CAR_Public/070817.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 162

                            Headlines


ACRES GAMING: Discovery Still Ongoing in Nev. Merger Litigation
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: "Aucoin" Appeal Withdrawn; Case Closed
AT&T INC: Nov. Trial Set for Retirees Suit over Phone Concession
CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Suit in Cal. Over Customer Info Disclosure
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Tort Violations Suits in Several States

CHIQUITA BRANDS: Settles Banana Antitrust Litigation in Florida
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: "Disher" Lawsuit Remanded to Ill. State Court
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Khanna Suit
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Trubyte Lawsuit
DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Calif. Cavitron Suit Appealed

DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit
EASTERN ILLINI: Recalls Junction Boxes Due to Fire Hazard
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Mo. Suit Over City Hotel Accommodations Tax

EXPEDIA INC: Court Grants Ohio City’s Request to Withdraw Case
EXPEDIA INC: Wash. Court Extends Response Deadline in Tax Suit
FAIR ISAAC: Ga. CROA Litigation Settlement Approval Appealed
FORMATION INC: Recalls Coke Drinking Glasses that Easily Break
IMAGITAS INC: MDL Panel Consolidates Fla. DPPA Violations Suits

KBR INC: Still Faces Miscalculation Claim in Iraq Overtime Suit
MICHIGAN: Certification of Suit Over Warren Tree Policy Upheld
MONKEY JOE’S: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Inaccurate Product Labels
MONSANTO CO: Accused of Herbicide Monopoly in Tex. Lawsuit
PLAZA SQUARE: Missouri Apartment Faces Lawsuit by Tenants

QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme
RYLAND GROUP: $1.2M Tex. Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Ovcon Direct Purchasers Suit for $10M


                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Expenses Total $13M at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Cases v. EnPro Ind. Remain at 160,500
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Has $2.4M Collateral on Appeal Bonds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $405M Reserve for Future Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Liability Totals $527.4M at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $329M Net Unpaid Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,100 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 4,592 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Records 72,890 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,181 Cases at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 26 Cases Set For Trial in 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Still Has 3rd-Party Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. American Standard Drop to 102,653
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery on ASD Suit Still Extended to Nov

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 2 Third-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Records 53 Pending Claims at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Stays at $18.7M at July 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Records 161 Pending Claims at July 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Cases in Md. Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Quigley Statement Held Last July
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 470 Cases with 7,000 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Faces 3rd-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut’s A&E Loss Reserves Total $148.1M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int’l. Still Faces Liability Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Involved in Grace Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Action Still Extended to Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. RBS Global Increase to 650
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global’s Falk Unit Faces Over 140 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Suits at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Suits v. Mine Safety Rise to 250
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Still Has 350 Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Units Face Antoine Action in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Suits in 28 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Still Faces Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide’s French Unit to Pay $300T for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Has 31,637 Abex Claims at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int’l. Has 18,813 Claims at July 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 9,023 Claims at July 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Continues to Face Mt. Vernon Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Morgen Lawsuit in U.S.’s Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Ransom’s Motion in McFaul Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court Reverses Ruling in Alcoa’s Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Last Day of Filing v. ACandS Set on Oct. 5
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposed Texas Locals Show Signs of Illness

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Supreme Court Junks 57 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Ex-Councilman Sentenced to 15 Mos.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Couple Sues 39 Firms in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Dismisses Claim in Todd’s Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joint Case Filed v. Vimasco in W.Va. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace’s Expert Estimates $385M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Estimates Grace Liability at $7.9B
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges for Celotex Document Production
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Disallows 3 Damage Claims v. Grace


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Colo.
LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
QIAO XING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
RADIAN GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ACRES GAMING: Discovery Still Ongoing in Nev. Merger Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against
Acres Gaming Inc. over an allegation that the company and its directors
breached fiduciary duties to stockholders in connection with the approval of
a merger between Acres and
International Game Technology, Inc.

In June 2003, a class action was filed in Clark County, Nevada,
District Court against Acres and its directors, entitled, "Paul Miller v.
Acres Gaming Inc., et al."  

Defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Floyd W. Glisson,
     -- Todd L. Bice,
     -- Roger B. Hammock,
     -- Richard Furash,
     -- David R. Willensky,
     -- Robert W. Brown, and
     -- Ronald G. Bennett

The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their fiduciary duties to
their stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger transaction
between Acres and International Game and sought to enjoin and/or void the
merger agreement among other forms of relief.

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary
restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger.  

On Sept. 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate
the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote
on the merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on Sept. 25,
2003.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the plaintiff amended his complaint to recover damages.  On
Dec. 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's second
amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

On May 7, 2004, the court issued an order denying defendants' motion to
dismiss.  Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, plaintiff filed a third
amended complaint on Sept. 9, 2004. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint on Sept. 14, 2004.  

On March 15, 2006, the court issued an order denying defendants motion to
dismiss the third complaint.  On April 7, 2006, defendant filed a Notice of
Removal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which was
granted by an order dated Aug. 15, 2006.  

On Nov. 30, 2006, the case was transferred to business court and discovery
continues.

International Game Technology, Inc. reported no development in the matter in
its Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, Case no.   P03-A-
470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court under Judge Michelle
Leavitt.   

Representing the defendants:

         Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq.
         Lionel Sawyer & Collins
         1700 Bank America Plaza, 300 S. Fourth Street
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Phone: (702) 383-8880
         Fax: (702) 383-8845


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: "Aucoin" Appeal Withdrawn; Case Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action, "In re:
Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds Excessive Fee Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-
04885-SWK," submitted a fully executed Stipulation Withdrawing Appeal, which
resulted in the final termination of the case.

The suit, which was originally pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, names as defendants:

      -- AllianceBernstein L.P.,

      -- AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.,

      -- AllianceBernstein Corp.

      -- AXA Financial Corp.,

      -- Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,
         Inc.,

      -- certain current and former directors of the U.S. Funds,
         and

      -- unnamed Doe defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from U.S. Fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for
         preferential marketing services;

      -- that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments; and

      -- that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections
206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties, and
aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive
damages, rescission of their contracts with AllianceBernstein, including
recovery of all fees paid to AllianceBernstein pursuant to such contracts, an
accounting of all U.S. Fund-related fees, commissions and soft dollar
payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily obtained fees
and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual allegations
substantially similar to those in the first suit were filed against the
company and certain other defendants.

All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York assert claims
substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint. They were brought on behalf
of shareholders of AllianceBernstein Funds.

On Feb. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint that asserted claims substantially similar to the lawsuits referred
above.  On April 14, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the Aucoin
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On Oct. 19, 2005, the District Court
dismissed each of the claims set forth in the Aucoin Consolidated Amended
Complaint, except for plaintiff's claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act.

In January 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion for
reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim under Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act.  Plaintiffs have moved for leave to amend their
consolidated complaint.

On May 31, 2006, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file their amended complaint.  

On July 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which was subsequently
withdrawn subject to plaintiffs’ right to reinstate it at a later date.  

On June 30, 2007, plaintiffs’ time to file an appeal expired.  On July 11,
2007, the parties submitted a fully executed Stipulation Withdrawing Appeal
to the court, resulting in a final termination of the case, according to the
Alliancebernstein Holding L.P.'s Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The suit is "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds Excessive Fee
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kim Elaine Levy, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: klevy@milberg.com

              - and -

         Marshall N. Perkins, Esq.
         The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St.,
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: (410) 332-0030

Representing the company are:

         Mark Holland, Esq.
         Mark Adam Kirsch, Esq.
         Clifford Chance US, LLP
         31 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019-6131
         Phone: (212)-878-8432
         Fax: (212)-878-8375
         E-mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com
                 mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com


AT&T INC: Nov. Trial Set for Retirees Suit over Phone Concession
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 26, 2007 trial is set for the case, "Stoffels v. SBC Communications,
Inc.," which was filed against AT&T, Inc., formerly SBC Communications, Inc.,
by employees arguing that the telephone concession provided by the company
is, in essence, a "defined benefit plan."

The suit was filed back in 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.  

Plaintiffs, who are retirees of Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Southwestern
Bell, and Ameritech, contend that the telephone concession provided by the
company is, in essence, a "defined benefit plan" within the meaning of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.   

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of persons that are either retirees of the
former subsidiaries of SBC or a predecessor thereof, who received the
telephone concession benefit after they retired or current or former
employees of the former subsidiaries of SBC with more than 5 years of service
during the time that they had a policy to provide employees with a telephone
concession benefit upon retirement.   

They also seek reformation of the out-of-region phone concession offered
under the post-employment benefits plan (Plan) and the documents governing it
to comply with ERISA, an order requiring the company to fund the Plan as
reformed, the appointment of an independent fiduciary to administer the Plan,
an order requiring the Plan to pay benefits to plaintiffs and other class
members consistent with the terms of the plan and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to ERISA.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which was
denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Feb.
3, 2006.   

On June 23, 2006, the court heard argument on plaintiffs' motion to certify
the class.  

On Oct. 3, 2006, the Court certified two classes.  Trial has been set for the
week of Nov. 26, 2007, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, et al.,  
Case No. 5:05-cv-00233-WWJ," filed in the U.S District Court for the Western
District of Texas under Judge William Wayne Justice.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Les Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Les Mendelsohn & Associates, P.C.
          110 Broadway, Suite 500
          San Antonio, TX 78205-1934
          Phone: (210) 222-2271
          Fax: 210/230-8914

Representing the defendants are:

          Bruce Allen Blefeld, Esq.
          John L. Carter, Esq.
          Vinson & Elkins
          Phone: (713) 758-3610 and (713) 758-2124
          Fax: (713) 615-5307


CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Suit in Cal. Over Customer Info Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class-action complaint on Aug. 14,
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of approximately 8.5 million consumers nationwide whose financial and
personal data was stolen by an employee of Certegy Check Services, Inc. and
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and released to unauthorized
third parties.

The complaint alleges that a senior database administrator misappropriated
the confidential information of millions of consumers and then sold the data
to direct marketing firms and data brokers who may have resold it to others.

It asserts claims of negligence, invasion of privacy and breach of implied
contract.

The complaint alleges that Certegy and FIS failed to implement and maintain
adequate security measures to protect consumers' confidential financial and
personal information. Their failure to properly monitor and supervise their
employee subjected consumers to risk of data theft and other fraudulent
actions.

The case was brought by a Los Angeles, California resident who, prior to the
public announcement by Certegy and FIS of the data breach, started noticing
an influx of direct marketing and promotional offers as well as phone calls
to his home. After subsequently receiving a letter from Certegy informing him
that his personal data may have been compromised by one of its employees, the
plaintiff engaged a credit monitoring service.

Certegy and FIS merged in January of 2006. Certegy provides check-
verification services to major U.S. retailers such as Wal-Mart, Sears, Bed
Bath & Beyond and Amazon.com. Due to the nature of the services provided by
Certegy and FIS, and their undisclosed role in financial transactions,
consumers do not choose to use the services of these companies but rather are
forced to do so.

"Certegy and FIS had a duty to safeguard the confidential data of consumers
from any breach, including that of their employees. Once the internal breach
became known, it should have been communicated to the public in a timely and
adequate manner," said Eric Gibbs, one of the attorneys for the
plaintiff. "The failure by these companies to make the internal data breach
immediately known exposed consumers to direct marketing campaigns and the
risk of unauthorized use of their bank accounts and identity theft."

For more information, contact:

          Girard Gibbs LLP
          Toll-free: (866) 981-4800
          Website: http://www.girardgibbs.com

CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Tort Violations Suits in Several States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. faces three separate lawsuits filed in
U.S. federal courts, claiming that it is liable for alleged tort violations
committed in Colombia.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 7, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia; the second was filed on June 13, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida; and the third, a
proposed class action, was filed on July 18, 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs in all three suits claim to be, or claim to be members of a
class of, family members or legal heirs of individuals allegedly killed by
armed groups that received payments from the company’s former Colombian
subsidiary.

The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of such payments, the company should
be held legally responsible for the death of plaintiffs’ family members.  

The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. -- http://www.chiquita.com-- operates as  
an international marketer and distributor of bananas and other fresh produce
sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in over 80 countries.  It sells
packaged salads under the Fresh Express brand name primarily in the U.S. The
Company also distributes and markets fresh-cut fruit and other branded, value-
added fruit products.

Chiquita operates its business through three segments: the Banana segment
includes the sourcing, transportation, marketing and distribution of bananas;
the Fresh Select segment includes the sourcing, marketing and distribution of
whole fresh fruits and vegetables other than bananas, and the Fresh Cut
segment includes value-added salads, foodservice and fresh-cut fruit
operations. Remaining operations, reported in Other, primarily consist of
processed fruit ingredient products, which are produced in Latin America and
sold in other parts of the world, and other consumer packaged goods.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Settles Banana Antitrust Litigation in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. settled antitrust class actions filed by
direct and indirect purchasers of bananas
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Initially, the company entered into a settlement agreement in May 2007 with
all named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser action.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company paid $2.5 million into a class escrow
fund in June 2007.  

In June 2007, the company also entered into a settlement agreement with all
named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser action, which requires the company
to donate to charity fruit products with a retail value of approximately $1
million.

The other defendants in both cases have entered into similar or identical
settlement agreements.  All of these settlements still require formal court
approval before becoming final and binding on both classes.

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. -- http://www.chiquita.com-- operates as  
an international marketer and distributor of bananas and other fresh produce
sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in over 80 countries.  It sells
packaged salads under the Fresh Express brand name primarily in the U.S. The
Company also distributes and markets fresh-cut fruit and other branded, value-
added fruit products.

Chiquita operates its business through three segments: the Banana segment
includes the sourcing, transportation, marketing and distribution of bananas;
the Fresh Select segment includes the sourcing, marketing and distribution of
whole fresh fruits and vegetables other than bananas, and the Fresh Cut
segment includes value-added salads, foodservice and fresh-cut fruit
operations. Remaining operations, reported in Other, primarily consist of
processed fruit ingredient products, which are produced in Latin America and
sold in other parts of the world, and other consumer packaged goods.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: "Disher" Lawsuit Remanded to Ill. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the purported class
action, "Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney,
Inc.," which was recently remanded by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois back to state court.

                       Case Background

Richard Disher filed the suit on March 22, 2004 before a circuit court.  Mr.
Disher was a customer of the Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.  He purchased shares
of MCI WorldCom Inc. between April 16, 1998, and March 5, 1999.  He also
purchased shares of Rhythms
Netconnections Inc. on Aug. 11, 1999.  As part of its services for its
customers, Salomon Smith issued investment research reports and ratings on a
stock's future performance (Class Action Reporter, may 28, 2007).

The subject of Mr. Disher's complaint included unspecified stocks researched
and rated by Salomon Smith's Internet and Telecommunications research groups.

Salomon Smith represented that its reports employed a five-point rating
system: "buy," "outperform," "neutral," "underperform" and "sell." Mr.
Disher's complaint alleged that "no later than March 2000," Salomon
Smith "secretly abandoned its published five-point rating system and instead
utilized a de facto three- point system of 'buy,' 'outperform,'
and 'neutral'."

Specifically, a neutral recommendation allegedly was a coded message from
Salomon Smith to certain institutional customers to sell a security.  Also,
instead of assigning an underperform or sell rating for a particular stock,
Salomon Smith allegedly would stop covering that stock, with no public
announcement or explanation.  Thus, the complaint alleged, Salomon Smith's
research ratings did not reflect its actual beliefs concerning the future
performance of a stock.

The gravamen of the complaint was that Salomon Smith's misleading ratings
induced Mr. Disher and class members to continue holding their securities in
reliance on Salomon Smith's positive ratings when SSB's analysts no longer
believed that such ratings were warranted.  In addition, Salomon Smith also
allegedly used its research reports, ratings and recommendations of certain
stock to attract new, and to retain current, investment banking clients "by
agreeing to issue a research rating for [those clients'] stock more favorably
than Smith
Barney's research warranted."

Mr. Disher defined the putative class to include himself and "all customers
of Smith Barney who held one or more of the Internet or Telecom Stocks in
their Smith Barney accounts at times when those stocks were declining in
value and when Smith Barney was rating those stocks as 'buy' 'outperform'
or 'neutral' when such ratings were not warranted by Smith Barney's
research."  

The complaint specifically excluded "any claims based on Smith Barney's
conduct in connection with plaintiff's or any class member's purchases or
sales of any of the Internet Stocks or Telecom Stocks."

Salomon Smith timely removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois (Case No. 04 C 308) under Judge G. Patrick
Murphy on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction, jurisdiction related to bankruptcy proceedings, and
preemption under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

                   District Court Proceedings

The SLUSA provides for the removal to federal court of certain class actions
based on state law in which the plaintiffs allege "a misrepresentation or
omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a
covered security."  

The district court ruled that SLUSA did not apply in this case because the
alleged misconduct was not connected sufficiently to any purchase or sale of
stock.  Rather, the complaint alleged harm solely from the retention of
securities in reliance on Salomon Smith's misleading research reports and
ratings.  The district court also concluded that there was no basis for
removal under the general removal statute, section 1441 of the Judiciary Code.

On Mr. Disher's motion, the district court remanded the case to state court.

On appeal, Salomon Smith challenges the district court's conclusion that Mr.
Disher's action did not fall within SLUSA's preemptive scope.

On Aug. 17, 2005, the appeals court reversed the judgment of the district
court and remands the case for further proceedings.

The 7th Circuit found federal law mandated removal of the action to federal
court and that the district court's order was a determination delegated to
federal court by the SLUSA rather than a determination of lack of
adjudicatory competence, according to Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.  
Thus, it was an appealable order rather than remand for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

On May 3, 2007, the District Court remanded the matter to Illinois state
court.  On June 13, 2007, Citigroup moved in state court to dismiss the
action, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007.

The suit is "Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No.
3:04-cv-00308-GPM-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy with referral to
Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
         SimmonsCooper
         209 South LaSalle Street, Suite 805
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-759-7500
         Fax: 312-759-7516
         E-mail: dbrandt@simmonscooper.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Richard K. Hunsaker, Esq.
         Heyl, Royster et al.
         103 West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 467
         Edwardsville, IL 62025
         Phone: 618-656-4646
         E-mail: rhunsaker@hrva.com


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Khanna Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s
current and former directors by the company's former general counsel
continues in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle
County.   

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the company's
general counsel and secretary.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khanna alleged that,
over a period of years, certain current and former directors and officers had
breached their fiduciary duties to the company by engaging in or approving
actions that constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations to the
company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his duties in retaliation
for his being a purported whistleblower and because of racial or national
origin discrimination.  

Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna filed a
purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against the company's current
and former directors.   

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two additional
purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this action the plaintiffs
seek recovery on behalf of the company from the individual defendants for
their purported breach of fiduciary duty.   

Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of directors in
2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the company's proxy statements
were misleading.  

On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr. Khanna and the additional
plaintiffs as class representatives.  

On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for breach of
fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to the company's proxy
statements.  The court also determined that Mr. Khanna could no longer serve
as a plaintiff in this matter.

The litigation with respect to the remaining claims is still pending,
according to the company’s Aug. 2 form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended June
30, 2007.

Based in San Jose, California, Covad Communications Group, Inc. --
http://www.covad.com/-- provides voice and data communications products and  
services to consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately 235
major metropolitan areas in 44 states.  The company's products and services
include high-speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access
connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and a variety of
related services.  It primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1,
also referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Trubyte Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International Inc. and its tooth dealers have filed motions to
dismiss plaintiffs’ claims that they engaged in a conspiracy to violate
antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or products
containing Trubyte teeth.

Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint in 1999,
several private party class actions were filed based on allegations similar
to those in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of dental laboratories,
and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or
products containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the United States District Court in
Wilmington, Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified
amount.  The Court has granted the Company’s Motion on the lack of standing
of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage claims.

The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to the Third
Circuit and the Court largely upheld the decision of the District Court in
dismissing the Plaintiffs’ damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the
exception of allowing the Plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a
theory of resale price maintenance between the Company and its tooth dealers.

The Plaintiffs’ petition to the United States Supreme Court asking it to
review this decision of the Third Circuit was denied. The Plaintiffs in the
laboratory case filed an amended complaint asserting that DENTSPLY and its
tooth dealers, and the dealers among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to
violate the antitrust laws.

Dentsply and the dealers have filed Motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims,
except for the resale price maintenance claims. Additionally, manufacturers
of two competitive tooth lines have filed and are pursuing separate actions
seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the Company’s
tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of the antitrust law.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Calif. Cavitron Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The decertification of a purported class action that accuses Dentsply
International, Inc. of misrepresenting its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers is
being appealed.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan, D.D.S. filed a
class action in San Francisco County, California.  The complaint, which has
been amended twice, seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase
price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery.

The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006 with respect
to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims.  

The class is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and
used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral
surgical procedures on their patients.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and this motion
was granted.  Plaintiffs have appealed the decertification of the class to
the California Court of Appeals, according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2007.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 2 form 10-Q
filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

Dentsply International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer,  
developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental
market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
alleging that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of
contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential
uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water.

On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS filed a
complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for
Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 2 form 10-Q
filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R.
Barclay Surrick.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Alan Klein, Esq.
        Duane Morris LLP
        30 South 17th St.
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
        Phone: 215-979-1000
        Fax: 215-979-1020
        E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com

Representing the defendants is:

        Richard G. Placey
        Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
        123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19109
        Phone: 215-772-7424
        Fax: 215-772-7620
        E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com


DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action filed in the
Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed in the Superior
Court of California by one of its former employees that worked for its
California acute services program.  

The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among other
things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods
and meal periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to
comply with certain other California labor code requirements.

DVA Renal is formerly Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  DaVita, Inc. acquired it in
2005.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- is a provider of   dialysis  
services in the U.S. for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also
known as end-stage renal disease.   The company also provides acute inpatient
dialysis services in approximately 770 hospitals and related laboratory
services.


DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a purported class action against DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc.
filed a demand to compel class arbitration in the case, which was previously
dismissed by U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana back
in March.  

DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  It is now a
subsidiary of DaVita, Inc.

On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a complaint
against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and related entities.  

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on behalf of
itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for health care goods
and services from on or about January 1991 through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and
circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December 2004 settlement agreement with
the Department of Justice and certain agencies of the U.S. Government.  

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek
arbitration to resolve the matter.  In August 2006, the plaintiff proceeded
with a demand to compel arbitration.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek
arbitration to resolve the matter.  In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a
demand for class arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co. v. Gambro A
B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge
Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Greg Murphy, Esq.
         Morain & Murphy
         6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200
         Baton Rouge, LA 70808
         Phone: 225-767-7151
         Fax: 225-767-8995
         E-mail: greg@mandmlawfirm.com

Representing the company is:

         G. William Jarman, Esq.
         Kean Miller, et al.
         P.O. Box 3513
         Baton Rouge, LA 70821
         Phone: 225-387-0999
         Fax: 225-388-9133


EASTERN ILLINI: Recalls Junction Boxes Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative, of Paxton, Illinois, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,800
junction boxes used with water heaters.

The company said the wiring connections within the junction box can become
loose, posing an overheating and fire hazard.  Eastern Illini Electric
Cooperative has received 25 reports of overheating or melted wiring and
wiring connectors. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves junction boxes installed between the water heater and
load management switch. The metal junction boxes measure about 4 inches by 4
inches and have no markings. The junction box contains wiring connections for
water heaters.

These recalled junction boxes are being sold by Eastern Illini Electric
Cooperative from June 1989 through late 2002.

Picture of recalled junction boxes:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07569.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately contact Eastern Illini Electric
Cooperative to schedule an appointment to have the switches re-wired at no
cost. Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative has contacted consumers with
recalled junction boxes directly.

For additional information, call Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative at (800)
824-5102 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.eiec.coop


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Mo. Suit Over City Hotel Accommodations Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. was named a defendant in a purported class action in Missouri
state court in connection with city hotel accommodations taxes.

On June 27, 2007, Jefferson City, Missouri filed a putative class action in
state court against a number of internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.

The suit, “Jefferson City v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 07AC-CC0055,” was
filed in Circuit Court of Cole County.  It alleges that the defendants have
failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of that ordinance,
violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trust, and declaratory
judgment.  

The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount.  
The deadline to respond to the lawsuit has not yet been established.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expedia.com/-- is an online travel company.  The  
Company has created a global travel marketplace used by a range of leisure
and corporate travelers and offline retail travel agents, as well as travel
service providers.

It makes available travel products and services provided by airlines, lodging
properties, car rental companies, destination service providers, cruise lines
and other travel product and service companies.  Expedia’s portfolio of
brands includes Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Worldwide Travel
Exchange (WWTE) and Interactive Affiliate Network (IAN), Classic Vacations,
Expedia Corporate Travel (ECT), eLong and TripAdvisor.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Grants Ohio City’s Request to Withdraw Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a request
to withdraw the class action allegations in the lawsuit, "City of Columbus,
et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.," which names Expedia, Inc. as a defendant.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the City of Columbus, Ohio and the City of Dayton, Ohio,
filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.  

The suit is in relation to the defendants’ alleged failure to pay hotel
accommodations taxes.  It was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to counties and
cities in Ohio hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances.  

It purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust
enrichment, violation of the doctrine of money had and received, conversion,
declaratory judgment, and seeks imposition of a constructive trust.  The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

On July 10, 2007, the court entered an ordering transferring the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  

On July 23, 2007, the court ruled that the defendants are not subject to
Ohio’s transient guest tax ordinance.  The court also granted
Columbus/Dayton’s request to withdraw the class action allegations from their
lawsuit.

The suit is “City of Columbus et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-02117-DAK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge David A. Katz.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Jonathan P. Saxton, Esq.
          Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis
          Ste. 900, One West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-381-9288
          Fax: 513-381-9206
          E-mail: jsaxton@rendigs.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael R. Gladman, Esq.
          Jones Day
          Ste. 600, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., P.O. Box 165017
          Columbus, OH 43216-5017
          Phone: 614-469-3939
          Fax: 614-461-4198
          E-mail: mrgladman@jonesday.com


EXPEDIA INC: Wash. Court Extends Response Deadline in Tax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas extended the deadline for
Expedia, Inc., and other defendants to respond to a purported class action
over the defendants’ alleged non-payment of hotel accommodations taxes.

On Feb. 28, 2007, the City of Fayetteville filed a putative class action in
state court against a number of internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.

The complaint, “City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CV 07 567-
1,” alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel
accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances,
unjust enrichment, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust, and
declaratory judgment.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The deadline to
respond to the complaint was May 31, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting defendants’ request to
extend the deadline to file an answer or other responsive pleading.

Defendants’ deadline to file their answers or other responsive pleadings is
ten days after plaintiffs file their Amended Class Action Complaint, which
has not been filed, 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.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expedia.com/-- is an online travel company.  The  
Company has created a global travel marketplace used by a range of leisure
and corporate travelers and offline retail travel agents, as well as travel
service providers.  

It makes available travel products and services provided by airlines, lodging
properties, car rental companies, destination service providers, cruise lines
and other travel product and service companies.  Expedia’s portfolio of
brands includes Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Worldwide Travel
Exchange (WWTE) and Interactive Affiliate Network (IAN), Classic Vacations,
Expedia Corporate Travel (ECT), eLong and TripAdvisor.


FAIR ISAAC: Ga. CROA Litigation Settlement Approval Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two class members have appealed against a final approval of a proposed
settlement in lawsuits against Fair Isaac, Inc. that alleges violations of
the Credit Repair Organizations Act.

The company was named a defendant in a lawsuit captioned, “Robbie Hillis v.
Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc.,” which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants jointly sold the Score Power credit
score product in violation of certain procedural requirements under the
Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), and in violation of the antifraud
provisions of that statute.

The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants are “credit repair
organizations” under CROA.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class on behalf of all individuals
who purchased products containing Score Power from the defendants in the five
year period prior to the filing of the Complaint on Nov. 14, 2004.

Plaintiff claimed damages of an unspecified amount, and further claimed that
Equifax and Fair Isaac were unjustly enriched such that all payments should
be refunded.

On Feb. 5, 2007, the plaintiff, Equifax and Fair Isaac entered into a
Settlement Agreement to resolve this lawsuit and the Christy Slack lawsuit.  

The “Hillis” matter and the case, “Christy Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. and
myFICO Consumer Services, Inc.,” were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Settlement Agreement was
preliminarily approved by the Court on Feb. 8, 2007.

                       Christy Slack Case

The case by Christy Slack was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

As in the Hillis matter, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated
certain procedural requirements of CROA, and violated the antifraud
provisions of CROA, with respect to the sale of credit score products on the
company's myfico.com website.

The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants violated the California Credit
Services Act and were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class on behalf of all individuals
who purchased credit score products from us on the myfico.com website in the
five year period prior to the filing of the Complaint on Jan. 18, 2005.  

                     Settlement and Appeal

On June 4, 2007, the Court held a hearing to determine the final approval of
the settlement.  

Under the terms of the settlement, Fair Isaac will pay legal fees, will
provide three months of its ScoreWatch product for free to participating
class members, and will make certain changes to its myfico.com website.

Fair Isaac has delivered notices to class members.

On June 13, 2007, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and
directed that final judgment be entered.

However, an appeal objecting to the settlement was filed on July 11, 2007 by
Meredith Whittington and Taren Hill, two members of the class.

The Slack case was covered by the settlement agreement in the Robbie Hillis
lawsuit.  The appeal in Hillis also affects this case.

For more details, on the settlement, visit:

             http://www.hillisslacksettlement.com/

Fair Isaac Corp. -- http://www.fairisaac.com-- provides analytical, software  
and data management products and services. Its services include predictive
modeling, decision analytics, business intelligence management, decision
management systems and consulting services.  

The Company helps businesses make better decisions in the areas of customer
targeting and acquisition, customer origination, customer management, fraud
collections and recovery, as well as helping businesses improve the non-
customer decisions, such as transaction and claims processing, and network
integrity review.  

Fair Isaac categorizes its products and services into four segments: strategy
machine, scoring solutions, professional services and analytical software
tools.


FORMATION INC: Recalls Coke Drinking Glasses that Easily Break
--------------------------------------------------------------
Formation Inc., of San Bruno, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 300 Coca-Cola-themed
drinking glasses.

The company said the inner wall of the double-walled glasses can break
easily, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. Formation has received one
report of a glass breaking during normal use. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves clear double-walled soda glasses sold in a bell-shape.
The drinking glasses were sold in two sizes: 16-ounces and 22-ounces, and
have various Coca-Cola® graphics printed on the glass.

These recalled Coca-Cola-themed drinking glasses were manufactured in China
and are being sold at The World of Coca-Cola Store in Atlanta, Georgia
exclusively from May 2007 through June 2007 for between $6 and $8.

Pictures of recalled Coca-Cola-themed drinking glasses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268d.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using and discard the glasses immediately.
Consumers can contact Formation for a refund.

For additional information, contact Formation toll free at (866) 428-1176
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.formationinc.com.


IMAGITAS INC: MDL Panel Consolidates Fla. DPPA Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated 10 purported
class actions against Imagitas, Inc., a subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Inc.,
which are generally alleging that the company violated the Drivers Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA), according to the company's Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The federal panel on multi-district litigation held a hearing on
the company's motion to consolidate the 10 purported class
actions that have now been filed against Imagitas, which are alleging that
the Imagitas DriverSource program violates DPPA

During the second quarter of 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation consolidated the ten purported class actions before a single judge
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The cases are now jointly referred to as “In re Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’
Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828.”  

Pitney Bowes, Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/-- is a provider of
mail processing equipment and integrated mail solutions.


KBR INC: Still Faces Miscalculation Claim in Iraq Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court refused to dismiss a contractual claim for miscalculation of
employees’ pay in the Iraqi Overtime Litigation filed against KBR Inc.

During the fourth quarter of 2005, a group of present and former employees
working on the LogCAP contract in Iraq and elsewhere filed a class action
alleging that KBR wrongfully failed to pay time and a half for hours worked
in excess of 40 per work week and that “uplift” pay, consisting of a foreign
service bonus, an area differential, and danger pay, was only applied to the
first 40 hours worked in any work week.

The class alleged by plaintiffs consists of all current and former employees
on the LogCAP contract from December 2001 to present.  The basis of
plaintiffs’ claims is their assertion that they are intended third party
beneficiaries of the LogCAP contract and that the LogCAP contract obligated
KBR to pay time and a half for all overtime hours.

The company has moved to dismiss the case on a number of bases. On September
26, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss insofar as claims for
overtime pay and “uplift” pay are concerned, leaving only a contractual claim
for miscalculation of employees’ pay.  That claim remains pending, according
to the company’s Aug. 2 form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.


MICHIGAN: Certification of Suit Over Warren Tree Policy Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals allowed about 50 Warren homeowners to sue the
city over alleged damages caused by the planting of trees in residential
neighborhoods, reports say.

Twenty-tree residents filed the suit in 2000.  According to Detroit Free
Press, some residents said their homes were flooded with raw sewage and
sidewalks cracked when the roots of the trees began to expand.

The Macomb County Circuit judge denied class-action status to the case, but
eventually overturned it.  The city argued against that ruling.  The appeals
court disagreed, finding that Judge James Biernat acted within his powers
when he reviewed and eventually overturned his previous ruling denying class
action status in a case.  

The ruling will allow an estimated 7,000 Warren homeowners to join in the
suit, according to Brian C. Louwers of C & G News.  There exists “no
procedural or legal impediment to extending class membership as to all claims
in this matter to class members who were not explicitly named in the initial
complaint as of April 2, 2002,” Judges Alton T. Davis, Joel P. Hoekstra, and
Pat M. Donofrio declared.

Attorney Gerard Mantese, of the Troy-based Mantese and Rossman law firm said
he currently represents about 50 Warren homeowners.

For more information, contact:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          Mantese and Rossman PC
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, Michigan 48083
          (Oakland Co.)
          Phone: 248-457-9200
          Fax: 248-457-9201
          Web site: http://www.manteselaw.com


MONKEY JOE’S: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Inaccurate Product Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monkey Joe’s Big Nut Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County claiming it inaccurately
labeled its products as having fewer grams of “carbohydrates” than “sugars,”
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named as defendants are JBEC LLC and The Big Nut Co.

The complaint -- filed by Robert Cameron -- states, “All ‘sugars’
are ‘carbohydrates’ and it is mathematically and scientifically impossible
that the total carbohydrates be less than the amount of sugars in the
product.”

The products include its best-selling product, Jordan Almonds (labeled as
containing 6 grams of carbohydrates and 19 grams of sugar), and Butter
Toasted Peanuts (14 g carbs and 18 g sugar), the complaint states.

The proposed class consists of all persons who purchased products with a
nutrition notice defectively labeled by Monkey Joe's.

Plaintiff requests judgment as follows:

     -- certification of the suit as a class action;

     -- awarding actual damages and trebling said damages under
        NJSA 56:12-7;

     -- awarding a civil penalty of not less than $ 100 per
        violation;

     -- awarding counsel fees and costs of suit;

     -- awarding pre-judgment interest;

     -- compelling a recall of the defectively labeled products;
        and

     -- awarding other such relief as the court may deem fair
        and equitable.

The suit is "Robert Cameron et al. v. Monkey Joe's Big Nut Co., aka JBEC LLC
and The Big Nut Co.," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington
County.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Donald M. Doherty, Jr.
          Friedman Doherty, Jr.
          125 N. Rt. 73
          West Berlin, New Jersey 08091
          Phone: (856) 988-7777


MONSANTO CO: Accused of Herbicide Monopoly in Tex. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 10 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing it of using its
seed-trait licensing fees to coerce companies into exclusive contracts,
restraining competition, and allowing it to charge extortionate prices
for “Roundup.”

Named plaintiff Texas Grain Storage, Inc., dba West Chemical & Fertilizer,
brings this action on behalf of all direct purchasers of "Roundup" branded
herbicides at prices that were, allegedly, artificially inflated because of
an anticompetitive scheme that Monsanto started in the mid-1990s.

The complaint alleges Monsanto has improperly and illegally maintained its
herbicide monopoly prior to, and during, the class period via a comprehensive
anticompetitive and exclusionary scheme that involved:

     (a) anticompetitive agreements that unreasonably restrained  
         trade in glyphosphate herbicides;

     (b) leveraging its monopoly power in various seed trait
         markets to unlawfully monopolize and restrain
         competition in the separate herbicide market; and

     (c) other improper acts to maintain its supra-competitive
         glyphosate herbicide prices.

Plaintiff brings this antitrust action on behalf of all individuals and
entities in the United States who purchased "Roundup" branded non-selective
herbicides directly from Monsanto at any time from Aug. 10, 2003 to the
present.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether the product markets alleged in the complaint
         constitute relevant antitrust product markets;

     (b) whether the United States constitutes the relevant
         antitrust geographic market;

     (c) whether Monsanto engaged in actions that suppressed
         competition in unreasonable restraint of trade in
         violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (d) whether Monsanto's conduct constituted unlawful
         monopolization and/or monopoly leveraging in violation
         of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and

     (e) whether and to what extent Monsanto's alleged wrongful
         conduct caused injury to the propoerty of plaintiff and
         the members of the class.

Plaintiff demands judgment against Monsanto and requests:

     -- that the court certify the proposed class;

     -- that the court declare that Monsanto has committed the
        violations of federal antitrust law as alleged;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover damages against
        Monsanto in an amount to be trebled;

     -- that the court order Monsanto to pay the expenses and
        costs of the action including but not limited to
        plaintiff's attorneys' fees; and

     -- that the court award such other and further relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is “Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 5:07-cv-
00673-OLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, under Judge Orlando L. Garcia.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Douglas A. Abrahams
          Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107

          Daniel Berger
          Berger & Montague
          1622 Locus Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000

          - and -

          Steven M. Burton
          Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C.
          510 North Valley Mills Dr., Suite 500
          Waco, TX 76710
          Phone: (254) 772-8022
          Fax: 254/772-9297
          E-mail: sburton@slmpc.com


PLAZA SQUARE: Missouri Apartment Faces Lawsuit by Tenants
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Andrew Kuhlmann is pursuing a purported class action that could force
the owner of Plaza Square Apartments in St. Louis, Mo. to reimburse tenants
for part of their rent, it emerged in a report by Jake Wagman of St. Louis
Post-Dispatch.

Last week, the tenants faced relocation due to elevator problems at the high-
rise apartment complex.  A court has ordered the owner to pay for hotel
accommodations of residents that may not be unable to climb stairs if
elevator service is shut off to the building.  Authorities ordered some
elevators shut down after it was found out they would not function in case of
fire.

Mr. Kuhlmann said security is just one of several issues in the apartment in
addition to the elevator problems, according to the report.  The residents
allegedly suffer from bug infestations, unclean public areas and trash
accumulation.

The owner of the building is Urban Developers.


QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed against Quiznos Sub in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of a class of an estimated 5,000 Quiznos
franchisees across the U.S.

Among other things, the lawsuit contends that the company forces franchisees
to buy food, supplies, and services from Quiznos or its affiliates at
drastically inflated prices while concurrently setting artificially low
retail prices for its products -- in many instances, making the stores
unprofitable for the franchisees.

In addition, the franchisees allege that the company unlawfully participates
in a scheme to sell the franchises by omitting or otherwise misrepresenting
key facts about Quiznos' business operations. In seeking damages for lost
investments as well as injunctive relief, the suit alleges, among other
things, statutory and common law fraud, violations of federal and state
antitrust laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, breach of contract, and violations of Colorado franchise
and consumer protection laws.

The class action in Colorado is one of several lawsuits filed against the
company, noted Justin M. Klein, Esq., a partner in the Red Bank, N.J. law
firm of Marks & Klein, LLP.  The firm represents the franchisees along with
co- counsel Mark M. Leitner and Joseph S. Goode of the Milwaukee-based firm
of Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk S.C.

"The success of this system is dependent upon the success of its
franchisees," said Danny Kessels, a Quiznos franchisee in Colorado and
president of the Toasted Subs Franchisees Association, Inc., the trade group
representing Quiznos franchisees that helped organize the class-action
suit. "The goal of the lawsuit is to right the wrongs of the past, and to
ensure that franchisee profitability will be the focus of this system in the
future."

Recently, a class action, “Bonanno, et al v. The Quiznos Franchise Company,
LLC, et al., Civil Docket No. 06-02358,” filed on behalf of franchisees
alleging that the company had sold franchises it had no ability to open was
amended to expand the class to cover franchisees throughout the United
States.

According to Mr. Klein, who also represents the Plaintiffs in that case, that
class has approximately 3,000 members.

Mr. Kessels added, "It is up to the courts now, but, on behalf of the TSFA,
we are hopeful that the new management team at Quiznos will recognize and
appreciate many of the historic problems with this system and do what is
necessary to make this brand as successful as we know it can be."

The suit is “Brunet et al. v. Quizno's Franchise Company LLC, The et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-01717-EWN-KLM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Edward W. Nottingham, with referral to
Judge Kristen L. Mix.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph S. Goode
          Mark M. Leitner
          Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk, S.C.
          825 North Jefferson Street, #500
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Phone: 414-271-7100
          Fax: 414-271-8135
          E-mail: mml@kravitlaw.com

          - and -

          Justin M. Klein
          David S. Paris
          Marks & Klein, LLP
          63 Riverside Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-747-7100
          Fax: 732-219-0625
          E-mail: justin@marksklein.com or david@marksklein.com


RYLAND GROUP: $1.2M Tex. Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas gave preliminary
approval to a $1,200,000 settlement of the suit "TDH Partners LLP v. Ryland
Group Inc. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00073."

On Jan. 15, 2004, a securities class action was filed against the company and
two of its officers.  Generally, the action alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the disclosure by the Company of new home
sales for the fourth quarter of 2003.

The complaint charges Ryland Group and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Between Oct. 22, 2003 and Jan. 7, 2004, the defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market concerning the company's financial
results.  

More specifically, the defendants' statements during the class period were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:  

      -- that the Texas market (and particularly Dallas) was in  
         a freefall;  

      -- that Texas buyers were proving highly resistant to the  
         entry level homes that Ryland Group was offering; and  

      -- that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
         offerings of "move up" properties would be better  
         received in that market, but that Ryland Group was not  
         in a position to offer these types of properties.

The complaint further alleges that on Jan. 8, 2004, Ryland Group shocked the
market by announcing that new orders for the fourth quarter had decreased
8.9%, largely due to an astounding 33% decline in Texas orders.  

Indeed, Ryland Group sold only 344 new homes in that quarter, as contrasted
with sales of 770 new units in the third quarter of 2003.  

According to the complaint, the development stood in stark contrast to the
positive statements issued during the Class Period by defendants.  

In March 2007, the company and its officers agreed to a $1.2 million
settlement that will be funded by the company and its insurer (Class Action
Reporter, May 30, 2007).

All expenses of the settlement, including the costs of notice to the class
and any attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiff's counsel by the court, will
be paid out of the settlement fund.  

The net amount remaining in the settlement fund will be distributed to those
members of the class who suffered an actual loss as a result of the price
decline that occurred on Jan. 8, 2004.   

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of RYLAND during the period from October 3, 2003 through January
7, 2004, inclusive.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on November 15, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is on November 15, 2007.

Pursuant to a Court Order, a hearing will be held on December 11, 2007 at
10:00 A.M. before United States District Judge Jane Boyle, at the United
States Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242.

The suit is "TDH Partners LLP v. Ryland Group Inc. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00073," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
under Judge Jane J. Boyle.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
         Claxton & Hill
         3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103
         Dallas, TX 75204-2471
         Phone: 214/969-9029
         Fax: 214/953-0583
         E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/227-7720
         Fax: 713/227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

              - and -

         Leonard A. Epstein, Esq.
         Newman Davenport & Epstein
         700 N. Pearl St., Suite 1650 LB 314
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: 214/754-0025
         Fax: 214/754-0936
         E-mail: leonep@flash.net

Representing the defendants is:

         James R. Nelson, Esq.
         DLA Piper US LLP
         1717 Main St., Suite 4600
         Dallas, TX 75201-4605
         Phone: 214/743-4512
         Fax: 214/743-4545
         E-mail: jr.nelson@dlapiper.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Ovcon Direct Purchasers Suit for $10M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Ltd. reached a settlement to conclude two antitrust lawsuits
brought by certain direct purchasers of the company's combined hormonal
contraceptives, Ovcon 35.

The claims held by the settling plaintiffs represented a majority of the
damages sought by all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs who have brought
antitrust suits against the Company.

Under the proposed settlement, all claims will be dismissed and the
litigations will be terminated in exchange for a cash payment of $10.0
million.  

The settlement remains subject to the court-ordered dismissal of the suits,
and does not address the one continuing antitrust class action brought by the
remaining direct purchaser plaintiffs.

                        Case Background

Initially, eight direct purchaser lawsuits were filed against the companies.  
The direct purchaser plaintiffs allege that the Ovcon Agreements violate
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  All of the direct purchaser plaintiffs seek
treble damages, injunctive relief, and costs including attorneys' fees.  

Six of the lawsuits, which were all filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, are class actions.  The remaining two suits are brought
on behalf of individual direct purchasers.

On April 14, 2006 the six direct purchaser class action plaintiffs jointly
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint and dismissed their
complaints in the remaining five cases.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the court appointed Magistrate Judge Alan Kay as a mediator
for settlement of the direct purchaser cases at the parties' request.

Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Expenses Total $13M at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$13.1 million
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$20.7 million for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

The Company’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$26 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$25.6 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2006.

Asbestos liabilities, net of receivables, amounted to US$22.8 million for the
six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$2.1 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2006.

Payments for asbestos-related claims, net of insurance recoveries, amounted
to US$3.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with
US$23.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos liability amounted to US$87.5 million as of
June 30, 2007 and US$88.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-
term asbestos liability amounted to US$439.9 million as of June 30, 2007 and
US$479.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$66 million
as of June 30, 2007 and US$71.3 as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-term
asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$338.8 million as of June 30,
2007 and US$396.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design,
development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products
that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament
wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural
gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Cases v. EnPro Ind. Remain at 160,500
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. still faces 106,500 asbestos-related cases filed
against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

Pending asbestos-related cases against the Company, as of March 31, 2007,
remain at 106,500. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007)

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., are among a large number of defendants in
actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial sealing products,
including gaskets and packing products. The damages claimed vary from action
to action, and in some cases plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive
damages.

To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any punitive
damage awards. Liability for compensatory damages has historically been
allocated among responsible defendants.

Since the first asbestos-related suits were filed against Garlock in 1975,
Garlock and Anchor have processed about 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion
and, together with their insurers, have paid about US$1.2 billion in
settlements and judgments and almost US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims of plaintiffs
alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six percent have been claims of
plaintiffs with lung or other cancers, and more than 90 percent have been
claims of plaintiffs alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-
malignant impairment of the respiratory system.

Of the 106,500 open cases at June 30, 2007, the Company is aware of about
9,200 (8.6 percent) that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer
or some other cancer.

The Company recorded 3,100 new claims filed in the 2007-1st half, compared
with 4,200 new claims filed in the 2006-1st half.

The number of new actions filed against the Company’s subsidiaries in 2006
(7,700) was significantly lower than the number filed in 2005 (15,300).

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design,
development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products
that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament
wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural
gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Has $2.4M Collateral on Appeal Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc., at June 30, 2007, had US$2.4 million of cash
collateral on asbestos-related appeal bonds recorded as restricted cash on
the Consolidated Balance Sheets, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

Of that amount, US$1.2 million has been released in the third quarter as a
result of the successful New York appeal.

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., are among a large number of defendants in
actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Garlock’s product defenses have enabled it to be successful at trial, winning
defense verdicts in 12 of the 24 cases tried to verdict in the years 2004
through 2007, including the one case tried to verdict thus far in 2007 and
three of the four cases tried to verdict in 2006.

During the 2007-1st half, Garlock began six trials. A Massachusetts jury
returned a defense verdict in favor of Garlock. Four suits in Pennsylvania
and one in Maryland settled during trial before the juries had reached a
verdict.

In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs. Garlock received
jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.; Easton, Pa.; and Louisville,
Ky. In Pennsylvania, three other suits involving four plaintiffs settled
during trial before the juries reached verdict. Garlock also settled cases in
Massachusetts, California, and Texas during trial.

In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff US$900,000
against Garlock. The award was significantly less than the US$1.75 million
award against Garlock in the previous trial, which Garlock successfully
appealed. Garlock has also appealed the new verdict.

In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in Philadelphia after
the juries were selected but before the trials began because there was
insufficient evidence of exposure to Garlock products.

In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, in a
unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial. The case subsequently settled.

On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal from
a 2005 Baltimore verdict, and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment
interest, in the 2006-4th quarter. In a separate Baltimore case in the 2006-
4th quarter, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal
from another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was also
denied and Garlock paid that verdict in 2007-2nd quarter.

In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision,
overturned a US$800,000 verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2004,
granting a new trial.

At June 30, 2007, two Garlock appeals were pending from adverse verdicts
totaling US$1.2 million, down from more than US$41 million at December 31,
2005.

New settlement commitments in the 2007-1st half totaled US$40 million,
compared with US$41 million in the 2006-1st half.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design,
development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products
that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament
wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural
gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $405M Reserve for Future Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.’s subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, at June
30, 2007, had available US$405 million of insurance and trust coverage,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

The Company said it believes the coverage will be available to cover future
asbestos claim and certain expense payments.

At March 31, 2007, Garlock had available US$437 million of insurance and
trust coverage that will be available to cover future asbestos claim and
certain expense payments. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007)

In addition, at June 30, 2007, Garlock had US$56 million of otherwise
available insurance that the Company classifies as insolvent.

Garlock collected about US$5 million from insolvent carriers in 2006,
bringing total collections from insolvent carriers from 2002 through 2006 to
about US$38.4 million.

Of the US$405 million, US$241 million is allocated to claims that have been
paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance companies for reimbursement,
and the remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims as
described later in this section.

During the 2006-4th quarter, the Company reached an agreement with a
significant group of related U.S. insurers. These insurers had withheld
payments pending resolution of the matter.

This payment delay accounted for US$45.6 million of the Company’s insurance
receivables at June 30, 2007. The agreement provides for the payment of the
full amount of the insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual
payments to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the agreement, Garlock
received US$22 million during the 2007-1st half.

In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer that resolved
two suits and an arbitration proceeding. Under the settlement, Garlock
received US$4 million in December 2006 and will receive another US$17 million
in the future. As part of the agreement, Garlock agreed to forgo US$19
million of nominal insurance.

During the 2005-1st quarter, the Company reached agreement with two of
Garlock’s U.S. insurers. The insurers agreed to pay Garlock a total of US$21
million in three equal bi-annual payments of US$7 million. The first payment
was received in May 2005 and the second payment was received in April 2007.
The third payment is due in May 2009.

In the 2004-2nd quarter, the Company reached agreement with Equitas, the
London-based entity responsible for the pre-1993 Lloyds’ of London policies
in the Company’s insurance block, concerning settlement of its exposure to
the Company’s subsidiaries’ asbestos claims.

As a result of the settlement, US$88 million was placed in an independent
trust. In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached agreement with a group of
London market carriers (other than Equitas) and one of its U.S. carriers that
has some policies reinsured through the London market. As a result of the
settlement, US$55.5 million was placed in an independent trust.

At June 30, 2007, the market value of the funds remaining in the two trusts
was US$44.7 million, which was included in the $405 million of insurance and
trust coverage available to pay future asbestos-related claims and expenses.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design,
development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products
that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament
wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural
gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Liability Totals $527.4M at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.’s total asbestos-related liability, at June 30, 2007,
amounted to US$527.4 million, which includes $520.6 million as the Company’s
estimate of the liability plus US$6.8 million of accrued legal and other fees
already incurred but not yet paid.

This amount includes US$95.4 million for advanced-stage cases and settled
claims and accrued legal and other fees, and US$432 million for early-stage
and unasserted claims.

During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge to income
of US$13.1 million to reflect net cash outlays of US$6.7 million of legal
fees and expenses incurred during the quarter and a US$6.4 million non-cash
charge primarily to add an estimate of the liability for the 2017-2nd quarter
to maintain a 10-year estimate.

For the 2007-1st half, the Company has recorded pre-tax charges to income of
US$26 to reflect net cash outlays of $13.8 million of legal fees and expenses
and a US$12.2 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of the
liability for the first half of 2017.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design,
development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products
that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament
wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural
gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $329M Net Unpaid Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.’s asbestos-related net unpaid losses and
allocated loss adjustment expenses amounted to US$328,954,000 for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company’s asbestos-
related net unpaid losses and ALAE amounted to US$356,787,000.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
US$341,031,000 as net unpaid loss and allocated loss adjustment expenses,
compared with US$367,183,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007)

The Company’s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and ALAE amounted to
US$421,380,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared
with US$441,752,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
US$429,596,000 as gross unpaid losses and ALAE, compared with US$461,078,000
for the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 11,
2007)

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100-percent owned by
Fairfax Inc., which in turn is owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, offers commercial property and casualty
insurance distributed through an independent producer force located across
the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,100 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc. subsidiaries (Leslie, Spence, and Hoke,
collectively) have been named as defendants or third-party defendants in open
asbestos related cases brought on behalf of about 6,100 claimants, according
to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

The Company, like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, has
been and continues to be named as a defendant in product liability actions
brought on behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers.

In some instances, the Company also has been named individually and as
successor in interest to one or more of these subsidiaries. These cases
typically have anywhere from 25 to 400 defendants and seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants in the aggregate.

Of about 6,100 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but about 1,000 have
brought their claims in Mississippi. Over the past two years, the Mississippi
courts have rendered decisions and the state legislature has passed
legislation aimed at curbing certain abusive practices by plaintiff attorneys
under which large numbers of unrelated plaintiffs would be grouped in the
same case against hundreds of defendants.

As a result of these changes, many of these “mass filings” have been
dismissed and the number of Mississippi claimants against the Company’s
subsidiaries is now about 5,200, whereas it previously had been as high as
21,000.

The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of about 32
different states with California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and
Connecticut having the most significant percentage of the claims.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International Inc. makes instrumentation and
fluid regulation products, including precision valves, tube and pipe
fittings, and regulators for hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam
systems. The Company sells its products (through about 1,900 distributors) to
more than 11,000 aerospace, energy, chemical, pharmaceutical, and industrial
customers in nearly 100 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 4,592 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of June 30, 2007, has been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,592
plaintiffs, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

Of the 4,592 claims, about 1,950 claims were pending and 2,642 have been
closed through dismissals or settlements.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 1,942 pending asbestos-
related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits where plaintiffs allege exposure to
asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various locations.

As of June 30, 2007, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been
resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount per
claim of about US$1,000.

At June 30, 2007, the Company had accrued US$930,000 for liability and
related expenses.

Based in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is a
global specialty engineering and construction company that makes flat-bottom
tanks for storing crude oil, gas, water, chemicals, and manufacturing
feedstocks; cryogenic tanks and systems to maintain liquid gases; natural gas
processing plants; elevated tanks for water storage; and pressure vessels for
high-pressure/high-temperature applications. The Company serves the
hydrocarbon, energy, power generation, and water storage and treatment
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Records 72,890 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corp. had about 72,890 pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2007, about
73,310 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, and about 94,730 claims as of June
30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

The Company’s pending asbestos-related claims, as of March 31, 2007, dropped
to about 72,510. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries
related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result
of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a
predecessor, before the 1970s.

In most of the asbestos suits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of
the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in
which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly
caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing grades of
decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships.

Of the 72,890 claims pending as of June 30, 2007, about 48,220 were pending
in state courts, 21,140 in federal courts and, additionally, about 3,530 were
third party claims pending in state courts.

During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company received about 1,490 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket about 1,110 claims.

The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$5.7 million for
2006 and about US$37.2 million for 2005.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, lung
cancer, other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious,
including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to
an allegedly asbestos-related disease.

Claims identified as cancer remain a small percentage of asbestos claims
pending at June 30, 2007. In a substantial number of the pending claims, the
plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed injury.

New York-based CBS Corp. is comprised of the following segments: Television
(CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Network, television stations, and its
television production and syndication operations; Showtime Networks; and CSTV
Networks), Radio (CBS Radio), Outdoor (CBS Outdoor) and Publishing (Simon &
Schuster).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries have been named, along with
numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by individuals who claim
injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

Some Company-owned facilities contain or have contained asbestos insulation
and other asbestos-containing materials.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the Company, but most
existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by the Company or its
subsidiaries.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most of these
claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as NRG Texas LP (NRG).

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Inc.’s regulated utilities distribute
natural gas and electricity to more than 5 million customers in six states,
primarily in the southern U.S. The Company also operates 7,900 miles of gas
pipeline, and it has gas gathering and storage operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,181 Cases at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group Inc.’s subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., as of
June 30, 2007, had 1,181 pending asbestos-related cases, out of the 3,306
cases filed against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 1,178 pending asbestos-related
cases filed against Central Hudson. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,975 have been
dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central
Hudson has settled 150 cases.

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group Inc.’s Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corp. provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York
State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in
a 2,600-square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to
Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 26 Cases Set For Trial in 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. (f/k/a Belden CDT Inc.) recorded 26 asbestos-related cases that
are scheduled for trial in 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007.

These 26 cases are included in about 150 personal injury cases of the Company
was aware at July 30, 2007.

At April 30, 2007, the Company was aware of about 152 cases. (Class Action
Reporter, May 11, 2007)

The Company is party to various legal proceedings and administrative actions
that are incidental to its operations in which the claimant alleges injury
from exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber, generally contained in a
small number of products manufactured by the Company’s predecessors.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek compensatory,
special and punitive damages.

Through July 30, 2007, the Company has been dismissed (or reached agreement
to be dismissed) in about 192 similar cases without any going to trial, and
with 12 of these involving any payment to the claimant.

St. Louis-based Belden Inc. (f/k/a Belden CDT Inc.) makes cable and wire
products for use in the broadcasting, computer, entertainment, security,
instrumentation, and networking industries. The Company’s products include
fiber optic, coaxial, and multi-conductor cables, as well as lead and hookup
wires and connectivity and management products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Still Has 3rd-Party Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. continues to face various personal injury claims,
including claims by employees of third-party contractors, alleging exposure
to asbestos, silica, and benzene.

These employees had worked at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of
acquired companies) located in Texas, California, and Oklahoma.

The Woodlands, Tex.-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is engaged in the
exploration, development, production, gathering, processing and marketing of
natural gas, crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The
Company also engages in the hard minerals business through non-operated joint
ventures and royalty arrangements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. American Standard Drop to 102,653
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc. recorded 102,653 open asbestos-related
claims filed against as of June 30, 2007, compared with 102,261 open claims
at the end of 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 110,133 pending asbestos-related
claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007)

The Company has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging
various asbestos-related personal injury claims arising primarily from its
historical sales of boilers and railroad brake shoes.

In these asbestos-related lawsuits, the Company is usually named as one of a
large group of defendants. Many of these lawsuits involve multiple claimants,
do not specifically identify the injury or disease for which damages are
sought and do not allege a connection between any Company product and a
claimed injury or disease.

As a result, numerous lawsuits have been placed, and may remain on, inactive
or deferred dockets, which some jurisdictions have established.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 1,632 new claims
filed, 331 claims settled, and 909 claims dismissed. For the year ended 2006,
the Company recorded 4,445 new claims filed, 845 claims settled, and 15,102
claims dismissed.

From receipt of its first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago to June 30,
2007, the Company has resolved 62,074 claims. The total amount of all
settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries) and by its
insurance carriers is about US$94.6 million, for an average payment per
resolved claim of US$1,524.

The average payment per claim resolved during the six months ended June 30,
2007 amounted to US$7,810, compared with US$1,260 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2006.

At June 30, 2007, the total asbestos liability was estimated at US$655.6
million, compared with US$665.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The asbestos indemnity liability decreased by US$10.2 million during the
first six months of 2007 due to claims payments made during the first half of
the year.

Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes air-
conditioning systems, plumbing products, and automotive braking systems. Its
air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems. Its kitchen
and bath segment makes plumbing fixtures like toilets, tubs, sinks, and
faucets. The Company makes vehicle braking systems through subsidiary WABCO.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery on ASD Suit Still Extended to Nov
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery of an asbestos-related insurance lawsuit filed by American Standard
Companies Inc. against certain carriers in New Jersey court is still extended
through Nov. 12, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007.

The Company is in litigation against the carriers whose policies it believes
provide coverage for asbestos claims. The insurance carriers named in this
suit are challenging the Company’s right to recovery.

The Company filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Middlesex County, against various of its primary and lower layer
excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims (the “NJ
Litigation”).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for asbestos
related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer excess carriers and
underwriting syndicates.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company’s motion to add to the NJ
Litigation 16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies. The court
also required the parties to submit all contested matters to mediation.

The Company and the defendants in the NJ Litigation engaged in their first
mediation session on Jan. 18, 2006 and have engaged in active discussions
since that time.

In February 2005, the Company settled with Equitas for US$84.5 million to buy-
out the participants of certain underwriters in pre-1993 Lloyd’s, London
policies included in the Company’s insurance coverage. As of Dec. 31, 2006,
US$64.9 million remained in a trust, excluding interest, which expired Jan.
3, 2007.

Under the settlement, the balance of the funds was disbursed to the Company
on Jan. 4, 2007. Of the US$64.9 million, about US$44.2 million relates to
historical asbestos claim settlements and current legal expenses incurred and
the balance represents amounts relating to future legal costs to be incurred.

The asbestos receivable was US$342.9 million at June 30, 2007, compared with
US$385.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The asbestos receivable decreased by US$42.9 million during the first six
months of 2007.

Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes air-
conditioning systems, plumbing products, and automotive braking systems. Its
air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems. Its kitchen
and bath segment makes plumbing fixtures like toilets, tubs, sinks, and
faucets. The Company makes vehicle braking systems through subsidiary WABCO.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 2 Third-Party Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd., as of June 30, 2007, recorded two Third-Party Payor
actions pending against its subsidiary Liggett Group
LLC, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007.

The Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been commenced by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos manufacturers and
others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for: funding of
corrective public education campaigns relating to issues of smoking and
health; funding for clinical smoking cessation programs; disgorgement of
profits from sales of cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys’
fees.

Although no specific amounts are provided, it is understood that requested
damages against the tobacco company defendants in these cases might be in the
billions of dollars.

Miami-based Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett unit makes discount cigarettes under
brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix, and Eve, OMNI-branded "reduced-
carcinogen" cigarettes, and several generic lines of cigarettes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Records 53 Pending Claims at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of June 30, 2007, recorded 53
asbestos-related claims, of which three claims are covered by insurance,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, Dalmine had 54 asbestos-related claims, of which three
claims are covered by insurance. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007)

In addition to the previously known 14 civil proceedings for work-related
injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing processes
during the period from 1960 to 1980, 39 asbestos-related out-of-court claims
and 1 civil party claim, 2 new asbestos-related out-of-court claims and 1
asbestos civil proceedings have been notified to Dalmine during 2007. Three
claims were adjudicated, dismissed, or settled.

Aggregate settlement costs to date are EUR5.1 million. Dalmine estimates that
its potential liability in connection with the claims above that are not yet
settled is about EUR21.5 million (US$29 million) of which EUR8.9 million
(US$12 million) relate to the claims and proceedings notified to Dalmine
during 2007.

Luxembourg-based Tenaris S.A. manufactures and distributes seamless steel
pipe products. The Company also produces welded steel pipes for gas pipelines
in South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Stays at $18.7M at July 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp.’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$18,694,000 as of July 1, 2007, the same as for the periods ended April 1,
2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2007.

The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$4,244,000
million as of July 1, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to
US$18,503,000 as of July 1, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The Company’s current asbestos-related assets totaled US$4,244,000 as of July
1, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Rogers, Conn-based Rogers Corp.’s products include printed circuit board
laminates and polyester-based industrial laminates, which are used in digital
cellular communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV. The
Company also makes high-performance elastomer components sold to OEMs in
various markets, including transportation, communications, and consumer
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Records 161 Pending Claims at July 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp., as of July 1, 2007, recorded about 161 pending asbestos-related
claims filed against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2007.

As of April 1, 2007, the Company recorded about 158 pending asbestos-related
claims filed against it, compared with 148 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007)

Over the past several years, there has been a significant increase in certain
U.S. states in asbestos-related product liability claims brought against
numerous industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege
personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Company
has been named, along with hundreds of other companies, as a defendant in
some of these claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, or, if an amount is
specified, it merely represents jurisdictional amounts or amounts to be
proven at trial.

The Company made some limited products, which contained encapsulated
asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The Company
stopped manufacturing these products in 1987.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania, and Mississippi.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants, although some
cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The Company has
obtained dismissals of many of these claims.

In the six month period ended July 1, 2007, the Company was able to have
about 27 claims dismissed and settled 5 claims. For the full year 2006, about
77 claims were dismissed and 16 were settled.

Most of the costs have been paid by the Company’s insurance carriers,
including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been
settled.

Those settlements totaled about US$700,000 in the six month period ended July
1, 2007 and US$5.1 million in all of 2006.  

Rogers, Conn-based Rogers Corp.’s products include printed circuit board
laminates and polyester-based industrial laminates, which are used in digital
cellular communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV. The
Company also makes high-performance elastomer components sold to OEMs in
various markets, including transportation, communications, and consumer
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Cases in Md. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings Inc., as of June 30, 2007, continues to face about 180
asbestos-related cases pending against it in the State Courts of Maryland,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007.

During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints filed in the
state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore
County, Md. in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re:
Personal Injury Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a
theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that
the Company was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for
employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on Company property.

Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added the Company to
their complaints. It appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in
compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have been filed
against the Company, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed.

As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one
motion for summary judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases
successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or
by the court.

Of about 180 pending cases as of June 30, 2007, about 90 cases were filed
after Dec. 19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and
indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant has agreed to assume this
contractual obligation.

Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes electricity to more
than 1.8 million customers and natural gas to 121,000 customers through its
utility units. Non-regulated operations include independent power production,
wholesale and retail energy marketing, and energy management services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Quigley Statement Held Last July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. stated that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York, on July 12, 2007, held a hearing to consider the adequacy of
Quigley Company Inc.'s disclosure statement, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 6, 2007.

Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small amounts of
products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.

In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were intended to
resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and Quigley in
which the claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products
containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust.

The Company took a charge of US$369 million, pre-tax (US$229 million, after-
tax) to 2004-3rd quarter earnings in connection with these matters.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court seeking
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court
that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt of the favorable
vote of 75 percent of the claimants.

In connection with that filing, the Company entered into settlement
agreements with lawyers representing more than 80 percent of the individuals
with claims related to Quigley products against Quigley and the Company.

The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in payments, of which
US$215 million became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants
upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each of
the claimants.

The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a Trust for the
payment of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging
injury from exposure to Quigley products.

As certified by the balloting agent in May 2006, more than 75 percent of
Quigley's claimants holding claims that represent more than two-thirds in
value of claims against Quigley voted to accept Quigley's plan of
reorganization.

On Aug. 9, 2006, in reviewing the voting tabulation methodology, the
Bankruptcy Court ruled that certain votes that accepted the plan were not
predicated upon the actual value of the claim. The reorganization plan was
not accepted.

In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization that is
intended to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the voting
tabulation methodology.

In addition, the Company entered into an agreement with the representative of
future claimants that provides for the contribution by Pfizer to the Trust of
an additional amount with a present value of US$88.4 million.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based pharmaceuticals firm with
products like erectile dysfunction therapy Viagra, pain management drug
Celebrex, antidepressant Zoloft, and cholesterol-lowering Lipitor.
Subsidiaries include Embrex, Warner-Lambert, and Parke-Davis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 470 Cases with 7,000 Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending asbestos-related cases against NL Industries Inc. total about 470, in
which these cases involve a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their
spouses, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007.

The Company faced about 490 pending asbestos-related cases, involving a total
of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, May 11,
2007)

The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several
jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational
exposure primarily to products made by the Company’s former operations
containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust.

In addition, the claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts.

From time to time, the Company has received notices regarding asbestos or
silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including
notices provided to insurers with which the Company has entered into
settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek
indemnification from the Company.

The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings with certain of its
former insurance carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers’
obligations to the Company under insurance policies with respect to certain
lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits.

The Company has agreements with two former insurance carriers under which the
carriers reimburse the Company for a portion of its past and future lead
pigment litigation defense costs.

Dallas-based NL Industries Inc., through minority owned subsidiary, Kronos
Worlwide Inc., supplies titanium dioxide (TiO2), which maximizes the
whiteness, opacity, and brightness of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and
ceramics. Valhi Inc. owns 83 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Faces 3rd-Party Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter Inc. continues to face numerous multi-party lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 6, 2007.

The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated into a very
limited number of the Company’s industrial products.

Milwaukee-based Badger Meter Inc. provides water utilities and industrial
customers with instruments that measure and control the flow of liquids.
Established in 1905, the Company makes meters, valves, flow tubes, and other
measurement devices for original equipment manufacturers, water and
wastewater utilities, and companies in the pharmaceutical, chemical,
concrete, and food and beverage industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut’s A&E Loss Reserves Total $148.1M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Group Inc.’s loss reserves for asbestos and environmental claims
totaled a gross of US$148.1 million, a net of US$139.7 million, at June 30,
2007, according to the Company’s quarter report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007.

At June 30, 2006, the Company’s loss reserves for A&E totaled a gross of
US$158 million, a net of US$148.3 million.

The Company’s asbestos & environmental reserves, at Dec. 31, 2006, was a
gross of US$166.8 million and a net of US$176.4 million. (Class Action
Reporter, March 16, 2007)

San Antonio, Tex.-based Argonaut Group Inc. is a national underwriter of
specialty insurance products in niche areas of the property and casualty
market, with over US$3.8 billion in assets. Through its insurance
subsidiaries, the Company operates in three primary segments: Excess and
Surplus Lines, Select Markets, and Public Entity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int’l. Still Faces Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Essex Inc. stated that, since about 1990, Essex International Inc.
and certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants in product liability
suits brought by electricians, other skilled tradesmen and others claiming
injury, in a majority of cases, from exposure to asbestos found in electrical
wire products produced many years ago.

Essex International is a subsidiary of Superior Essex Holding Corp., which is
a Company subsidiary.

Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International who had
previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex International against these
lawsuits was settled during 1999.

Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for substantially
all of its costs and expenses incurred in the defense of these lawsuits, and
the insurers have undertaken to defend, are directly defending and, if it
should become necessary, will indemnify Essex International against those
asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the respective policies.

Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in these actions
will be able to assert claims under applicable insurance coverage and other
similar arrangements.

Atlanta-based Superior Essex Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of
communications wire and cable products. The Company also converts copper
cathode to copper rod for internal consumption and for sale to other wire and
cable manufacturers and OEMs. The Company operates manufacturing facilities
in the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Portugal, Mexico, Canada,
Italy, and China.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Involved in Grace Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. continues to be involved in W.R. Grace & Co.’s bankruptcy
case, which is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the
committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case
of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current and future asbestos-related
claims made against the Company and its affiliates, the fraudulent transfer
claims, successor liability claims, and indemnification claims by Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings Inc. and affiliated companies in connection with the
Cryovac transaction.

On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the agreement in
principle. The parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive
settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the
agreement in principle.

The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million as a result of the asbestos
settlement in its consolidated statement of operations for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2002.

On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the
definitive settlement agreement.

The order also provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction of any
dispute involving the interpretation or enforcement of the terms and
provisions of the definitive settlement agreement.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization and related
documents with the Bankruptcy Court.

A number of objections were filed, and the Company does not know whether the
final plan will be consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement or
if the other conditions to the Company’s obligation to pay the settlement
amount will be met.

If these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by the Company, the
Company will not be obligated to pay the settlement amount. However, if the
Company does not pay the settlement amount, the Company and its affiliates
will not be released from the various asbestos-related, fraudulent transfer,
successor liability and indemnification claims made against them.

All of these claims would remain pending and would have to be resolved
through other means, such as through agreement on alternative settlement
terms or trials.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp.’s largest product segment, Food
Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used
by food processors and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. Its
Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak foam, Jiffy
envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Action Still Extended to Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. states that the stay of actions on asbestos, in a suit where
the Company and W.R. Grace & Co. are involved, is still extended through Oct.
1, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

On March 31, 1998, the Company completed a multi-step transaction that
brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed Air Corp.’s
business under the common ownership of the Company.

In its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
the Company described the Cryovac transaction and contingencies related to
the Cryovac transaction. The Company also described the cases of:

-- Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al., and

-- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney
General of Canada, et al.

The Company also described six additional putative class proceedings that had
been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canadian courts
seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac Inc. and
Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie as well as other defendants, including Grace, for
asbestos-related injuries.

In April 2001, Grace’s subsidiary Grace Canada Inc. had obtained an order of
the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(Court File No. 01-CL-4081) recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the U.S.
involving Grace Canada’s U.S. parent corporation and other U.S. affiliates of
Grace Canada, and enjoining all new actions and staying all current
proceedings against Grace Canada related to asbestos under the Canadian
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, the court ordered an extension
of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company
and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the
effect of staying all of the Canadian actions.

Grace’s proposed plan of reorganization provides that these claims will be
paid by the trusts to be established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code as part of Grace’s plan of reorganization. It is anticipated that the
defendants will ask the Canadian courts to enforce the terms of the plan of
reorganization.

However, if Grace’s final plan does not include comparable provisions or if
the Canadian courts refuse to enforce Grace’s final plan of reorganization in
the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable to
defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then
the Company could be required to pay substantial damages.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp.’s largest product segment, Food
Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used
by food processors and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. Its
Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak foam, Jiffy
envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. RBS Global Increase to 650
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. faces more than 650 lawsuits (with about 6,800 claimants)
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions over alleged
personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in certain brakes and
clutches previously manufactured by its Stearns division, according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

The Company faced over 630 lawsuits, with about 6,800 claimants, pending in
state or federal court relating to alleged personal injuries due to asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches. (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2007)

Invensys plc and FMC, the prior owner of the Stearns business, have paid 100
percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.

The Company’s Prager subsidiary has been named as a defendant in two pending
multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly made by Prager. There are
about 3,600 claimants in the Prager suits.

To date, Invensys has paid 100 percent of the costs related to the Prager
suits.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is a diversified, multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water
Management. The Power Transmission segment manufactures gears, industrial
bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace
bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. The Company’s
Water Management segment supplies professional grade specification drainage,
PEX piping, water control and commercial brass products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global’s Falk Unit Faces Over 140 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc.’s Falk unit continues to face more than 140 lawsuits pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged
personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously made by Falk.

About 4,100 claimants in these suits, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

On May 16, 2005, the Company acquired the Falk Corp. from Hamilton
Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies Corp.

In connection with the Falk acquisition in May 2005, Hamilton Sundstrand has
provided the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including coverage for certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is a diversified, multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water
Management. The Power Transmission segment manufactures gears, industrial
bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace
bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. The Company’s
Water Management segment supplies professional grade specification drainage,
PEX piping, water control and commercial brass products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. and an average of 85 other unrelated companies, as of June
30, 2007, were defendants in about 6,700 asbestos-related lawsuits
representing about 46,300 claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

Plaintiffs' claims against the Company allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used in industrial boilers formerly made by a segment of
the Company's Zurn water management business.

Zurn did not make asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased
them from suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense strategy
funded by the Company's insurers.

The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$11.2 billion
against all defendants.

The Company estimates that Zurn’s potential liability for asbestos claims
pending against it and for claims estimated to be filed through 2016 is about
US$136 million, of which the Company expects to pay about US$102 million
through 2016 on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability
being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential
asbestos liability as of June 30, 2007, is about US$286.5 million, and
believes that all current claims are covered by this insurance.

However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain insurance
carriers of the Company, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company’s other carriers have paid the first US$210.5 million of aggregate
liabilities.

In order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from solvent
carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need to satisfy US$14
million of asbestos claims.

Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$286.5 million of
coverage, management estimates that it would need to satisfy an additional
US$80 million of asbestos claims.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company had recorded a receivable from its insurance
carriers of US$136 million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential
asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is determined
to be probable of recovery.

However, there is no assurance that US$286.5 million of insurance coverage
will ultimately be available or that Zurn’s asbestos liabilities will not
ultimately exceed US$286.5 million.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is a diversified, multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water
Management. The Power Transmission segment manufactures gears, industrial
bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace
bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. The Company’s
Water Management segment supplies professional grade specification drainage,
PEX piping, water control and commercial brass products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Suits v. Mine Safety Rise to 250
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 10 percent of the 2,500 product liability lawsuits, or 250 cases,
pending against Mine Safety Appliances Co. are related to asbestos or
combined injuries, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

About 10 percent of the 2,300 product liability lawsuits filed against the
Company is asbestos-related. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007)

Various lawsuits and claims, primarily product liability claims, arising in
the normal course of business are pending against the Company.

The Company is named as a defendant in about 2,500 lawsuits primarily
involving respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by
the Company. Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 16,500
plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging they suffer
from silicosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured by the Company.

The defendants in these lawsuits are often numerous, and the claims generally
do not specify the amount of damages sought.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective equipment for
workers in the military, as well as the fire service, construction, homeland
security industries, and miners. The Company produces air-purifying
respiratory equipment, gas masks, and head protection gear, much of which
carries the MSA brand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Still Has 350 Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corp., as of June 30, 2007, still faces about 350 asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against it, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 350 asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007)

The Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants.

All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been concluded
before trial, either through dismissal or through settlement with payments to
the plaintiff that are not material to the Company.

At June 30, 2007, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities of about
US$20 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos.

Glen Allen, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corp. is a global packaging company that
delivers high-value packaging solutions, dispensing and spraying systems, and
other products to the world’s most recognized companies in the food and
beverage, media and entertainment, personal care, cosmetic, home and garden,
and healthcare industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Units Face Antoine Action in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International Inc.’s affiliates, J. Ray McDermott Inc. and
McDermott Inc., continue to face an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in the
164th Judicial District Court in Harris County, Tex., according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

In the matter styled Antoine, et. al. v. McDermott, Inc., et. al., the court
entered an order on April 27, 2007 staying all activity and deadlines in this
matter other than service of process and answer/appearance dates until
further order of the court.

The matter was also filed against about 65 other employer defendants and 42
maritime products defendants for monetary damages as a result of alleged
personal injuries from exposure to asbestos and noise.

Houston-based McDermott International Inc. is a global engineering and
construction firm active in offshore oil and gas construction, power
generation systems, and government contracting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Suits in 28 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corp. and five of its subsidiaries face asbestos-related injury lawsuits
in 28 states, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

The suits claim various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a
result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos. Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.

To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs
of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of
defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable
deductibles.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The
balance has been settled for reasonable amounts. One case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit.

Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corp. is a manufacturer of pump products,
dispensing equipment, and other engineered products. The Company’s fluid and
metering segment includes industrial pumps, injectors, compressors, and flow
meters. Its health and science segment consists of low-flow pumps and
equipment. The Company's dispensing equipment includes gear for dispensing,
metering, and mixing dyes, inks, and paints. The Company’s fire and
safety/diversified products segment manufactures banding and clamping
equipment, fire-fighting pumps, and rescue tools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Still Faces Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. has been subject to asbestos-related claims, which seek
damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos used in brake
components, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

A limited numbers of claims have arisen from asbestos contained in the
insulation and brakes used in the manufacturing of locomotives, and claims
brought by contractors who allege exposure to asbestos-containing products
while working on premises owned by the Company.

A small percentage of the claims pending against the Company allege causation
of a malignant disease associated with asbestos exposure.

The amount expended on asbestos-related matters in any year depends on the
number of claims filed, the amount of pretrial proceedings, and the number of
trials and settlements during the period.

The Company recorded a US$127 million charge for unasserted asbestos claims
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Detroit-based General Motors Corp. is engaged in the worldwide production and
marketing of cars and trucks. The Company develops, manufactures, and markets
vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM
Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East, and GM Asia Pacific.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide’s French Unit to Pay $300T for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies’ principal French subsidiary, Compagnie Europenne D
Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC), in 2007, has been adjudged to indemnify a French
governmental agency about US$300,000 for asbestos-related claims.

From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite asbestos fibers in
the formation of battery cases, which, once formed, encapsulated the fibers.
About 1,500 employees worked in the plant over the period.

Since 1982, the agency responsible for worker illness claims received 64
employee claims alleging asbestos-related illnesses.

For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has indemnified the agency
in accordance with French law for about US$400,000 in calendar 2004.

In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the agency for about
US$100,000 during the same period for the dependents of four of the claimants.

The Company was not required to indemnify or make any payments subsequent to
calendar year 2004.

No payment has yet been made to the agency in 2007, according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

Alpharetta, Ga.-based Exide Technologies makes lead-acid automotive and
industrial batteries with customers that include retailers like Wal-Mart and
NAPA, and transportation giants like DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota. The
Company also makes batteries for boats, farm equipment, golf carts,
locomotives, and wheelchairs, as well as backup power supply batteries for
telecommunications, computer, and power plant systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Has 31,637 Abex Claims at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd., at June 30, 2007, recorded 31,637 Pneumo Abex Corp.
asbestos-related claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corp.,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

At March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 31,607 Pneumo Abex asbestos-related
claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul. (Class Action Reporter,
May 18, 2007)

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-
Mogul Corp. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex product line
obtained from Pneumo-Abex Corp. in 1994) were operated through subsidiary
companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul
under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998.

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the Company for
certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities
related to the Abex product line and any potential liability that the Company
may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company
and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter
11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that Federal-Mogul may not honor the
indemnification obligations to the Company.

As of the date of this filing, Federal-Mogul had not rejected the 1998
Agreement, which includes the indemnification to the Company.

If Federal-Mogul rejects the 1998 Agreement, the Company will be relieved of
its future obligations under the 1998 Agreement, including specific
indemnities relating to payment of taxes and certain obligations regarding
insurance for its former Automotive Products businesses.

To the extent the Company is obligated to Pneumo for any asbestos-related
claims arising from the Abex product line (“Abex Claims”), the Company has
rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2007, a total of 142,721 Abex Claims were
filed, of which 111,084 claims have been resolved.

During the three months ended June 30, 2007, 474 claims were filed and 444
claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for
resolved Abex Claims was US$2,073 before insurance.

A total of US$117.7 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug.
28, 1998 through June 30, 2007. Historically, existing insurance coverage has
provided 50 percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity payments
for Abex Claims.

However, insurance recovery is at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due
to exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with certain
excess insurers.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
approved the adequacy of Federal-Mogul’s Supplemental Disclosure Statement
describing the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. The Court also
approved the Voting Procedures and ordered that the voting period would
expire on April 6, 2007.

At a hearing on April 13, 2007, Federal-Mogul announced that the Abex
settlement had received a favorable vote of about 94 percent. In addition,
any objections to the Fourth Amended Plan were filed with the Court by April
24, 2007 and the hearing on confirmation of the Plan was completed on July
10, 2007.

The Court has established dates through Oct. 1, 2007 for final briefs and
hearings. If the Plan is confirmed, Federal-Mogul could emerge from
bankruptcy by year-end 2007.

The accrual for potential liabilities related to the Automotive Products sale
and the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy was US$543 million at June 30, 2007 and
US$529.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

Houston-based Cooper Industries Ltd. makes electrical products, tools,
hardware, and metal support products. The Company's electrical products
include electrical and circuit protection devices, residential and industrial
lighting, and electrical power and distribution products. The Company’s tool
offerings include brands like Crescent wrenches and pliers, Apex impact
sockets, Plumb hammers, and Weller soldering and welding supplies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int’l. Has 18,813 Claims at July 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 18,813 asbestos-related
claims as of July 27, 2007, compared with 19,120 claims as of April 27, 2007,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

The Company was defending against 19,388 asbestos-related claims as of Feb.
16, 2007 and 19,416 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company faces suits brought in various courts in the United States by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured by the
Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in
certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had a useful life of three to 12
months.

As of July 27, 2007, about 12,612 of the claims pending against the Company
are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,031 are in federal court, at
the multidistrict litigation panel (“MDL”), either through removal or
original jurisdiction.

In addition to the 12,031 Mississippi claims pending against the Company at
the MDL, there are about 850 claims pending against the Company at the MDL
removed from various U.S. District Courts in other states.

The MDL has now issued a new order addressing the cases on its inactive
docket. That order, signed on May 31, 2007, requires each plaintiff to
provide detailed information regarding alleged asbestos-related medical
diagnoses.

The first set of plaintiffs are required to submit their filings with the
Court by Aug. 1, 2007, with deadlines for additional sets of plaintiffs
monthly thereafter until Dec. 1, 2007, by which time all plaintiffs are
required to be compliant.

The Company’s insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded
settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of July 27, 2007, the
Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 21,563 claims.

The total cost of resolving all claims was US$6,706,000. Of this amount,
US$6,671,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that
should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as
well as additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing,
which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase
of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn
used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 9,023 Claims at July 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.’s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics Inc. faces
9,023 asbestos-related claims as of July 27, 2007, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 7, 2007.

This compares with 9,089 claims as of April 27, 2007, 9,189 claims as of Feb.
16, 2007, and 9,114 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the
Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which
the Company is named as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems Corp., in
1999. Brandon is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Geschmay.

In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina
textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were
assets of Abney’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc., which had sold
dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.

Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name
subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos.

Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon and Abney,
Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon harmless from any actions
or claims on account of products manufactured by Abney and its related
corporations before the date of the sale, whether or not the product was sold
subsequent to the date of the sale.

A representative of Abney has been notified of the pendency of these actions
and demand has been made that it assume the defense of these actions.

In some instances, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed claims against
Brandon, while in others it has entered into what it considers to be
reasonable settlements.

As of July 27, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or
dismissal, 8,530 claims for a total of US$152,499.

Brandon’s insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the
total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings. The
remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon’s insurance carriers agreed to cover 100 percent of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard
reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense
costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing,
which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase
of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn
used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Continues to Face Mt. Vernon Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Inc., in several asbestos-related cases, continues to be
named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain
plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products allegedly
sold by Mount Vernon years before the acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of those products. The Company denies any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon before the acquisition of the Mount Vernon
assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed
the defense of these claims.

On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number
of actions.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing,
which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase
of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn
used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Morgen Lawsuit in U.S.’s Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. California, granted the United States of
America’s motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an
asbestos-related action filed by Donna Morgen in behalf of Dennis Morgen.

U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. entered decision of Case No. 2:05-
cv-1751-GEB-GGH on July 16, 2007.

On Nov. 17, 2006, Ms. Morgen informed the Court that Mr. Morgen had passed
away and that the case should proceed with her.

Ms. Morgen sought recovery for personal injuries and loss of consortium
stemming from Mr. Morgen’s mesothelioma. She asserted that while Mr. Morgen
worked at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, he was exposed to asbestos products and
asbestos-related materials which caused him to develop mesothelioma. He
worked there from March 1963 through October or November 1963.

Mr. Morgen's job at PSNS consisted of testing communications equipment aboard
Navy ships. This job required him to spend up to 25 hours a week on board
ships and to participate in three sea-trials each lasting two to three nights.

Mr. Morgen's duties included working in the compartment housing the
electronics equipment, climbing through hatches, and traversing catwalks,
which took him through virtually the entire length of the ship.

Mr. Morgen did not handle or use asbestos or asbestos-containing materials as
part of his job, nor did he see anyone using asbestos or asbestos-containing
materials.

The United States argued that Ms. Morgen’s claims are barred by the
discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"); or,
in the alternative, for summary judgment, and moves for dismissal of the
Department of the Navy as a defendant in this FTCA action.

Steven Kazan, James L. Oberman, and Matthew Louis Thiel of Kazan, McClain,
Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons & Farrise PLC, Oakland, Calif., represented Donna
Morgen.

David Simon Fishback, Torts Br., Civil Div., U.S. Department of Justice,
Margaret Jane Mahoney, Kirsten Wilkerson, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., represented the United States of America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Ransom’s Motion in McFaul Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, denied a Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Ransom & Randolph, in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Roslyn S. McFaul in behalf of Joseph McFaul.

Judge Joseph R. Slights III entered decision of C.A. No. 05C-10-178 ASB on
July 12, 2007.

Mrs. McFaul alleged that Mr. McFaul developed and eventually died from
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases as a result of his alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and distributed by
several entities, including Ransom.

Mrs. McFaul claimed that Mr. McFaul was exposed to these products while he
was a manager at E.D. Caulk Co. in Milford, Del., from 1956 or 1957 to 1983.

E.D. Caulk Company is now known as Dentsply International Inc. Mr. McFaul was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2004, and died on April 13, 2004.

Ransom was not affiliated with Dentsply at the time Mr. McFaul began to work
at E.D. Caulk Co. in the late 1950s. Dentsply acquired Ransom's assets and
certain designated liabilities in 1964.

From 1964 through 1997, Ransom operated as a division of Dentsply. On April
29, 1997, Ransom was separately incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Dentsply.

Mrs. McFaul maintained that her husband had no connection to Ransom during
his tenure at Dentsply. Ransom did not hire or pay Mr. McFaul or in any way
direct his work with Caulk/Dentsply. According to Mrs. McFaul, her husband's
only contact with Ransom was his exposure to Ransom's asbestos- containing
products.

Ransom has moved for summary judgment on the ground that it is immune from
suit in tort as an employer of the Mr. McFaul under Delaware's worker's
compensation immunity statute. Specifically, Ransom alleged that Mr. McFaul
was an employee of a predecessor of Ransom's parent corporation, Dentsply
International Inc., for the time periods before and after he allegedly was
exposed to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by Ransom.

According to Ransom, the affiliation between Ransom and Dentsply during the
relevant time periods was such that Ransom should be entitled to avail itself
of Dentsply's worker's compensation immunity.

After careful consideration of the record and applicable law, the Court
concludes that it is unable to engage in a meaningful analysis of the issues
because the record is not fully developed.

Accordingly, the Court denied Ransom's motion for summary judgment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court Reverses Ruling in Alcoa’s Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed an asbestos-related ruling of
the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Tex., stating that Alcoa
Inc. did not owe a legal duty to Barbara Behringer and Leroy Behringer.

Justices Whittington, Bridges, and Lagarde entered decision of Case No. 05-06-
00136-CV on July 27, 2007.

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial
Court Cause No. 04-00176-F.

Mrs. Behringer was married to John Alford from 1951 until 1959. During four
years of their marriage, from 1953 until 1955, and from 1957 until 1959, Mr.
Alford worked for Alcoa.

Specifically, Mr. Alford worked in the "potrooms" at Alcoa's Rockdale, Tex.,
plant in which aluminum ore was made by smelting raw materials in large
industrial pots. The pots were lined with insulation blocks containing
asbestos.

According to Mr. Alford's testimony, the "pot-liners" at Alcoa routinely
removed the insulation with jackhammers and replaced it, a process that took
about three days per pot.

Although Mr. Alford continued to work for Alcoa after 1959, as a result of
their divorce, Mrs. Behringer no longer came in contact with his clothing
after that time. She was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in November 2003.
     
In 2004, the Behringers sued Alcoa and other defendants alleging her
mesothelioma resulted from asbestos exposure caused by their wrongful acts.

The Behringers’ petition against Alcoa alleged Alcoa failed to provide
adequate safety measures and protective gear and failed to adequately warn
Alford and Mrs. Behringer of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

At the close of the evidence, the case was submitted to the jury as a
negligence case and the jury returned a verdict against Alcoa on counts of
negligence and gross negligence. The jury awarded Mrs. Behringer US$12
million in actual damages and US$2 million in exemplary damages.

The jury awarded Mr. Behringer US$1.5 million in actual damages for loss of
household services and loss of consortium, and US$2 million in exemplary
damages.

After applying settlement credits and the punitive damages cap, the trial
court entered judgment on the jury verdict, including prejudgment interest,
in the amount of US$15,593,340.05.

The trial court denied Alcoa's post-trial motions for judgment. Alcoa timely
perfected appeal.
     
Mrs. Behringer died on Jan. 25, 2006.

In 14 issues, Alcoa argued the trial court erred when it entered a final
judgment in favor of the Behringers. In its second issue, Alcoa asked whether
it owed a legal duty to the Behringers under the facts of this case.

Within this issue, Alcoa argued it did not owe a legal duty to the Behringers
because in the 1950s Alcoa could not foresee the harm of non-occupational
asbestos exposure.

The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and render
judgment that the Behringers take nothing on their claims against Alcoa.

Marie R. Yeates represented Alcoa Inc.

C. Andrew Waters, Jeffrey B. Simon, and Charles S. Siegel represented Barbara
Behringer and Leroy Behringer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Last Day of Filing v. ACandS Set on Oct. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has established Oct.
5, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (the “Asbestos Property Damage Claim Bar
Date”) as the last date and time by which Asbestos Property Damage Claims may
be filed in the chapter 11 case of ACandS Inc.

All entities that wish to assert an Asbestos Property Damage Claim against
the Debtor are required to file an Asbestos Damage Proof of Claim Form by no
later than the Asbestos Property Damage Claim Bar Date.

The Asbestos Property Damage Claim Bar Date applies to all holders of
Asbestos Property Damage Claims.

More information about what constitutes an Asbestos Property Damage Claim and
other important information and definitions may be obtained from the ACandS
Bankruptcy Website.

Any entity that fails to timely file an Asbestos Property Damage Claim by the
Asbestos Property Claim Bar Date, shall be forever barred, estopped, and
enjoined from asserting any Asbestos Property Damage Claim against the
Debtor, or voting upon, or receiving any distributions under any plan of
reorganization in this chapter 11 case in respect of such Asbestos Property
Damage Claim.

For complete information, including all relevant forms, notices and
instructions, please consult:

ACandS Bankruptcy Website: www.ACSbankruptcy.com

ACandS Claims Helpline: 1-888-455-9302

Write to:
The Garden City Group Inc.
Attn: ACandS Claims Processing
P.O. Box 9000 #6029
Merrick, N.Y. 11566-9000


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposed Texas Locals Show Signs of Illness
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to preliminary findings from X-ray screenings, at least 15 people
who worked at or lived near the Texas Vermiculite Plant in Dallas manifest
symptoms of asbestos-related illnesses, The Associated Press reports.

Doctors at UT Health Center at Tyler, Tex., have analyzed about 250 of 421
chest X-rays conducted in summer 2007 on ex-employees of the plant, as well
as their families. Neighborhood residents and former students at nearby
schools also received X-rays.

Fifteen people, or about six percent of those so far analyzed, show signs of
asbestos-related illnesses. Doctors said that a few more showed spots on
their lungs that will require additional study.

In 2005, the federal government determined that the plant could have exposed
its employees and neighbors to asbestos. It produced fire-retardant materials
extracted from vermiculite. The process released asbestos fibers, which are
small enough to be inhaled, into the air and the surrounding area.

W.R. Grace & Co. operated the plant from 1953 to 1992 before it was
demolished between 2001 and 2002.

Health officials screened 25 people with chest X-rays in May 2007. Eight of
them showed signs of asbestos-related disease. Further testing is needed to
confirm those results.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Supreme Court Junks 57 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Supreme Court has dismissed 57 asbestos-related personal
injury claims, ruling that these claims were not filed in the proper
jurisdiction and attorneys failed to promptly file to have them transferred,
LegalNewsline.com reports.

The ruling drops the claims against asbestos manufacturers charged with
causing health problems to those individuals exposed to it while affirming
the ruling of Noxubee Circuit Judge Jim Kitchens, who has thrown out 437
claims from individuals who did not live in the state, did not allege
asbestos exposure in the state or had no claims against state defendants.

Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that:

(1) The circuit court erred in dismissing their claims;

(2) It was not the responsibility of the plaintiffs to copy and transfer the
cases; and

(3) The trial court's dismissal of the claims was contrary to the procedures
prescribed for transfer," wrote Justice Ann Lamar, in her third month on the
job after being appointed by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour.

On June 24, 2005, Judge Kitchens ordered an Order of Severance, Transfer
and/or Dismissal for each of the 57 claims, advising the plaintiffs’
attorneys at a hearing in August 2007 to have the cases transferred by Sept.
30, 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Ex-Councilman Sentenced to 15 Mos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Powell Jr., a former councilman of East St. Louis, Ill., on Aug. 13,
2007, was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for asbestos-related
environmental violations at a downtown East St. Louis landmark, St. Louis
Post-Dispatch reports.

Mr. Powell, also a former St. Clair County Board member and head of the
Democratic Party in East St. Louis, said he hoped that the 2002 renovation of
the Spivey Building would in turn spark a revitalization downtown. He was on
the council at the time.

Mr. Powell pleaded guilty in June 2007 to a conspiracy charge and a charge of
failing to notify authorities before removing asbestos.

Mr. Powell admitted then that both he and an employee, Isaiah Newton, knew
that the building contained asbestos and that it was being improperly
removed.

They did not notify the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, as
required, and did not tell refuse haulers that trash bins that they were
taking to the Milam Landfill contained asbestos, court documents show. Mr.
Newton also pleaded guilty.

Philip H. Cohn, owner of the 12-story structure built in 1929, pleaded guilty
in 2004 of improperly removing asbestos from the building and other charges.
He was sentenced to five years in prison.

Mr. Powell's indictment says he told workers that the building contained
asbestos, but not the "dangerous kind," and gave them paper masks instead of
respirators.

Those workers, who were paid in cash, threw building materials out the
windows during the demolition, scattering debris down Missouri Avenue.

The building, which sits just blocks from the federal courthouse, is still
vacant and dotted with broken windows and graffiti.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Couple Sues 39 Firms in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore and Nancy Alderman, a Texas couple formerly of West Virginia, on
July 27, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va. against 39 companies, The West Virginia Record reports.

The suit claims Mr. Alderman was exposed to asbestos on the job and is now
ill with mesothelioma because of the exposure.

According to the suit, Mr. Alderman worked as a pipefitter for Union Carbide
Corp. from 1957 to 1990.

Mr. Alderman claims the companies were negligent by manufacturing, producing,
selling and using products that contained asbestos.

Mrs. Alderman also claims she suffered a loss of services, society,
companionship and consortium from her husband.

Together, through attorney William K. Schwartz, the Aldermans seek
compensatory and punitive damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-1575 will be assigned to a visiting
judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Dismisses Claim in Todd’s Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Supreme Court rejected the late Roger Herring’s asbestos-
related claim against Todd Shipyards Corp., stating that Todd Shipyards
cannot be sued for a deceased worker’s asbestos exposure because the man
missed a filing deadline in a 20-year-old bankruptcy proceeding, Associated
Press reports.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court said Todd Shipyards gave Mr. Herring sufficient
warning about Todd Shipyards’ 1987 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing when it
published notices in several newspapers.

The Court rejected Mr. Herring's argument: That the prominent shipbuilding
company had a duty to give Herring's labor union specific notice of the
bankruptcy.

Justice Tom Chambers wrote, “It certainly would have been desirable for the
bankruptcy court to have required such notice, or for Todd to have taken the
extra step. But, under current federal case law, it appears to us that Todd
had no duty to inform Herring's union.”

Mr. Herring worked for subcontractors at Todd's work sites in the 1960s and
early 1970s. He was a member of the Asbestos Workers Union Local 7.

In 1987, Todd filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. The Bankruptcy
Court set a 1988 deadline for filing claims, and Todd sent a written notice
to its known creditors.

In 1989, Mr. Herring's previously diagnosed lung thickening developed into
asbestosis, or lung scarring. He sued several manufacturers of products that
contain asbestos, but did not sue Todd, which emerged from bankruptcy that
year.

Mr. Herring was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2002. He filed a lawsuit based
on the diagnosis, and Todd was among the defendants. The Company was not
previously aware of Mr. Herring's claims.

Mr. Herring died two years later. His estate carried on the lawsuit, which
claimed that Mr. Herring's union would have passed information about Todd's
bankruptcy on to its members if it had received a specific warning.

In 2004, the Company won a summary judgment dismissing Mr. Herring's lawsuit
because it was discharged during bankruptcy.

On Aug. 9, 2007, Supreme Court justices agreed that Mr. Herring's union was
not entitled to such "actual notice" because it was not one of Todd's
creditors.

Instead, the court said Todd provided the required legal notice by publishing
bankruptcy notices in Seattle's two daily newspapers and in the national
editions of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joint Case Filed v. Vimasco in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A joint asbestos-related lawsuit has been filed by four families against
Nitro, W.Va.-based Vimasco Corp. on July 27, 2007 in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Attorney Scott Segal filed the suit on behalf of Clellie N. Maddox and his
wife, Norma; Donna Jo Crago, as the executrix of the estate of Donald W.
Rensi; Lowell L. Sharp; and Junior E. Stewart.

The suit also names Owens-Illinois Inc. as a defendant.

According to the suit, Mr. Maddox, Mr. Rensi, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Stewart all
suffer from asbestosis and lung cancer. Mr. Rensi is deceased.

The suit claims the men all inhaled asbestos dust while working at various
jobsites and locales. The men claim they did not know of the dangers
associated with asbestos and were not properly protected.

Each man claims he suffers from a lung injury, which has already allegedly
resulted in the death of Mr. Rensi.

According to the suit, each plaintiff suffered damages for medical expenses,
embarrassment and inconvenience, loss of earning capacity and loss of
enjoyment of life.

In the nine-count suit, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-1566 has been assigned to a visiting
judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace’s Expert Estimates $385M for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. B. Thomas Florence, W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos expert, estimates that
the Debtors' total present value of pending and future asbestos-related
personal injury liabilities ranges from US$385,000,000 to US$1,314,000,000,
with a median value of US$712,000,000.

Dr. Florence estimates that the value of pending PI Claims that met the
evidentiary criteria ranges from US$83,000,000 to US$713,000,000 with a
median value of US$128,000,000.  

Dr. Florence also estimates that the present value of future PI Claims that
would meet the evidentiary criteria ranges from US$303,000,000 to
US$1,141,000,000 with a median value of US$585,000,000.

Dr. Florence used a specific set of assumptions in the estimation of the
Debtors' PI liabilities. Those assumptions, according to Dr. Florence, are
based on the premise that only claimants whose claims meet certain criteria
would be able to sustain their burden of proof that their claims against the
Debtors are valid, and therefore should be valued as part of the estimation
process.

Analysis Research Planning Corporation, the Debtors' asbestos claims
consultant, applied an average inflation value of 2.5 percent per year to
bring all settlement averages to 2001 dollars, Dr. Florence tells the Court.  

ARPC selected the range from April 1999 to April 2001 because it was the most
recent and therefore more reflective of future events, without over-weighting
any single time period.

To estimate the nominal value of the median future claim estimates, ARPC
applied a 2.5 percent inflation rate to settlement values through 2007 and
then a one percent inflation rate was used to reflect a 2.5 percent annual
inflation rate reduced by an average 1.5 percent claim deflation rate
representing the effects on claim values of an aging population and a
primarily static period of exposure.

A full-text copy of the Florence Report is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_FlorenceReport.pdf

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Estimates Grace Liability at $7.9B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer L. Biggs, the Future Claims Representative's asbestos expert,
estimates W.R. Grace & Co.’s personal injury liabilities at US$7,900,000,000
on an undiscounted basis.

When reduced to present value as of the Petition Date using a 5.2 percent
interest rate, Ms. Biggs estimates the Debtors' PI liabilities to be about
US$3,700,000,000.

Ms. Biggs opines that the range of the Debtors' PI liabilities is
US$6,400,000,000 to US$11,800,000,000 on an undiscounted basis, and
US$3,000,000,000 to US$5,300,000,000 discounted.

Ms. Biggs' estimate is based on projecting the quantity and type of future PI
Claims against the Debtors for up to 54 years after the Petition Date. The
estimate also includes a provision for the known pending PI Claims filed
against the Debtors on or before the Petition Date.

Ms. Biggs calculated the total liability by multiplying the known pending and
projected future claims filings by the expected average payment amounts that
the Debtors would pay to claimants in each of the years in projection.

A full-text copy of the Biggs Report is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_BiggsExpertReport.pdf

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges for Celotex Document Production
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & co. and the other Debtors point out that the Celotex Asbestos
Settlement Trust has admitted that more than 73,000 Grace claimants have
submitted claims against the Celotex Trust, yet it refused to produce any
electronic data relating to Grace claimants based on specious claims that
those information is immune from discovery under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  

Celotex has refused to produce paper files for the Grace claimants, asserting
that the burden inherent in production of the files would be too great,
estimating the cost to obtain paper discovery at a million or more dollars.  

The Debtors maintain that they are entitled to reasonable discovery of the
claimants' exposure data held by the Celotex Trust.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court to compel Celotex to produce the
subpoenaed documents.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Disallows 3 Damage Claims v. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court disallows three of W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos-
related property damage claims filed Canadian claimants.

These claimants are: City of Edmonton (Claim No. 12400), Calgary Board of
Education (Claim No. 12440), and Hamilton District School Board (Claim No.
13950).

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000)


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class-action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all
persons, other than the defendants, who own the securities of Archstone-Smith
Trust against defendants Archstone and its board of directors alleging
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC ss. 78n(a), and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, 17 CFR ss. 240-14a-9.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants have:

     (i) violated their fiduciary duties owed to the public
         shareholders of Archstone; and

    (ii) issued a false and misleading proxy statement with the
         U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the
         merger agreement among defendant Archstone, and non-
         defendants Tishman Speyer and Lehman Brothers
         (including its Private Equity group) (collectively, the
         "Partnership"), to take Archstone private by purchasing
         all of its outstanding shares in exchange for $60.75
         per share (the "Agreement").

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements in
the proxy statement concerning the Agreement as set forth above, the market
price of Archstone has been artificially capped, and Archstone shareholders
have been deprived of certain material information concerning the negotiation
of the Agreement and the adequacy of the consideration to be provided by the
Agreement.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 14, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Website: http://www.whafh.com


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of securities of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. from
October 10, 2006 to August 6, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Luminent and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Luminent is a real estate
investment trust that invests primarily in the United States agency and other
single-family, adjustable-rate, hybrid adjustable-rate and fixed-rate,
mortgage-backed securities, which it acquires in the secondary market.

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's investments were not "high quality"
        as previously represented;

    (2) that the Company had failed to employ a disciplined and
        sophisticated hedging program for the interest rate and
        credit risks in its portfolio;

    (3) as such, the Company would be forced to eliminate its
        promised dividend payment to shareholders going forward;

    (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
        controls; and

    (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's statements
        about its financial well-being and future business
        prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

The Company shocked investors on August 6, 2007 when it announced that it had
experienced a significant increase in margin calls on its "highest quality
assets," as well as a decrease on the financing advance rates provided by its
lenders.

As a result, the Company's Board of Directors suspended payment of the
Company's second quarter cash dividend of $0.32 per share, cancelled the
Company's second quarter 2007 earnings conference call scheduled for August
9, 2007, and stated that it would delay filing the Company's quarterly report
with the SEC.

On news of this, Luminent's shares fell $1.95, or over 30 percent, to close
on August 6, 2007 at $4.37 per share.
Then on August 7, 2007, the Company attempted to assure investors that it
was "moving forward with its efforts to enhance its liquidity and preserve
the value of its portfolio of assets which is comprised substantially of high
quality mortgage loans."

Therein, the Company again stated that that it had experienced a significant
increase in margin calls on its "highest quality assets," as well as a
decrease on the financing advance rates provided by its lenders. On news of
this, shares of Luminent fell an additional $3.29 per share, or over 75
percent, to close on August 8, 2007 at $1.08 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of Northwest
Biotherapeutics, Inc. common stock during the period from July 9, 2007
through July 16, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The Complaint charges that Northwest and certain of its present officers and
senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements
about its lead drug candidate DCVax-Brain.

The Complaint asserts that on July 9, 2007 the Company issued a press release
entitled "World's First Therapeutic Vaccine for Brain Cancer Commercially
Available to Patients in Switzerland." The release stated that Northwest
received an "authorization for use" from the Swiss authorities and
that "DCVax-Brain is the first commercially available therapeutic vaccine for
such cancers. The Company intends to begin making the product available to
patients in Q3 2007."

Additionally, the Complaint alleges that on July 16, 2007, Northwest issued
another press release explaining that the authorization it received was
really just for import/export purposes, and was conditional even for those
limited purposes. Northwest stated that the Swiss government has not yet
reviewed DCVax for neither safety nor efficacy. As a result of these adverse
disclosures, the Complaint asserts that shareholders were damaged.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 12, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Phone:  (212) 686-1060 or Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


QIAO XING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who acquired the securities of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc.
between October 31, 2006 and July 16, 2007, inclusive.

The suit was filed against defendants Qiao Xing, certain of its officers and
directors, and Grobstein, Horwath & Company, LLC, the Company's auditor.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous, positive press releases, statements and financial reports filed
with the SEC that described the Company's financial performance.

On July 17, 2007, before the market opened for trading in New York, Qiao Xing
announced it was restating results for fiscal year ended December 31, 2005,
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and fiscal year ended December 31, 2003,
and taking remediation steps to address material weaknesses in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and ineffectiveness of disclosure
controls and procedures. These disclosures caused the Company's stock to
plummet approximately 21% on unusually heavy trading volume.

These disclosures, discussed in the complaint, contradicted much of the
information provided by Defendants to the market during the Class Period
concerning its reported revenues and results. As alleged in the complaint,
Qiao Xing insiders, however, faired far better than public shareholders.
Indeed, while in possession of material, non-public information, insiders
sold substantial amounts of their Company holdings, achieved greater
liquidity, and spun-off a subsidiary for $160 million in cash.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set
forth in the complaint, the market price of Qiao Xing securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Had plaintiffs and the other
members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were
paid.

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

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (800) 575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Website: http://www.whafh.com


RADIAN GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Radian Group
Inc. between January 23, 2007 and July 31, 2007, inclusive.

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

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose:

     (i) that the Company's $468 million investment in C-BASS
         was materially impaired as C-BASS was experiencing
         increasing margin calls and C-BASS's investments were
         declining in value at a significant rate;

   (ii) that the Company was materially overstating its
        financial results by failing to properly value its
        investment in C-BASS and by failing to write-down that
        investment in a timely fashion; and

  (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
        statements were not prepared in accordance with
        Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and,
        therefore, were materially false and misleading.

On July 30, 2007, after the market closed, Radian issued a press release
announcing that "it has concluded that the value of its investment in" C-BASS
has been "materially impaired." The Company further disclosed that its
investment in C-BASS consists of approximately $468 million of equity as of
June 30, 2007 and an additional $50 million drawn on July 20 and 23, 2007
under a $50 million unsecured credit facility that Radian provides to C-BASS.

The Company also represented that although it had not determined the level of
the impairment charge it "could be Radian's entire investment, less any
associated tax benefit." In response to this announcement, the price of
Radian common stock declined from $40.20 per share to $33.71 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

Then, on July 31, 2007, before the market opened, C-BASS issued a press
release concerning Radian's announcement of the impairment charge. According
to C-BASS, at the beginning of 2007, it had $302 million of liquidity,
representing more than 30% of its capital of $926 million.

Thereafter, as 2007 unfolded and the subprime mortgage market crisis
deepened, C-BASS received and met $290 million in margin calls from its
lenders, leaving it with virtually no liquidity. However, the margin calls
kept coming into C-BASS and C-BASS did not have the liquidity to meet them.
In response to this announcement, the price of Radian stock declined from
$33.71 per share to $27.51 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Radian between January 23, 2007 and
July 31, 2007, inclusive.

Radian operates, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, as a credit
enhancement company that provides credit protection products and financial
services to mortgage lenders and other financial institutions. One of
Radian's principal affiliates is Credit-Based Asset Servicing and
Securitization, known as C-BASS. C-BASS is an investor in the credit risk of
subprime single-family residential mortgages.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com


                           *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *