialty
Materials and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Have $1.77B Liability in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., for the six months ended June 30,
2007, recorded a combined asbestos-related liability of US$1.770
billion for former unit North American Refractories Co. and the
Company's Bendix friction materials business.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
a combined asbestos-related liability of US$1.806 billion for
NARCO and Bendix. (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007)

Of the US$1.770 billion liability, US$530 million related to
Bendix and US$1.240 billion related to NARCO.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded
combined insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities
of US$1.158 billion, of which US$212 million related to Bendix
and US$946 million related to NARCO.

Morristown, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc.'s largest
business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes products like
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company's Automation and Control segment includes
home and industrial heating, ventilation, and manufacturing
process products. Other Company businesses are Specialty
Materials and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers' Families Get $3.97M Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Families of three Bethlehem Steel Corp. workers were awarded
US$3.97 million in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against
General Electric Corp., Examiner reports.

The plaintiffs had sued General Electric over asbestos
industrial brakes used in cranes and other equipment at the
mill.

The three steelworkers, Henry Copland, Dennis Ellison, and Elihu
Alford, died of lung cancer that their families argued was
caused by the brakes on cranes and the mill motor used to
transport steel.

General Electric argued that its brakes did not give off
dangerous fibers and that the men's lung cancer was caused by
other materials at the Sparrows Point steel mill.

Mr. Copland's family received US$1.205 million, Mr. Ellison's
family received US$760,000, and Mr. Alford's family was awarded
US$1.96 million.

Attorney Mike Edmonds, who represented the plaintiffs, had asked
for between US$3.5 million and US$5 million per family, based on
government figures for computing the value of a human life.

Mr. Edmonds said juries are willing to give awards in
industrial-brake cases similar to those in automotive brake
cases.

Mr. Edmonds said, "The brake manufacturers and General Electric
had taken a fairly strong position that they didn't want to pay
what people in Baltimore have received for asbestos-related
injury claims, and I think this points out to them that the
injuries from the brakes are just like the traditional brake
cases and the values are similar."

General Electric spokesman Gary Sheffer said the Company plans
to appeal.

Mr. Edmonds said that seven plaintiffs originally filed suit,
but four were dismissed on summary judgment. The case also had
between 15 and 20 defendants at first, but all were either
dismissed or settled with the plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schools in NSW to be Checked for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Education Department has ordered a massive
asbestos testing program in NSW schools, The Age reports.

The Nine Network reports that testing will be undertaken in more
than 100,000 classrooms in Sydney alone.

The NSW Education Department admits more than 7,000 school
buildings in Sydney, including 33,500 schoolrooms in the city
area, 70,000 in Sydney's west and southwest and 28,000 in
northern Sydney, could contain asbestos.

Inspections will be carried out when children are not present in
school buildings.

NSW Department of Education spokesman Michael Coutts-Trotter
said the department had ordered tests on every schoolroom.

The testing program has been welcomed by parents and teachers,
but the department is still unable to tell parents where high
risk schools are.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Operator's Family Sues Chevron for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Lee Robinson Sr., an operator at a Port Neches,
Tex. plant, is suing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Texaco Inc. for
negligently exposing Mr. Robinson to asbestos while he worked at
the plant, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Robinson worked as an operator for Neches Butane, where he
allegedly contracted lung cancer, for which he died on Dec. 14,
2006.

Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde filed the personal injury
lawsuit on the behalf of Mr. Robinson's widow, Lois Robinson,
and his children (Jeanie, Lee and Stephen) with the Jefferson
County District Court on July 16, 2007.

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

The Robinson family is suing for exemplary damages and seeks "to
recover from the defendant an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional limits of this Court. Further, plaintiff seeks a
claim for prejudgment interest for all elements allowed them,"
the suit said.

The Robinsons are demanding a trial by jury.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. E179-672.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: San Diego Gas Case Hearing Set for Sept. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants of an asbestos suit filed against San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. and certain of its employees are scheduled to
appear before U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw, Southern
District of California, on Sept. 6, 2007 for further
proceedings, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
press release dated July 19, 2007.

A federal jury in San Diego found the Company guilty on three
counts of violating asbestos work practice standards and one
count of making false statements on July 13, 2007.

The charges relate to the Company's removal of asbestos from
9.23 miles of underground piping at the former Encanto Gas
Holder facility in Lemon Grove, Calif., in 2000 and 2001.

In addition, Kyle Rhuebottom, the project manager for the prime
contractor on the site, and David Williamson, a Company
employee, were each found guilty of one count of violating
asbestos work practice standards.

According to court documents, the Company knew the piping at the
Encanto facility was coated with asbestos, based on analytical
testing.

Once the Company decided to sell the property, they solicited
bids for demolition and removal of the asbestos-coated piping.
Despite knowing that the piping coating contained asbestos, the
Company began removing the pipe wrap without treating it as
regulated asbestos containing material.

The jury found that the Company, Mr. Rhuebottom, and Mr.
Williamson failed to contain the asbestos or place it in a leak
proof container.

The jury also found that the Company failed to provide adequate
notice in advance of the asbestos removal, failed to adequately
wet the asbestos during removal, and falsely claimed that a
company employee was a certified asbestos consultant.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Has $53M Current Liability in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s current asbestos-related liabilities,
as of May 31, 2007, amounted to US$53 million, compared with
US$58,925,000 as of May 31, 2006, according to a Company press
release dated July 23, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities, for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007, amounted to US$57,925,000, compared
with US$58,925,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

As of May 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$301,268,000, compared with
US$362,360,000 as of May 31, 2006.

For the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007, the Company's long-term
asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$314,935,000,
compared with US$362,360,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

During the fiscal 2007-4th quarter, the Company drew down
US$18.6 million of its 10-year pre-tax asbestos reserve
established in the fiscal 2006-4th quarter to cover indemnity
and defense costs.

Comparable costs were US$12.9 million during the final period of
fiscal 2006.

For the full year, the Company drew down about US$67 million of
the asbestos reserve, compared with cash costs in the 2006
fiscal year of US$59.9 million.

The total asbestos reserve balance stood at US$354.3 million at
May 31, 2007.

Frank C. Sullivan, President and Chief Executive Officer, said,
"The higher year-over-year asbestos costs in the quarter and
full year resulted from the favorable resolution of a greater
number of cases versus last year. Importantly, the rate of new
case filings continues to run below prior-year levels."

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc. is a holding company
that owns units that lead in specialty coatings and sealants.
The Company's industrial products include roofing systems,
sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and
specialty chemicals. The Company's consumer products are used by
professionals and do-it-yourselfers for home maintenance and
improvement, automotive and boat repair and maintenance, and by
hobbyists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $418.4M Liability in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability, as of June 30, 2007,
amounted to US$418,483,000, compared with US$459,567,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated July
23, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability, as of March 31,
2007, amounted to US$442,877,000. (Class Action Reporter, April
27, 2007)

As of June 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos liability
amounted to US$70 million, the same as for the period ended Dec.
31, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable, as of
June 30, 2007, amounted to US$145,608,000, compared with
US$170,400,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$164,030,000. (Class Action Reporter,
April 27, 2007)

As of June 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$21 million, compared with US$52.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $43.8M Assets, Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.'s net asbestos-related assets and liabilities, for
the six months ended June 30, 2007, amounted to US$43.8 million,
compared with US$6.5 million for the six months ended June 30,
2006, according to a Company press release dated July 23, 2007.

The Company's net asbestos-related assets and liabilities, for
the three months ended March 31, 2007, amounted to US$43.1
million, compared with US$2.7 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007)

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Inc. manufactures and markets
chemical specialties globally for making a variety of products
for home, office and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Group Ltd. Accrues $38M Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group Ltd. says that asbestos reserves developed
unfavorably by US$38 million, according to a Company press
release dated July 23, 2007.

The Company's prior years' loss reserves, excluding mass action,
developed favorably by US$35.7 million.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group, Ltd. is a holding
company that operates through the following subsidiaries:
Everest Reinsurance Co., Everest Reinsurance (Bermuda) Ltd.,
Everest National Insurance Co., Everest Security Insurance Co.,
and Everest Indemnity Insurance Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Californian Sues 50 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Braley, the widow of Howard Braley from California, sued
50 defendants in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., on July 18, 2007, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Braley claims Mr. Braley was employed in operations and as
a supervisor from 1968 to 2006 at various locations in Illinois
and Missouri.

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

The complaint states, "The plaintiff's exposure and inhalation,
ingestion or absorption of the asbestos fibers was completely
foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the
defendants."

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

According to Mrs. Braley, Mr. Braley first became aware that he
suffered from mesothelioma on Jan. 24, 2007.

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

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

As a result of the alleged negligence, Mrs. Braley claims Mr.
Braley was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a
disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and
disfigured him, the complaint states.

Mrs. Braley also claims she has been deprived of Mr. Braley's
means and support and has lost the society of Mr. Braley and
also had to expend large sums of money for his funeral and
burial.

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

John Barnerd and Myles Epperson of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
Ill., represent Mrs. Braley.

Case 07 L 640 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel
Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records 84,652 Pending Claims in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 84,652 asbestos-related claims as of June 30,
2007, compared with 88,833 claims as of June 30, 2006, according
to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 85,884 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with 89,164
pending claims as of March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
April 27, 2007)

As of June 30, 2007, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

For the three months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded
902 new claims, 271 settlements, and 1,863 dismissals. For the
three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded 978 new
claims, 264 settlements, and 1,045 dismissals.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded
1,997 new claims, 800 settlements, and 2,468 dismissals. For the
six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded 2,282 new
claims, 572 settlements, and 1,894 dismissals.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 4,853 new
claims, 1,043 settlements, and 6,886 dismissals.

Of the 84,652 pending claims as of June 30, 2007, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 27,000 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,000 claims were pending in
Texas, and about 3,600 claims were pending in Ohio, all
jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Since the termination of the comprehensive master settlement
agreement on Jan. 24, 2005, the Company has been resolving
claims filed against it in the tort system.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Norris Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal of a judgment, which is in favor of the
plaintiff in the Joseph Norris asbestos claim, is pending,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2007.

The Company tried the Norris claim to verdict in California and
received an adverse jury verdict on Sept. 15, 2006.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the court entered judgment on this verdict
against the Company in the amount of US$2.15 million, together
with interest thereon at the rate of 10 percent per annum until
paid.

The Company said it believes that procedural irregularities
prevented an appropriate determination of the Company's alleged
responsibility for plaintiffs' injuries.

The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Dec.
15, 2006.

On Jan. 3, 2007, the Company appealed the judgment.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $41.3M for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., in the six-month period ended June 30, 2007, incurred
a total of US$41.3 million (before insurance and tax effects) as
gross settlement and defense costs, compared with US$31.2
million in the six-month period ended June 30, 2006.

The Company's pre-tax cash receipts/payments for settlement and
defense costs, including payments from insurers, in the six-
month periods ended June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2006 totaled a
US$15.2 million net receipt in 2007 (reflecting the receipt of
US$31.5 million in previously escrowed funds from Equitas Ltd.
("Equitas") and a US$9.1 million net payment in 2006,
respectively.)  

Effective April 24, 2007, the Company and Employers Reinsurance
Co. ("ERC") reached a settlement agreement under which ERC's
insurance coverage obligations for asbestos claims under the two
historical ERC policies issued to the Company were released. The
agreement with ERC also includes provisions for mutual releases
and indemnification of ERC. A cash payment of US$10 million
under this agreement was received by the Company in May 2007.

Effective April 27, 2007, the Company and the AIG Companies
("AIG") entered into a coverage-in-place agreement for asbestos
claims under the Company's excess policies with AIG, including
payment of US$3.4 million for claims billed to AIG through Feb.
20, 2007 which is due in several installments through Oct. 5,
2007. The agreement with AIG also includes provisions for mutual
releases, indemnification of AIG and claims handling procedures.

Effective July 11, 2007, the Company and Allstate Insurance Co.,
successor in interest to Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance
Company, formerly Northbrook Insurance Co. ("Allstate"), entered
into a coverage-in-place agreement for asbestos claims under the
Company's excess policies with Allstate, including payment of
US$5.5 million for claims billed to Allstate through May 24,
2007 which is due on or before Oct. 2, 2007. The agreement with
Allstate also includes provisions for mutual releases,
indemnification of Allstate and claims handling procedures.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $488.5M Liability in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of June 30, 2007, recorded a US$488.5 million
liability to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now
pending or subsequently asserted through 2011, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 23, 2007.

About 44 percent of the liability is attributable to settlement
and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed
through 2011.

An asset of US$166.6 million has been recorded as of June 30,
2007 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such
claims.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Insurance Suit Dismissed Last July 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related insurance action, filed against Crane Co. by
certain of its insurers in Connecticut state court, was
dismissed on July 6, 2007, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 23, 2007.

On Jan. 21, 2005, five of the Company's insurers within two
corporate insurer groups filed suit in Connecticut state court
seeking injunctive relief against the Company and declaratory
relief against the Company and dozens of the Company's other
insurers.

The suit also sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief
restraining the Company from participating in any further
settlement discussions with representatives of asbestos
plaintiffs or agreeing to any settlement unless the Company
permitted the plaintiff insurers to both participate in such
discussions and have a meaningful opportunity to consider
whether to consent to any proposed settlement, or unless the
Company elected to waive coverage under the insurers' policies.

The plaintiffs also sought expedited discovery on the Company's
proposed global settlement.

At a Feb. 22, 2005 the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiff
insurers' application for temporary injunctive relief and
expedited discovery.

In denying temporary injunctive relief, the Court stated that
the plaintiffs could not show irreparable injury and that the
plaintiff insurers would have an adequate remedy at law.

In light of the Court's ruling and the Company's motions to
dismiss, the insurer plaintiffs sought and received leave to
amend their Complaint to remove certain declaratory relief
counts and to remove or restate the remaining allegations.

On April 8, 2005, the insurer plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint raising five counts against the Company.

The Amended Complaint sought:

(i) Declaratory relief regarding the Company's rights to
coverage, if any, under the policies;

(ii) Declaratory relief regarding the Company's alleged breaches
of the policies in connection with an alleged increase in
asbestos claim counts;

(iii) A declaration of no coverage in connection with allegedly
time-barred claims;

(iv) Declaratory relief against the Company and the other
insurer defendants for allocation of damages that may be covered
under the insurance policies; and

(v) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

On April 18, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the claims for
injunctive relief on the grounds that the Court had no
jurisdiction to consider the claims because they were
speculative and unripe.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss, ruling that the injunctive claims were not unripe.
Nonetheless, the Court noted that the Company later could seek
summary judgment in connection with the injunctive claims if
discovery shows them to be without factual basis.

Everest Reinsurance Co. and Mt. McKinley Insurance Co.
(collectively, "Everest") were two of the plaintiffs in the
Connecticut state court action.

Effective April 10, 2006, the Company and Everest reached a
settlement agreement under which Everest's insurance coverage
obligations for asbestos claims under the three historical
Everest policies issued to Crane Co. were released in exchange
for a US$3.8 million cash payment, which was received by the
Company on April 21, 2006.

Effective Dec. 22, 2006, the Company and two of the other
plaintiffs in the action, Century Indemnity Co. and ACE Property
and Casualty Co. (collectively "ACE"), reached an agreement
under which they established a coverage-in-place arrangement for
asbestos claims under the Company's excess policies with ACE.

Following the Company's settlements with the two plaintiff
insurer groups and its settlements with various other insurers,
all parties agreed to a dismissal of the Connecticut state court
action.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liberty Mutual Records $1M A&E Loss in 2Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mutual Group, for the three months ended June 30, 2007,
recorded US$1 million as net incurred asbestos & environmental
losses attributable to prior years, according to a Company press
release dated July 24, 2007.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$1 million as net incurred A&E losses attributable to prior
years.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded
US$1 million as net incurred A&E losses attributable to prior
years, compared with US$3 million for the six months ended June
30, 2006.

Boston-based Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc., the parent
corporation of the Liberty Mutual Group of entities, is a
diversified global insurer and sixth largest property and
casualty insurer in the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2006, LMG had
US$85.498 billion in consolidated assets, US$74.603 billion in
consolidated liabilities and US$23.520 billion in annual
consolidated revenue.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Californian Gets $2.1M Award for Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas law firm of Baron & Budd P.C. is announcing a total
of US$2.1 million in settlements on behalf of John Dachauer and
his wife against several manufacturers and distributors of
asbestos-containing products, according to a Baron & Budd press
release dated July 24, 2007.

These defendants include San Ramon, Calif.-based Kaiser Gypsum
Company Inc. and Pleasanton, Calif.-based Hanson Permanente
Cement Inc.

On July 17, 2007, Kaiser Gypsum and Hanson Permanente,
previously known as Kaiser Cement, settled with the plaintiffs
during the second week of trial in the case before Judge Mary
Wiss of the Superior Court of California in San Francisco.

Attorney Eric Brown from Baron & Budd's Beverly Hills office and
Patrick DeBlase from Beverly Hills-based Kiesel, Boucher &
Larson LLP represented the 69-year-old Mr. Dachauer, of San
Francisco, and his wife Rita in the trial and settlement
negotiations.

Mr. Dachauer worked as a plasterer from 1955 until 1997 in the
San Francisco Bay area. Testimony in the case showed that he
regularly used exterior stucco and joint compound products
manufactured and sold by Kaiser Gypsum and Hanson Permanente.

Mr. Dachauer sued both companies after a 2006 diagnosis showed
he suffers from mesothelioma, a fatal form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Multi-Party Suits v. ENSCO Pending in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Inc. and certain current and former
subsidiaries still face multi-party asbestos-related lawsuits
filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (2nd Judicial
District) and Jasper County (1st Judicial District), Miss.

Filed in August 2004, the suits sought an unspecified amount of
monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal
injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and
associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, as
decided by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Harold's Auto Parts,
Inc. v. Flower Mangialardi, 889 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004), the
individual claimants in the original multi-party suits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints, naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial pending claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 62 individual
plaintiffs.

Of these claims, there are 60 claims or suits pending in
Mississippi state courts and two pending in the U.S. District
Court as a result of their removal from state court.

At present, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos suits have
been set for trial.

Dallas-based ENSCO International Inc. owns a fleet of 46
offshore rigs, including 44 jack-ups, one barge rig, one
platform rig, and one semisubmersible (capable of drilling in up
to 8,500 ft. of water). The Company conducts its domestic
drilling business in the Gulf of Mexico. It also operates in the
North Sea; offshore West Africa, Indonesia, and Trinidad; and in
the Asia-Pacific region.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Burlington Northern Drop to 1,930
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. recorded 1,930 asbestos
claims filed against it and its majority-owned subsidiaries for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with
2,153 claims for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
1,941 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared
with 2,153 claims for the three months ended March 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007)

For the three months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 93
claims filed and 104 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise
resolved. For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company
noted 150 claims filed and 150 claims settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 232
claims filed and 277 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise
resolved. For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company
noted 361 claims filed and 329 claims settled, dismissed, or
otherwise resolved.

The Company faces personal injury claims by employees and non-
employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest
exposure for BNSF employees was due to work conducted in and
around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out
between the years of 1950 and 1967.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company
recorded US$297 million as accrued obligations for both asserted
and unasserted asbestos matters, compared with US$318 million
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006.

Of the June 30, 2007 obligation, US$244 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$53 million was related to asserted
claims. At June 30, 2007, US$21 million was included in current
liabilities.

It is reasonably possible that future costs to settle asbestos
claims may range from about US$200 million to US$400 million.
However, the Company said it believes that the US$297 million
recorded is the best estimate of the Company's future obligation
for the settlement of asbestos claims.

Fort Worth, Tex.-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.,
through subsidiary BNSF Railway Co., is the second-largest
railroad operator in the U.S., behind Union Pacific. BNSF makes
tracks through 28 states in the West, Midwest, and Sunbelt
regions of the U.S. and in two Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois' Liabilities Drop to $444.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
dropped to US$444.9 million as of June 30, 2007, from US$538.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press
release dated July 25, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$497.7 million as of March 31, 2007, compared with US$534.1
million as of March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 27,
2007)

As of June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current
portion of asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$149
million, compared with US$152 million as of June 30, 2006.

New asbestos-related lawsuits and claims received during the
first six months of 2007 were six percent higher than the first
six months of 2006.

Asbestos-related cash payments during the first half of 2007
totaled US$93.7 million compared with US$80.7 million during the
first half of 2006.

The increased payments were used, in part, to decrease the
deferred amount payable for previously settled claims (US$75.7
million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$82.6 million at Dec.
31, 2006).

As of June 30, 2007, the pending asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims totaled about 19,000 compared with about 18,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2006.

The balance of the accrual for asbestos-related costs was
US$593.9 million as of June 30, 2007.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois Inc. provides glass
containers, healthcare packaging, and specialty closure systems.
Established in 1903, the Company employs more than 28,000 people
and has 100 manufacturing facilities in 23 countries. In 2006,
net sales were US$7.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Maintains $1.7B Liability in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. maintained its US$1.7 billion long-term
asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006, according to a Company press release dated July 25, 2007.

The Company also maintained its US$500 million long-term
asbestos-related insurance as of June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006.

On April 2, 2001, the Company 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries and
affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary W.
R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware in order to resolve Grace's asbestos-
related liabilities.

In January 2005, Grace filed an amended plan of reorganization
and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court. As part of
determining the confirmability of the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court
has approved a process and timeline for determining the cost to
resolve asbestos-related property damage and personal injury
claims.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the
manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide-range of industrial applications; specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction; and sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging. With annual sales of more than US$2.8
billion, the Company has about 6,500 employees and operations in
over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Records $76M Charge for PCC Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc.'s 2007-2nd quarter results included a US$76 million
non-cash pretax and after-tax charge primarily reflecting the
increase in market value of Corning common stock to be
contributed to settle the asbestos litigation related to
Pittsburgh Corning Corp., according to a Company press release
dated July 25, 2007.

For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$110 million for asbestos settlement. For the six months ended
June 30, 2007, the Company recorded US$186 million for asbestos
settlement, compared with US$124 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2006.

On March 28, 2003, the Company said that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against
Corning and Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC), which might arise
from PCC products or operations.

The proposed settlement, if approved, will require the Company
to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity
interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian
corporation, and contribute 25 million shares of Corning common
stock.

The Company also agreed to make cash payments with a value of
US$131 million, in March 2003, over six years from the effective
date of the settlement and to assign insurance policy proceeds
from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance
at the time of the settlement.

As a result of the proposed asbestos settlement, any changes in
the estimated fair value of the components of the proposed
settlement agreement will be recognized in the Company's
quarterly results until the date of the contribution to the
settlement trust.

In the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company recorded a charge of US$76
million (pretax and after-tax) including a mark-to-market charge
of US$70 million reflecting the increase in Corning's common
stock from March 31, 2007 to June 30, 2007 and a US$6 million
charge to adjust the estimated fair value of certain other
components of the proposed asbestos settlement.

Beginning with the 2003-1st quarter, the Company has recorded
total net charges of US$1 billion to reflect the estimated fair
value of the Company's asbestos liability.

Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Inc. makes specialty glass and
ceramics. The Company creates and makes keystone components that
enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile
emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Reserves $567M for Litigation in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve, as of
June 30, 2007, amounted to US$567 million, compared with US$592
million as of June 30, 2006, according to a Company press
release dated July 25, 2007.

The Company's non-current asbestos litigation reserve, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$569 million, compared with US$500
million as of March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 27,
2007)

As of June 30, 2007, the Company's non-current asbestos
insurance receivable amounted to US$460 million, compared with
US$446 million as of June 30, 2006.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$449 million, compared with US$345
million as of March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 27,
2007)

For the June 2007 quarter, discontinued operations included a
net favorable adjustment to asbestos reserves and related
insurance receivables of US$16 million, resulting from Ashland's
ongoing assessment of these matters.

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc., a diversified, global
chemical company, provides quality products, services and
solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company
operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials,
Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Couple Sue 16 companies for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Fittz and Ophelia Fittz, of Deweyville, Tex., are suing
American Optical Corp. and 15 other companies, for "negligently
exposing him to asbestos," while fraudulently concealing" the
mineral's latent dangers, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Fittz claims he worked at several area refineries between
1964 and 1985.

The Fittz couple filed their personal injury lawsuit with the
Jefferson County District Court on July 23, 2007.

Other defendants include E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Co.,
General Electric Co., Viacom Inc., and Zurn Industries Inc.

According to the plaintiffs' original petition, the 66-year-old
Mr. Fittz worked as a pipefitter and welder for area plants
while he resided in Jefferson County.

As part of his duties, Mr. Fittz claims he was required to
"handle large quantities" of asbestos products that were
manufactured, marketed and sold by the defendants.

The suit says that on Jan. 3, 2007, Mr. Fittz learned that he
had contracted a "malignant asbestos-related disease." The suit,
however, does not specify the nature of his disease.

The Fittz couple's suit faults the defendants for failing to
"guard" him against the harm caused by their products, failing
to test their products before marketing them, and concealing
information regarding to the dangers of their products.

The plaintiffs are suing for loss of earning capacity, pain and
suffering, mental anguish and medical expenses.

Paul D. Henderson represents the plaintiffs, who are requesting
a trial by jury.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. A179-700.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker's Kin Sues Texaco, Chevron in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby and Floyd Williams, Jr., with several other beneficiaries
of Floyd Williams, Sr., filed a wrongful death lawsuit against
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Texaco Inc. with the Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., on July 20, 2007, The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

The suit said, "Williams' occupational disease proved fatal and
he died of lung cancer on Aug. 13, 2005."

From 1946 until 1955, the elder Mr. Williams worked as a pipe
fitter at the Port Arthur Texaco refinery. Five decades later,
he died of lung cancer.

According to the plaintiffs' original petition, the elder Mr.
Williams worked for Texaco as pipe fitter helper and general
laborer. During his nine years at the plant, he was allegedly
exposed to enough asbestos containing products to contract lung
cancer.

Medical documents attached to the suit state the elder Mr.
Williams "had a heavy cigarette-smoking history estimated at 80
pack-years.to greater than 100 pack-years."

In light of Mr. Williams' smoking history, the plaintiffs and
their lawyers still blame Chevron/Texaco for Mr. Williams' lung
cancer, claiming he was negligently told to handle asbestos-
containing products, such as thermal and electrical insulation
products, flooring materials, textiles, gaskets, wicking and
packing, mastics, cement products and coatings, the suit said.

The suit says that Shelby L. Williams, Clifton Jay Williams,
Anna Marie Broussard, Kathleen Elizabeth St. Cyr, Floyd Steven
Williams, Jr., Timmie Gail Bryan and Floyd Kevin Williams "are
entitled to exemplary damages from Chevron/Texaco because Mr.
Williams' death was caused by an intentional act or omission or
by gross negligence."

The plaintiffs are requesting a trial by jury and are
represented by attorney Glen Morgan of the Reaud, Morgan & Quinn
law firm.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. E179-694


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Engineer Sues A.O. Smith, 68 Firms in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Engineer Robert E. Snowden filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against the A.O. Smith Corp. and 68 other major corporations
with the Jefferson County District Court in Texas on July 20,
2007, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Provost Umphrey attorney Brian Blevins represents Mr. Snowden.

Mr. Snowden sued several companies and received a claim for his
non-malignant asbestos-related disease. Now he seeks
compensation for a "different asbestos-related injury." He
smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 35 years.

Medical documents attached to suit state that Mr. Snowden, a
lung cancer patient, has accumulated 60 pack-years of smoking.

Mr. Snowden and his attorney believe this "causation" is enough
reason for him to receive a second claim for his lung cancer,
allegedly caused by asbestos.

Mr. Snowden, 71, began working in refineries in 1964 as an
engineer.

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

The petition says the 69 defendants entangled in his 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."

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. B179-697.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Files Suit v. 71 Firms in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thurman Cash, on July 19, 2007, filed a nine-count asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit against A.W. Chesterton Co. and
70 other companies in the Jefferson County District Court in
Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

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

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

A man of many trades, the suit indicates Mr. Cash was most
likely exposed to asbestos while working at shipyards, steel
mills, refineries, paper mills, chemical plants, the military
and other facilities in the U.S.

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

Mr. Cash also seeks punitive and exemplary damages.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. B179-688.


                            *********


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  * * *