CAR_Public/070810.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 157

                            Headlines


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces NAACP Lawsuit in Calif. Over Prime Loans
ACCREDITED HOME: Aug. 24 Hearing Set in Lone Star Merger Suit
AMERICA ONLINE: High Court Allows Suit Over Secondary Accounts

BINZHOU FUTIAN: Faces Suit Over Melamine-Contaminated Gluten
CALIFORNIA: Bias Lawsuit Filed Over 2005 Klamath School Closure
CANADA: Soldiers’ Lawsuit Over Defoliant Spraying Certified
CHICAGO BRIDGE: November Hearings Set for N.Y. Securities Suit
COLOSSUS LITIGATION: Ark. Court to Review Settlements Today

CONTINENTAL TIRE: Retirees’ Health Care Benefits Suit Certified
DENTSPLY INT'L: Cal. Court OKs “Advance” Cement Suit Settlement
EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Sued Over Inflated Health-Care Prices
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Suggests Securities Suit Dismissal
GAS COMPANIES: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over “Unfair” Gas Prices

GATEWAY ELECTRONIC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
GENZYME CORP: Settles Lawsuits Over Share Exchanges for $64M
IRWIN HOME: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Still Under Appeal
IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Mulls Motion to Rehear RESPA Suit
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Expects Nixing of Document Preparation Fees Suit

IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settlement of Md. Loans Law Violations Suit Ok’d
KENNETH COLE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Credit Card Purchases
MICROSOFT CORP: Motion to Junk Wash. "Windows Vista” Suit Denied
NATIONAL DEALERS: Accused of Withholding Sales Reps’ Commissions
PLAN 9: Recalls E Lights with Circuit Boards Posing Fire Hazard

RALEIGH AMERICA: Recalls Bicycles with Forks Prone to Breakage
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Recalls Aerosol Cans at Risk of Exploding
UBS FINANCIAL: IL Suit Seeks to Recover Brokers’ Underpayments
US POSTAL: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Privacy Act Violations


                        Asbestos Alerts
                              
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Pays $40Mil for Property Damage Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits v. Transocean Units Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco’s Reserves Rise to $11.5M at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Still in Arbitration w/ Equitas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Settles Lawsuit with ACE Int’l.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $29.9M for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Minerals Tech. Total 26 at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Still Faces Cases in 3 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $232.5M Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Records 26T Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Has 3,800 New Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Continues to Face Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $2.8M Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Faces Claims in Six States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Has 8,500 Claimants at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces 1 Miss. Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid for S.C. to Review Cleco Suits Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $39Mil Liabilities at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has 40,134 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $7M for Rockwell Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Rise to 9,887
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin’l. Reserves $455.6M at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.35B for Claims at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Has 1,648 Cases with 9,810 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M at June for Abatement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face ASARCO Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Continues to Face Whiteley Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Suit v. RJR Tobacco, B&W Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chemical Receives $5Mil for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Awaits Date of Oral Argument

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Suits v. Pride Int’l. Units Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $190.3Mil at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 2,599 New Claims at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Units Face Six Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker’s Kin Sues 46 Firms in Texas Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Probes EPA on Libby Poisoning
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Penalizes Arizona Schools for Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victims Lose AUD760T in Compensation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Still Deals with N.Y. Pipe Explosion


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Faruqi Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
RAIT FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. faces several securities fraud class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), according to
the company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit, “Edwards v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., et al.,” was served to
the company on March 2007.  It alleges violations of the federal Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) for allegedly failing to disclose title insurance charges
and recording fees as part of finance charges.  

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed.  There has been no ruling
on the merits of either the plaintiff’s individual claims or the claims of
the putative class.

The suit is “Edwards et al v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00160-KD-C,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama under Judge Kristi K. DuBose with referral to Judge
William E. Cassady.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Earl P. Underwood, Esq.
         P.O. Box 969
         Fairhope, AL 36533-0969
         Phone: 251-990-5558
         Fax: 251-990-0626
         E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com

Representing the company is:

         Jeffery J. Hartley, Esq.
         Helmsing, Leach, Herlong,
         P.O. Box 2767
         Mobile, AL 36652
         Phone: 251-432-5521
         E-mail: jjh@helmsinglaw.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. faces several securities fraud class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

In March 2007, the company was served with a class action complaint,
entitled, “Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.”  It was
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by the company
and certain members of senior management.  

The company is aware that five similar securities class actions have been
filed in the same court.  The actions are:

      -- “Joory v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.,”

      -- “Pourshafie v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,”

      -- “Theda v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.,”

      -- “City of Brockton Retirement System v. Accredited Home
         Lenders Holding Co.,” and

      -- “Kornfeld v. James A. Konrath, et al.”

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, these cases have
been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been selected.

The consolidated, amended complaint is due 21 days after the company’s 2006
audited financial statements are released, and our response to this complaint
is due forty-five days after the complaint is filed, according to the
company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com-- is a  
mortgage banking company operating throughout the U.S., and in Canada. The
Company originates, finances, securitizes, services and sells non-prime
mortgage loans secured by residential real estate.  Accredited focuses on
borrowers who may not meet conforming underwriting guidelines because of
higher loan-to-value ratios, the nature or absence of income documentation,
limited credit histories, high levels of consumer debt, or past credit
difficulties.

It originates loans primarily based upon the borrower's willingness and
ability to repay the loan and the adequacy of the collateral.  Accredited's
wholly owned subsidiary, Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust acquires, holds
and manages real estate assets.  Its wholly owned Canadian subsidiary,
Accredited Home Lenders Canada is a mortgage banking company that originates
and finances mortgage loans.  In October 2006, the Company completed its
merger with Aames Investment Corp.


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces NAACP Lawsuit in Calif. Over Prime Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. was named defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned, “National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al.”

The suit was filed in July 2007.  It was filed on behalf of itself and its
African-American members, alleging that the company and 12 other lenders
violated the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Civil Rights
Act by steering African-American applicants who would otherwise qualify for
prime loans into non-prime loans and charging African-American borrowers
higher interest rates and fees than similarly situated Caucasians.

Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs
of suit.

The suit is “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v.
Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00794-AG-AN,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Angela Ciccolo, Esq.
         NAACP
         4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
         Baltimore, MD 21215
         Phone: 410-580-5792

         Vic Feazell, Esq.
         Feazell & Tighe LLP
         6300 Bridgepoint Parkway,Suite 220
         Austin, TX 78730
         Phone: 512-372-8100

              - and -

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         Kabateck Brown Kellner
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-217-5000
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Aug. 24 Hearing Set in Lone Star Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 24, 2007 hearing is set on a motion for preliminary injunction
against a plan by Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. to merge with
affiliates of Lone Star Fund V (U.S.) L.P.

The motion was filed in a suit pending the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego.

The suits, which were served on the company in June 2007, are captioned:

      -- “Korsinski v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,” and

      -- “Wan v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.”

The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the company and members
of its Board of Directors in connection with its entry into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with affiliates of Lone Star Fund V.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs
of suit.

The plaintiff in the Korsinski matter has voluntarily dismissed his case
without prejudice.

In the Wan matter, the plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, which is scheduled to be heard on Aug. 24, 2007.  A motion for
class certification has not been filed, according to the company’s Aug. 1,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com-- is a  
mortgage banking company operating throughout the U.S., and in Canada. The
Company originates, finances, securitizes, services and sells non-prime
mortgage loans secured by residential real estate.  Accredited focuses on
borrowers who may not meet conforming underwriting guidelines because of
higher loan-to-value ratios, the nature or absence of income documentation,
limited credit histories, high levels of consumer debt, or past credit
difficulties.  

It originates loans primarily based upon the borrower's willingness and
ability to repay the loan and the adequacy of the collateral.  Accredited's
wholly owned subsidiary, Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust acquires, holds
and manages real estate assets.  Its wholly owned Canadian subsidiary,
Accredited Home Lenders Canada is a mortgage banking company that originates
and finances mortgage loans.  In October 2006, the Company completed its
merger with Aames Investment Corp.


AMERICA ONLINE: High Court Allows Suit Over Secondary Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the state of Washington unanimously ruled in favor of a
couple who filed a class action against America Online, Inc., claiming the
Internet provider illegally charged them for secondary membership accounts.

The case was argued Feb. 28, 2006.  The ruling was filed July 12, 2007.

The suit was filed by Suzy Dix and Jeffrey R. Smith on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated against ICT Group, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation and America Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation.  The plaintiffs
are customers of AOL's Internet service.

The plaintiffs in this case allege that America Online, Inc. (AOL),
unilaterally and wrongfully created and charged them for secondary membership
accounts.  The plaintiffs brought a putative class suit in Washington courts,
alleging, among other things, violations of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW (CPA).  However, the Terms of Service
agreement between the plaintiffs and AOL contains a forum selection clause
specifying Virginia as the forum for any suits relating to the membership
services.  

Virginia does not allow class actions for suits like plaintiffs' suit.  The
trial court dismissed the action on the basis that the forum selection clause
requires suit to be brought in Virginia.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed, holding that the forum selection clause is unenforceable because
the selected forum does not permit class suits, thus violating public policy
underlying the CPA.  The high court affirmed the
Court of Appeals, but on narrower grounds.

An opinion authored by Justice Barbara A. Madsen states:

“Although forum selection clauses are prima facie valid, a forum selection
clause may be invalid if it violates the public policy of this state.  A
decision regarding the enforceability of a forum selection clause is
evaluated for an abuse of discretion.  

“If a forum selection clause precludes class actions and thereby
significantly impairs Washington citizens' ability to seek relief under the
CPA for small-value claims, the clause violates the public policy underlying
the CPA's dual enforcement scheme expressed in the attorney general and
private rights of action under the act.  Because AOL's forum selection clause
precludes class actions for small-value CPA claims and there is no feasible
alternative avenue for seeking relief on such claims, the forum selection
clause is invalid and unenforceable and dismissal was an abuse of discretion.

Concurring are Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander, Justice Tom Chambers,
Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Susan Owens, Justice Mary E. Fairhurst,
Justice Richard B. Sanders, Justice James M. Johnson, and Justice Bobbe J.
Bridge.

The suit is "Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., Case nos. 77101-4, 03-2-04952-7" on
appeal from Spokane Superior Court under Judge Salvatore F. Cozza.

Counsel for Petitioners are:

          James B. King, Esq.
          1102 Wa Mutual Finance Ctr.
          601 W Main Ave
          Spokane, WA, 99201-0636

          -- and --

          Daniel T. Donovan, Esq.    
          John C. O'Quinn, Esq.
          Eugene F. Assaf, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          Web site: http://www.kirkland.com/
          655 Fifthteenth Street Nw
          Washington, DC, 20005-5793

Counsel for Respondents are:

          Richard W. Kuhling, Esq.
          David Laurence Broom, Esq.   
          William John Schroeder, Esq.    
          Gregory C. Hesler, Esq.    
          Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller LLP
          717 W Sprague Ave Ste 1200
          Spokane, WA, 99201-3505
          Web site: http://www.painehamblen.com/index.htm

          -- and --        

          Michael David Kinkley, Esq.    
          Michael D Kinkley PS
          4407 N Division St Ste 914
          Spokane, WA, 99207-1660


BINZHOU FUTIAN: Faces Suit Over Melamine-Contaminated Gluten
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Audet & Partners, LLP has filed a class action in California
State Superior Court (San Francisco) (Case no.: CGC-07-465924) against
Binzhou Futian Biological Technology, Co., Ltd., a company based in Binzhou,
China, seeking relief under the laws of the People's Republic of China and
California.

The complaint seeks damages and other relief arising from injuries to pet
owners whose dogs and cats became sick or died from ingesting melamine.

As alleged in the complaint, the named plaintiff's  cat died due to
complications associated with melamine poisoning from pet food.

Melamine, a non-toxic chemical used in fertilizer and plastics, was
identified as a contaminant by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March.

"It's time to hold all companies, regardless of the location of the business,
financially and legally accountable for distributing toxic materials into the
United States stream of commerce," said lead attorney William M. Audet,
managing partner of Audet & Partners, LLP.

"Our firm's legal research has revealed that the law in the People's Republic
of China actually provides for potential liability for distributing 'impure
or fake materials' in products such as dog and cat food," said Attorney
Audet. "We intend to argue that the China-based company is liable under both
California law and applicable Chinese law."

The complaint asserts class-wide claims against Binzhou Futian Biological
Technology under the provision of the Law of the People's Republic of China
on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Consumers and under the Consumer
Protection provisions of the law of the State of California.

As a separate cause of action against the Chinese-based company, the
complaint asserts a claim based on law adopted Oct. 31, 1993 by the Fourth
Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress.
Legal research indicates this may be the first-of-its-kind claim, but as
noted by Attorney Audet, "While the claim may be the first of its kind, our
client's ability to obtain relief is consistent with well-established law in
the United States."

For more information, contact:

          William M. Audet, Esq.    
          Audet & Partners, LLP     
          Phone: 415.982.1776              
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
          Website: http://www.Audetlaw.com
          
         - and -

          Traci Stuart
          Blattel Communications
          Phone: 415.397.4811
          E-mail: traci@blattel.com


CALIFORNIA: Bias Lawsuit Filed Over 2005 Klamath School Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed June 8, 2007 against Del Norte County
Unified School District and the school’s board over a 2005 decision by the
district to close the middle school grades of Margaret Keating Elementary
School in Klamath, California.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all Native American
children living in Del Norte County who would attend grade six, seven and/or
eight at Margaret Keating Elementary School in the 2007-2008 and subsequent
academic years but for defendants' closure of those grades.

Ten minors represented by their mother/legal guardian filed a suit seeking
class-action status against:

     * Del Norte County Unified School District,
     * Robert Berkowitz, School District board member,
     * Thomas Cochran, School District board member,
     * Faith Crist, School District board member,
     * William Maffett, School District board member,
     * Jan Moorehouse, School District board member,
     * William Parker, School District board member,

The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to the June 9,
2005 decision by the Del Norte County United School District to close the
middle school grades (six through eight) of Margaret Keating and the
reassignment and busing of Margaret Keating middle school students to Cresent
Elk Middle School in Crescent city, California, beginning in September 2005.

The suit raises these claims of:

     -- violation of 14th Amendment Equal Protection, which  
        prohibits discrimination against individuals on the  
        basis of race or national origin;

     -- violation of Title Vi of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
        which prohibits recipients of federal funding from
        discriminating against individuals on the basis of race
        or national origin; and

     -- violation of the California Government Code, which
        prohibits discrimination against discrimination against
        individuals on the basis of race or national origin in   
        or under any program or activity conducted, operated or
        administered by the state or any state agency.

         
The suit is, Case No. C-07-3009 WDB, filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jory C. Steele, Esq.
          Alan L. Schlosser, Esq.
          ACLU Foundation of Northern California Inc.
          39 Drumm St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 621-2493
          Fax: (415) 255-1478
          E-mail: jsteele@aclunc.org

          Donald W. Brown, Esq.
          Stephen E. George, Esq.
          Covington & Burling LLP
          One Front St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 591-6000
          Fax: (415) 591-6091
          E-mail: sgeorge@cov.com


CANADA: Soldiers’ Lawsuit Over Defoliant Spraying Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Leo Barry of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has
certified a lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of Canadian soldiers exposed
to potentially dangerous chemicals while working at a base in New Brunswick,
Canada, Anne Kyle of The StarPhoenix reports.

On July 12, 2005, the Merchant Law Group, on behalf of Doug Ward launched the
class action against the federal government on behalf of soldiers working at
CFB Gagetown.  Mr. Ward is seeking general, aggravated and punitive damages
on  behalf of all individuals and their estates who have suffered  "or expect
to suffer" medical ailments as a result of toxic  defoliant spraying at the
base between 1956 and 1984 (Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2006).

Mr. Ward claims he was stationed in Gagetown for three years starting in
1974.  He said he was not provided with special protective gear at the time
of his training at the field.

Justice Barry’s recent ruling defined those eligible to take part in the suit
as "all individuals who were at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and the present and
who claim they were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin or HCB
(hexachlorolbenzene) while on the base."

The certification order, however, was stayed pending further submissions on
what effect the proclamation of the New Brunswick Class Proceedings Act will
have on this proceeding.

Lawyer Tony Merchant said similar class actions have been launched on behalf
of soldiers at CFB Camp Suffield in Alberta and CFB Petawawa in Ontario who
were also exposed to chemical toxins during the course of their duties.

The suit is “Ward v. A.G. Canada et al, Court File No.: CI060147299.”

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Tony Merchant, Q.C.
          The Merchant Law Group
          #501 - 224 Fourth Ave. S.
          Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
          S7K 5M5
          Phone: (888) 567-7777 or (877) 359-7777
          E-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com


CHICAGO BRIDGE: November Hearings Set for N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set hearings on
a motion seeking class-action status for the consolidated securities fraud
suit against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and its officers for November
2007.

Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed the suit, “Welmon v.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case No. 06 CV 1283,” on Feb. 17, 2006
against the company, Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and Richard E.
Goodrich.     

It was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from March 9, 2005
through Feb. 3, 2006 and were damaged thereby.   

The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws and alleges, among
other things, that the company materially overstated the company's financial
results during the class period by misapplying percentage-of-completion
accounting and did not follow the company's publicly stated revenue
recognition policies.   

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially similar
allegations and with similar, but not exactly the same, class periods were
filed.   

On April 18, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were filed with the court.  On May 10, 2006, Judge John E.
Sprizzo, issued an order consolidating all related cases into one class
action and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On June 20, 2006,
Judge Sprizzo issued order appointing co-lead counsel to oversee the
litigation.

On July 5, 2006, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in the
Welmon action in the Southern District of New York consolidating all
previously filed actions.

The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the court.

On March 2, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
and the company and the individual defendants filed an opposition to class
certification on April 2, 2007.

After an initial hearing on the motion for class certification held on May
29, 2007, the Court scheduled another hearing to be held on Nov. 19 to 20,
2007, to resolve factual issues regarding the typicality and adequacy of the
proposed class representatives.  

The suit is “Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.   
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge   
John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

         Catherine A. Torell, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         150 East 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-7797
         Fax: 212-838-7745
         E-mail: ctorell@cmht.com

              - and -

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


COLOSSUS LITIGATION: Ark. Court to Review Settlements Today
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several proposed settlements from Miller County Circuit Court's "Colossus"
class action have been reached, Michelle Massey of the Southeast Texas
Records reports.

In 2005, several class action complaints were filed against insurance
companies using or are currently using Computer Science Corp.'s software
program “Colossus.”  The companies allegedly engage in conspiracies to
systematically undervalue bodily injury claim settlements.

According to Ms. Massey, plaintiffs' attorneys describe the software as
a "cost containment tool" used to "enhance their (the insurance companies)
profits at the expense of first party insured."

The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
fraud.

Proposed settlements are in the suits:

     -- “Hunsucker vs. American Standard Insurance Company”

        Filed on April 10, the suit accuses defendants are of
        "lowballing" bodily injury claims through their use of
        Colossus.

        A preliminary settlement approval hearing is set for
        Aug. 10 in the Miller County (Ark.) Circuit with
        Judge Johnson presiding.  Proposed settlement fees
        include over $52 million for class members and over $27
        million for attorney fees and costs.

     -- “Sweeten vs. American Insurance Company”

         The proposed class settlement stipulations include $3
         million in attorney fees and costs, an incentive fee to
         plaintiff for $5,000 and supplement UM for eligible
         class members not to exceed policy limits.

         The settlement approval hearing is scheduled Aug. 10  
         with Judge Johnson presiding.

     -- “Atkinson vs. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin”

         A proposed settlement states stipulations including
         $2.7 million for class members and $1.6 for attorney
         fees and costs. Hearing is scheduled for Aug. 10 with
         Judge Johnson presiding.

     -- “Easley vs. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company”

         The proposed settlement stipulations include $4 million
         in attorney fees and costs and over $5.9 million to
         supplement UM cash payment to eligible class members
         not to exceed policy limits.

         The settlement approval hearing was scheduled Aug.
         6 with Judge Johnson presiding.

     -- “Johnson vs. Clarendon America Insurance Company”

         Preliminary settlement stipulations call for $744,418
         for class members and $429,901 in attorney fees and
         costs.

         Approval hearing was set Aug. 6 in Judge Johnson's
         court.

Settled Miller County Colossus cases include:

     -- “Gross vs. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance, Republic
        Franklin, Insurance and UTICA”

        Approved on June 22, the total settlement included
        payments and attorney fees is over $2.7 million. Of that
        settlement, Judge Johnson awarded plaintiff's attorney
        $500,000.

     -- “Hunter vs. American Central Insurance Company”

        Settlement included an incentive fee to plaintiff for
        $5,000, $1.8 million to class members and over $1.07
        million in attorney fees and costs.

     -- “Zareboki vs. Hartford Insurance”

        Approved on Feb. 13, eligible class members will receive
        over $215 million and plaintiffs' attorney John Goodson
        was awarded $26 million for attorney fees and costs.

While admitting use of the Colossus software, those settling insurance
companies continue to deny the plaintiffs' allegations.

Originating from the Government Insurance Office of Australia, Colossus was
first licensed in the United States in early 1990. The Colossus program is
currently licensed to more than 20 insurers.


CONTINENTAL TIRE: Retirees’ Health Care Benefits Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jack Zouhary of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio issued a summary judgment ordering Continental Tire Co. to pay medical
premiums for 2,000 retired United Steelworkers who filed a class action
against their employer after Continental arbitrarily cut the benefit.

On Dec. 13, 2006, United Steelworkers retirees and their union filed the
lawsuit against Continental Tire North America, Inc. to force the tire maker
to uphold its obligations to thousands of retirees, spouses, and surviving
spouses to provide retiree medical benefits throughout retirement (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 26, 2006).

The retirees allege Continental Tire breached agreements promising lifetime
insurance coverage by announcing that effective on various dates in 2007 it
will shift a large part of the cost of retiree medical coverage from the
company to the retirees and surviving spouses.

Continental Tire's violation of those agreements is actionable under the
Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).  

The retirees claim the rights to receive retiree medical benefits were earned
and vested over decades of service at the tire and rubber facilities of
Continental Tire.  

Rights to retirement benefits were created through collective bargaining
between Continental Tire and the Union that had represented the retirees
while they were employed.

Virtually the same language from these agreements promised lifetime retiree
medical benefits for retirees and spouses at Continental Tire facilities,
such as plants in Akron, Ohio, Mayfield, Kentucky, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Waco, Texas, and Bryan, Ohio.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their rights to retiree health care
benefits provided under agreements and the Group insurance Plan cannot be
unilaterally modified or terminated by defendants, a preliminary and
permanent injunction prohibiting such modification or termination, and
damages and equitable relief to remedy the reduction in benefits.

Earlier, Judge Zouhary told the German-based tire company to fulfill its
contractual obligations to the retired workers from plants in Charlotte,
N.C.; Mayfield, Ky. and Bryan, Ohio, and is expected ultimately to enter
final relief on behalf of 2,000 affected retirees.

After learning of the ruling, USW International President Leo W. Gerard
said, “The fact that the court issued summary judgment shows just how
disgraceful Continental Tire was in abandoning its contractual obligations to
American tire builders who gave the company a lifetime of work.

“Instead of honoring its commitments, this company callously betrayed the
workers while continuing to take advantage of the American tire market –-
something they wouldn’t dare to do in Europe.”

Over the past five years, Continental began closing its American plants and
outsourcing those jobs to factories in places like Brazil and Malaysia while
continuing to characterize itself in advertising as an “American Company.” It
also slashed health care benefits to retirees that it had agreed to in
contracts.

Contractually, Continental was obligated to pay approximately $18,000 a year
for health care premiums for retirees not yet eligible for Medicare, and
$4,200 a year for those old enough to receive Medicare. Instead, Continental
summarily decided it would pay $3,000 for everyone, no matter how old or what
the circumstance, it was alleged.

Mark Cieslikowski, president of USW Local 850 in Charlotte, where 1,080 had
worked at the Continental plant in 2005, but where only 160 remain now, said
the loss of the insurance coverage devastated retirees.

“It was a great benefit we enjoyed for years. But we gave up raises to get
that. It was a trade off. We paid for it in a different form. Now the company
comes back and takes it away from you,” he said, “I have retirees who have no
health care because they could not afford the premiums and because they had
pre-existing conditions, they could not buy insurance. If you are a diabetic
or you have high blood pressure, lots of companies will not insure you.”

USW Executive Vice President Ron Hoover said it is time for Continental to do
the right thing and make the payments. “This is an international corporation
that has made massive profits throughout this sorry affair. It is time for
them to finally stand up and fulfill promises made to workers who labored
hard for them over decades and pay those medical premiums now.

The USW said the payments should be made even if Continental appeals because
the judge’s ruling makes it clear that when a benefit is vested, a company
cannot arbitrarily take it away.

The USW represents more than 850,000 workers in the U.S. and Canada,
including 70,000 in the tire and rubber industry.

The suit is "Pringle et al. v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-02985-DAK," filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge David A. Katz.

Representing plaintiffs Maxwell Pringle and United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC are:

          William T. Payne
          1007 Mt. Royal Blvd.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15223
          Phone: 412-492-8797
          Fax: 412-492-8978
          E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net

          Stephen M. Pincus
          John E. Stember
          Stember Feinstein
          1705 Allegheny Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15217
          Phone: 412-338-1445 or 412-338-1448
          Fax: 412-232-3730
          E-mail: spincus@stemberfeinstein.com or
                  jstember@stemberfeinstein.com


DENTSPLY INT'L: Cal. Court OKs “Advance” Cement Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court gave final approval to a settlement of a purported class
action filed against DENTSPLY International, Inc. with regards to the
company's manufacture and sale of Advance cement.

On March 27, 2002, a complaint was filed in Alameda County, California (which
was transferred to Los Angeles County) by Bruce Glover, DDS alleging, inter
alia, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices
and negligent misrepresentation in the company’s manufacture and sale of
Advance cement.

A Judge entered an Order granting class certification, as an opt-in class.  

In general, the Class is defined as California dentists who purchased and
used Advance cement and were required, because of failures of the cement, to
repair or reperform dental procedures for which they were not paid.  

The Notice of the class action was sent on Feb. 23, 2005 to the approximately
29,000 dentists licensed to practice in California during the relevant period
and a total of 166 dentists opted into the class action.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Trial Court certifying the class
as an opt-in and the Appeals Court held that the case should be converted to
an opt-out class.

The parties have entered a settlement agreement, which was approved by the
Court at a fairness hearing on June 15, 2007.

The settlement establishes a procedure by which dentists, who believe they
were required to perform dental work because of a problem caused by Advance
cement, can submit claims for review and reimbursement of unpaid fees.

The Advance cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in
the U.S. during that period were approximately $5.2 million.

DENTSPLY International Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com-- is a designer,  
developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental
market.  The Company’s principal dental product categories are dental
consumables, dental laboratory products and dental specialty products.  The
Company conducts its business through three operating segments, all of which
were primarily engaged in the design, manufacture and distribution of dental
products in three principal categories: dental consumables, dental laboratory
products and specialty dental products.


EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Sued Over Inflated Health-Care Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
filed Aug. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, accusing it of monopolizing and fixing prices for health-care
services in northern suburbs, at Evanston, Glenbrook and Highland Park
Hospitals, reports say.

Because of defendant's unlawful conduct, plaintiff Jeffrey Porter allegedly
paid artificially inflated prices for healthcare services and, as a result,
have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property.

The plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all
individuals and entities who purchased healthcare services directly from
defendant, its wholly-owned hospitals, predecessors or controlled
subsidiaries and affiliates from at least as early as Jan. 1, 2000 to the
present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether Evanston Northwestern has exercised monopoly
         power in the sale of healthcare services in the
         relevant geographic market;

     (b) whether the alleged conduct of Evanston Northwestern
         violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) whether the conduct of Evanston Northwestern, as
         alleged in this complaint, caused injury to the
         business and property of plaintiff and other members of
         the class;

     (d) the effect of Evanston Northwestern's exercise of
         monopoly power on the prices of healthcare services
         sold by Evanston Northwestern and its wholly-owned
         hospitals during the class period; and

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiff and other members of the class.

Plaintiff prays as follows:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the court adjudge that Evanston Northwestern has
        engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 2 of
        the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2;

     -- that judgment be entered for plaintiff and members of
        the class against Evanston Northwestern for three times
        the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff and the
        class as allowed by law, together with the costs of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- that Evanston Northwestern, its wholly-owned hospitals,
        its affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and
        the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees
        thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act
        on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained
        from, in any manner continuing or maintaining the
        unlawful exercise of monopoly power alleged and from
        adopting or following any practice plan, program or
        device having a similar purpose or effect; and

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is " Jeffrey Porter et al. v. Evanston Northwestern Healthcare
Corp., Case No. 07CV4446," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge Lefkow/Mag. Judge Denlow.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mary Jane Edelstein Fait
          Adam J. Levitt
          Theodore B. Bell
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Fax: (312) 984-0001


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Suggests Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a Report
and Recommendation to enter an order denying FARO Technologies, Inc.’s Motion
to Dismiss the second amended consolidated securities class action complaint
filed against FARO and certain FARO officers.

On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class action
securities fraud lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain officers
of the Company.

On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and Kornitzer Capital
Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead plaintiff.

On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint against the Company and the individual defendants.

The Amended Complaint also named Grant Thornton LLP, the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm, as an additional defendant.

On July 31, 2006, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  On Feb. 3, 2007, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint,
without prejudice.

As to the Company and the individual defendants, the Court's decision
primarily was based on its findings that the Amended
Complaint failed to adequately allege:

      -- scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely
         reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and

      -- that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions
         actually caused economic loss.

The Court granted Kornitzer leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by Feb.
22, 2007.

On Feb. 22, 2007, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Second Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Company, the individual defendants and Grant
Thornton LLP.

In the Second Amended Complaint, as in the Amended Complaint, Kornitzer seeks
to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004 and
March 15, 2006.

On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, premised on allegations that each defendant made misrepresentations
and omissions of material fact during the class period in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Among other things, Kornitzer alleges:

      -- that the Company's reported inventory, gross margins
         and profits were false and misleading during a portion
         of the class period because the Company consciously
         overstated the value of its inventory;

      -- that the Company misstated during 2005 certain of the
         selling expenses it had accrued and had expected to
         incur;

      -- that certain Asian sales that the Company had reported
         during the class period had been the product of
         unlawful payments made in violation of the Foreign
         Corrupt Practices Act, and that the Company failed to
         disclose that it was utilizing unlawful means to
         achieve such sales; and

      -- that certain of the Company's statements regarding the
         Company's systems of internal controls had been false
         and misleading, in light of the above and other
         circumstances.

In May, the company, sought for the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint
in the securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Class Action Reporter, May 28,
2007).

The court has issued a Report and Recommendation to enter an order denying
FARO Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated
securities class action.

The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-
01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
Court of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway and with referral to Judge David
A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         John F. Edgar, Esq.
         John M. Edgar, Esq.
         Edgar Law Firm, LLC
         4520 Main St., Suite 1650
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Phone: 816/531-0033
         Fax: 816/531-3322
         E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                 jme@edgarlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
         Karen M. Leser, Esq.
         James E. Miller, Esq.
         James C. Shah, Esq.
         Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
         Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.  
         Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
         Phone: 860-526-1100, 610-891-9880 and 954-943-9191
         Fax: 860-526-1120, 610-891-9883 and 954-943-9173
         E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com
                 kleser@sfmslaw.com
                 jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                 jshah@classactioncounsel.com
                 nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com
                 sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com

Representing the defendants are:
  
         Richard S. Davis, Esq.
         Robert A. Scher, Esq.
         Foley & Lardner, LLP
         Phone: (407) 244-3260 and (212) 682-7474
         Fax: (407) 648-1743 and (212) 687-2329
         E-mail: rdavis@foley.com

              - and -

         Daniel A. Casey, Esq.
         Jeffrey T. Kucera Esq.
         Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP
         201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2000
         Miami, FL 33131-2399
         Phone: 305-539-3324 and 305-539-3322
         Fax: 305-358-7095
         E-mail: dcasey@klng.com
                 jkucera@kl.com


GAS COMPANIES: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over “Unfair” Gas Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers with the Boston firm of Engel & Schultz filed a class action in Dukes
County Superior Court in Massachusetts on behalf of eight plaintiffs against
two gas wholesalers and three retailers, Nelson Sigelman of Martha's Vineyard
Times reports.

Named defendants in the complaint are:

          -- R.M. Packer Company,
          -- Drake Petroleum Company,
          -- Depot Corner gas station and
          -- Francis J. Paciello, owner of Edgartown Mobil.

The 27-page complaint alleges defendants unfairly fixed the price of
gasoline, gouged consumers who purchased gasoline and engaged in unfair price
gouging in 2005 after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Named plaintiffs are:

          -- William White of Oak Bluffs, a former business
             partner in Tisbury Fuel Services;
          -- R. Carleen Cordwell of Oak Bluffs;
          -- Ken Bailey of West Tisbury;
          -- Nadine Monaco of Oak Bluffs;
          -- Karen Lodge of Edgartown;
          -- Joan Kriegstein of Oak Bluffs; and
          -- Hilary S. Schultz of Edgartown, wife of Mr.
             Schultz.

Filed by Michael Roitman and Stephen Schultz, the lawsuit claims that from
Dec. 31, 1999 to last week the "defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain
and/or stabilize gas prices relating to the delivery of gasoline to the three
stations. Because of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiffs paid
artificially inflated prices for gasoline, and, as a result suffered monetary
damages."

The lawsuit further claims that Drake made it known that if Mr. Paciello did
not keep the price of gasoline at the Edgartown Mobil stations identical or
above the prices being charged at the Vineyard Haven stations, "but instead
tried to sell gasoline at competitive market prices, ...it would punish and
retaliate against the Edgartown Mobil stations by deliberately missing
gasoline deliveries in the summer."

The lawsuit charges that normal competitive pressures are not allowed to come
to bear on the sale of gasoline. It cites specific days on which the price of
gasoline at various Cape stations and the down-Island stations differed by as
much as 74 cents, according to Mr. Sigelman.

According to the lawsuit, significant barriers at both the distributor and
station level prevent competition. "Barriers to entry for new distributors
include the small size of tanks at many stations, long-term leases with
current distributors and size and weight limits for ferry transport. Barriers
to entry for new stations include the need to obtain approval of the Martha's
Vineyard Commission, which in recent years has repeatedly refused the request
of a proposed 'discount' gas station to build a new competitive station in
Vineyard Haven," the lawsuit states.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is:

          Engel & Schultz, LLP
          125 High Street, Suite 2601
          Boston, Massachusetts 02110
          Phone: (617) 951-9980
          Fax: (617) 951-0048
          E-mail: mail@engelschultz.com


GATEWAY ELECTRONIC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Gateway Electronic Medical Management Systems, Inc. of Indianapolis is facing
a class action filed on July 20, 2007.

Plaintiff Robin Sherman alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gateway Electronic Medical Management Systems -- http://www.gemmsnet.com/--  
is an Indianapolis-based firm that designs, implements and supports medical
information solutions specifically created for cardiovascular specialty
medical practices. GEMMS is the nation's first organization to develop and
market an Electronic Clinical Information System for cardiology practices.

The suit is “Sherman v. Gateway Electronic Medical Management Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-00947-DFH-JMS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton with referral
to Jane Magnus-Stinson.

Representing the defendant are:

          Jeffery M. Mallamad, Esq.
          Christopher R. Taylor, Esq.
          Bingham Mchale
          10 West Market Street
          Market Tower, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317)968-5395
                 (317)968-5395
          Fax: (317)236-9907
          E-mail: jmallamad@binghammchale.com
                  ctaylor@binghammchale.com

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
          Abrams & Weldy
          2002 Wellesley Blvd.
          Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46219
          Phone: (317) 917-4800
          Fax: (317) 917-4801
          E-mail: weldy@abramsweldy.com


GENZYME CORP: Settles Lawsuits Over Share Exchanges for $64M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp. has reached an agreement in principle to settle a class action
brought by a group of shareholders following the consolidation of Genzyme's
tracking stock structure in 2003.

Under the terms of the settlement, Genzyme will pay a total of $64 million to
a class of shareholders who held Genzyme Biosurgery stock on May 8, 2003.

This settlement will result in the dismissal of the case in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, which, in turn, Genzyme believes
will result in the dismissal of a related case currently pending in the
Massachusetts Superior Court. The terms of the settlement are subject to
court approval.

Genzyme believes that settling the case at this time is in the best interests
of all parties, and continues to believe that its consolidation of the
tracking stock structure was done in accordance with the terms of the
company's charter, and to the long-term benefit of its shareholders.

                          Case Background

Each of the lawsuits is a purported class action on behalf of holders of
Biosurgery Stock.  

The first case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May 2003, alleged a
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our charter
and a breach of our board of directors’ fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff in this case sought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio
for the tracking stock exchange.  The Court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety in November 2003.

Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the dismissal by the
Superior Court of the fiduciary duty claim, but reversed the earlier decision
to dismiss the implied covenant claim.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has granted our petition for
further appellate review of the Appeals Court decision reversing the
dismissal of the implied covenant claim.

The SJC heard oral arguments on Dec. 4, 2006.  A ruling on the appeal is
anticipated in the first half of 2007.

Two substantially similar cases were filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in
August and October 2003.  These cases were consolidated in January 2004, and
in July 2004, the consolidated case was stayed pending disposition of a
fourth case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in June 2003.

This complaint initially alleged violations of federal securities laws,
common law fraud, and a breach of the merger agreement with Biomatrix, in
addition to the state law claims contained in the other cases.  

The plaintiffs initially sought an adjustment to the exchange ratio, the
rescission of the acquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified compensatory
damages.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs in this case filed an amended complaint in
which they dropped all of the claims alleged in the initial complaint
relating to the initial issuance of Biosurgery Stock and the acquisition of
Biomatrix, and narrowed the putative class to include only those individuals
who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and to oppose the
class certification.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and certified this case as a class action on behalf of all
shareholders who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003.

The company filed a petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit to review the class certification decision, which has been denied.  

Genzyme Corp. -- http://www.genzyme.com-- is a biotechnology company.  The  
Company operates in five segments.  Renal develops, manufactures and
distributes products that treat patients suffering from renal diseases,
including chronic renal failure.


IRWIN HOME: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Still Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, “Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. and
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co.,” are appealing the dismissal of their case
against two Irwin Financial Corp. subsidiaries to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit.

The suit was filed on Aug. 12, 2005, alleging the defendants violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by using or obtaining plaintiffs' consumer reports
for credit transactions not initiated by plaintiffs and for which they did
not receive firm offers of credit.  

Plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to provide clear and
conspicuous disclosures as required by the FCRA.  The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory damages of $1,000 per each
separate violation and punitive damages for alleged willful violations of the
FCRA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 4, 2005.  On Oct. 18, 2005, the
company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

In response to the defendants' motion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006.   Plaintiffs filed an appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on April 13, 2006.

The company reported no development in the case at its July 31, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
03289-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Douglas Bowdoin, Esq.
         Douglas Bowdoin, P.A.
         255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 800
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Phone: 407-422-0025
         Fax: 407-843-2448
         E-mail: dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com

              - and -

         Gail Killefer, Esq.
         417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/362-8640
         E-mail: gkillefer@aol.com

Representing the company are:

         Virginia W. Barnhart, Esq.
         J. Preston Turner of Pope & Hughes, P.A.
         29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 110
         Towson, MD 21204
         Phone: 410-494-7777
         Fax: 410-494-1658
         E-mail: virginia.barnhart@popehughes.com
                 jpturner@popehughes.com

              - and -  

         Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
         Wineberg Simmonds & Narita
         44 Montgomery St., Ste 3880
         San Francisco, CA 94104-4811
         Phone: (415) 352-2200
         Fax: (415) 352-2222
         E-mail: tnarita@wsnlaw.com


IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Mulls Motion to Rehear RESPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiffs’
petition for a rehearing en banc for the purported class action, “Culpepper
v. Inland Mortgage Corp.,”

Inland Mortgage Corp., now known as Irwin Mortgage Corp., an indirect
subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp., was named as a defendant in the case,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama back in April 1996.

Generally, the suit is alleging that Irwin Mortgage’s payment of broker fees
to mortgage brokers violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

On July 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the
decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
granting summary judgment in favor of Irwin Mortgage, and decertifying the
plaintiffs’ class.  

In its July 2, 2007, decision, and based on the test set forth in the
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2001 policy statement on lender
payments to mortgage brokers, the court of appeals affirmed summary judgment
for Irwin Mortgage because the plaintiffs failed to show that the total
compensation Irwin Mortgage paid to the mortgage brokers was unreasonable in
light of the services provided.

The court of appeals also held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in decertifying the plaintiffs’ class because the individualized
assessment required in this type of action made class certification
inappropriate.

On July 13, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc.

The company awaits a decision of the court of appeals on the plaintiffs’
petition, according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007.

The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case No. 2:96-cv-
00917-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David R. Donaldson, Esq.
         David J. Guin, Esq.
         Tammy McClendon, Esq.
         Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         Two North Twentieth Bldg., North 20th St., Suite 1100
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 226-226-2282
         Fax: 226-226-2357
         E-mail: DavidD@dglawfirm.com
                 davidg@dglawfirm.com
                 tstokes@dglawfirm.com

              - and -

         Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
         Kieron F. Quinn, Esq.
         Quinn Gordon & Wolf
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408
         Baltimore, MD 21204-4803
         Phone: 1-410-825-2300
         Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the company are:

         David S. Hay, Esq.
         Janel E. LaBoda, Esq.
         Alan Hall Maclin, Esq.
         J. Patrick McDavitt, Esq.
         Robert J. Pratte, Esq.
         Margaret K. Savage, Esq.
         Briggs & Morgan
         2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 1-612-977-8400
         Fax: 1-612-977-8650

              - and -

         Sarah Y. Larson, Esq.
         Alexander J. Marshall, III, Esq.
         Cathy S. Wright, Esq.
         Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC
         AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Av. North
         Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
         Phone: 254-1000
         Fax: 254-1999
         E-mail: slarson@mcglaw.com


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Expects Nixing of Document Preparation Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp.,
expects the Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court to dismiss the purported
class action, “Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corporation.”
     
The suit was filed in April 2003.  It alleged that Irwin Mortgage charged a
document preparation fee in violation of Indiana law for services performed
by clerical personnel in completing legal documents related to mortgage
loans.

On June 18, 2004, the court certified a plaintiff class and held oral
argument on cross-motions for summary judgment on April 30, 2007.

On May 2, 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion in another
case, “Charter One Mortgage Corporation v. Condra,” which held that the
preparation of mortgage documents by non-attorneys does not necessarily
constitute the practice of law and that a lender’s charging a fee for the
preparation does not convert it into the unauthorized practice of law.

In light of the Charter One decision, the plaintiffs in Silke delivered to
the trial court their proposed Order on Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment and Entry of Final Judgment in favor of Irwin Mortgage.

The company therefore expects the court to dismiss the “Silke” litigation,
according to its July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com-- provides financial  
services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The Company focuses primarily on
the extension of credit to consumers and small businesses, as well as
providing the ongoing servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major lines
of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and home equity lending.  
Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries include Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Co., a commercial bank, which together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a
federal savings bank, which conducts the Company's commercial banking
activities; Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary,
and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending company.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settlement of Md. Loans Law Violations Suit Ok’d
----------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator has approved a settlement reached in a purported class action
against subsidiaries of Irwin Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin
Financial Corp.

The suit, “White v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co. and Irwin
Home Equity Corp.,” generally alleges violations of the Maryland Mortgage
Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It was filed on Jan.
5, 2006 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.

Plaintiffs alleged that Irwin charged or caused plaintiffs to pay certain
fees, costs and other charges that were excessive or illegal under Maryland
law in connection with loans made to plaintiffs by Irwin.

They sought certification of a class consisting of Maryland residents who
received mortgage loans from Irwin secured by real property in the State of
Maryland and who claim injury due to Irwin's lending practices.

They also sought damages under the Maryland Mortgage Lending Laws and the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act for, among other things, relief from further
interest payments on their loans, reimbursement of interest, charges, fees
and costs already paid, including prepayment penalties paid by the class, and
damages of three times the amount of all allegedly excessive or illegal
charges paid, plus attorneys' fees, expenses and costs.

On Feb. 17, 2006, Irwin filed a notice of removal and removed the case from
state to federal court.  On March 17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action back to state court and also filed an amended complaint
emphasizing the alleged state law basis for their claims.

On April 24, 2006, the plaintiffs initiated an arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association, “White v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust, et al.,” on
behalf of the same proposed class of persons.  

On Aug. 11, 2006, the court dismissed the lawsuit and compelled arbitration
of the claims asserted on behalf of the class.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, the parties tentatively agreed to settle this matter solely
on behalf of the individual plaintiffs for a nonmaterial amount.  

The arbitrator approved the settlement agreement, and the American
Arbitration Association arbitration was dismissed with prejudice, effective
June 6, 2007, thus concluding this matter, according to the company’s July
31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com-- provides financial  
services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The Company focuses primarily on
the extension of credit to consumers and small businesses, as well as
providing the ongoing servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major lines
of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and home equity lending.  
Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries include Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Co., a commercial bank, which together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a
federal savings bank, which conducts the Company's commercial banking
activities; Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary,
and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending company.


KENNETH COLE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Credit Card Purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego on April
17, 2007.

The putative class action alleges that the company's policies and practices
regarding the request of personal information during credit card purchases
violate the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act.  

The complaint seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

The Company has appointed counsel and is defending the action vigorously,
according to the company’s Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. -- http://www.kennethcole.com/--designs,  
sources and markets a range of fashion footwear and handbags.  Through
license agreements, the company designs an markets apparel and accessories
under its Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted and Tribeca
brand names.  In addition, Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. through a license
agreement has the rights to use the Bongo trademark for footwear, as well as
Gentle Souls for footwear under a trademark.  


MICROSOFT CORP: Motion to Junk Wash. "Windows Vista” Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington denied Microsoft Corp.’s attempts to dismiss a lawsuit alleging
that the company deceptively marketed its "Windows Vista," The Seattle Times
reports.

Judge Pechman ruled from the bench in favor of the plaintiff, Dianne Kelley,
on two out of four issues raised by Microsoft. She withheld judgment on the
other two.

Dianne L. Kelley filed the suit on March 29 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington.  Her legal representative in the case is
the law firm of Gordon Murray Tilden LLP (Class Action Reporter, July 11,
2007).

Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a marketing campaign
that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on computers alerting potential
buyers that they could upgrade to Vista when it became available.

Generally, Microsoft defines a PC as "Windows Vista Capable" when it uses "at
least" an 800MHz processor, 512 megabytes of RAM, and DirectX 9 compatible
graphics card.

However, according to the suit, "a large number" of those PCs were only
capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista, which lacks many of the
features, such as media center, and enhanced graphics, which Microsoft
advertises as included in Vista.

It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of "Windows Vista
Capable" computers free or reduced-price upgrades to Vista, the company
offered Home Basic to many customers.

Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the deception by
saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade to Windows Vista for just
$100.   

Microsoft had sought to have Ms. Kelley's case dismissed on the grounds that
she did not have proper standing to bring the case, the report said.

But Judge Pechman said that issue will be determined when the parties argue
over certification of the case as a class action, meaning it could expand to
include anyone who bought a Vista Capable PC under similar circumstances.

According to the report, Microsoft argued that Ms. Kelley did not show that
the sticker constituted a written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.  But the judge said she would consider arguments on this point and issue
a written ruling in the next two weeks.

Microsoft also argued that Ms. Kelley did not show a "causal link" between
the allegedly deceptive Vista Capable campaign and any damage she suffered --
a requirement for a claim under the Consumer Protection Act, the report
states.  The judge ruled that the plaintiffs "have pled enough" on this point
in case filings so far to allow the case to go forward.

She also sided with the plaintiff in allowing the claim of unjust enrichment
to go forward.

According to court filings, a jury trial is currently scheduled to begin Oct.
27, 2008.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge
Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          E-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com


NATIONAL DEALERS: Accused of Withholding Sales Reps’ Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Dealers Warranty, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Circuit Court for St. Louis County in the State of Missouri, Joe Harris
of the Courthouse News Service reports.

The complaint accuses National Dealers of illegally taking a chunk of new
sales representatives’ sales commissions and refuses to pay former employees
the commissions they earned.

Named plaintiffs John Schwab, Mark Govero and Corey Marietta say National
Dealers requires new sales reps to sign a contract authorizing National
Dealers to withhold $1,000 from the first month’s commissions in a violation
of Missouri law.

Plaintiffs claim National Dealers fails to pay former reps their commission
within 30 days, also a violation of state law.

This action is brought by former employees to recover all sales commissions
due and that remain unpaid.  
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all sales representatives who were
or are employed by National Dealers from Jan. 12, 2005 and were paid in whole
or in part on a commission basis, and had a portion of their first month's
commissions withheld by National Dealers.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule:

     (a) whether National Dealers wrongfully withheld
         commissions from sales representatives in violation of
         Section 407.913, R.S.Mo., as a matter of regular
         business practice;

     (b) whether National Dealers has failed to pay commissions
         due to sales representatives within 30 days of the end
         of their employment, in violation of Section
         407.912(3), R.S.Mo.; and

     (c) whether National Dealers entered into employment
         agreements providing for the withholding of commissions
         which are void under Section 407.915(2) R.S.Mo.

Plaintiffs pray the court grant the following relief:

     -- entering an order certifying this action as a
        plaintiffs' class action and appointing the named
        plaintiffs as representative of the plaintiffs' primary
        class;

     -- entering an order appointing Green Jacobson & Butsch,
        P.C. as class counsel for the plaintiffs' primary class;

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the members of
        the plaintiffs' primary class, and against defendant for
        actual damages for commissions earned, but not paid, an
        amount as if the sales representatives were still
        earning commissions calculated on an annualized pro-rate
        basis from the date of termination to the date of
        payment;

     -- enter judgment in favor of the named plaintiffs and the
        members of the plaintiffs' primary class for reasonable
        attorney's fees and costs, and to require defendant to
        pay the costs and expenses of class notice and class
        administration; and

     -- award plaintiffs' primary class pre-judgment interest,
        post-judgment interest, costs and any further and
        additional relief as to which it may be entitled.

National Dealers is engaged in the business of selling extended automobile
warranties by telephone on a nationwide basis. National Dealers generates its
business through the use o written advertisements to individual consumers
which are distributed by mass mail.  It does business as National Dealers
Warranty, National Dealer Warranty and United Wholesale Warranty.

The suit is "John M. Schwab et al. v. National Dealers Warranty, Inc., Case
No. 07CC-C03198," filed in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County in the
State of Missouri.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David T. Butsch
          James J. Simeri
          Bradley P. Schneider
          Green Jacobson & Butsch, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700
          Clayton, Missouri 63105
          Phone: 314-862-6800
          Fax: 314-862-1606
          E-mail: butsch@stlouislaw.com


PLAN 9: Recalls E Lights with Circuit Boards Posing Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plan 9 Inc., of White Salmon, Washington, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 340 E Lights.

The company said the circuit board in the lights can overheat, posing a risk
of fire.  No injuries have been reported.

The E Light is a 12-Volt DC light fixture with recessed LEDs typically
mounted on the ceiling or under a counter. The recalled light is a flat,
white rectangle with three LEDs (in the three-watt model) or six LEDs (in the
6-watt model).

These recalled LED lights were manufactured in the United States and are
being sold at various recreational vehicle parts retailers nationwide or the
Backwoods Solar Electric Systems Web site from February 2006 through May 2007
for between $40 and $60.

Pictures of the recalled LED lights:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07258a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07258b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately turn the power off at the circuit
breaker and contact Plan 9 for instructions on returning the product to the
firm for a full refund.

For additional information, call Plan 9 toll-free at (866) 522-1368 between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.E-Light-Recall.com


RALEIGH AMERICA: Recalls Bicycles with Forks Prone to Breakage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh America Inc., of Kent, Washington, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1200 units of 2007
Raleigh Cadent Bicycles with Carbonage Carbon Forks.

The company said the forks can break during normal use, causing the rider to
lose control, fall and suffer serious injuries.

Raleigh America has received three reports of forks breaking resulting in
injuries including a dislocated shoulder, a concussion and a broken jaw.

The recall involves the 2007 Raleigh Cadent 1.0, Cadent 2.0 and Cadent Carbon
bicycle models with carbon forks. “Raleigh” is printed on the down tube of
the bicycle, and the model name is printed on the top tube.

These recalled 2007 Raleigh Cadent bicycles with carbonage carbon forks were
manufactured in China and are being sold at Raleigh America dealers
nationwide from January 2007 through June 2007 for between $660 and $1930.

Pictures of recalled bicycles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07260a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07260b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07260c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled bicycles immediately and
return them to place of purchase. Raleigh bicycle dealers will replace the
forks at no charge.

For more information, call Raleigh America toll-free at (888) 805-6396
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.raleighusa.com


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Recalls Aerosol Cans at Risk of Exploding
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,000 Hi-Heat Aerosol
Coating Cans.

The company said the aerosol cans can over-pressurize and explode, posing a
risk of injury to consumers.

Sherwin-Williams has received one report of a consumer who suffered serious
facial injuries including a broken jaw, broken teeth and nose, split lip, and
a shattered eye socket when a can exploded.

The recall involves Thermo-Tec Hi-Heat aerosol coating used to color and
protect Thermo-Tec automotive exhaust wrap. The part number (#12002) is
printed above the UPC, and the date code (#B1815) is written on the bottom of
the can. The 11-ounce aerosol can is mostly blue with orange and yellow
flames and has an aluminum-colored cap. The can states “HI-HEAT COATING 2000°
F” in large white letters on the front of the can.

These recalled Hi-Heat Aerosol Coating Cans were manufactured in the United
States and are being sold at automotive supply stores, repair shops, and
parts suppliers nationwide from August 2005 through June 2007 for about $20.

Picture of the recalled Hi-Heat Aerosol Coating Cans:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07259.jpg

Consumers are advised not to handle the cans and contact Sherwin-Williams
immediately. A representative will be dispatched within 48 hours to safely
collect the recalled cans. Consumers will be sent a $15.00 check for each
recalled can that is collected.

For additional information, call Sherwin-Williams at (888) 304-3769 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.sherwin-williams.com


UBS FINANCIAL: IL Suit Seeks to Recover Brokers’ Underpayments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago law firm Block & Landsman partnered with Nicholas Iavarone of the
Iavarone Law Firm to file a class action seeking to recover underpayments to
auction rate securities brokers of UBS Financial Services, Inc.  The suit is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit alleges that as a result of an error in UBS' compensation computer
system, brokers were not paid the full 25 basis points a year on each $25,000
auction rate security purchased by the brokers' customers.  The underpayments
allegedly dated back to 1993.  

Auction rate securities are debt securities, typically issued by a
municipality, in which the yield is reset on each payment date via a Dutch
auction in which all successful bidders receive the same yield (the lowest
yield that results in the sale of the entire amount to be issued). UBS is one
of the major participants in the $200 billion dollar auction rate market.

"UBS attempted to fit a security sold weekly with compensation based on a
yearly percentage," said Alan Block. "The attempt to essentially fit a fixed
compensation rate in a rounding commission system resulted in an error which,
as a result of the tens of billions of dollars of ARS products sold by UBS,
materially under-compensated the brokers."

Larry Landsman, another principal of Bock & Landsman said, "We are excited
with our partnering with Nick who brings twenty-seven years of experience
representing brokers in litigation involving lost compensation, non-compete
agreements, defamatory U-5 filings and in regulatory investigations."

The suit is “Rosenbach v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
03022,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan F. Block
          Block & Landsman
          11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 251-1144
          E-mail: alan@block-landsman.com

          - and -

          Nicholas P. Iavarone
          Iavarone Law Firm, P.C.
          209 S. LaSalle Street, #702
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 239-8830
          Fax: (866) 554-8350
          E-mail: niavarone@iavaronefirm.com

Representing defendants are:

          Steven Thomas Catlett
          Giselle Marie Perez
          Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, 30th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 499-6000 or (312) 499-6055
          E-mail: stevencatlett@Paulhastings.com or
                  giselleperez@paulhastings.com


US POSTAL: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Privacy Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Postal Service is facing a complaint seeking class-action status in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of Washington over
alleged misuse of data, Giselle Abramovich of the DM News reports.

Named plaintiff, Lance McDermott -- a mechanic for mail-processing equipment
at the US Postal Service -- allege in a complaint filed July 30 that the USPS
sold his private data and the data of other workers to credit card companies
and others without consent.

Mr. McDermott claims he received numerous mailings during the past two years
from a variety of corporate interests.

According to the filing, “The Postal Service is subject to the privacy
protection requirements of the Privacy Act. Despite this, the USPS allows
private businesses, as part of its Strategic Business Initiatives plan, to
access and utilize for profit its employee master file, containing personal,
private employee information, including the complete home addresses of all
career and non-career, full- and part-time employees.”

Plaintiff is seeking class-action status on behalf of all postal workers and
wants the USPS to pay back any money it may have made by violating the
Privacy Act.

According to the report, the USPS teams up with companies such as Nextel,
Visa and Sprint to send marketing messages to postal employees. The co-
branded credit card, cell phone and life insurance offers feature the Postal
Service’s logo. The Postal Service says in its Strategic Business Initiatives
plan that such agreements provide value to their employees, the report states.

Ms. Abramovich reports that USPS employees can opt out of receiving such
offers. However, USPS workers are not given the opportunity to sign consent
forms authorizing these types of solicitations.  The Privacy Act specifically
forbids federal agencies from releasing employee data without permission, Ms.
Abramovich states.

The Privacy Act says, “No agency shall disclose any record which is contained
in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to
another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior
written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.”

The suit is “McDermott v. United States Postal Service, Case No. 2:07-cv-
01174-JLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, under Judge James L. Robart.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Steve W. Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapira LLP
          1301 5th Ave., STE 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Pays $40Mil for Property Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corp., in the 2007-2nd quarter, made payments totaling about US$40
million for previously settled asbestos property damage claims, according to
the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2007.

The current estimate of the cost of remaining asbestos property damage
settlements that have not been paid, and associated legal fees, is about US$8
million and is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2007.

Asbestos property damage claims against the debtors are not part of the
asbestos trust or the channeling injunction. The Company’s plan of
reorganization provided that all settled or otherwise resolved asbestos
property damage claims that were timely filed in the Company’s reorganization
proceedings will be paid in full.

During the Company’s reorganization proceedings, the court entered an order
requiring that asbestos property damage claims against the debtors be filed
by Jan. 15, 2003.

In response to that deadline, about 1,400 asbestos property damage claims
were timely filed in the debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings and an additional 70
claims were filed after the deadline.

During the Company’s reorganization proceedings, more than 950 claims were
disallowed or withdrawn, leaving about 520 claims pending.

In 2006, the Company reached agreements to settle all of the remaining
asbestos property damage claims filed in its reorganization proceedings, with
the exception of one small claim brought by a homeowner.

In 2006, the Company made total payments of about US$99 million for these
asbestos property damage settlements. In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company
reversed US$27 million of its reserve for asbestos-related claims.

At the end of the 2007-1st quarter, the Company’s estimate of the cost of
asbestos property damage settlements that had not been paid, and associated
legal fees, was about US$48 million and was included in accrued expenses and
other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2007.

Chicago-based USG Corp.’s North American Gypsum division manufactures
SHEETROCK brand gypsum products and joint compound and DUROCK brand cement
board. The Company also manufactures FIBEROCK wall panels, poured gypsum
underlayments, and construction plaster products. The Company’s Worldwide
Ceilings division offers interior ceiling grid systems and acoustic tile. The
Company’s Building Products Distribution division distributes building
products through L&W Supply.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits v. Transocean Units Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Transocean Inc.’s subsidiaries have been named as co-defendants in
several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

These complaints involve over 700 persons that allege personal injury arising
out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by some of these
defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO's subsidiaries to
whom the Company may owe indemnity. Further, the complaints name other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly
manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors used those
asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land based
drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and
other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability,
and claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company has not yet been able to conduct extensive discovery or determine
the number of plaintiffs that were employed by its subsidiaries or otherwise
have any connection with its drilling operations.

Houston-based Transocean Inc. provides offshore contract drilling services
for oil and gas wells. The Company also provides integrated services. At June
30, 2007, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated
82 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco’s Reserves Rise to $11.5M at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeco Corp., in the first six months of 2007, recorded a US$11.5 million
increase in asbestos reserves related to its participation in reinsurance
pools, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007.

Seattle-based Safeco Corp. sells property and casualty insurance to drivers,
homeowners and small- and mid-sized businesses. The Company also sells Surety
bonds to contractors and businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Still in Arbitration w/ Equitas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc., since Nov. 22, 2006, has been involved in asbestos-
related arbitration with Equitas, a reinsurer participating in excess of loss
reinsurance agreements, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

The Company filed a demand for arbitration in New York against Equitas over
unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company has previously
presented to Equitas (the “Equitas Arbitration”).

The recovery demands are for the 2005 settlement of two class action lawsuits
involving large asbestos claims (together, the “2005 Settled Claims”), which
2005 Settled Claims are being paid through 2007.

Equitas has not indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries on related
pro rata reinsurance agreements for such 2005 Settled Claims or with respect
to excess of loss or pro rata reinsurance for a 2004 Settled Claim.

The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from Equitas for ceded
paid and unpaid losses on the 2005 Settled Claims is about US$2.7 million.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group Inc. writes specialty lines of
insurance and reinsurance. The Company's various subsidiaries write marine,
liability, and other lines of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Settles Lawsuit with ACE Int’l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc. and INA International Insurance Co. (Ace
International), in June 2007, entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement
over asbestos-related arbitration, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Company filed a demand for arbitration in New York
against Ace International, a reinsurer participating in pro rata reinsurance
agreements, over unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company
has previously presented to Ace International (the “Ace International
Arbitration”).

The recovery demands were for the 2005 Settled Claims and for the 2004
settlement of another class action lawsuit involving a third large asbestos
claim (the “2004 Settled Claim” and, together with the 2005 Settled Claims,
the “Settled Claims”), which 2004 Settled Claim is being paid over seven
years beginning in 2005.

The June 2007 agreement provided for:

(1) The payment by Ace International to the Company of the full amount of
ceded paid losses on the Settled Claims,

(2) The agreement by Ace International not to contest future billings on the
2004 Settled Claim, and

(3) The withdrawal by the Company of the Ace International Arbitration.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group Inc. writes specialty lines of
insurance and reinsurance. The Company's various subsidiaries write marine,
liability, and other lines of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $29.9M for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc. reserved a gross of US$29,879,000 for asbestos
exposures for the six months ended June 30, 2006, compared with US$37,171,000
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company reserved a net of US$20,405,000 for asbestos exposures for the
six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$21,381,000 for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s exposure to asbestos liability principally stems from marine
liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the mid-1980s.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 are
for:

(i) The 2005-4th quarter settlements of two large claims aggregating about
US$28 million for excess insurance policy limits exposed to class action
suits against two insureds involved in the manufacturing or distribution of
asbestos products, each settlement is being paid over a two year period that
started in 2006;

(ii) The 2004 settlement of a large claim amounting to about US$25 million
exposed to a class action suit which settlement is being paid over a seven
year period that started in June 2005;

(iii) Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than incidental
asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of products that contained
asbestos; and

(iv) Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time.

The ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$20.6 million at June
30, 2007, compared with US$23.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company increased its provision for
uncollectible reinsurance recoverables for asbestos losses by US$1.6 million.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group Inc. writes specialty lines of
insurance and reinsurance. The Company's various subsidiaries write marine,
liability, and other lines of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Minerals Tech. Total 26 at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. recorded 26 pending asbestos-related cases in the
2007-2nd quarter, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to
the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a
number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos
containing materials.

To date, one asbestos case has been dismissed. One new asbestos case was
filed in the 2007-2nd quarter.

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuit to date. The aggregate cost
to the Company for the legal defense of asbestos and silica cases in 2006
amounted to US$100,000.

Costs for the legal defense of these cases in the first half of 2007 were
US$34,400.

To date, the Company has not been liable to plaintiffs in any of these
lawsuits and it does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in
these lawsuits.

New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc.’s precipitated calcium carbonate
(PCC) products brighten and whiten paper, polymers, and teeth. Paper mills
are major users of PCC, along with food and pharmaceutical companies, which
use it for calcium and as a buffering agent in tablets. PCC products account
for about half of the Company’s sales. The Company also sells monolithic and
pre-cast refractory products, which are used to coat steel, cement, and glass
production surfaces with high-temperature-resistant material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Still Faces Cases in 3 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Co., along with other defendants, continues to face
lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota
alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.

These suits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified
amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.

It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire
and cable in question or whether the Company distributed the wire and cable
alleged to have caused any injuries.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at
issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of
such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that it
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided
indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims
that the Company said it believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage
proves inadequate.

The Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these
claims.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the
applicable insurance policies and all defense of these claims has been
handled by the applicable insurance companies.

Houston Wire & Cable Co., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, HWC Wire &
Cable Co., Advantage Wire & Cable, and Cable Management Services Inc.,
distributes specialty electrical wire and cable to the U.S. electrical
distribution market through 11 locations in 10 states throughout the U.S. The
Company is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $232.5M Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.’s asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$232.5 million as
of June 30, 2007, compared with US$233.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

The Company’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$230.2 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 11,
2007)

The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$30 million
as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$36.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to US$37.6 million
as of June 30, 2006, compared with US$87.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company faces asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits and claims which
arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of the Company’s former subsidiaries
to a limited industrial market (“products claims”).

The Company also faces lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos at facilities
formerly or presently owned or operated by the Company (“premises claims”).

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: Hercules Inc. Records 26T Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc., as of June 30, 2007, recorded about 26,000 unresolved asbestos-
related claims, of which about 950 were premises claims and the rest were
product claims.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 26,034 unresolved asbestos-
related claims, of which about 980 were premises claims and the rest were
products claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007)

The Company faces asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits and claims which
arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of the Company’s former subsidiaries
to a limited industrial market (“products claims”).

The Company also faces lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos at facilities
formerly or presently owned or operated by the Company (“premises claims”).

There were also about 1,850 unpaid claims which have been settled or are
subject to the terms of a settlement agreement.  In addition, as of June 30,
2007, there were about 15 claims which have either been dismissed without
payment or are in the process of being dismissed without payment, but with
plaintiffs retaining the right to re-file should they be able to establish
exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which the Company bears
liability.

Between Jan. 1, 2007 and June 30, 2007, the Company received about 633 new
claims. During that same period, the Company settled about US$13.5 million to
resolve and defend asbestos matters, including US$7.5 million directly
related to settlement payments and about US$6 million for defense costs.

The Company’s primary and first level excess insurance policies that provided
coverage for these asbestos-related matters exhausted their products limits
at or before the end of July 2003.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company initiated litigation against the solvent excess
insurance carriers that provided insurance coverage for asbestos-related
liabilities in a matter captioned Hercules Inc. v. OneBeacon, et al., Civil
Action No. 02C-11-237 (SCD), Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Beginning in August 2004 and continuing through October 2004, the Company
entered into settlements with all of the insurers named in that lawsuit. As a
result, the lawsuit was dismissed in November 2004.

The Company entered into several settlements with its insurers in 2004. The
first settlement involved insurance policies issued by certain underwriters
at Lloyd’s, London, and reinsured by Equitas Ltd. and related entities
(“Equitas”) (the “First Settlement Agreement”).

As part of that settlement, Equitas placed US$67 million into a trust
(the “Equitas Trust”) set up to reimburse the Company for a portion of the
costs it incurred to defend and resolve certain asbestos claims.

In exchange, the Company released the underwriters from past, present and
future claims under those policies, agreed to the cancellation of those
policies, and agreed to indemnify the underwriters from any claims asserted
under those policies.

In addition, the settlement provided that if federal asbestos reform
legislation was not enacted into law on or before Jan. 3, 2007, any funds
remaining in the Equitas Trust would be available to the Company to pay
asbestos-related liabilities or to use for other corporate purposes. Federal
asbestos reform legislation was not enacted on or before Jan. 3, 2007.

As a result, on Jan. 4, 2007, the Company received as a lump sum distribution
about US$41.3 million, an amount representing a complete liquidation of the
remaining balance of the Equitas Trust, including accrued interest, and the
Equitas Trust has been terminated.

In addition, effective Oct. 8, 2004, the Company entered into a comprehensive
confidential settlement agreement with respect to certain insurance policies
issued by various insurance companies operating in the London insurance
market, and by one insurance company located in the United States
(the “Second Settlement Agreement”).

Under the terms of the Second Settlement Agreement, the participating
insurers agreed to place a total of about US$102.2 million into a trust
(the “Second Trust”), with such amount to be paid over a four-year period
commencing in January 2005 and ending in 2008.

In exchange, the Company released the insurers from past, present and future
claims under those policies, agreed to the cancellation of those policies,
and agreed to indemnify the insurers from any claims asserted under those
policies.

Any funds remaining in the Second Trust subsequent to Dec. 31, 2008 may be
used by the Company to defend and resolve both asbestos-related claims and
non-asbestos related claims.

As of June 30, 2007, about US$85.1 million of the US$102.2 million had been
placed into the Second Trust, and the Second Trust had a balance of about
US$20.9 million.

As of June 30, 2007, defense costs and settlement payments for qualifying
asbestos products claims of about US$93 million have been credited towards
the range of US$330 million to US$370 million.

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: Hanson PLC Has 3,800 New Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson PLC recorded about 3,800 new asbestos claims filed in the first half
of 2007, compared with 2,750 new claims in the first half of 2006, according
to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

Resolutions for the first half of 2007 were around 4,250, over 90 percent of
which were dismissals. Resolutions for the first half of 2006 were around
6,350.

Outstanding claimants at the end of June 2007 were about 107,150, a reduction
of 450 compared with 107,600 at the end of December 2006.

Gross costs in the 2007-1st half, before insurance, amounted to US$28.9
million (US$27.1 million in the 2006-1st half). Net costs after insurance
before tax in the 2007-1st half were US$27.5 million (US$24.9 million in the
2006-1st half).

Gross costs in the second half of 2007 are expected to be similar to those in
the first half.

An asbestos provision is maintained for those gross costs considered to be
both probable and reliably estimable. At present, this is equivalent to about
eight years of gross cost at an average of around US$60 million per annum.

The net US$22 million charge for the half year is shown within discontinued
operations in the income statement and is equivalent to GBP6.6 million after
tax and discounting.

The Company’s U.S subsidiaries, which are affected by asbestos claims, intend
to settle those cases with proven disease and product identification.

Certain of these subsidiaries will continue to litigate and negotiate for
additional insurance cover.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Continues to Face Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corp. has been named as a defendant in certain lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in Company-made products,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these suits.
The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the Company as
defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had
not supplied products to the plaintiffs’ places of work or were settled for
minimal amounts below the expected defense costs.

Neither the outcome of these suits nor the potential for liability can be
determined at this time.

Batavia, N.Y.-based Graham Corp. makes vacuum systems, pumps, compressors,
and heat exchangers designed to create vacuums, condense steam, or produce
heat. The Company sells its equipment to manufacturers in the petroleum,
plastics, chemicals, food processing, and other industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $2.8M Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners LP’s current asbestos and environmental remediation
liability amounted to US$2.8 million as of June 30, 2007, compared with
US$4.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-
K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$2.7 million in current
liabilities to address remediation of asbestos-containing materials. (Class
Action Reporter, May 4, 2007)

The Company’s long-term A&E remediation liability amounted to US$3.7 million
as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$3.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$4.1 million in long-term
asbestos and environmental liabilities, compared with US$3.3 million as of
Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007)

The liability is primarily to address remediation of contaminated sites,
asbestos-containing materials, management of hazardous waste material
disposal, and outstanding air quality measures for certain of the Company’s
liquids and natural gas assets.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners LP (f/k/a Lakehead Pipe Line Partners)
owns the 1,900-mile U.S. portion of the world’s longest liquid petroleum
pipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment (owned and operated by
Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans some 3,500 miles across North
America. Enbridge Energy Management LLC owns an 18 percent stake in the
Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Faces Claims in Six States
----------------------------------------------------------------
A CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary, Fairmont Supply Co., continues to face about
25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
Maryland, Mississippi, and New Jersey, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

Because a small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and
supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the
pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs
against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to
determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by
Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in
certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the
availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time and,
in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these
actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, payments by Fairmont with
respect to asbestos cases have not been material.

Pittsburgh-based CONSOL Energy Inc. has some 4.3 billion tons of proved
reserves, mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin,
and produces about 70 million tons of coal annually. The Company also engages
in natural gas exploration and production. The Company’s proved reserves
total 1.3 trillion cu. ft.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Has 8,500 Claimants at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. recorded 8,500 asbestos claimants for the six months
ended June 30, 2007, compared with 8,600 claimants for the year ended Dec.
31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Aug. 1, 2007.

Cytec Industries Inc., for the three months ended March 31, 2007, recorded
8,500 claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, May 11,
2007)

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 300 claimants
associated with claims closed and 200 claimants associated with claims opened.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 15,800 claimants
associated with claims closed and 2,200 claimants associated with claims
opened.

The aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability amounted to
US$70.3 million as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$72.4 million as of Dec.
31, 2006.

The related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as well as claims
for past payments was US$39.9 million at June 30, 2007 and US$40.9 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The asbestos liability included amounted to US$54.2 million at June 30, 2007
and US$54.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past
payments amounted to US$38.2 million at June 30, 2007 and US$38.1 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

West Paterson, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. produces the building-block
chemicals from which it makes engineered materials (composites and adhesives
for the aerospace industry), specialty chemicals (resins and coatings for
metal, plastic, and wood), and additives used in treating water and in
industrial processes. The Company also sells its building-block chemicals
(acrylonitrile, melamine, and sulfuric acid) to third parties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces 1 Miss. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. continues to be a co-defendant in an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007.

The suit alleges that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized
drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company’s case, allowed such
drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity from Murphy
Exploration & Production Co. under the terms of the Company’s 1992 asset
purchase agreement with them.

Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. is a contract offshore oil and
gas driller capable of descending the deep blue to depths of 7,500 feet. The
Company has 30 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-up rigs (mobile drilling platforms),
and one drillship. Subsidiary Diamond Offshore Team Solutions provides
project management and other drilling-related services. Loews Corp. owns
about 51 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid for S.C. to Review Cleco Suits Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court, on June 15, 2007, denied claimants’ request to
review asbestos rulings, which are in favor of Cleco Corp., according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits by individuals who
claimed injury due to asbestos exposure. These two lawsuits were dismissed by
the trial court.

However, the claimants appealed the trial court’s dismissal.

On March 21, 2007, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

The claimants filed a request for review of the appeals court decision with
the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Pineville, La.-based Cleco Corp.’s utility unit, Cleco Power, generates,
transmits, and distributes electricity to 268,000 residential and business
customers in 104 communities in Louisiana. Cleco Power has a generating
capacity of more than 1,350 MW from its interests in fossil-fueled power
plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $39Mil Liabilities at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$39
million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$46 million at Sept. 30, 2006,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007.

The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$10 million
at June 30, 2007, compared with US$11 million at Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos-related recoveries amounted to US$27 million
at June 30, 2007, compared with US$30 million at Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos-related recoveries amounted to US$7 million at
June 30, 2007, compared with US$8 million at Sept. 30, 2006.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components serving light vehicle, commercial
truck, trailer and specialty original equipment (OE) manufacturers and
certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has 40,134 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.’s subsidiary, Maremont Corp., had about 40,134 pending
asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2007 and 51,895 pending claims at Sept.
30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007.

Maremont, at March 31, 2007, had about 40,125 pending asbestos-related
claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007)

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through
1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries Inc.
acquired Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products.

Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual
injury has been alleged very few claimants have established that a Maremont
product caused their injuries.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in
individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking
damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury
and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components serving light vehicle, commercial
truck, trailer and specialty original equipment (OE) manufacturers and
certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $7M for Rockwell Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc. has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell
Automation Inc. legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$7 million at June
30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2007.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of
Rockwell products many years ago.

Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the time of the
spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor Automotive Inc. from Rockwell
in 1997.

There are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company, together
with many other companies, as defendants.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell’s
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos
attributable to Rockwell’s products, and past experience has shown that most
of the claimants will never identify any of Rockwell’s products.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these claims with
no payment to claimants.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of a broad range of
integrated systems, modules and components serving light vehicle, commercial
truck, trailer and specialty original equipment (OE) manufacturers and
certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Rise to 9,887
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., for the six months ended June 30, 2007, recorded
9,887 open asbestos-related claims filed against it and certain of its
subsidiaries, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

The Company recorded 9,442 open asbestos-related claims filed against it at
Dec. 31, 2006, compared with 16,900 claims at Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action
Reporter, March 16, 2007)

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 535 claims settled
or dismissed and paid a gross of US$8,826,000 for settlement and defense.

Claims have been asserted against the alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of
certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries (“Asbestos Liability”) and of
an inactive Company subsidiary.

Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a
number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and
federal courts.

The Company’s long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$127,873,356 at June
30, 2007 and US$128,014,944 at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos liability amounted to US$12 million at June
30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$102,847,965 at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$11.7
million at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have an arrangement
(the “Coverage Arrangement”) with insurers responsible for historical primary
and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (the “Paying
Insurers”).

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden Buffalo Inc.
is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims
arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo
Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company (the “Products”).

The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on access to
the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the limits of the
policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at any time for
any covered claim arising out of a Product.

In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products will erode
the coverage under the policies available to the Company and the relevant
subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability alleged to arise out of not only the
Products but also other historical products of the Company and its
subsidiaries covered by the applicable policies.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. operates in two business units. The Company’s forged
and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and
aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo
Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is Pittsburgh-based.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin’l. Reserves $455.6M at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group Inc.’s property and casualty insurance group, at
June 30, 2007, recorded US$455.6 million, net of reinsurance recoverables, of
asbestos & environmental reserves, according to a Company report, on Form 8-
K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company completed the previously announced
comprehensive study of its asbestos and environmental exposures relating to
the run-off operations of its P&C group and its exposures related to former
railroad and manufacturing operations and sites.

The P&C group's asbestos reserves were increased by US$30.8 million (net of
reinsurance).

The primary causes of the increase in asbestos reserves were an increase in
settlement amounts attributable to mesothelioma claims, the impact of a large
case settlement in principle with an installer of material containing
asbestos, and continuing uncertainties related to non-product liability
exposures.

At June 30, 2007, the Company’s three-year survival ratio was 17.4 times paid
losses for the asbestos reserves and 11.4 times paid losses for the total A&E
reserves.

These ratios compare favorably with A.M. Best's most recent report on A&E
survival ratios which were nine for asbestos and eight for total industry A&E
reserves.

In addition, the study encompassed reserves for asbestos and environmental
exposures of its former railroad and manufacturing operations. These reserves
were increased by US$43 million pre-tax.

The increase of US$19 million in asbestos reserves was the result of
increasing estimates of the cost of mesothelioma claims partially offset by
lower estimated overall claim counts.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based American Financial Group Inc., through the operations
of the Great American Insurance Group, is engaged primarily in property and
casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for
businesses, and in the sale of traditional fixed, indexed and variable
annuities and a variety of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.35B for Claims at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp.’s reserves for asbestos claims, at June 30, 2007, amounted
to US$1.35 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$805 million,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007.

The Company’s reserves for asbestos claims, at March 31, 2007, amounted to
US$1.36 billion, net of insurance recoverables of US$812 million. (Class
Action Reporter, May 4, 2007)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s reserves for asbestos claims amounted to
US$1.38 billion, net of reinsurance recoverable of US$823 million.

About 63 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at June
30, 2007 were for incurred but not reported estimated losses.

About 67 percent of the total net A&E reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 were for
incurred but not reported estimated losses.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corp., through subsidiary Allstate
Insurance Co., is a property-liability insurance company with various
property-liability and life and investment subsidiaries, including Allstate
Life Insurance Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Has 1,648 Cases with 9,810 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corp., as of June 30, 2007, was party to about 1,648 pending asbestos-
related cases involving an aggregate of about 9,810 claimants, according to
the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 3, 2007.

These claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise)
manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 287 claims filed,
951 claims dismissed, and 77 claims settled. The average settlement amount
per claim was US$10,396 and the total defense costs were US$2,649,341.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 3,766 claims
filed, 12,508 claims dismissed, and 123 claims settled. The average
settlement amount per claim was US$5,613 and the total defense costs were
US$4,895,104.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its
products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to
acquisition. The Company said it believes that many of its pending cases
relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used.

Most of the claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 9,810 claims
pending at June 30, 2007, 172 set forth specific amounts of damages.

Of the 172 claims, 148 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total
damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages) and 24 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which includes
compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 153 of the 172 claims sought
between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 19 sought between US$1 million and US$5
million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, 148 of the 172 claims sought between
US$1 million and US$2.5 million and 24 sought US$5 million. In addition,
relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer
claims have gone past the discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some
of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about US$4.6 million. All
relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature.

To date, about 50 percent of the Company’s costs related to settlement and
defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be
provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary
insurance is exhausted.

Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corp. and its subsidiaries manufacture
products for commercial, industrial, and consumer markets. The Company is
engaged in five business segments: Packaging Systems, Energy Products,
Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products, and Recreational Accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M at June for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., in the three months ended June 30,
2007, recorded US$1 million as accrual for asbestos abatement on the
Company’s redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort.

In the three months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded net
restructuring and other special charges of about US$49 million primarily
related to the Company’s redevelopment of Bal Harbour.

The Company plans to demolish the current hotel and rebuild a St. Regis hotel
along with branded residences and fractional units.

Bal Harbour was closed for business on July 1, 2007.


COMPANY PROFILE

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.
1111 Westchester Ave.
White Plains, N.Y. 10604
Phone: 914-640-8100
Fax: 914-640-8591
http://www.starwoodhotels.com

Description:
The Company’s principal business is hotels and leisure, which is comprised of
a worldwide hospitality network of about 900 full-service hotels, vacation
ownership resorts and residential developments primarily serving two markets:
luxury and upscale.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face ASARCO Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp.’s direct and indirect parent corporations, including
Americas Mining Corp. and Grupo Mexico, have from time to time been named
parties in various litigations, including asbestos-related, involving Asarco.

In August 2002 the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim alleging
fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC’s then-proposed purchase of the
Company from Asarco. That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated
Feb. 2, 2003.

In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in SCC from Asarco.  In October
2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other parties, not including
the Company, were named in a lawsuit filed in New York State court in
connection with alleged asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC’s
purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance.

The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result of the Aug.
9, 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco.

On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in possession,
alleging many of the matters previously claimed in the New York State
lawsuit, including that AMC’s purchase of the Company from Asarco should be
voided as a fraudulent conveyance.  

In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy petitions in
connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In July 2005, the unionized
workers of Asarco commenced a work stoppage.

As a result of various factors, including the work stoppage, on Aug. 9, 2005
Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.

Asarco’s bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its
subsidiaries.

Asarco’s bankruptcy could result in additional claims being filed against
Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or
its subsidiaries.

With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Southern Copper Corp. mines, smelts,
and refines copper at its Toquepala and Cuarjone mines. The Company produces
blister copper and copper cathodes at its smelter and refinery in Peru. The
Company produces around 1.5 billion pounds of copper annually. That copper is
sold in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, where it's used mainly for building,
construction, and electronics. Americas Mining Corp., a subsidiary of Grupo
Mexico, owns 75 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Continues to Face Whiteley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.’s subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. continues to
face a smoking-related asbestos lawsuit, styled Whiteley v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

On March 20, 2000, in Whiteley v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (a case filed in
April 1999 in Superior Court, San Francisco County, Calif.), a jury awarded
the plaintiffs US$1.72 million in compensatory damages and US$20 million in
punitive damages.

RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris were each assigned US$10 million of the
punitive damages award. The defendants appealed the final judgment to the
California Court of Appeals.

On April 7, 2004, the court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the
case for a new trial.

On April 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
alleging that use of the defendants’ products, along with exposure to
asbestos, caused Mrs. Whiteley to develop lung cancer and ultimately die, and
the case name became Whiteley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

The jury awarded the plaintiff US$2.46 million in compensatory damages
jointly against RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris on May 2, 2007, and returned a
punitive damages verdict award of US$250,000 against RJR Tobacco on May 9,
2007.

RJR Tobacco filed its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in
the alternative, for a new trial on July 31, 2007, and if necessary, RJR
Tobacco will appeal.

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiaries
include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd.,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc.,
and Conwood Company LLC, Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and
Rosswil LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Suit v. RJR Tobacco, B&W Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia court and
filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is currently stayed, according to the
Company’s quarterly U.S. Securities and Exchange Report dated Aug. 2, 2007.

In Parsons v. AC & S Inc. (a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court,
Ohio County, W.Va.), the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies
of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover
US$1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons’ use of tobacco products and exposure
to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the plaintiffs’ motion
to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial panel on multi-district
litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants (Nitral Liquidators Inc., Desseaux Corp.
of North American and Armstrong World Industries) filed bankruptcy petitions
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed
with respect to all defendants.

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiaries
include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd.,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc.,
and Conwood Company LLC, Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and
Rosswil LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chemical Receives $5Mil for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corp., in the 2007-2nd quarter, received US$5 million, as
initial settlement for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 3, 2007.

An inactive Company subsidiary that was acquired in 1978 sold certain
products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among
the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to
asbestos.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets
other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received in 2005 and early
in the 2007-2nd quarter.

To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there
have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary.

Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims
against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary’s
total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about
US$12,700,000 (excluding costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these
cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the
Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these
cases pursued against the subsidiary.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary’s primary and excess insurers who
had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all
damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future
asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an
insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted
that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted.

The subsidiary has challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims
being brought against the subsidiary. In response to this challenge, two of
these carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with
the subsidiary for US$15 million in late 2005 and US$20 million in the 2007-
1st quarter.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement are structured
to be received over a four-year period with annual installments of US$5
million, the first of which was received early in the 2007-2nd quarter.

Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corp. rolls out specialty chemicals
for industrial and manufacturing processes. The Company produces rolling
lubricants used in making rolled aluminum products and hot- and cold-rolled
steel products. The Company also makes corrosion preventives, metal finishing
compounds, hydraulic fluids, and machining, grinding, and forming compounds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Awaits Date of Oral Argument
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas Inc. states that Cooper Industries LLC’s appeal has been fully
briefed by all parties, and Cooper is awaiting scheduling by the appellate
court of a date for oral argument, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007.

On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against the Company,
Pneumo Abex LLC, and the Trustee of the Trust (the “Trustee”), captioned
Cooper Industries LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 09214
(Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.).

The claims involve the Trust and an insurance policy bought by the Company in
the 2002-2nd quarter. The insurance coverage related to sites owned and
operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its units. The trust, which was
established in 2000 with the proceeds from an insurance settlement, bought
insurance coverage and funded coverage for remedial and other costs related
to the sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its units.

Cooper asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that previously
was in the Trust and that was used to purchase the insurance policy. Cooper
claims that Trust funds should have been distributed for underlying Pneumo
Abex asbestos claims indemnified by Cooper.

Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the Trust because
of the Trustee’s decision to use the Trust funds to purchase the insurance
policy.

Pneumo Abex LLC, the corporate successor to the Company’s prior subsidiary,
has been dismissed from the suit.

During the 2006-2nd quarter, the Trustee’s motion to dismiss, in which the
Company had joined, was granted and three counts against the Company based on
the use of Trust funds were dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts
against the Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue
these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust.

The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the remaining counts
against it. The Company’s motion was granted during the 2006-3rd quarter and
all remaining counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all rulings by
the court dismissing the counts against the Company and the Trustee.

Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas Inc. is the world’s No. 2 Pepsi bottler. The
Company also Dr Pepper, Lipton Iced Teas, Welch's fruit drinks, Schweppes
(tonic water, ginger ale), Starbucks Frappuccino, and bottled water. The
Company operates in 19 U.S. states (mostly in the Midwest) and holds about 19
percent of the U.S. market for Pepsi products. PepsiCo owns 80 percent of the
Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Suits v. Pride Int’l. Units Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Pride International Inc., since August 2004, have
been co-defendants in several asbestos-related complaints filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 2, 2007.

Several hundred individuals in these complaints allege that they were
employed by some of the named defendants between about 1965 and 1986.

Additional suits have been filed since August 2004.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used products
containing asbestos in offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment.

The plaintiffs assert claims based on negligence and strict liability and
claims under the Jones Act.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that are not
affiliated with the Company, including companies that allegedly manufactured
drilling related products containing asbestos that are the subject of the
complaints.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. Eight individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been
identified as allegedly having worked for the Company or one of its
affiliates or predecessors.

Discovery and investigation is ongoing to determine whether these individuals
were employed in the Company’s offshore operations during the alleged period
of exposure.

Houston-based Pride International Inc. provides contract drilling and related
services, operating offshore and on land. The Company provides contract
drilling services to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies
through the operation and management of 63 offshore rigs and 214 land-based
drilling and workover rigs. The Company also has two ultra-deepwater
drillships under construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $190.3Mil at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp.’s claim reserves for asbestos and
environmental matters, at June 30, 2007, amounted to a gross of US$190.3
million and a net of US$153.4 million, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

The Company’s asbestos and environmental claim reserves, at March 31, 2007,
amounted to a gross of US$192.8 million and a net of US$154.6 million. (Class
Action Reporter, May 18, 2007)

The Company’s claim reserves for asbestos and environmental, at Dec. 31,
2006, amounted to a gross of US$194.9 million and a net of US$157.8 million.

Chicago-based Old Republic International Corp., through subsidiaries covering
the U.S. and Canada, is an insurance holding company operating in three
primary areas: Old Republic General Insurance, Mortgage Guaranty, and Title
Insurance Groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 2,599 New Claims at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc.’s subsidiary Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. received about
2,599 new asbestos-related claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007,
compared with 3,886 new claims during the six months ended June 30, 2006.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. received about 1,635 new asbestos-related
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2007, compared with 2,220
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
May 11, 2007)

Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege
that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan
Life’s employees during the period from the 1920s through about the 1950s and
allege that Metropolitan Life learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to
disclose those health risks.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos.

Since 2002, trial courts in California, Utah, Georgia, New York, Texas, and
Ohio have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life. Some
courts have denied Metropolitan Life’s motions to dismiss.

New York-based MetLife Inc. and its subsidiaries, including Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., provide insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S., Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The Company
offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail
banking and other financial services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Units Face Six Suits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of GlobalSantaFe Corp. still face six asbestos-related
lawsuits in Mississippi, five of which are pending in the Circuit Court of
Jones County and one of which is pending in the Circuit Court of Jasper
County, Miss.

Filed in August 2004, these suits allege that certain individuals aboard the
Company’s offshore drilling rigs had been exposed to asbestos.

These six lawsuits are part of a group of 23 lawsuits filed on behalf of
about 800 plaintiffs against a large number of defendants, most of which are
not affiliated with the Company.

The Company’s subsidiaries have not been named as defendants in any of the
other 17 suits.

The lawsuits assert claims based on theories of unseaworthiness, negligence,
strict liability and its subsidiaries’ status as Jones Act employers and seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In general, the defendants are
alleged to have manufactured, distributed or utilized products containing
asbestos.

In the case of the Company’s named subsidiaries and that of several other
offshore drilling companies named as defendants, the lawsuits allege those
defendants allowed such products to be utilized aboard offshore drilling rigs.

The Company has not been provided with sufficient information to determine
the number of plaintiffs who claim to have been exposed to asbestos aboard
its rigs, whether they were employees nor their period of employment, the
period of their alleged exposure to asbestos, nor their medical condition.

Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure in
these suits.

Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is a worldwide offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59 marine
drilling rigs. As of June 30, 2007, the Company’s fleet included 43
cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three drillships, and two
additional semisubmersible rigs it operates for third parties under a joint
venture agreement. On July 21, 2007, the Company entered into an agreement
and plan of merger with Transocean Inc. and Transocean Worldwide Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GlobalSantaFe Corp. subsidiary continues to be involved in an           
asbestos-related insurance lawsuit filed against its insurance underwriters
in the Superior Court of San Francisco County,
Calif., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007.

Filed in February 2004, the suit seeks a declaration as to its rights to
insurance coverage and the proper allocation among its insurers of liability
for claims payments in order to assist in the future management and
disposition of certain claims.

The subsidiary’s three primary insurers had historically paid settlement and
defense costs for the subsidiary. One of these insurers was nearing
insolvency and claimed exhaustion of its coverage limits, but following
negotiations agreed to make a cash payment in exchange for a release of all
further liability for the subsidiary’s asbestos liabilities.

Both of the subsidiary’s other primary insurers have entered into settlement
agreements with the subsidiary that will provide for limited additional
funding of asbestos liabilities and attorneys’ fees and costs associated.

The insurance coverage in question relates to suits filed against the
subsidiary arising out of its involvement in the design, construction and
refurbishment of major industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations
discontinued in 1989. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along
with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

As of June 30, 2007, the subsidiary had been named as a defendant in about
4,300 lawsuits, the first of which was filed in 1990, and a substantial
number of which are currently pending.

The Company said it believes that as of Jan. 1, 2007, from US$40 million to
US$45 million had been expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys’
fees and expenses, and settlement costs), with the subsidiary having expended
US$4 million of that amount due to insurance deductible obligations, all of
which have now been satisfied.

The same subsidiary was a defendant in a lawsuit filed against it by Union
Oil Company of California in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. That
lawsuit arose out of claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to
asbestos at a refinery owned by Union and constructed by the Company’s
subsidiary.

Union has alleged that the subsidiary was required to defend and indemnify it
under the terms of contracts entered into for the construction of the
refinery. The Company was also named as a defendant in the pending litigation.

The parties settled that lawsuit in June 2007, with the Company’s subsidiary
having agreed to pay an amount from funds previously received from insurance
underwriters, and with no contribution from the Company.

Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is a worldwide offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59 marine
drilling rigs. As of June 30, 2007, the Company’s fleet included 43
cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three drillships, and two
additional semisubmersible rigs it operates for third parties under a joint
venture agreement. On July 21, 2007, the Company entered into an agreement
and plan of merger with Transocean Inc. and Transocean Worldwide Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker’s Kin Sues 46 Firms in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Elbert Traver filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against the
A.O. Smith Corp. and 45 other major companies with the Orange County District
Court in Texas on Aug. 2, 2007.

Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins represents Mr. Traver’s wife Carol and
his daughter, Jackie Spears.

Mr. Blevins and his clients claim the companies conspired to manufacture and
distribute asbestos-containing products, maliciously and purposely inflicting
Mr. Traver with lung cancer.

Mr. Traver had already sued and received a claim for his "non-malignant
asbestos-related disease with one or more of the defendants," the suit said.
But now his family is seeking compensation for a "different malignant
asbestos-related disease."

Medical documents attached to the suit say Mr. Traver, a former smoker, was
first exposed to asbestos in 1942. He was an industrial carpenter, welder and
laborer for various refineries and plants.

Mr. Traver died on Aug. 10, 2005.

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 defendants entangled in Mr. Traver’s suit 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."

Mrs. Traver and Mrs. Spears will sue for Mr. Traver’s alleged wrongful death
and his 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.

Case No. D070-375.c has been assigned to the 260th Judicial District.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Probes EPA on Libby Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, could subpoena the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency over why asbestos poisoning in Libby, Mont.,
was not declared a public health emergency, Associated Press reports.

Sen. Baucus has requested five-year-old documents from the EPA, detailing
deliberations over whether it would declare such an emergency.

Sen. Baucus says the declaration would have led to more extensive cleanup and
health protections for the town.

On Aug. 6, 2007, during a visit to Libby, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson
said he would get the documents to Sen. Baucus by the end of August 2007.

Libby is home to the now-closed W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine.

The vermiculite was used in various household products. It also contained
tremolite asbestos, which is blamed by some health authorities for killing
about 200 people, and sickening one of every eight people in Libby.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Penalizes Arizona Schools for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined seven Tucson, Ariz., charter
school operators a combined total of US$67,240 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act violations, according to an EPA press release dated Aug. 6, 2007.

In May 2006, EPA inspectors discovered the school operators all failed to
conduct inspections to determine if asbestos-containing material was present
in school buildings and failed to develop asbestos management plans.
Accredited inspectors later found asbestos in six of the schools. All of the
schools have since taken necessary actions to comply with the law.

Nathan Lau, Associate Director for the Communities and Ecosystems Division in
EPA’s Pacific Southwest region, said, “Asbestos in schools has the potential
for endangering the health of students, teachers, and others, including
maintenance workers.”

The schools are:

-- Pima Partnership School: The operator Pima Prevention Partnership Inc. was
fined US$12,600.

-- Transformational Learning Center: The operator TLC Charter Schools Inc.
was fined US$12,600.

-- Alternative Computerized Education Charter High School: The operator
Tucson Youth Development Inc. was fined US$12,600.

-- Tucson Urban League Academy: The operator Tucson Urban League Inc. was
fined US$11,300.

Asbestos was discovered at all four schools during inspections. Each school
now has a management plan including the location of the asbestos and how the
school will properly manage the asbestos to reduce the risk of exposure.

-- City High School: The operator of the school, Tucson Small School Project
Inc., was fined US$8,800.

During an inspection, the inspector found asbestos materials, including an
area of damaged acoustic ceiling plaster which needed removal. The school has
since implemented a management plan and removed the damaged asbestos-
containing building material.

-- Toltecali Academy, Calli Ollin Academy, and Hiaki High School: The
operator of these schools, Calli Ollin Academy, was fined US$7,300.

During an inspection of Calli Ollin Academy, the inspector found asbestos
materials, including about three linear feet of damaged pipe insulation. The
school has since implemented a management plan and removed the damaged
asbestos material for Calli Ollin Academy.

Toltecali Academy was constructed in 2002 and a letter from the builder of
the school confirmed that no asbestos containing building material was used
in construction of the school. A management plan for the school has since
been prepared.

Asbestos was not found during an inspection of Hiaki High School, but the
inspection was not conducted prior to operating the school. The school
operator also failed to maintain an asbestos management plan, and has since
developed a plan and has records available showing no asbestos was found at
Hiaki.

-- Southside Community School: The operator, Aprender Tucson, will pay a cash
penalty of US$1,453, after subtracting the EPA approved costs of complying
with the law from a US$2,040 fine.

After the EPA’s inspection, the school operator obtained written confirmation
from the builder of the school that no asbestos was used in construction, but
failed to maintain an asbestos management plan. The school now has an
asbestos management plan and records available showing no asbestos was used
in the construction of the school.

Each school is allowed to subtract properly documented costs of complying
with the regulations from the penalty amount.

Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using
accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material
is present and develop a management plan to address the asbestos materials
found in the school buildings. Schools are also required to appoint a
designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure
compliance with federal regulations.

Finally, schools must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections,
properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in
the management plan.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the management plan in
its administrative office and at the school which must be made available for
inspection by parents, teachers, and the general public.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of John Thyssen, on July 31, 2007, filed an asbestos suit against
65 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., claiming he
was exposed to asbestos while employed as an electrician from 1940 to 1983.

The suit brought by Mr. Thyssen’s son, Jeffrey, states that Mr. Thyssen
resided in Massachusetts.

Some of the defendants include Bondex Inc., DaimlerChrysler Corp., DuPont
Chemical and Energy Operations, Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., John Crane Inc., Monsanto Co., Riley Stoker, and
Union Carbide Corp.

The younger Mr. Thyssen claims that during the course of his father's
employment and during home and automotive repairs, his father 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."

The suit 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 the elder Mr. Thyssen, he first became aware that he suffered
from mesothelioma on Sept. 20, 2006. He 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.

The younger Mr. Thyssen claims that the defendants failed to require and
advise employees including his father of hygiene practices designed to reduce
or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

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

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

The suit seeks at least US$500,000 in damages for negligence, willful and
wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other
allegations.

Nicholas Angelides of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represents the
Thyssen case.

Case No. 07 L 687 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victims Lose AUD760T in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Australian asbestos victims have been stripped of more than AUD760,000 in
compensation after the West Australia Court of Appeal ruled on Aug. 2, 2007
that they were not entitled to the money, The West Australian reports.
  
Jazz musician Dennis Moss, 79 years old, had been awarded AUD255,000 after
claiming his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos fibers he inhaled while
carrying out do-it-yourself jobs around the house.
  
However, the Appeals Court found there was doubt whether this had exposed him
to enough asbestos to cause the disease.
  
David Hannell, 64 years old, who died of mesothelioma in June 2007, had also
argued that he inhaled the fibers during backyard projects.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Hannell was not entitled to the
compensation because the company that produced the asbestos cement products
had not breached a duty of care to him.
  
The Court said even if Amaca Pty Ltd. had warning notices on its products,
Mr. Hannell may not have seen them because the items were already installed
at the house when he bought it.
  
Mr. Hannell and Mr. Moss, who both came to West Australia in the 1980s,
claimed they had contracted the disease while doing DIY jobs, including
cutting asbestos fences and sanding eaves.
  
Amaca discontinued the manufacture of asbestos cement products in the 1980s.
  
On Aug. 2, 2007, Chief Justice Wayne Martin, Justice Carmel McLure and
Justice Christopher Steytler agreed that because the products were already
installed at the men’s northern suburbs homes when they bought them, any
warning labels may have already been removed.
  
A judgment summary said that Mr. Moss and Mr. Hannell’s cases differed from
many previous asbestos cases because the levels of exposure involved in their
domestic situations were much lower than those experienced by people in
asbestos mining or who regularly worked with asbestos products.
  
Payment to Mr. Hannell and Mr. Moss had been withheld pending the outcome of
the appeal.
  

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Inc. states that asbestos suits have been brought in New
York State and federal courts against its Utilities (Consolidated Edison
Company of New York Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.) and many
other defendants.

In the suits, a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without
any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate,
material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of
suits total billions of dollars.

In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought
over the next 15 years is US$10 million.

In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are
claiming workers’ compensation benefits based on alleged disability from
exposure to asbestos.

Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is permitted to
defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims.

The Company’s accrued liability for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million
at June 30, 2007, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Con Edison of New York’s accrued liability for asbestos suits amounted to
US$10 million at June 30, 2007, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc. has two regulated utility
subsidiaries: Con Edison of New York and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.
Con Edison of New York provides electric service and gas service in New York
City and Westchester County. O&R provides electric service in southeastern
New York and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania
and gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of eastern
Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Still Deals with N.Y. Pipe Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Inc. continues to respond to a July 2007 incident, in
which a Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. steam main located in
midtown Manhattan ruptured for reasons that have not yet been determined.

It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result
of the incident. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing
asbestos.

The response to the incident has required the closing of several buildings
and streets for various periods, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said it believes
that the policies currently in force will cover most of the Company’s costs,
which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection
with the incident.

New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc. has two regulated utility
subsidiaries: Con Edison of New York and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.
Con Edison of New York provides electric service and gas service in New York
City and Westchester County. O&R provides electric service in southeastern
New York and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania
and gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of eastern
Pennsylvania.

                   
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Faruqi Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action has been commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. securities between July 24,
2007 and August 6, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws
by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading
press releases and SEC filings regarding Luminent's financial results and
business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Luminent failed to disclose:

     (i) the Company was not sufficiently liquid;
    (ii) the Company's financial statements and reports were not
         prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and
   (iii) that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim
         that the Company had ample liquidity and that the
         dividend payments were secure.

As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period. On August 6, 2007, however, defendants
shocked the market when they announced that the Company was cancelling the
payment of its dividend. In response to the announcement, Luminent's share
price dropped to a low of $3.75 on August 6, 2007 before trading was halted.
It then opened on August 7, 2007 at $0.50, representing a drop of over 85%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other
individual and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Luminent securities between July 24, 2007 through August 6, 2007, excluding
defendants and their affiliates.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 8, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Shane Rowley, Esq.
          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq.
          Richard Schwartz, Esq.
          Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: Srowley@faruqilaw.com or
                  Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or
                  Rschwartz@faruqilaw.com


RAIT FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of all common stock purchasers of RAIT Financial Trust from January 10, 2007
to July 31, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the Company had acquired inherently risky loans
         and financing instruments;
     (2) that American Home Mortgage's ("AHM") payments on these
         loans and financing instruments were in jeopardy due to
         AHM's business practices;
     (3) that if AHM failed to make payments on its loans and
         financing instruments, the Company would suffer a net
         exposure of $95 million; and
     (4) that the Company had failed to adequately reserve for
         the risk of nonpayment by AHM.

On July 31, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that AHM
had failed to make its trust preferred financing payment to the Company, in
stark contrast to earlier statements. The Company also disclosed for the
first time that it had a net equity exposure to AHM of approximately $95
million, or $1.56 per share of book value, which resulted from trust
preferred financing provided to AHM in 2005.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $5.72 per share, or 35.5
percent, to close on July 31, 2007 at $10.36 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume. Shares of the Company's stock continued to decline the
following day, losing an additional $0.54 per share, or 5.2 percent, to close
on August 1, 2007 at $9.82 per share, also on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

RAIT is a specialty finance company that provides a comprehensive set of debt
financing options to the real estate industry.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********


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, 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  * * *