CAR_Public/070827.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 24, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 168

                            Headlines


ALLIANCE DATA: Tex. Suits Over Aladdin Merger Consolidated
BROWN & WILLIAMSON: Faces “Rivera” Lights Suit in Fla. Court
BUFFALO TECHNOLOGY: False Ad Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct.
CLARION CORP: Recalls Lithium-Ion Batteries that can Overheat
DANA CORP: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

INT’L HOMES: Recalls Electric Warming Throws that can Overheat
LOUISIANA: New Orleans Sued Over Demolition of Temporary Homes
MATTEL INC: Recalls Dolls with Magnets that can Come Loose
MATTEL INC: Recalls Doggie Toys with Magnets that can Come Loose
METLIFE INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Demutualization Case

METROPOLITAN CASUALTY: Fla. Breach of Contract Suit in Discovery
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Medical Provider Fees Suit in Minn.
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Still Faces Ill. Suit Over Pricing System
METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: Seeks Nixing of N.Y. Suit Over Rent Hike
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit Over Proprietary Products

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Certification of “Fiala” Suit Class Appealed
MORGAN STANLEY: Sept. 24 Hearing Set for $4M “Silberblatt” Deal
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Utah
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: No Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Suit
PARKDALE AMERICA: Sept. Hearing Set for $7.8M “Cotton Yarn” Deal

RJ REYNOLDS: Lights Cases Remain Stayed Pending "Price" Ruling
RJ REYNOLDS: Sept. Hearing Set to Review Dismissal of “Lowe”
RJ REYNOLDS: La. Court Dismisses “Harper” Lights Lawsuit
RJ REYNOLDS: “Dahl” Lights Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
RJ REYNOLDS: “Huntsberry” Lights Suit Dismissed with Prejudice

RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. “Rios” Lights Lawsuit Awaits Ruling in “Hines”
SECURE COMPUTING: Rosenbaum Capital Amends Securities Complaints
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Settlement of Suit Over Faulty Products Ok’d
TOBACCO LITIGATION: La. High Court Asked to Review “Scott”
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ruling on “Price” Nixing Challenge Pending

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Defendants in “Engle” Seek High Court Review
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Motion to Junk FCA Violations Suit Denied


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reserves $3.158B for Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $143M Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec Still Faces Mounting Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Still Faces Damage, Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage Claims v. Grace Drop to 470 at June

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $917M Excess Coverage at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $267.3M Montana Liability at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Employees Still Face Montana Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, 2 Employees Still Face N.J. Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Verdict v. Georgia-Pacific Reversed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Prisoner’s Suit v. U.S. Gov’t.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Fawcetts in Case v. Verizon
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Industrial Still Faces Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Faces Suit w/ 4T Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Records 71 Pending Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Still Has 504 Claims at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Faces 5,600 Liability Cases at June 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Records $3M Removal Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Air at Ill. Beach State Park

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. School Gets Nearly $200,000 for Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,395 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Premises Suits v. Pioneer Still Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits v. Parker Drilling Ongoing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Faces 365 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $285.1M Losses, LAE at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Chesterton in Nichols Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Electric Boat Review Petition
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Unit Continues to Face Suits in Miss.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has 179 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Still Incurs $1M Unindemnified Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Faces 122 Actions at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 116 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $8M for Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Continues to Face “Premises” Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Corp. Faces 26,362 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Reserves $24.2M for A&E at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,805 Claims at June 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Okla. Officials Guilty for Exposing Workers

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Conducts Sampling at Superfund Location
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $384.84M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 133,580 Claims in U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 336 U.K. Claims at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Worker Sues 50 Companies in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Gov’t Laws Now Allow for Fast Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wireman Sues British Telecom for GBP100,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Engineer’s Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker Files GBP150,000 Suit v. Mettoy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Sues Wilkins & Coventry’s Insurer

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Links Docker’s Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Engineer Files Suit v. 92 Firms in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Navy Worker’s Death to Hazard


                            *********


ALLIANCE DATA: Tex. Suits Over Aladdin Merger Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class actions filed over a merger agreement by Alliance Data
Systems Corp. with Aladdin Holdco, Inc., and Aladdin Merger Sub, Inc. have
been consolidated in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas.

On May 17, 2007, Alliance Data (Company) entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger by and among Aladdin Holdco (Parent), Aladdin Merger Sub, Inc.
(Merger Sub) and the Company dated as of May 17, 2007.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into the Company, and as a result the Company will continue as the surviving
corporation and a wholly—owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger).  Parent is
owned by an affiliate of The Blackstone Group.  

At the effective time of the Merger, each outstanding share of common stock
of the Company, other than shares owned by the Company, Parent, any
subsidiary of the Company or Parent, or by any stockholders who are entitled
to and who properly exercise appraisal rights under Delaware law, will be
cancelled and converted into the right to receive $81.75 in cash, without
interest.

On May 18, 2007, Sherryl Halpern filed a putative class action (cause no. 07-
04689) on behalf of Company stockholders in the 68th Judicial District of
Dallas County, Texas against the Company, all of its directors and
Blackstone.

On May 29, 2007, Linda Levine filed a putative class action (cause no. 07-
05009) on behalf of Company stockholders in the 192nd Judicial District of
Dallas County, Texas against the Company and all of its directors.

On May 31, 2007, the J&V Charitable Remainder Trust filed a putative class
action (cause no. 07-05127-F) on behalf of Company stockholders in the 116th
Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas against the Company, all of its
directors and the Blackstone Group.

The three putative class actions have been consolidated in the 68th Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas under the caption, “In re Alliance
Data Corp. Class Action Litigation, No. 07-04689.”

On July 16, 2007, a consolidated class action petition was filed in that
action.  

The consolidated class action petition seeks a declaration that the action
is a proper class action, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining
the Merger, a declaration that the director defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties and an award of fees, expenses and costs.

Alliance Data Systems Corp. -- http://www.alliancedata.com/-- is a provider  
of loyalty and marketing solutions derived from transaction rich data.  ADSC
partners with its clients to develop insight into consumer behavior.  It
uses that insight to create and manage customized solutions and enables its
clients to build stronger, mutually beneficial relationships with their
customers.  ADSC focuses on facilitating and managing interactions between
its clients and their customers through multiple distribution channels,
including in-store, catalogs and online.  

It operates in three business segments: Marketing Services, Credit Services
and Transaction Services.  In October 2006, the Company acquired CPC
Associates, Inc.  In August 2006, the Company acquired Big Designs, Inc.  In
April 2006, the Company acquired DoubleClick Email Solutions.  In February
2006, the Company acquired iCom Information & Communications, Inc.  In 2007,
the Company acquired Abacus, a provider of data and multi-channel direct
marketing services.


BROWN & WILLIAMSON: Faces “Rivera” Lights Suit in Fla. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. removed the lights class action “Rivera v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,” to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The case was filed in October 2006 in Circuit Court, Broward County,
Florida.  The case was removed on November 15, 2006, and B&W answered the
complaint on November 22, 2006.

In general, the plaintiffs in “lights” suits allege that defendants made
false and misleading claims that “lights” cigarettes were lower in tar and
nicotine and /or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other
cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer
protection and related statutes.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily  
a holding company.  The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries
include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane,
Limited (Lane) and R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.

RAI was created to facilitate the July 30, 2004, transactions to combine the
U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc., referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British
American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.


BUFFALO TECHNOLOGY: False Ad Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles will hold a fairness
hearing on Oct. 16, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the
matter, “Robinson v. Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc., Case No. BC317668.”

The hearing will be held before Judge Jane L. Johnson of the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, Department 56 in 111 North Hill St., Los
Angeles, California.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made no
later than Sept. 25, 2007.  

The settlement covers all persons or entities in the U.S. who purchased any
Buffalo Technology Wireless Products between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2004.

Generally, the lawsuit alleges that description in advertising and packaging
of the data rate of certain Buffalo Technology Wireless Products has been
false and misleading.

Under the settlement each class member who submits a valid claim form is
eligible to receive a Rebate Certificate that can be redeemed for cash after
purchasing a new Buffalo Wireless Product.  The rebate amount will range
from $5 to $25, to be determined by the price paid for the new Buffalo
Technology Wireless Product.  Such a purchase maybe made at any retail
store, internet retailer or Buffalo Technology's online store.

For more details, contact:

         Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
         Weiss & Lurie
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: (310) 208-2800
         Web site: http://www.buffalotech.com/settlement_notice/


CLARION CORP: Recalls Lithium-Ion Batteries that can Overheat
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clarion Corp. of America, of Cypress, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,500 additional
N.I.C.E. P200 Navigation and Entertainment Systems batteries, with about
2,500 recalled in December 2006.

The company said the lithium-ion batteries in these units can melt or
overheat posing burn and fire hazards to consumers.

Clarion has received 15 reports of the units melting or overheating. No
injuries have been reported.

The N.I.C.E. P200 is a black portable navigation and entertainment device
that can be attached to a vehicle’s windshield. The device has a 4-inch
touch screen LCD monitor and contains one lithium battery. “Clarion”
and “N.I.C.E. P200” are printed on the device. “Clarion NAVBATTERY” is
printed on the battery. The recall includes any N.I.C.E. P200 in which
batteries were previously replaced.

These recalled N.I.C.E. P200 were manufactured by Kiryung Electronics of
Seoul, South Korea and are being sold at car audio and mobile electronics
stores nationwide from May 2006 through August 2007 for a suggested retail
price of $800.

Picture of recalled N.I.C.E. P200s:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07278.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled batteries immediately and
contact Clarion Corp. for a full refund, information on returning the
product, and a postage paid envelope to return the product.

For more information, contact Clarion Corp. at (800) 347-8667 Monday through
Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT, email parts@clarion.com, or visit the
firm’s Web site: http://www.clarion.com


DANA CORP: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Carr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio dismissed a securities fraud suit filed in 2005 against Dana Corp.,
Michael Burns, its chief executive officer, and Robert Richter, the firm's
former chief financial officer, The Blade reports.

The plaintiffs in the action allege violations of the U.S. securities laws
and claim that the price at which Dana’s shares traded at various times
between February 2004 and November 2005 was artificially inflated as a
result of the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing.

In February 2007, lead plaintiff in the action filed a motion for an order
partially lifting the statutory discovery stay in this action to enable it
to obtain copies of certain documents produced to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Defendants opposed that motion (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007), and,
following a hearing on May 4, 2007, Judge Carr ruled there is insufficient
evidence that two top executives of Dana Corp. knowingly misled shareholders
about the firm's financial problems in the months before its bankruptcy
filing.

"Plaintiffs ... fail to reference any specific conversation, document,
report, or meeting showing that Burns and Richter knew or recklessly
disregarded facts from which they should have known of ... fraud or
accounting errors," Judge Carr wrote in the most recent case.

According to the report, Jack Landskroner, an attorney representing
shareholder Howard Frank and others, did not return phone calls seeking
comment.  Dana spokesman Chuck Hartlage said the company would have no
comment.

The suit is “Frank v. Dana Corporation et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-07393-JGC,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under
Judge James G. Carr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         Maguire & Schneider
         Ste. 500, 250 Civic Center Drive
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236
         E-mail: kwschneider@ms-lawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph P. Thacker, Esq.
         Cooper & Walinski
         900 Adams Street
         Toledo, OH 43624
         Phone: 419-249-0264
         Fax: 419-720-3439
         E-mail: thacker@cooperwalinski.com


INT’L HOMES: Recalls Electric Warming Throws that can Overheat
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Home Fashions Inc. and sister company Bilt-Safe Technologies,
of Black Mountain, North Carolina, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 37,100 “Classic Beauty Rest”
electric warming throws.

The company said bunching, folding or tucking of these electric throws can
cause them to overheat, resulting in smoldering, melting, fire and burn
hazards.

Bilt-Safe has received 38 reports of the throws overheating, including at
least 15 reports of fires and four reports of consumers suffering blistering
or minor burns to the hand, leg and back.

This recall involves 52-inch by 62-inch electric warming throws. The 100%
acrylic throws were sold in various colors and patterns and have model
number BST-06-THR. The model number is located on the care label sewn into
the throw. “Classic Beautyrest” and “Automatic Electric Warming Throw” is
printed on the product’s packaging. Model numbers with the following date
codes are included in this recall: B00106 through B36506. Bilt-Safe
Technologies, Inc. and the date code are printed on the bottom of the care
label.

These recalled electric warming throws were manufactured by Ningbo Veken
Elite International Trading Company Ltd., of China, and are being sold at
Kmart, the Fingerhut catalogs and the LTD Commodities LLC Web site from
August 2006 through February 2007 for about $30.

Picture of recalled electric warming throws:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07276.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the electric throws and
contact International Home Fashions for information on where to return a
portion of the power cord to receive two replacement (non-electric) throws.
Consumers should not return the throws to the retailer where purchased.

For additional information, contact International Home Fashions at (800) 905-
0799 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s
Web site: http://www.intlhomefash.com


LOUISIANA: New Orleans Sued Over Demolition of Temporary Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nine named plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint on Aug. 20 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana over the demolition of
houses by the city of New Orleans.

The plaintiffs claim slow payments or no payments from insurers and sluggish
help from the state have caused the City of New Orleans and Mayor Ray Nagin
to demolish houses without notice, without legal permission, without
contacting the owners, and without giving homeowners reasonable opportunity
to object, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs sue to prevent any demolition of any homes or residences in the
city without prior adequate notice, a full and meaningful adversarial
judicial hearing, and all other elements of due process in accordance with
the United States Constitution, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Section
2 and 4(a) of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana and under Louisiana
law.

They bring this action on behalf of citizens who owned property in the City
of New Orleans on Aug. 29, 2005, were displaces as a result of Hurricane
Katrina, and are still unable to return permanently to their residences due
to damages by Hurricane Katrina.

Plaintiffs seek the following relief:

     -- issue an immediate temporary restraining order directing
        defendants and all their agents and employees to
        immediately cease and desist from taking any actions on
        whatsoever to demolish any homes or buildings in the
        City of New Orleans without either securing the
        permission of the owners or providing the owners or
        legal occupants of these homes with full due process
        proceedings including adequate notice, a meaningful
        opportunity to be heard in an adversarial hearing, and
        all other rights of procedural and substantive due
        process before their homes or buildings are demolished;

     -- after appropriate hearing of all parties in this matter
        issue a preliminary then a permanent injunction ordering
        defendants and all their agents and employees to cease
        and desist from taking any actions whatsoever to
        demolish any homes or apartments in the City of New
        Orleans without first securing permission from the
        owners or providing the owners of these homes and
        buildings with full due process proceedings including
        adequate notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard in
        an adversarial hearing, and all other rights of
        procedural and substantive due process before their
        homes are demolished;

     -- determine and declare that the actions of defendants
        complained of in this matter are violations of the due
        process rights secured under the Fifth and Fourteenth
        Amendments to the US Constitution and Article 1,
        sections 2 and 4(b) of the Louisiana Constitution;

     -- order all other appropriate relief necessary in order to
        protect the constitutional rights of plaintiffs. For
        those plaintiffs whose houses have been taken, and
        specifically the named plaintiffs, order that the City
        rebuild their homes, and pay all monetary damages,
        and/or provide monetary damage awards to these
        plaintiffs at the highest appraised value of their home
        pre-Katrina;

     -- attorneys fees and costs of prosecution of this action;
        and

     -- all relief available at law or in equity that is just
        and appropriate.

The suit is “Joshua et al. v. New Orleans City et al, Case No. 2:07-cv-04205-
MLCF-DEK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana under Judge Martin L.C. Feldman, with referral to Judge Daniel E.
Knowles, III.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Davida Finger
          William Patrick Quigley
          Loyola Law School Clinic
          7214 St. Charles Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Phone: 504-861-5596 or (504) 861-5590
          E-mail: dfinger@loyno.edu or duprestars@yahoo.com

          - and -

          Tracie L. Washington
          Washington Law Firm
          2606 Dryades St.
          P. O. Box 15107
          New Orleans, LA 70175-5071
          Phone: 504-899-1889
          E-mail: tlwesq@cox.net


MATTEL INC: Recalls Dolls with Magnets that can Come Loose
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc., of El Segundo, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7.3 million various
Polly Pocket dolls and accessories with magnets, with about 2.4 million play
sets were recalled on November 21, 2006.

The company said small magnets inside the dolls and accessories can come
loose. The magnets can be found by young children and swallowed or
aspirated. If more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract
each other and cause intestinal perforation or blockage, which can be fatal.

Since the previous recall announcement, Mattel has received more than 400
additional reports of magnets coming loose. CPSC was aware in the first
recall announcement of 170 reports of the magnets coming out of the recalled
toys. There had been three reports of serious injuries to children who
swallowed more than one magnet. All three suffered intestinal perforations
that required surgery.

The recalled Polly Pocket play sets contain plastic dolls and accessories
that have small magnets. The magnets measure 1/8 inch in diameter and are
embedded in the hands and feet of some dolls, and in the plastic clothing,
hairpieces and other accessories to help the pieces attach to the doll or to
the doll’s house. The model number is printed on the bottom of the largest
pieces on some of the play sets. Products manufactured after November 1,
2006 and are currently on store shelves are not included in this recall.
Contact Mattel if you cannot find a model number on your product to
determine if it is part of the recall.

These recalled Polly Pocket play sets were manufactured in China and are
being sold at toy stores and various other retailers from May 2003 through
November 2006 for between $15 and $30.

Consumers should immediately take these recalled toys away from children and
contact Mattel to receive a voucher for a replacement toy of the customer’s
choice, up to the value of the returned product.

For additional information, call Mattel toll-free at (888) 597-6597 anytime,
or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.service.mattel.com


MATTEL INC: Recalls Doggie Toys with Magnets that can Come Loose
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc., of El Segundo, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1 million Doggie Day
Care play sets.

The company said small magnets inside the toys can fall out. Magnets found
by young children can be swallowed or aspirated. If more than one magnet is
swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal
perforation or blockage, which can be fatal.

The firm has received two reports of magnets coming loose. No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled Doggie Day Care play sets have various figures and accessories
that contain small magnets.

          Product #           Name

          H1532               Doggie Day Care Coco
          H1533               Doggie Day Care Sparley
          G4461               Doggie Day Care Lula and Baby
          G4462               Doggie Day Care Crockett and Baby
          G4464               Doggie Day Care Taffy and Baby
          G4459               Doggie Day Care Snack Time with
                              Cookie
          G4460               Doggie Day Care Diaper Change with
                              Ginger
          H1530               Doggie Day Care Ice Cream with
                              Ranger
          G9703               Doggie Day Care Puppy Park with
                              Dixie
          G4457               Doggie Day Care Dream House
                              Nursery with Honey
          G4458               Doggie Day Care Bath Time with
                              Beau

These recalled Doggie Day Care play sets were manufactured in China and are
being sold at toy stores and various other retailers nationwide from July
2004 to August 2007 for between $4 and $20.

Pictures of recalled Doggie Day Care play sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07272a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07272b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07272c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07272d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07272e.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Mattel to receive a free replacement toy.

For additional information, call Mattel toll-free at (888) 597-6597 anytime
or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.service.mattel.com


METLIFE INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Demutualization Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York certified a
class in the matter “In re MetLife Demutualization Litigation,” which is one
of several lawsuits challenging the fairness of the company's plan of
reorganization, as amended and the adequacy and accuracy of its disclosure
to policyholders regarding the plan.

The suit was filed against which was filed on April 18, 2000 against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., and MetLife, Inc.

In this class action plaintiffs served a second consolidated amended
complaint in 2004.  

In that complaint, plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
plan, claiming that the Policyholder Information Booklets failed to disclose
certain material facts and contained certain material misstatements.  The
suit is seeking rescission and compensatory damages.

On June 22, 2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
claim of violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The court had previously denied defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.  In 2004, the court reaffirmed its
earlier decision denying defendants' motion for summary judgment as
premature.

On July 19, 2005, this federal trial court certified this lawsuit as a class
action against Metropolitan Life and the MetLife, 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.  

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and  
other financial services with operations throughout the United States and
the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its
domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance,
reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions. The Company is organized into five operating
segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METROPOLITAN CASUALTY: Fla. Breach of Contract Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "Stern v. Metropolitan
Casualty Ins. Co." which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Oct. 18, 1999.  

The suit is a putative class action, seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief has been filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Insurance Co.’s subsidiary, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co., in Florida
alleging breach of contract and unfair trade practices with respect to
allowing the use of parts not made by the original manufacturer to repair
damaged automobiles.

Discovery is ongoing and a motion for class certification is
pending, 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 “Stern, et al v. Metropolitan Casual, et al., Case No. 0:99-cv-
07371-PCH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         David A.P. Brower, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the defendant is:

         Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
         Akerman Senterfitt
         Suntrust International Center, 1 SE 3rd Ave., 28th Flr.
         Miami, FL 33131-1714
         Phone: 305-374-5600
         Fax: 305-374-5095
         E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Medical Provider Fees Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc., faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota relating to the payment of medical provider fees.

The suit, “Davis Chiropractic, PA, et al. v. MetLife Auto & Home and
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co.,” was filed on July 9, 2007.  

The suit is under Judge Michael J. Davis with referral to Judge Arthur J.
Boylan.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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

Representing the defendant is:

         Eugene C. Shermoen, Jr., Esq.
         Arthur Chapman Kettering Smetak & Pikala, PA
         81 S. 9th St., Ste. 500
         Mpls, MN 55402-3214
         Phone: 612-375-5915
         Fax: 612-339-7655
         E-mail: ecshermoen@arthurchapman.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Still Faces Ill. Suit Over Pricing System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc. continues to face two similarly named cases, "Shipley v. St. Paul Fire
and Marine Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co.," which
were filed in the Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County on Feb. 26 and July
2, 2003, respectively.  

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged underpayment
of medical claims arising from the use of a purportedly biased provider fee
pricing system.  A motion for class certification has been filed and briefed.

The second suit originally alleged breach of contract and fraud arising from
the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce medical
provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of the insurance policy.

The court granted Metropolitan Property's motion to dismiss the fraud claim
in the second suit.  A motion for class certification has been filed and
briefed, 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.  

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and  
other financial services with operations throughout the United States and
the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its
domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance,
reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions. The Company is organized into five operating
segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: Seeks Nixing of N.Y. Suit Over Rent Hike
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Co. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated class action over rent increases at Stuyvesant Town and Peter
Cooper Village.

The complex, which was previously owned by Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
was later sold to Tishman Speyer, which bought it for a record of  $5.4
billion in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2007).

The tenants, who are represented by attorney Stuart M. Saft, are seeking are
roll back of their rents, claiming that the complex's owners illegally
charged market-rate rents for more than 3,000 apartments in the complexes
while benefiting from tax breaks that should have precluded them from doing
so (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007).

One of the suits filed is "Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et
al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed Jan. 22, 2007)."  The suit also names
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Co.

Metropolitan Life was initially a named defendant but the action has been
discontinued as to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. since it did not own the
properties during the time period in question.

This group of tenants claims that the MetLife entities, and Tishman Speyer,
improperly charged market rents when only lower regulated rents were
permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax abatements.  
The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages.

A second purported class action, originally titled, "Carroll v. Tishman
Speyer Properties, et. al (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed
Feb. 14, 2007)," was filed against the same defendants alleging similar
claims as in the Roberts case and, in addition, includes a claim of unjust
enrichment and purported violation of New York General Business Law Section
349.  

The Carroll action was consolidated into the Roberts action.  A motion to
dismiss was filed in the consolidated lawsuit and oral argument was heard on
May 15, 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.  

For more details, contact:

         Stuart M. Saft, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4710
         Fax: (212) 686-0114
         Web site: http://www.whafh.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit Over Proprietary Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. is facing a purported class action in
relation to the sale of certain proprietary products by its distributors.

The suit, "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al.," was filed
Jan. 31 against Metropolitan Life, MetLife Securities, Inc. and MetLife
Investment Advisors Company, LLC.

Plaintiff asserts legal theories of violations of the federal securities
laws and violations of state laws with respect to the sale of certain
proprietary products (as opposed to non-proprietary products) by the
company's agency distribution group.  

They seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The company 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 "Thomas et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00121-F," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William B. Federman, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112
         E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Emiline T. Ebrite, Esq.
         David L. Kearney, Esq.
         Gable & Gotwals
         211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Fl.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-5500
         Fax: 405-235-2875
         E-mail: tebrite@gablelaw.com
                 dkearney@gablelaw.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Certification of “Fiala” Suit Class Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of appeal have been filed against an order certifying a class
in, "Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al.," which is one of
several lawsuits challenging the fairness of the company's plan of
reorganization, as amended and the adequacy and accuracy of its disclosure
to policyholders regarding the plan.

Generally, the action names as defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
MetLife, Inc., the individual directors, the superintendent and the
underwriters for MetLife, Inc.'s initial public offering, Goldman Sachs &
Co. and Credit Suisse First Boston.

Initially, the Superior Court, N.Y. County, certified a class in “Fiala,”
which was filed back in March 17, 2000.  Another putative class action filed
in New York State court in Kings County was consolidated with “Fiala.”

Plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class actions seek compensatory
relief and punitive damages.  In 2003, the trial court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss these two putative class actions.  

In 2004, the appellate court modified the trial court's order by reinstating
certain claims against Metropolitan Life, MetLife and the individual
directors.  Plaintiffs in these actions have filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  

On January 30, 2007, the trial court signed an order certifying a litigation
class for plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated section 7312 of the New
York Insurance Law, but denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify a litigation
class with respect to a common law fraud claim.  

Plaintiffs and defendants have filed notices of appeal from this order,
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.  

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and  
other financial services with operations throughout the United States and
the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its
domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance,
reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions. The Company is organized into five operating
segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


MORGAN STANLEY: Sept. 24 Hearing Set for $4M “Silberblatt” Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 24, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a $4.4 million
settlement of the matter, “Silberblatt v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-07569-PKC.”

The hearing will be held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12C, New York, New York 10007-1312.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made no
later than Sept. 14, 2007.  Deadline for the submission of proof of claim
forms is on Nov. 1, 2007.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed in August 2005 by Selwyn Silberblatt, on behalf of
himself and others, who bought precious metals from Morgan Stanley DW Inc.
and its predecessors and paid fees for their storage.  

It accuses Morgan Stanley of fraudulently telling clients it was selling
them precious metals that they would own in full and that the company would
store when in truth it was making either no investment specifically on
behalf of those clients or making an entirely different investment of lesser
value and security.

The settlement includes a cash component of $1.5 million and economic and
remedial benefits valued at about $2.9 million.

For more details, contact:

         Samuel P. Sporn, Esq.
         Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
         Kurt Hunciker, Esq.
         Ashley Kim, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046
         Fax: (212) 267-8137

              - and -

         Silberblatt v. Morgan Stanley Litigation
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 9168 Dublin, OH 43017-4168
         Phone: (888) 205-7870
         Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers still face a
consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah.

Initially, several suits were filed.  They are:

     -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.," filed on  
        July 12, 2006;  

     -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,"  

     -- "McCormick v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Skubella v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al."

All lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and allege that
between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the company's market prospects for its proprietary
drug, PREOS(R), in violation of federal securities laws.  PREOS is for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

By order dated Sept. 14, 2006, the court consolidated the four separately
filed lawsuits into one action.  By order dated Nov. 17, 2006, the court
appointed lead plaintiff and counsel for the proposed class.

On Jan. 16, 2007 the lead plaintiff and its counsel filed a consolidated
amended complaint asserting two federal securities claims on behalf of lead
plaintiff and all other shareholders of the company who purchased publicly
traded shares of company between Aug. 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006.  

The consolidated complaint asserts two claims:

      -- a claim founded upon Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the 1934 Act, and

      -- SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which is
         asserted against all defendants, and a claim founded
         upon Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, which is asserted
         against the individual defendants.

Both claims are based on the allegations that, during the class period, the
company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements
to the investing public concerning PREOS.

The consolidated complaint alleges that false and misleading statements were
made during the class period concerning the efficacy of PREOS as a treatment
for postmenopausal osteoporosis, the potential market for PREOS, the dangers
of hypercalcemic toxicity as a side effect of injectable PREOS, and the
prospects of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of NPS's New Drug
Application for injectable PREOS.

The complaint also alleges claims of option backdating and insider trading
of stock during the class period.  The consolidated complaint seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief, and an award of an unspecified amount for plaintiff's
costs and attorneys' fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
under Judge Paul G. Cassell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
         Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805
         New York City, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 279-5050

              - and -

         Scott A. Call, Esq.
         Anderson & Karrenberg
         50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700
         Salt Lake City, UT 84101
         Phone: (801) 534-1700
         E-mail: scall@aklawfirm.com


OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: No Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, “In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW,” have not filed an amended
complaint in the matter as of the company’s Aug. 7, 2007 regulatory filing.

The Court dismissed claims against some of the individual defendants and
dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but granted the plaintiff 30 days
leave to replead the Section 11 claim in accordance with the Court’s order
and to renew the Section 15 claim.

The Court’s order states that if plaintiff does not properly amend the
complaint within 30 days, the Section 11 and 15 claims will be dismissed
with prejudice.

                        Case Background

On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the company, certain of its current and former executive officers,
and the members of its Board of Directors.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company’s common stock during certain periods in 2004, which
periods differed in the various complaints.  

The court appointed a lead plaintiff who, on Feb. 17, 2006, filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint seeking to represent a class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company’s common stock
during the period from April 26, 2004 through Nov. 22, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misstatements and omissions concerning the survival benefit associated with
company’s product, Tarceva and the size of the potential market of Tarceva
upon FDA approval of the drug.

It alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  Briefing on this motion was completed on June 21, 2006.

In an opinion dated March 31, 2007 (and entered on the docket on April 4,
2007), the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  

The Court dismissed claims against some of the individual defendants and
dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but granted the plaintiff 30 days
leave to replead the Section 11 claim in accordance with the Court’s order
and to renew the Section 15 claim.

The Court’s order states that if plaintiff does not properly amend the
complaint within 30 days, the Section 11 and 15 claims will be dismissed
with prejudice.  As of the company’s Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing, the
plaintiff has not amended the complaint.

The suit is “In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Joanna Seybert with referral to Judge
William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

             - and -

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046
         Fax: 212-267-8137
         E-mail: frank@spornlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Dechert LLP
         Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19104
         Phone: (215) 994-4000


PARKDALE AMERICA: Sept. Hearing Set for $7.8M “Cotton Yarn” Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina will hold
a fairness hearing on Sept. 24, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed $7.8
million settlement by Parkdale America, LLC, and Parkdale Mills, Inc. in the
matter, “In Re: Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:04MD1622.”

The court will hold the fairness hearing at Courtroom #1 of the Hiram H.
Ward Federal Building, 251 North Main St., Winston Salem, North Carolina
27101.

Proofs of claim were due Aug. 10, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities who purchased cotton yarn in
the U.S. directly from any defendant listed below during the period Oct. 1,
2000 to June 15, 2001:

       -- Parkdale America, LLC
       -- Parkdale Mills, Inc.
       -- Frontier Spinning Mills, LLC
       -- Frontier Spinning Mills, Inc.
       -- Frontier, Inc.
       -- Avondale Mills, Inc.
       -- Avondale, Inc.

                        Case Background

Beginning in March 2004, numerous class action were filed against Defendants
by direct purchasers of Cotton Yarn.  The cases have been centralized in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into and implemented a contract,
combination and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for
Cotton Yarn sold in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  

Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of the conspiracy, they and other
purchasers of Cotton Yarn paid more for Cotton Yarn than they would have
paid absent the conspiracy, and they seek to recover treble damages together
with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys’ fees.

For more details, contact:

          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC
          1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 545-7200

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
          One South Broad St., Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 238-1700

               - and -

          In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P.
          P.O. Box 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19105-0300
          Phone: 215-665-8870
          Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/


RJ REYNOLDS: Lights Cases Remain Stayed Pending "Price" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The "lights" class actions "Turner v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and "Howard
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," both pending in Madison County,
Illinois remained stayed pending a resolution of a similar case, "Price v.
Philip Morris, Inc.," formerly known as "Miles v. Philip Morris, Inc."

"Lights" class actions are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in:

  State           Number of Cases
  -----           ---------------
  Illinois             2
  Missouri             2
  Minnesota            2
  Louisiana            2
  Florida              2
  Washington           1  
  New York             1

The class in these cases generally seeks to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W, unless otherwise noted.

On Nov. 14, 2001, in "Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." a judge
certified a class defined as "[a]ll persons who purchased defendants' Doral
Lights, Winston Lights, Salem Lights and Camel Lights, in Illinois, for
personal consumption, between the first date that defendants sold Doral
Lights, Winston Lights, Salem Lights and Camel Lights through the date the
court certifies this suit as a class action..."

The case was filed in February 2000, and is pending in Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants sold and packaged "light
cigarettes" as having lowered tar and nicotine delivery when in reality they
were designed to deliver higher levels of tar and nicotine.  

On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip
Morris' appeal of the "Price v. Philip Morris Inc." case.

RJR Tobacco filed an emergency stay/supremacy order request on Oct. 15,
2003.  On Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in Price.

On Dec. 18, 2001, in "Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," a judge
certified a class defined as "[a]ll persons who purchased Defendant's Misty
Lights, GPC Lights, Capri Lights and Kool Lights cigarettes in Illinois for
personal consumption, from the first date that defendant sold Misty Lights,
GPC Lights, Capri Lights and Kool Lights cigarettes in Illinois through this
date."

The case was filed in February 2000, and is pending in Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by not fully disclosing the true
nature of "light cigarettes" and carried out false and deceptive advertising
concerning "light cigarettes."

On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings
pending resolution of the "Price v. Philip Morris, Inc." case.  The
plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois 5th District Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order on Aug. 19, 2005.

Meanwhile, a decision is pending on a motion to vacate judgment dismissing
the suit “lights” class action “Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.”


RJ REYNOLDS: Sept. Hearing Set to Review Dismissal of “Lowe”
------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments in a request to review a dismissal of a medical monitoring
class action against RJR Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
is scheduled for September 5, 2007.

In “Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc.,” a case filed in November 2001 in Circuit
Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, a judge dismissed the complaint on November
4, 2003, for failure to state a claim in an action seeking creation of a
court-supervised program of medical monitoring, smoking cessation and
education, and recovery of attorneys’ fees.

On September 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
dismissal. On March 20, 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court granted the
plaintiffs’ petition for review.  Oral argument is scheduled for September
5, 2007.
     

RJ REYNOLDS: La. Court Dismisses “Harper” Lights Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana dismissed the
suit “Harper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.”

RJR Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), respectively,
removed two Louisiana “lights” class-actions to federal court.  

In general, the plaintiffs in “lights” suits allege that defendants made
false and misleading claims that “lights” cigarettes were lower in tar and
nicotine and /or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other
cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer
protection and related statutes.

On January 27, 2005, in “Harper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” filed in May
2003, and pending in U.S. District Court, Western District, Louisiana, the
judge denied the plaintiffs’ motions to remand.

The plaintiffs appealed the denial of the motion, and on July 17, 2006, the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order.  On June
17, 2005, RJR Tobacco and RJR filed a motion for summary judgment based on
federal preemption.

On July 6, 2007, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.

In “Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,” a case filed in April 2003,
and pending in U.S. District Court, Western District, Louisiana, B&W filed a
similar motion for summary judgment on July 5, 2005.  

On September 14, 2005, the court granted the motion in part by dismissing
with prejudice the plaintiffs’ Louisiana Unfair Trade and Consumer
Protection Act claims.  The remainder of the motion was denied.

On December 2, 2005, the judge denied B&W’s motion for reconsideration, but
certified the case for interlocutory appeal.  On February 14, 2007, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded
the case with directions to dismiss all claims with prejudice.

On April 2, 2007, final judgment was entered in favor of B&W, and the case
was dismissed with prejudice.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily  
a holding company.  The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries
include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane,
Limited (Lane) and R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.

RAI was created to facilitate the July 30, 2004, transactions to combine the
U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc., referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British
American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.


RJ REYNOLDS: “Dahl” Lights Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in “Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” filed a notice of appeal
against the dismissal of the case with the Minnesota Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Judicial District.

In “Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” a case filed in April 2003, and
pending in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a judge dismissed the
case on May 11, 2005, because the “lights” claims are preempted by the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Minnesota
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District. During the pendency of
the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

In general, the plaintiffs in “lights” suits allege that defendants made
false and misleading claims that “lights” cigarettes were lower in tar and
nicotine and /or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other
cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer
protection and related statutes.

On February 28, 2007, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the Minnesota
Court of Appeals.  Briefing is complete. Oral argument has not been
scheduled.

In “Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” a case filed in February 2003
in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR Tobacco removed the case
on September 23, 2005 to the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

On August 7, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the case pending
resolution of the appeal in “Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.”

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily  
a holding company.  The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries
include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane,
Limited (Lane) and R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.

RAI was created to facilitate the July 30, 2004, transactions to combine the
U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
(B&W), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco
p.l.c., with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.


RJ REYNOLDS: “Huntsberry” Lights Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of King County, Washington dismissed with prejudice, the
lights class action “Huntsberry v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.”

In general, the plaintiffs in "lights” suits allege that defendants made
false and misleading claims that “lights” cigarettes were lower in tar and
nicotine and /or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other
cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer
protection and related statutes.

The Huntsberry case was filed in April 2004.  The plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification was denied on April 21, 2006.

On September 18, 2006, the plaintiffs’ motion for discretionary review was
denied.  The plaintiffs’ motion to modify the ruling with the Washington
Court of Appeals was denied on December 18, 2006.

On March 1, 2007, the plaintiffs’ petition for review with the Washington
Supreme Court was denied.  The plaintiffs’ motion to modify the ruling of
the Washington Supreme Court was denied on June 5, 2007.  On June 19, 2007,
the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice.  On June 27, 2007, the
court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily  
a holding company.  The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries
include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane,
Limited (Lane) and R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.

RAI was created to facilitate the July 30, 2004, transactions to combine the
U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc., referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British
American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.


RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. “Rios” Lights Lawsuit Awaits Ruling in “Hines”
----------------------------------------------------------------
“Rios v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” a “lights” class action filed in
February 2002 in Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, is dormant
pending plaintiffs’ counsel’s attempt to appeal the Florida Fourth District
Court of Appeal’s decertification in “Hines v. Philip Morris, Inc.”

The plaintiffs in Rios brought the action against RJR Tobacco and R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily  
a holding company.  The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries
include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane,
Limited (Lane) and R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.

RAI was created to facilitate the July 30, 2004, transactions to combine the
U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc., referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British
American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.


SECURE COMPUTING: Rosenbaum Capital Amends Securities Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosenbaum Capital, LLC filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
Secure Computing Corp. and certain directors and officers of the company on
Jan. 19, 2007.

The alleged plaintiff class includes persons who acquired our stock between
May 4, 2006 through July 11, 2006.  Rosenbaum Capital was appointed Lead
Plaintiff in the action.  It filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007.

The amended complaint alleges generally that defendants made false and
misleading statements about our business condition and prospects for the
fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The company
intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in mid-August, and
anticipate that the motion will be heard late in 2007.

The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Samuel Conti.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Elizabeth C. Guarnieri, Esq.
           Green Welling, LLP
           595 Market Street, Suite 2750
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Phone: 415-477-6700
           Fax: 415-477-6710
           E-mail: ecg@classcounsel.com

Representing the defendants is:

           Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
           Heller Ehrman LLP
           275 Middlefield Road
           Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
           Phone: 650/324-7000
           Fax: 650 324-0638
           E-mail: michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com


SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Settlement of Suit Over Faulty Products Ok’d
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jim Hudson of the Arkansas Circuit Court granted a preliminary
approval to a settlement of a class action originally filed against Sunbeam
Products, Inc. and its parent company, American Household, Inc. over faulty
heating blankets and pads, Michelle Massey of the Southeast Texas Record
reports.

Products involved in the suit include any electrically heated blankets,
mattress pads, and blankets with a C100 safety circuit.

Customers, led by Bobbie Fay Grammer, filed the lawsuit against  
Sunbeam on December 30, 2004, in Miller County.

Plaintiffs stated that the defendants "designed, manufactured, sold, and
distributed" heating blankets and pads with defects. Plaintiffs allege that
the pads and blankets "will fail rendering them unusable and likely to
ignite fires.

According to the lawsuit, as many as 30 million products were sold with
defects. The suit asserted Sunbeam committed fraud and neglect in failing to
warn consumers regarding the defects.

Amendments to the suit removed American Household Inc. as defendant and
added customer Sheryl Larey as class representative.

In 2005, Sunbeam moved the lawsuit from the county to federal district court
in Texarkana, Arkansas because of a jurisdiction issue: Sunbeam is a
Delaware company with its main offices located in Florida (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 24, 2005). On the other hand, the customers named in the
lawsuit are based in Arkansas.  

According to the report, the preliminary settlement approval order signed on
August 14, by Judge Hudson, provides for notification for potential class
members.  

The claims administrator in the settlement is Garden City Group.

The deadline to opt out or file an objection is November 22.
A fairness hearing is set for December 17.

Sunbeam continues to deny their products are unsafe.

The case is docketed 2004-407-2.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: La. High Court Asked to Review “Scott”
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in “Scott v. American Tobacco Co.,” filed an application for writ
of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court in relation to the upholding
of the class certification in the case and a ruling finding the defendants
responsible for funding smoking cessation for eligible class members.

On November 5, 1998, in “Scott v. American Tobacco Co.,” a case filed in May
1996 in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial court certified
a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of Louisiana residents who
were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.

The action was brought against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W).  It
wants to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants’ products caused them
to become addicted to nicotine. Opening statements occurred on January 21,
2003. On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
defendants on the plaintiffs’ claim for medical monitoring and found that
cigarettes were not defectively designed.

However, the jury also made certain findings against the defendants on
claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking
cessation. Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of the trial did not
determine liability as to any class member or class representative. What
primarily remained in the case was a class-wide claim that the defendants
pay for a program to help people stop smoking.

On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to address only the scope
and cost of smoking cessation programs. On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a
verdict in the amount of $591 million on the class’s claim for a smoking
cessation program.

On September 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond pursuant to
legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million collectively
for Master Settlement Agreement that RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers entered into with attorneys general
representing most U.S. states, territories and possessions.

The MSA imposes a stream of future payment obligations on RJR Tobacco and
the other major U.S. cigarette manufacturers and places significant
restrictions on their ability to market and sell cigarettes in the future.

The defendants noticed their appeal.   

RJR Tobacco posted $25 million towards the bond, i.e., the portions for RJR
Tobacco and B&W.  The Louisiana Court of Appeal issued its opinion on
February 7, 2007.  The court found that any class member who started smoking
or whose right to participate in the program accrued after September 1,
1988, is not entitled to any recovery under Louisiana law.

The court also rejected the award of pre-judgment interest and most of the
specific components of the smoking cessation program. However, the court
upheld the class certification and found the defendants responsible for
funding smoking cessation for eligible class members.

On March 2, 2007, the defendants’ application for rehearing and
clarification was denied. The defendants filed an application for writ of
certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court on April 2, 2007.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ruling on “Price” Nixing Challenge Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A decision is pending on a motion to vacate judgment dismissing the “lights”
class action “Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.”

The case is pending in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois against
Philip Morris, “Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.,” formerly known as “Miles v.
Philip Morris, Inc.”

The case was filed on February 10, 2000, in the Circuit Court for the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. Trial began on January 21, 2003.

On March 21, 2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in
the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in
punitive damages to the State of Illinois.

Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of the judgment
was set initially at $12 billion. Because of the difficulty of posting a
bond of that magnitude, Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from
the $12 billion bond requirement.

On April 14, 2003, the trial judge reduced the amount of the bond. He
ordered the bond to be secured by $800 million, payable in four equal
quarterly installments beginning in September 2003, and a pre-existing $6
billion long-term note to be placed in escrow pending resolution of the
case.

The plaintiffs appealed the judge’s decision to reduce the amount of the
bond. On July 14, 2003, the appeals court ruled that the trial judge
exceeded his authority in reducing the bond and ordered the trial judge to
reinstate the original bond.

On September 16, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered that the reduced
bond be reinstated and agreed to hear Philip Morris’ appeal without need for
intermediate appellate court review.

On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower state
court’s decision and sent the case back to the lower court with instructions
to dismiss the case.

On December 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for entry
of final judgment with the circuit court, which was granted by the court.
Judgment was entered dismissing the case with prejudice on the same day.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate and/or withhold judgment in the
Circuit Court on January 17, 2007. The mandate from the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals issued March 14, 2007. Oral argument on the
plaintiffs’ motion to vacate occurred on May 2, 2007.  A decision is
pending, according to Reynolds American Inc.’s form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily  
a holding company.  The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries
include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane,
Limited (Lane) and R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.

RAI was created to facilitate the July 30, 2004, transactions to combine the
U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc., referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British
American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Defendants in “Engle” Seek High Court Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the case, “Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trial began in July 1998 in “Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” a case
filed in May 1994, and pending in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida,
in which a class consisting of Florida residents, or their survivors,
alleges diseases or medical conditions caused by their alleged “addiction”
to cigarettes.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking actual damages and punitive damages
in excess of $100 billion each and the creation of a medical fund to
compensate individuals for future health-care costs.  

                   $145 Billion Damages Award

On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other
cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the initial phase, which included
common issues related to certain elements of liability, general causation
and a potential award of, or entitlement to, punitive damages.

The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of three of the
named class representatives, began on November 1, 1999. On April 7, 2000,
the jury returned a verdict against all the defendants. It awarded plaintiff
Mary Farnan $2.85 million, the estate of plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia
$4.023 million and plaintiff Frank Amodeo $5.831 million.

The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the trial to
determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide basis. On July 14, 2000,
the jury returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the “Florida class”
of approximately $145 billion against all the defendants, with approximately
$36.3 billion and $17.6 billion being assigned to RJR Tobacco and B&W,
respectively.

               Reversal of Trial Court’s Judgment

On November 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial motions and
entered judgment. In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and B&W posted appeal bonds
in the amount of $100 million each and initiated the appeals process. On May
21, 2003, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court’s final judgment and remanded the case to the Miami-Dade County
Circuit Court with instructions to decertify the class.

                  Florida Supreme Court Review

The class appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court accepted the case on May
12, 2004.  On July 6, 2006, the court issued its decision. The court
affirmed the dismissal of the punitive damages award and decertified the
class, on a going-forward basis. The court preserved a number of class-wide
findings from Phase I of the trial, including that cigarettes can cause
certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive and that defendants placed
defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the market, and
authorized former class members to avail themselves of those findings under
certain conditions in individual lawsuits, provided they commence those
lawsuits within one year of the date the court’s decision becomes final.

The court specified that the class is confined to those Florida citizen
residents who suffered or died from smoking-related illnesses
that “manifested” themselves on or before November 21, 1996 and that were
caused by an addiction to cigarettes.  In addition, the court reinstated the
compensatory damages awards of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan and $4.023
million to Angie Della Vecchia, but ruled that the claims of Frank Amodeo
were barred by the statute of limitations.

Finally, the court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal’s 2003 ruling
that class counsel’s improper statements during trial required reversal.

                        Rehearing Motion

On August 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants filed a rehearing
motion arguing, among other things, that the findings from the Engle trial
are not sufficiently specific to serve as the basis for further proceedings
and that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision denied defendants due process.

On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a rehearing motion arguing that
some smokers who became sick after November 21, 1996, and who are therefore
not class members, should nevertheless have the statute of limitations
tolled since they may have refrained from filing suit earlier in the
mistaken belief that they were Engle class members.

                Supreme Court’s Revised Opinion

On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its July 6, 2006,
decision and issued a revised opinion, in which it set aside the jury’s
findings of a conspiracy to misrepresent and clarified that the Engle jury’s
finding on express warranty were preserved for use by eligible plaintiffs.

The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion and confirmed that the class
was limited to those individuals who developed alleged smoking-related
illnesses that manifested themselves on or before November 21, 1996. The
court issued its mandate on January 11, 2007, which began the one-year
period for former class members to file individual lawsuits.

Reynolds American Inc. anticipates individual case filings in Florida is
expected to increase as a result of the Engle decision.  

              Discharge of Civil Supersedeas Bonds

On April 17, 2007, RJR Tobacco’s motions for discharge of RJR Tobacco’s and
B&W’s civil supersedeas bonds related to the punitive damages award were
granted.

During the second quarter of 2007, RJR Tobacco received the full amount of
the $100 million cash collateral that it had posted. On May 21, 2007, the
defendants, including RJR Tobacco, filed a petition for writ of certiorari
in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily  
a holding company.  The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries
include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane,
Limited (Lane) and R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.  


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Motion to Junk FCA Violations Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell denied a motion by the University of
Phoenix to dismiss a lawsuit against the university for violating the so-
called incentive compensation ban.

The Higher Education Act prohibits colleges and universities that provide
federal financial aid to students from using incentive payments to employees
for recruiting students, which is precisely the course of conduct the
University of Phoenix pursued, stated plaintiffs’ attorney Robert J.
Nelson.  The Court’s decision is a significant victory for students and
taxpayers.  “We look forward to a trial on the merits,” a statement by Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP said.ť

“The complaint charges that the University of Phoenix defrauded the federal
government of literally billions of dollars since 1997, noted plaintiffs’
attorney Michael Rubin.  We are grateful that the Court ruled that the
serious charges raised in the complaint will be fully litigated.  It is time
for University of Phoenix to return its ill-gotten profits to the Federal
government, and begin abiding by the same set of rules as followed by
responsible colleges and universities,” the statement said.ť

“Hundreds of thousands of former University of Phoenix students without
degrees are obligated to pay back high interest loans for decades.  The vast
majority of these students should not have been recruited and enrolled,”
explained Nancy Krop, part of the plaintiffs’ team of attorneys.  The
complaint charges that the university urges counselors to enroll students
without reviewing their transcripts to determine their academic
qualifications to attend the university, which results in many students
being unable to repay their loans.ť   

                        Case Background

The University of Phoenix is the nation’s largest, private, for-profit
higher education institution providing educational programs for working
adult students.  On its website, the university promotes itself as "the
largest institution of higher learning in the U.S., serving approximately
300,000 students through its more than 250 campuses and learning centers
across the country."   

The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by two enrollment counselors of the university
under the False Claims Act, a statute that permits whistle-blowers to sue on
behalf of the government for fraud committed against the government and
share in the recovery if the suit is successful.

About 80% of its students receive federal financial aid, according to
government records.  The University of Phoenix collects approximately $2
billion a year in taxpayer’s funded federal financial aid on behalf of its
students, crediting students for tuition paid.

Many students who enroll at the University of Phoenix never complete their
education, and many are unable to even finish the classes they signed up
for.  First time freshmen have a 7% program completion rate, according to a
June 2005 report of the National Consumer Law Center.  The lawsuit asserts
that the school urges counselors to enroll students without determining
their academic qualifications to attend university.   

The lawsuit alleges that University of Phoenix executives brag about
deceiving the Federal government by creating "smoke and mirrors" so the
university may "fly under the radar’sť of the incentive compensation ban.

In 1992, Congress enacted the Higher Education Act incentive compensation
ban to stop egregious recruiting abuses leading to the enrollment of
unqualified students.  Congress imposed compliance with such ban as a
material condition for a university to receive tax payer funded federal
financial aid designed to assist poor persons seeking higher education.   

When the U.S. Department of Education investigated the whistleblower
charges, interviewing about 90 witnesses and reviewing University
compensation documents, the Department concluded that the University of
Phoenix "systematically and intentionally operates in a duplicitous manner
so as to violate the Department's prohibition against incentive compensation
while evading detection.”ť

The whistleblowers recently augmented their existing legal team of
practitioners Nancy Krop and Daniel Bartley, with additional plaintiffs’
attorneys from Lieff Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Altshuler Berzon
LLP and McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, LLP.   

The recently associated counsel of record on behalf of the relators are:

          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          
          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          James M. Finberg, Esq.
          Jonathan Weissglass, Esq.
          Altshuler Berzon LLP

          Cliff Palefsky
          McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, LLP

                        Dismissal Motion

University of Phoenix moved for dismissal of the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, arguing that it "is no longer proper defendant in this
False Claims Act."

The university contends:

"While this case was on appeal from the court's order dismissing Relators'
Second Amended Complaint, the government administratively pursued and
settled the allegations asserted in this qui tam action against [the
university] for $9.8 million.  the government therefore pursued
an "alternate remedy" to this action within the meaning of the FCA, 31 USC
SS 3730(c)(5).  

Consequently, the government's claims against [the university] are now
barred as moot, and Relators no longer have standing to assert claims
against [the university] on the government's behalf.  All that remains is
for a court to determine how much, if any, Relators are entitled to of the
$9.8 million that [the university] has already paid to the government as a
result of the Relators' allegations.”

                      Relators’ Contention

The Relators, and the U.S., counter that the subject Settlement Agreement
negotiated between the university and the Department of Education in the
Fall of 2004 does not moot this action since the Settlement
Agreement "explicitly stated that the Settlement would not encompass or
resolve the university's potential liability.  

They further contend that the settlement agreement cannot constitute an
electionof an alternate remedy within the meaning of the False Claims Act
because the act "commits exclusive authority to settle claims...to the
Attorney General" and it was entered into "without the knowledge of the
Attorney General."

                           The Ruling

In a ruling issued Aug. 16, Judge Burrell wrote:

"Since the Settlement Agreement did not constitute an 'election' of
an 'alternate remedy' by the 'government' within the meaning of the FCA, the
Relators' action is not moot.  Accordingly, [the university's] motion is
denied.

The suit is "U.S.A. ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v. University of
Phoenix, Case no. 2:03-cv-457-GEB-DAD" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arizona.

For more information, contact:

           Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
           Phone: 415/956-1000

           Michael Rubin, Esq.
           Phone: 415/421-7151

           Nancy Krop, Esq.
           Phone: 650/596-8823

           Daniel Bartley, Esq.
           Phone: 415/898-4741


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reserves $3.158B for Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd.’s asbestos-related loss reserves totaled a gross of US$3.158
billion at March 31, 2007, compared with US$3.221 billion at Dec. 31, 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 loss reserves totaled a net of US$1.592
billion at March 31, 2007, compared with US$1.611 billion at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company faces claims relating to policies issued to manufacturers,
distributors, installers, and other parties in the chain of commerce for
asbestos and products containing asbestos.

Claims can be filed by individual claimants or group of claimants with the
potential for hundreds of individual claimants at one time.

Claimants will generally allege damages across an extended time period which
may coincide with multiple policies for a single insured.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based ACE Ltd. is holding company incorporated with
limited liability under the Cayman Islands Companies Law. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance products to
insureds worldwide. The Company operates through the following business
segments: Insurance – North American, Insurance – Overseas General, Global
Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $143M Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co.’s asbestos/respirator mask liabilities amounted to US$143 million as
of June 30, 2007, compared with US$181 million as of Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007.

The Company recorded US$159 million for asbestos/respirator mask liabilities
as of March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2007)

The Company’s asbestos/respirator mask insurance receivables amounted to
US$350 million as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$380 million as of Dec.
31, 2006.

The Company's asbestos/respirator mask receivables, as of March 31, 2007
amounted to US$365 million as of March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May
11, 2007)

As of June 30, 2007, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-
defendants, in lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent about
13,870 individual claimants, a decrease from the about 33,000 individual
claimants with actions pending at June 30, 2006.

Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against
the Company allege use of some of the Company’s mask and respirator products
and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal, or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or
generally in the workplace.

The remaining claimants generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, and by other defendants, or occasionally at
Company premises.

Many of the resolved lawsuits and claims involved unimpaired claimants who
were recruited by plaintiffs’ lawyers through mass chest x-ray screenings.

The Company experienced a significant decline in the number of claims filed
in 2006 and through the 2007-2nd quarter from prior years by apparently
unimpaired claimants.

The Company attributes this decline to several factors, including certain
changes enacted in several states in recent years of the law governing
asbestos-related claims, and the highly-publicized decision in mid-2005 of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas that identified
and criticized abuses by certain attorneys, doctors, and x-ray screening
companies on behalf of claimants.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Co. has six operating segments: display and
graphics (specialty film, traffic control materials); health care (dental
and medical supplies, and health IT); safety, security, and protection
(commercial care, occupational health and safety products); electro and
communications (connecting, splicing, and insulating products); industrial
and transportation (specialty materials, tapes, and adhesives); and consumer
and office.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec Still Faces Mounting Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. (d/b/a Wabtec) continues to face
claims filed against it and certain of its affiliates in various
jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Since 2000, the number of claims has increased and the resolution of these
claims may take a significant period of time.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company’s wholly owned
subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corp., and are based on a product
sold by RFPC before the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former stockholder of
RFPC contending that the Company assumed that entity’s liability for
asbestos claims arising from exposure to RFPC’s product was resolved in the
Company’s favor.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to
insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies
that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue.

However, the Company cannot assure that all these claims will be fully
covered by insurance or that the indemnitors will remain financially viable.

To date, RFPC’s insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in
these actions.

As to the Company and its divisions, Management’s belief that asbestos-
related cases will not have a material impact is also based on its position
that it has no legal liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims,
and that the former owners of the Company’s assets retained asbestos
liabilities for the products at issue.

To date, the Company has been able to successfully defend itself on this
basis, including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of
which confirmed the Company’s position that it did not assume any asbestos
liabilities from the former owners of certain Company assets.

Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. provides
products and services for the global rail industry. The Company’s products
are found on virtually all U.S. locomotives, freight cars and passenger
transit vehicles, as well as in more than 100 countries throughout the
world. The Company has operations in 11 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Still Faces Damage, Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to be a defendant in property damage and personal
injury lawsuits on previously sold asbestos-containing products, according
to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

As of its April 2, 2001 Filing Date, the Company was a defendant in 65,656
asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims for property damage (one of
which has since been dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims
for personal injury.

Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new lawsuits
against the Debtors.

Separate creditors’ committees representing the interests of property damage
and personal injury claimants and a legal representative of future personal
injury claimants have been appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases.

The Company’s obligations with respect to present and future claims will be
determined through the Chapter 11 process.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage Claims v. Grace Drop to 470 at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace and Co., as of June 30, 2007, recorded about 470 outstanding
asbestos-related property damage claims, following the reclassification,
withdrawal or expungement of claims, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8,
2007.

As of April 30, 2007, the Company recorded about 519 outstanding property
damage claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007)

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to have
the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing the
asbestos-containing materials in the affected buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved thousands of
buildings) filed before the April 2, 2001 Filing Date, 140 were dismissed
without payment of any damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial
were entered in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases settled
following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company).

Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases
(one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1 million, 207 property
damage cases were settled for a total of US$696.8 million, and 16 cases
remain outstanding (including the one on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to the Company's former Zonolite
Attic Insulation product and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI).

About 4,035 additional property damage claims were filed before the March
31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action lawsuits in 2000
and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in
2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes in Canada.

These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the removal,
replacement and/or disposal of all such insulation. The plaintiffs assert
that this product is in millions of homes and that the cost of removal could
be several thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight
U.S. cases have been stayed.

The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace’s position on the safety of
ZAI. On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions filed
by the parties to address a number of important legal and factual issues
regarding the ZAI claims.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding
that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos
fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. The
ZAI claimants intend to appeal such opinion and order.

The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a conference in August 2007 to consider
whether any of the claimant’s theories of liability still need to be
addressed and what claims, if any, may still remain.

The Company’s recorded asbestos-related liability at June 30, 2007 assumes
the risk of loss from ZAI litigation is not probable.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Filing Date, 16,354 asbestos personal
injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 claims were dismissed without payment
of any damages or settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Company
products were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about
163,698 claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a
total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 claims for personal injury were pending
against the Company.

The Company said it believes that a substantial number of additional
personal injury claims would have been received between the Filing Date and
June 30, 2007 had such claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $917M Excess Coverage at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., as of June 30, 2007, recorded about US$917 million of
asbestos-related excess coverage from 55 presently solvent insurers,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

The Company previously purchased insurance policies that provided coverage
for years 1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims
that, in the aggregate, amounts to US$917 million of available coverage from
solvent insurance carriers. Eligible claims would have to exceed US$4
billion to access total coverage.

For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been exhausted,
leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available for pending and
future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related
liabilities has not been commercially available to the Company.

With one exception, coverage disputes regarding the Company’s primary
insurance policies have been settled, and the settlement amounts paid in
full. The Company’s excess coverage is for loss above certain levels. The
levels vary from policy to policy, creating “layers” of excess coverage,
some of which are triggered before others.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various excess
insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid and to be paid to
the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate amount for settled insurers
available under these settlement agreements is about US$487 million.

Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers with respect
to about US$430 million of excess coverage, which is at layers of coverage
that have not yet been triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if
the Plan were approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of US$1.7
billion.  

The Company said it believes that any allowed Zonolite Attic Insulation
product claims also would be covered under the settlement agreements and
unsettled policies discussed above to the extent they relate to
installations of ZAI occurring after July 1, 1973.

In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess coverage with
insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with an
underwriter of a portion of its excess insurance coverage. The insurer paid
a settlement amount of US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the
benefit of the holders of claims for which the Company was provided coverage
under the affected policies.

The escrow account balance at June 30, 2007 totaled about US$92.5 million,
including interest earned on the account.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $267.3M Montana Liability at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.’s total estimated liability for asbestos remediation on its
former vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., totaled US$267.3 million at
June 30, 2007, compared with US$255.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

This includes the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby.

As a result of a 2002 district court ruling, the Company is required to
reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million (plus interest) in costs
expended through Dec. 2001, and for all appropriate future costs to complete
asbestos-related remediation in Libby.

These costs include cleaning and/or demolition of contaminated buildings,
excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health screening of Libby
residents and former mine workers, and investigation and monitoring costs.

The estimated obligation as of June 30, 2007 includes US$164.4 million for
asserted reimbursable costs through 2005 (which includes the US$54.5 million
charge).

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Employees Still Face Montana Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and seven current or former senior level employees continue
to face a lawsuit relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining and
processing activities in Libby,
Mont., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the unsealing of a
grand jury indictment against the Company and certain of its employees
(United States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al).  

The indictment accuses the defendants of (1) conspiracy to violate
environmental laws and obstruct federal agency proceedings; (2) violations
of the federal Clean Air Act; and (3) obstruction of justice.

The Company purchased the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it until 1990.
Vermiculite processing activities continued until 1992. The grand jury
charges that the conspiracy took place from 1976 to 2002.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company could be subject to
fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax profit earned from its Libby
operations or twice the alleged loss suffered by victims, plus additional
amounts for restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that such after-
tax profits were US$140 million.

The Company has categorically denied any criminal wrongdoing.

In March 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana entered a
scheduling order setting a trial date of Sept. 11, 2006.

In July 2006, the District Court dismissed a portion of the conspiracy count
of a superseding indictment alleging conspiracy to knowingly endanger
residents of the Libby area and others in violation of the Clean Air Act.

In August 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the defendants to
exclude as evidence sample results that included minerals that do not
constitute asbestos under the Clean Air Act.

The Government has appealed these and other rulings to the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals, which heard oral argument in June 2007. As a result of the
appeals, the trial has been delayed pending resolution of the appeals.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company’s request to
advance legal and defense costs to the employees, subject to a reimbursement
obligation if it is later determined that the employees did not meet the
standards for indemnification set forth under the appropriate state
corporate law.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, total expense for the Company and
the employees was US$6.3 million (US$27.2 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2006).

While the appeal is pending, the Company expects legal fees for this matter
to be US$3 million to US$5 million per quarter.  

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, 2 Employees Still Face N.J. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and two former employees, since June 1, 2005, have been
facing a lawsuit filed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County
(N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.).

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations and false
statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Report and
Negative Declarations submitted by the Company to the DEP in 1995 under the
New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an independent
environmental consultant, in connection with the closing of the Company’s
former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J. The Company is also aware that the
State of New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Justice each may be
conducting criminal investigations related to Grace’s former operations of
the Hamilton plant.

The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets in 1963 and ceased
operations in 1994. During the operating period, the Company produced spray-
on fire protection products and vermiculite-based products at this plant.
The current property owners are conducting remediation activities as
directed by the EPA.

The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim against the
Company for this site and now seek about US$3.4 million with respect to the
Hamilton plant site.

In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the State of New Jersey’s motion
for leave to file a late proof of claim in the amount of US$31 million.

This ruling, which the State of New Jersey is expected to appeal, does not
affect the claims against the former employees, for which the Company would
have an indemnification obligation.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Verdict v. Georgia-Pacific Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), reversed judgment of a
jury verdict, which was against Georgia-Pacific Corp., in an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by Fred and Betty Stephens.

Justices Alcala, Hanks, and Bland entered decision of Case No. 01-05-00132-
CV on July 26, 2007.

The Stephenses sued Georgia-Pacific and other defendants after Mr. Stephens
developed mesothelioma, alleging that he contracted the disease in part as a
result of his exposure to Georgia-Pacific joint compound during the years he
worked as a commercial painter.

The Stephenses sued 106 named defendants and 100 John Doe defendants in
Brazoria County, alleging, negligence, gross negligence, and strict
liability.

By the time of trial, the Stephenses, who reside in Washington State, had
settled their claims with all but three defendants: Georgia-Pacific, Kaiser-
Gypsum, and Guard-Line.

Georgia-Pacific removed the case to federal court. Mr. Stephens responded
with an affidavit averring that he had breathed the dust from Guard-Line's
asbestos gloves "repeatedly and continuously throughout [his] career as a
painter which spanned over thirty years."

After finding that Georgia-Pacific had failed to show fraudulent joinder,
the federal court remanded the case back to state court.

When trial resumed, Georgia-Pacific moved to strike the Stephenses' experts,
contending that their opinions were insufficiently reliable because they did
not show that "Mr. Stephens' exposures to Georgia-Pacific's joint compound
increased his risk of developing mesothelioma to at least twice the risk
that he would have had otherwise if not exposed to Georgia-Pacific compound."

At the close of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for Guard-Line.
The court then submitted a jury charge inquiring about marketing defects and
negligence as to the joint compound sold by Georgia-Pacific, together with
the products of 10 settling defendants.

The jury found six of the 11 defendants, including Georgia-Pacific, liable
for both a marketing defect and for negligence. It apportioned
responsibility at 20 percent for Georgia-Pacific and 16 percent for each of
the other five liable settling defendants.

This appeal followed.

In a cross-issue, the Stephenses contended that the trial court erred in
calculating prejudgment interest.

The Appeals Court concluded that the expert testimony presented in this case
is legally insufficient to support the jury's causation finding. The Court
therefore reversed and rendered.

Eric T. Furey and John R. Gilbert of Gilbert & Gilbert, Angleton, Tex.,
Russell S. Post and David M. Gunn of Beck, Redden & Secrest, L.L.P.,
Houston, and Joe G. Hollingsworth, of Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington,
D.C., represented Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Clay B. Carroll, Jeffrey Blake Simon, Loren Jacobson, and Charles S. Siegel
of Waters & Kraus, L.L.P., Dallas, Michael P. Fleming, Conroe, Tex., and
Sean Patrick Tracey, Clark, Depew & Tracey, Ltd., L.L.P., Houston,
represented Fred and Betty Stephens.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Prisoner’s Suit v. U.S. Gov’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Kansas, dismissed an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Byron Smith, in favor of the United States of America.

Judge Thomas Marten entered decision of Case No. 06-3061-JTM on July 26,
2007.

Byron Smith is a prisoner who was incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary at
Leavenworth during the times relevant to his First Amended Complaint.

For relief, Mr. Smith sought US$50,000 in compensatory damages, US$50,000 in
punitive damages, US$2,000,000 for negligence, US$100,000 for "loss or
destruction" of medical records, an unspecified amount for future medical
expenses, and regular testing by a professional trained in the area of
asbestos.

Mr. Smith filed the present action on Jan. 6, 2006 in the District of
Columbia, which transferred his case to the District of Kansas due to
improper venue.

Mr. Smith filed a First Amended Complaint in the District of Kansas on March
27, 2006 incorporating by reference the documentation and facts of the
original complaint.

Harley G. Lappin is the Director of the Bureau of Prisons in Washington,
D.C. At the time of his complaint, Mr. Smith did not state whether he was
suing Mr. Lappin in his individual or official capacity.

Eddie Gallegos responded to Mr. Smith’s written complaints at the
institution and administrative levels. Mr. Smith sued Mr. Gallegos in both
his individual and official capacities.

Janet Durbin was the former Education Technician at the USP Leavenworth. Mr.
Smith sued Ms. Durbin in her individual and official capacities.

Mr. Smith sued William Howell, Jr., John Parent, Teresa Hartfield, Jeffrey
Sinclair, and Stephanie Wheeler in their individual and official capacities.

Mr. Smith also sued the Attorney General, without noting whether he was
being sued in his individual and/or official capacity. Finally, Mr. Smith
sued the USP Leavenworth and the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP").

In 2003, Mr. Smith was a federal inmate at the USP Leavenworth. In April and
June 2003, he worked for the Custodial Maintenance Service as an
electrician. While working in this capacity, he received a work order to add
a new light fixture in a closet in the Education Building.

On March 9, 2005, Mr. Smith completed an Informal Attempt to Resolve form.
He also filed a Request for Administrative Review regarding his alleged
asbestos exposure which he described as "very large amounts of 'burst
exposures.’” On March 16, 2005, Mr. Smith filed a Request for Administrative
Remedy.

The issues for consideration are whether Mr. Smith had subject matter
jurisdiction over any of the defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act
and/or Bivens when the Inmate Accident Compensation Act is the exclusive
remedy for inmate work-related injuries; whether Mr. Smith can state a
Bivens claim against Mr. Lappin, Mr. Gallegos, Mr. Howell, Mr. Parent, Mr.
Sinclair, Mr. Hartfield, Ms. Wheeler, or the Attorney General; and whether
Mr. Smith can state a claim against the United States for the negligent loss
or destruction of his medical records.

On July 25, 2007, the District Court dismissed the case. The Court also
denied Mr. Smith’s motion to strike untimely and default, denied his motion
for default judgment, denied his motions for judicial notice, and denied his
motion for reconsideration.

Byron Smith, Bruceton Mills, W. Va., pro se.

Andrea L. Taylor, Office of United States Attorney, Kansas City, represented
the United States of America and other defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Fawcetts in Case v. Verizon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Superior Court of Delaware, New
Castle County, reversed a July 7, 2005 Industrial Accident Board ruling in
an asbestos-related action filed by Irma and Mitchell Fawcett against
Verizon Delaware Inc.

Judge Richard R. Cooch entered decision of Case No. C.A. 05A-08-001RRC on
July 25, 2007.

Mr. Fawcett worked for Diamond State Telephone Co. (later known as Verizon)
from the late 1940s until his retirement in 1986.

Mr. Fawcett came into contact with asbestos fireproofing installation,
asbestos pipe installation and asbestos containing ceiling tiles during the
cable installation that he regularly performed.

Mr. Fawcett became ill in Fall of 2003 and was diagnosed on or about Nov.
11, 2003 with lung cancer.
     
The diagnosis of lung cancer prompted Mr. Fawcett to seek advice of counsel
about a potential legal claim against his former employer, Verizon, for
asbestos exposure. In June 2004, he died of lung cancer.

On Nov. 3, 2004, Mrs. Fawcett filed a petition with the Board to determine
compensation. On that same date, she, through counsel, notified Verizon of
the causal link between asbestos exposure and her husband's lung cancer.
     
Mrs. Fawcett initially sought payment of medical and funeral expenses. She
later amended the pleading to include an additional claim for ongoing death
benefits.

At a May 16, 2005 hearing, the Board was presented with testimony from James
Beatson regarding the nature of Mr. Fawcett's work at the telephone company.

In its July 7, 2005 decision, the Board held that Mrs. Fawcett's testimony
was credible and ultimately dispositive as to when Mr. Fawcett acquired
knowledge of the seriousness and probable compensable nature of his lung
cancer and its causal relationship to his work for Verizon.

The Board established Feb. 14, 2004 as the date that Mr. Fawcett realized
that his lung cancer was related to his work at Verizon and his contact with
asbestos.

The Board denied Mrs. Fawcett’s petition, and this appeal was taken.

The Superior Court ruled that the July 7, 2005 decision was not supported by
substantial evidence that Mr. Fawcett knew, as a reasonable person, the
nature, seriousness, and probable compensable nature of his disease as of
Feb. 14, 2004.

The Board decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

David A. Arndt of Jacobs & Crumplar P.A., Wilmington, Del., represented the
Estate of Mitchell Fawcett.

Scott L. Silar of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington,
Del., represented Verizon Delaware Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Industrial Still Faces Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Corp. and its former unit Detroit Stoker Co. have been,
and may in the future be, named as defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 9, 2007.

These cases arise out of commercial stoker products made by the Company and
Detroit Stoker, some of the parts and components of which used asbestos-
containing material fabricated and provided by third parties. The use of
asbestos-containing materials ceased in about 1981. The insurance coverage
potentially available to the Company is substantial.

Detroit Stoker was acquired by a newly formed corporation affiliated with a
private investment group (Merger Parent) on Dec. 29, 2006 by way of a merger
of Bram Acquisition Corp. (Merger Sub) with and into Detroit Stoker, with
Detroit Stoker being the surviving corporation (the Merger).

Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Parent and the surviving corporation
agreed to indemnify the Company for any asbestos-related litigation
liabilities, including without limitation, any asbestos liabilities arising
from Detroit Stoker’s operation as a division of the Company and the
Company’s own operations. To secure these indemnity obligations, Merger
Parent established an escrow account for the sole benefit of the Company.

Hunt Valley, Md.-based United Industrial Corp. designs, produces and
supports aerospace and defense systems. The Company’s products and services
include unmanned aircraft systems, training and simulation systems,
automated aerospace test and maintenance equipment, armament systems,
aviation ground support equipment, logistical and engineering services, and
maintenance, repair and overhaul activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Faces Suit w/ 4T Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of United America Indemnity Ltd.’s insurance companies has been named in
a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated insurance companies
that involves issues with regard to about 4,000 asbestos-related bodily
injury claims and others that continue to be filed.

The insurance company is unnamed in the Company’s quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 9, 2007.

Establishing reserves for asbestos, environmental, and other mass tort
claims involves considerably more judgment than other types of claims due to
inconsistent court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result
of asbestos-related liabilities, novel theories of coverage, and judicial
interpretations that often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope
of coverage.

The insurance industry continues to receive a substantial number of asbestos-
related bodily injury claims, with an increasing focus being directed toward
installers of products containing asbestos rather than against asbestos
manufacturers.

This shift has resulted in significant insurance coverage litigation
implicating applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any,
including but not limited to, determinations as to whether or not an
asbestos related bodily injury claim is subject to aggregate limits of
liability found in most comprehensive general liability policies.

United America Indemnity Ltd. provides specialty and surplus property and
casualty insurance, including insurance for social service agencies and
vacant properties. The Company operates through agents and program managers
throughout the nation. The Company also has operations in Bermuda through
its Wind River Reinsurance unit, which offers treat (group risk) and
facultative (individual risk) reinsurance, as well as specialty property and
casualty insurance. The Company is based in George Town, Grand Cayman,
Cayman Islands.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Records 71 Pending Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corp., as of June 30, 2007, recorded 71 pending asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 9, 2007.

These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Co. (UE), (Central Illinois Public
Service Co. (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating Co. (Genco), Central Illinois
Light Co. (CILCO), and Illinois Power Co. (IP).

As of June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 334 suits filed, 112 suits
settled, and 151 suits dismissed.

The Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO, and IP have been named in suits filed
by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure.

Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. The total
number of defendants named in each case is significant; as many as 189
parties are named in some pending cases and as few as six in others.
However, in the cases that were pending as of June 30, 2007, the average
number of parties was 70.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP allege
injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs’ activities at its
present or former electric generating plants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants are now
owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Co. (AERG).

Most of IP’s plants were transferred to a Dynegy Holdings Inc. subsidiary
before the Company’s acquisition of IP. As a part of the transfer of
ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants, CIPS or CILCO has
contractually agreed to indemnify Genco or AERG for liabilities associated
with asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer.

Each suit seeks unspecified damages in excess of US$50,000, which, if
awarded, typically would be shared among the named defendants.

From April 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007, five additional asbestos-related
lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, mostly in the Circuit
Court of Madison County, Ill. No suits were dismissed and five were settled.

As of June 30, 2007, eight asbestos-related suits were pending against
Company subsidiary Electric Energy Inc. (EEI). The general liability
insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities
arising from asbestos-related claims.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related litigation
claims, subject to the following terms.

Beginning in 2007, 90 percent of cash expenditures in excess of the amount
included in base electric rates will be recovered by IP from a US$20 million
trust fund established by IP financed with contributions of US$10 million
each by the Company and Dynegy.

If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, IP will
contribute 90 percent of the difference to the fund. Once the trust fund is
depleted, 90 percent of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates
will be recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff
rider.

Based in St. Louis, Ameren Corp. operates as a public utility holding
company. Its subsidiaries operate rate-regulated electric generation,
transmission and distribution businesses, rate-regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution businesses and non-rate-regulated electric
generation businesses in Missouri and Illinois.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Still Has 504 Claims at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corp. still faces about 504 asbestos-related claims, of which
about 18 are “malignant” and 486 are “non-malignant,” according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

As of April 1, 2007, the Company faced about 504 asbestos-related claims, of
which about 19 are “malignant” claims and about 485 are “non-malignant”
claims. (Class Action Reporter, June 22, 2007)

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties alleging
damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos, at
closed former facilities.

The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the Company, other
ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers,
distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from
injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other
toxic substances.

Certain diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed
asbestosis are categorized by the Company as "malignant" claims. All others
of a less medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant."

As of July 1, 2007, the Company has recorded a bodily injury liability
reserve of US$5.6 million and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$4.2
million.

This compares to a previously recorded bodily injury reserve of US$5.8
million and insurance receivable of US$4.3 million at April 1, 2007.

Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corp., through subsidiary Todd Pacific
Shipyards Corp., repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government-owned
and commercial vessels. Services range from minor repairs to major overhauls
in dry dock at the Company's Seattle-area shipyard. The U.S. government,
primarily through the Navy and the Coast Guard, accounts for more than 70
percent of the Company's shipyard sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Faces 5,600 Liability Cases at June 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of June 29, 2007, recorded about 5,600 asbestos
liability cases pending against it and its subsidiaries, according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 9, 2007.

The Company and some of its subsidiaries and certain subsidiaries of former
unit Covidien Ltd. are named as defendants in personal injury suits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.

Most of these cases have been filed against subsidiaries in the Company’s
Flow Control business and subsidiaries of Covidien. A limited number of the
cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were
exposed to asbestos while on a subsidiary's property.

Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based on allegations of
past distribution of heat-resistant industrial products incorporating
asbestos or the past distribution of industrial valves that incorporated
asbestos-containing gaskets or packing. Each case names between dozens to
hundreds of corporate defendants.

The Company’s involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because its
subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's
experience, a large percentage of these claims were never substantiated and
have been dismissed by the courts.

Under the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Covidien has assumed all
liabilities for pending cases filed against Covidien's subsidiaries.

Princeton, N.J.-based Tyco International Ltd., in mid-2007, was split up
into three publicly held companies: Covidien Ltd. (formerly Tyco Healthcare
Group), Tyco Electronics, and Tyco International, which retained the
manufacturing conglomerate's Fire and Security and its Engineered Products
and Services businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Records $3M Removal Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group Inc., as of June 30, 2007, has accrued US$3 million
for future asbestos-related removal costs, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 9, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had accrued US$4 million for asbestos-
related removal costs. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

With respect to asbestos materials present at the Company’s City National
Plaza property, these materials have been removed or abated from certain
tenant and common areas of the building structure.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos materials from various
areas of the building structure.

Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group Inc. invests in, develops, and
manages multifamily, office, and retail real estate. The Company owns or
manages some 20 properties in California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
The Company’s largest tenant is Conrail, which accounts for some 20 percent
of the Company's rental income.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Air at Ill. Beach State Park
----------------------------------------------------------------
At U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5's request, a special team
from EPA's Environmental Response Center will soon begin air sampling at
Illinois Beach State Park in Zion, Ill., to better determine the level of
airborne asbestos, according to an EPA press release dated Aug. 16, 2007.

In June 2007, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry asked
EPA's national technical review workgroup on asbestos to review its Illinois
Beach State Park Exposure Investigation Draft Report.

ATSDR's draft report provides an interpretation of the air samples taken for
asbestos in May and August 2006. ATSDR is a sister agency to Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.

EPA's asbestos workgroup recommended that additional activity-based air
sampling at the beach would be useful.

Region 5 and a Las Vegas-based special team are developing a sampling
protocol and schedule. Air samples will be taken over several days during
typical beach activities which may include volleyball, sand play, Frisbee
toss and sunbathing.

Work is expected to begin in September 2007. Air sampling is weather
dependent.

Region 5 and ATSDR expect to have results this fall.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. School Gets Nearly $200,000 for Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Matthew School Community Association, Inc., of Natchitoches Parish has
been awarded US$197,996 in brownfields funding by the Environmental
Protection Agency to remove asbestos-containing materials, according to an
EPA press release dated Aug. 16, 2007.

The association is working to revitalize the site of the former St. Matthew
High School, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as
the first public high school constructed for African Americans in the
county. Plans include redeveloping the property into a cultural center that
will offer health, employment, education and recreation programs.

“EPA uses the brownfields program to partner with communities, so we can
give challenged properties new purpose and new life,” said EPA Regional
Administrator Richard E. Greene. “This project is a great example of how
cleaning up such sites is creating a healthier, more prosperous future for
the next generation.”

The St. Matthew School Community Association grant is part of nearly US$2
million in supplemental brownfields cleanup funding awarded by EPA
nationwide. With the grant, the association will begin removal of pipe
insulation, floor tiles and other materials that contain asbestos.

Brownfields are vacant, abandoned, or under-used properties where
redevelopment may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of
environmental contamination.

EPA awarded US$1.4 million in brownfields grants for projects in Lake
Charles, Marrero, and New Orleans earlier this year. Since the beginning of
the program in 1995, EPA Region 6 has provided more than US$11 million for
Louisiana brownfields projects.

EPA’s brownfields program encourages redevelopment of America's estimated
450,000 abandoned and contaminated sites. Nationally, brownfields assistance
has leveraged more than US$9.8 billion in cleanup and redevelopment, helped
create more than 43,900 jobs and resulted in the assessment of more than
11,500 properties and the cleanup of 180 properties.

EPA Region 6 accounts for 25 percent, or US$2 billion, of the funding
leveraged across the nation.

Additional information on the brownfields program is available at
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields.

To learn more about activities in EPA Region 6, please visit
www.epa.gov/region6.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,395 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc., at June 30, 2007, recorded about 3,395
outstanding asbestos-related cases for which it was responsible for any
related liabilities, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 9, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded about 3,270 outstanding asbestos-
related cases for which it was responsible for any related liabilities.
(Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it subsequently sold
in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When
it acquired this brake business, the Company assumed future liabilities
relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after Sept. 1, 2001.

The Company’s ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed
against the Company on or after Sept. 1, 2001 and the amounts paid for
indemnity and defense thereof.

Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2007, the amounts paid
for settled claims totaled about US$5.6 million.

The Company’s long-term accrued long-term asbestos liabilities amounted to
US$20,290,000 as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$20,828,000 as of Dec.
31, 2006.

Loss from discontinued operation, net of tax, reflects legal expenses
associated with the Company’s asbestos related liability. The Company
recorded US$300,000 as a loss from discontinued operation for the 2007-2nd
quarter, which was in line with the 2006-2nd quarter.

The Company is responsible for certain future liabilities relating to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Company’s most recent
actuarial study estimated a liability for settlement payments, excluding
legal costs, ranging from US$22.1 million to US$53.9 million. Legal costs,
which are expensed as incurred and reported in loss from discontinued
operation, are estimated to range from US$11.6 million to US$21.6 million.

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products Inc. manufactures
engine management and air-conditioning replacement parts for the automotive
aftermarket. Among the Company's top customers are auto parts warehouse
distributors like CARQUEST and NAPA and major auto parts retailers like
Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. still faces a number of cases alleging injuries
that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing
products, based on the Company’s historic use of vermiculite in certain of
its products, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

The complaints in these cases generally are not specific about the
plaintiffs’ contacts with the Company or its products. The Company in each
case is one of numerous defendants and none of the claims seeks damages from
the Company alone.

The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may provide insurance
coverage or indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing coverage under some
of these agreements.

The operating loss for the Company’s Corporate & Other segment decreased by
US$2.3 million in the quarter and increased by US$9.5 million for the first
nine months of fiscal 2007.

The increase in the year-to-date loss is primarily attributable to an
insurance recovery relating to past legal costs incurred in the Company’s
defense of lawsuits regarding its use of vermiculite allegedly contaminated
with asbestos.

Marysville, Ohio-based The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. and its subsidiaries are
engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of lawn and garden care
products. The Company’s customers include home improvement centers, mass
merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware
stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and drug stores, commercial
nurseries and greenhouses, and specialty crop growers. The Company’s
products are sold primarily in North America and the European Union.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Premises Suits v. Pioneer Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Companies Inc. continues to face a number of pending “premises
liability” lawsuits in Louisiana, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 9,
2007.

These premises liability cases allege exposure to asbestos-containing
materials by employees of third-party contractors or subcontractors who
allegedly performed services at the Company’s St. Gabriel, La., facility,
and do not relate to any products manufactured or sold by the Company or any
predecessor company.

The Company said it believes there are about 65 pending premises liability
lawsuits which allege or may allege exposure at the St. Gabriel plant.

Most of these suits have multiple plaintiffs who make claims against
multiple defendants without providing reliable details of where or when the
claimants were exposed to asbestos.

Since most of these cases are in the preliminary stages, the Company is
unable to estimate a range of potential liability for these cases at this
time.

Houston-based Pioneer Companies Inc. operates through two segments: Pioneer
Americas and PCI Chemicals Canada (PCI Canada). The units produce chlorine,
caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, bleach, and sodium chlorate for use in such
industries as pulp and paper manufacturing, water treatment, and chemicals
making.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits v. Parker Drilling Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Co. and certain of its subsidiaries, since August 2004, have
been facing several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege that they
were employed by some of the named defendants between about 1965 and 1986.

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

The complaints allege that the Company’s subsidiaries and other drilling
contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures,
drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on
negligence and strict liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the
Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have been
severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in which the
plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of action allegedly
accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has joined with
other co-defendants in filing motions to compel discovery to determine what
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with which defendant, including
whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship with
subsidiaries of the Company.

Out of 528 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 11 plaintiffs
have identified the Company or one of its affiliates as a defendant.

Houston-based Parker Drilling Co. provides of contract drilling and drilling-
related services. The Company owns 43 rigs, including 24 land rigs, 17 U.S.-
based barge drilling and workover rigs, and two international deep drilling
barges. The Company drills worldwide and has worked in 54 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Faces 365 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at June 30, 2007, still is a co-defendant in about
365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs 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. 9, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a co-defendant in about 365 cases
asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, April
13, 2007)

These asbestos cases relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing
products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence,
gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all
of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a
specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish
jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional
minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.

To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount
applies to claims against all named defendants.

There are four asbestos cases involving 21 plaintiffs that plead specified
damages.

In each of the four cases, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of
US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for another
cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5 million
for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$20
million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its subsidiaries or because
the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product
manufactured or sold by the Company or its subsidiaries.

Cleveland-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through Park-Ohio Industries Ltd.
and its subsidiaries, provides logistics services and makes engineered
products for the aerospace, auto, semiconductor, and other industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $285.1M Losses, LAE at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.’s gross asbestos-related unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses totaled US$285,116,000 for the six and three months
ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$283,506,000 for the six and three
months ended June 30, 2006.

The Company’s net asbestos-related unpaid losses and LAE totaled
US$178,933,000 for the six and three months ended June 30, 2007, compared
with US$137,386,000 for the six and three months ended June 30, 2006.

The Company has exposure to losses from asbestos, environmental pollution
and latent injury damage claims. Gross unpaid asbestos and environmental
losses and loss adjustment expenses as of June 30, 2007 were US$320.1
million, representing 6.2 percent of total gross unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses compared to US$344.7 million, or 6.7 percent of total
gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s survival ratio for asbestos- and environmental-related
liabilities as of June 30, 2007 is 11 years. The survival ratio represents
the asbestos and environmental reserves, net of reinsurance, on June 30,
2007, divided by the average paid asbestos and environmental claims for the
last three years of US$19.5 million, which are net of reinsurance. The
Company’s underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related liabilities is 10
years.

Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an underwriter of
reinsurance, providing a full range of property and casualty products on a
worldwide basis, and an underwriter of specialty insurance, primarily in the
U.S. and through the Lloyd’s of London marketplace. As of June 30, 2007,
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. owned 58.7 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Chesterton in Nichols Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 12th District, Butler County, upheld the
ruling of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, which overruled A.W.
Chesterton Co. and other companies’ motion to dismiss the asbestos-related
colon cancer claims of Carl Nichols, Jr. and Kenneth Bellamy.

The other defendants-appellants in this case are: Oglebay Norton Co.,
CertainTeed Corp., Union Carbide Corp., Georgia-Pacific Corp., Cleaver-
Brooks, Riley Stoker Corp., Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, and Rapid
American Corp.

Judges Young, Bressler, and Powell entered decision of Case Nos. CA2006-12-
316, CA2006-12-319 on July 30, 2007.

In July 2001, Mr. Bellamy was among a group of plaintiffs who filed a
personal injury action against numerous defendants who manufacture, sell or
otherwise "place into the stream of commerce" asbestos or asbestos-
containing products or machinery.

In December 2001, Mr. Nichols filed a similar complaint, with similar
allegations against numerous defendants, many of whom had been already named
as defendants in the Bellamy action. A number of the defendants in
appellees' actions are now the appellants in this appeal.
     
According to appellants' brief, Mr. Nichols' suit was originally filed in
April 2001 as part of "a mass filing" of asbestos-related claims
by "numerous plaintiffs against scores of defendants."

The trial court found the joinder of these plaintiffs to be improper, and
ordered the plaintiffs to file separate complaints. Mr. Nichols complied
with this order by filing his individual complaint in December 2001.

In April 2006, the trial court held a hearing on several hundred asbestos
cases that were pending before the court, including those brought by Mr.
Nichols and Mr. Bellamy.

At the hearing, both Mr. Nichols and Mr. Bellamy asserted they had
contracted colon cancer as a result of their exposure to asbestos. The trial
court ordered both appellees to submit evidence that their colon cancers
were linked to asbestos exposure.

In June and August of 2006, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Bellamy submitted written
opinions from Dr. Arthur Frank who opined that appellees' colon cancers were
causally connected to their asbestos exposure.

Appellants responded to Mr. Nichols and Mr. Bellamy’s evidence by moving to
have both appellees' actions administratively dismissed.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the trial court issued an order overruling appellants'
motion to dismiss. Appellants now appeal from the trial court's Nov. 22,
2006 order.

The Appeals Court affirmed the order.

John J. McConnell, Jr. and Vincent L. Greene of Motley, Rice LLC of
Providence, R.I. represented Carl Nichols, Jr.

Richard D. Schuster and Nina I. Webb-Lawton of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
LLP, Columbus, Ohio, represented A.W. Chesterton Co. and other defendants-
appellants.

Rosemary D. Welsh of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio,
represented A.W. Chesterton Co. and other defendants-appellants.

Bunda, Stutz & DeWitt, PLL, Rebecca C. Sechrist of Bunda, Stutz & DeWitt
PLL, Perrysburg, Ohio, for amicus curiae, Owens-Illinois Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Electric Boat Review Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, denied Electric Boat Corp.'s
petition for review of a Benefits Review Board asbestos-related ruling,
which was in favor of Rheta DeMartino (widow of Louis J. DeMartino).

Judges Straub, B.D. Parker, and Wesley entered decision of Docket No. 06-
2465-AG on Aug. 1, 2007.

Mr. DeMartino was employed by Electric Boat from 1957 until his retirement
in 1994. He was exposed to asbestos while working as an outside machinist
from 1957 to 1959. In addition, he was further exposed from 1961 to 1965
while working in a building adjacent to an area where laggers were handling
asbestos material.

Mr. DeMartino testified that he could have been exposed to asbestos
materials stored in warehouses from 1974 to 1977. He also testified that he
spent between five to 10 percent of his time onboard ships from 1961 to
1990, where asbestos may have been installed.

Mr. DeMartino was first informed that he had an abnormal chest x-ray with a
pattern suggestive of asbestosis in 1970. He passed away on Feb. 3, 1996;
the cause of death was specified as bilateral pneumonia due to or as a
consequence of end-stage asbestosis.

Administrative Law Judge Colleen A. Geraghty denied Electric Boat's request
for section 8(f) relief on claims filed by Mr. DeMartino and his widow under
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Judge Geraghty rejected Electric Boat's argument that Mr. DeMartino's
continued exposure to asbestos after 1970 aggravated his preexisting
asbestosis and thus constituted a second injury for purposes of relief.
Judge Geraghty found that the record was unclear as to the extent of Mr.
DeMartino's exposure to asbestos materials stored in warehouses during the
period 1974 to 1977.

In addition, Judge Geraghty concluded that it was uncertain whether Mr.
DeMartino was exposed to asbestos during his tours on ships in the period
1970 to 1979, and that Electric Boat ceased using asbestos in ship
construction by at least 1979, and possibly before.

The Board affirmed Judge Geraghty’s decision denying relief on March 27,
2006. Electric Boat petitioned for review of the Board's decision, urging
that Judge Geraghty’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.

The Appeals Court wrote explicitly to establish that an employer is eligible
for section 8(f) relief where an employee's pre-existing disability and
second injury both arise from the same course of employment with the same
employer.

The Appeals Court has yet to expressly affirm an employer's eligibility for
relief in this context.

Peter D. Quay, Law Office of Peter D. Quay, Taftville, Conn., represented
Electric Boat Corp.

Kathleen H. Kim, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor (Howard
M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor, Allen H. Feldman, Associate Solicitor, Mark
A. Reinhalter, Counsel for Longshore, on the brief), Washington, D.C.,
represented Rheta DeMartino and Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Unit Continues to Face Suits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Noble Corp. continues to face three
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi involving numerous unaffiliated companies as co-defendants.

Filed in 2004, the lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages
on behalf of about 131 named individuals alleging personal injury, including
claims under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos
on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through
1986.

Although the suits continue to be in procedural stages, amended complaints
filed by plaintiffs reflect that about 18 or fewer of about 131 named
individuals may have claims that they were employed by the Company’s
subsidiary or otherwise associated with the Company’s drilling operations.

Of these 18 individuals, 14 served amended complaints on the Company’s
subsidiary by the applicable deadline. Exposure related to these suits is
not currently determinable.

Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corp., with operations in waters off the coasts
of five continents, has a fleet of 63 offshore drilling units: three
submersibles, three dynamically positioned drillships, 13 semisubmersibles,
and 44 jack-up rigs. The Company also operates eight drilling units under
labor contracts in the North Sea and off the east coast of Canada.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has 179 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation LLC, at June 30, 2007, recorded about 179 cases for which
it was potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 9, 2007.

There were about 176 cases for which the Company was potentially liable and
that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, May 18, 2007)

The Company had recorded a US$64.1 million liability at June 30, 2007
related to this matter.

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth Edison
Co. and Exelon Generation Co. LLC on Feb. 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute
regarding interpretation of its reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims
under the environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to reimburse
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50 percent of specific
asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less
recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing arrangement for
liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims as
specified in the agreement.

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company apportioned
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the number of
exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or Company locations.

The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.
The supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an automatic renewal
provision (subject to the right of either party to terminate).

Payments are made under this indemnity upon tender by Commonwealth Edison of
appropriate proof of liability for an asbestos-related settlement, judgment,
verdict, or expense.

Chicago-based Midwest Generation LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets
in the Midwest. The Company has a generating capacity of more than 5,610 MW
from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois. The Company also oversees
the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which have
305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Still Incurs $1M Unindemnified Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of June 30, 2007, incurred or expected to incur
about US$1 million of costs related to asbestos-related claims, as to which
it either has received or expects to receive about US$800,000 in insurance
reimbursements.

The Company’s non-operating contingent claims are generally associated with
its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC.
Substantially all of these contingent claims are the financial
responsibility of third parties and include various environmental and
asbestos-related claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid
and does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to
these matters.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc., the Company and two Company
subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement. Under the Transfer
Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI substantially all of its assets
and liabilities other than the assets and liabilities relating to its former
Abex NWL Aerospace Division and certain contingent liabilities and the
related assets, including its historical insurance and indemnification
arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an indirect
subsidiary of MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain categories of
asbestos-related claims and other liabilities, including environmental
claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer.

Before 1988, a former subsidiary of Pneumo Abex manufactured certain
asbestos-containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically
along with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in
various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to
asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc. has ultimate
responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related claims asserted
against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related
claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its Friction
Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries Inc. (now Cooper
Industries LLC) assumed responsibility for substantially all asbestos-
related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not
indemnified by PepsiAmericas.

Federal-Mogul Corp. purchased the Cooper Subsidiary in October 1998. In
October 2001, the Cooper subsidiary filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing its obligations to Pneumo Abex.

Performance of the Cooper subsidiary’s obligations is guaranteed by Cooper
Industries LLC. Since the bankruptcy filing of the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper
Industries LLC has been fulfilling the Cooper subsidiary’s obligations to
the extent that they are no longer being performed by the Cooper subsidiary.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a series of agreements with the
Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries LLC and others that proposed a
settlement of the Company’s claims against the Cooper subsidiary relating to
the 1994 sale transaction as part of the bankruptcy reorganization of the
Cooper subsidiary.

Pneumo Abex’s former subsidiary maintained product liability insurance
covering substantially all of the period during which it manufactured or
distributed asbestos-containing products.

The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these
insurers in order to confirm the availability of this coverage. As a result
of settlements in that litigation, other coverage agreements with other
carriers, payments by the PepsiAmericas, the Cooper subsidiary and Cooper
Industries LLC under their obligations to Pneumo Abex, and the Transfer
Agreement, all of its monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims other
than as described below are managed and paid by others.

The future aggregate cost of cleanup and related expenses attributable to
Pneumo Abex with respect to matters for which Pneumo Abex, together with
numerous other third parties, have been named potentially responsible
parties should be substantially less than US$50 million, and the Company
does not itself expect to pay any of these costs.

New York-based M&F Worldwide Corp.'s Mafco Worldwide flavorings firm makes
licorice extract. The Company's primary flavoring brand is Magnasweet, but
the Company also sells Right Dress, gardening mulch that is a byproduct of
processing licorice root. The Company has expanded into the security
printing business through its acquisition of Clarke American Checks from
Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Faces 122 Actions at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corp., as of June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, continues to face
about 122 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8,
2007.

Asbestos-related lawsuits against the Company, as of March 31, 2007, remain
at about 122. (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007)

The suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-
related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment
containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants.

Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not
know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against it.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary
policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been exhausted and that the
carriers will no longer provide a defense under those policies.

The Company said it believes it has additional policies available for other
years which have been ignored by the carriers.

As settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to
have been exposed to asbestos, the Company said it believes when settlement
payments are applied to these additional policies, the Company will have
availability under the years deemed exhausted.

Arden Hills, Minn.-based IntriCon Corp.’s Resistance Technology subsidiary
develops digital signal processor chips for medical applications. The
Company's components are also used in professional audio equipment, like
headsets and microphones.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 116 Lawsuits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises Inc.’s subsidiary Indianapolis Power & Light Co. faces
about 116 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of June 30, 2007, compared
with about 114 pending suits as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 9, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, IPL faced about 115 pending asbestos-related lawsuits.
(Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007)

These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure
to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in IPL power
plants.

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not mine,
manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products.
These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for
contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL.

IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims. These cases
are being defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote
policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the exposure
has been alleged.

Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises Inc., through its regulated utility
unit Indianapolis Power & Light (IPL), generates, transmits, and distributes
electricity to more than 465,000 customers in central Indiana. IPL has about
3,400 MW of generating capacity; most of its power is generated from coal-
burning plants. The Company is a subsidiary of The AES Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $8M for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., for the three and six month periods ended June
30, 2007, recorded about US$8 million for settlement of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 8, 2007.

For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2007, the Company
recorded about US$20 million for defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in
asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of
the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as
defendants.

Most of those claims has been filed against Ingersoll-Rand Co. (IR-New
Jersey) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained
in certain of IR-New Jersey’s products.

Although IR-New Jersey was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, some of its formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-
containing components like gaskets purchased from third-party suppliers.

All asbestos-related claims resolved to date have been dismissed or settled.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., with about 100 plants
worldwide, makes refrigeration equipment (Thermo King, Hussmann) used mostly
in trucks and supermarkets, locks and security systems (Schlage,
Kryptonite), construction equipment (Bobcat skid steers, light towers,
portable compressors), industrial equipment (generators, turbines, and the
like), and heavy equipment and golf carts (Compact Vehicle Technologies).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Continues to Face “Premises” Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp. has been named as a “premises defendant” in a number of
asbestos exposure cases, typically a claim by a non-employee of exposure to
asbestos while at a facility, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 9, 2007.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple plaintiffs
bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the complaint has not
indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against which defendants,
where or how the alleged injuries occurred, or what injuries each plaintiff
claimed.

Where the alleged exposure occurred before the Company’s ownership of the
relevant “premises,” the prior owners generally have contractually agreed to
retain liability for, and to indemnify the Company against, asbestos
exposure claims.

None of the complaints in these cases state the amount of damages being
sought. The prior owner accepts responsibility for the conduct of the
defense of the cases and payment of any amounts due to the claimants. The
Company has not made any payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases.

In the six month period ended June 30, 2007, the Company tendered 17 cases
and resolved 142 cases. In the same period, the Company recorded 1,242
unresolved cases.

In the six month period ended June 30, 2006, the Company tendered 962 cases
and resolved 113 cases. In the same period, the Company recorded 1,425
unresolved cases.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of
June 30, 2007, the Company had an accrued liability of US$12.5 million
relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of US$12.5 million
relating to the Company’s indemnity protection with respect to these cases.

The Company has mad made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos
exposure claims as of June 30, 2007.

Certain cases in which the Company is a “premises defendant” are not subject
to indemnification by prior owners or operators. Cases include all cases for
which service has been received by the Company, other than a number of cases
that were erroneously filed against the Company due to a clerical error. The
cases filed in error have been dismissed.

In the six month period ended June 30, 2007, the Company filed 51 cases and
resolved 2 cases. In the same period, the Company recorded 91 unresolved
cases.

In the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company filed 16 cases and
resolved 8 cases. In the same period, the Company recorded 42 unresolved
claims.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that are
not subject to indemnification of about US$138,500 during the six months
ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$5,000 during the six months ended June
30, 2006.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company had an accrual of about US$3.4 million
relating to these cases.

The Company has made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos
exposure claims as of June 30, 2007.

Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corp. is a manufacturer of differentiated
chemical products and inorganic and commodity chemical products. Company
products are used in a wide range of applications, including those in the
adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products, durable and non-
durable consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging, paints and
coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and
dye industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Corp. Faces 26,362 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corp., as of June 30, 2007, recorded 26,362 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 26,496 pending asbestos-related
personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 18,
2007)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or more in
most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades.

In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or
products that allegedly contained asbestos.

Any component within a Company product which may have contained asbestos
would have been purchased from a supplier.

In most of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the litigation
against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to specifically identify any
Company products as the source of their asbestos exposure.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have been filed
in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim
for damages of US$20 million or US$25 million against about 90 defendants.

Of the 26,362 pending cases as of June 30, 2007, 25,897 were pending in the
New York Supreme Court (a trial court) for New York County in New York
State. The other claims, totaling 465, are filed in various counties in a
number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including
New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages
than the New York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company has obtained dismissal by stipulation or
summary judgment before trial in 17,304 cases.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 298
Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

The Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal and settlement costs and
expenses relating to the asbestos litigation to date.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corp.’s mill services unit, MultiServ, offers
metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and other services.
The Company’s Access Services businesses, SGB Group and Patent Construction
Systems, rent and sell concrete-forming equipment, scaffolding, and bridge-
decking products. The Company's Harsco GasServ division makes gas tanks,
fittings, valves, and related gear.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Reserves $24.2M for A&E at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group Inc. recorded US$24.2 million ending loss and
loss adjustment expense reserves related to asbestos, environmental damage,
and toxic tort liability at June 30, 2007, compared with US$24.7 million at
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 9, 2007.

Net of reinsurance, these reserves amounted to US$13.8 million at June 30,
2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance
and pool business with asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort
liability of US$56.5 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$57 million
at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Hanover Insurance Group Inc., which is based in Worcester, Mass. and
f/k/a Allmerica Financial Corp., is an all-around property-casualty
insurance holding company. Through its Hanover Insurance Co., the Company
provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers'
compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,805 Claims at June 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corp., at June 29, 2007, recorded about 34,805 outstanding
asbestos-related claims, of which 1,415 were non-maritime claims and 33,390
were maritime claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company.

At June 29, 2007, the Company had accrued on a gross basis about US$5.5
million at June 29, 2007 for these lawsuits, compared with about US$5.2
million. The Company had recorded about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries
for these suits.

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corp. makes aluminum, copper, and
fiber-optic wire and cable, including electric utility (cables used for low-
, medium- and high-voltage power distribution and power transmission),
electrical infrastructure (for industrial and commercial power and control
applications), and telecommunications products (low-voltage signal wire for
voice, data, video, and control applications).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Okla. Officials Guilty for Exposing Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury, on Aug. 20, 2007, found two Oklahoma City officials guilty
of negligently allowing the release of asbestos, in a case jointly
investigated and prosecuted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Justice and the State of Oklahoma, according to an EPA press
release dated Aug. 21, 2007.

The evidence presented at trial showed that the City Manager of Elk City,
Okla., Guy R. Hylton, Jr. and a building superintendent, Chick Arthur
Little, used inmates from the Elk City Work Center to remove asbestos from
an old railroad depot in 2003.

The inmates were not provided with protective clothing and other protective
measures, as required by law. By doing so, city officials negligently caused
the release of asbestos into the air and risked the health of the inmates.

Granta Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, said, "Public officials used prisoners to remove
cancer-causing asbestos without protective equipment. All people deserve
protection from exposure to environmental hazards."

John C. Richter, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma,
said, "These senior city officials held a sacred public trust to ensure that
the laws established to protect the people they serve were followed.
Instead, as the jury found, they neglected their duty when they allowed the
public to be exposed to danger by the release of hazardous asbestos and took
advantage of inmate labor by sending them to work in the Depot without
protection. Cases like this one are central to the Department of Justice's
efforts to vigorously enforce our environmental laws that are designed to
protect each and every citizen, no matter their station in life."

The city purchased the Elk City Railroad Depot in May of 2002 for renovation
and use by the city. The Depot was built in the early 1900s and contained
asbestos insulation.

Additionally the jury found that Mr. Little lied to investigating agents
when he falsely stated that the waste from the Depot had been properly
disposed in a permitted landfill. The jury found both defendants not guilty
of illegally disposing of hazardous asbestos. The jury also found Mr. Hylton
not guilty of lying to investigators about the disposal of asbestos.

A sentencing hearing will be held in about 90 days.

Mr. Hylton faces up to one year in prison plus a fine of up to US$100,000.
Mr. Little faces up to five years in prison plus a fine of up to US$250,000.

Mr. Hylton and Mr. Little were originally indicted by a federal grand jury
on Dec. 19, 2006.

The case is the result of a joint investigation conducted by the EPA's
Criminal Investigation Division, the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, and
the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Randy Sengel and
Nick Lillard.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Conducts Sampling at Superfund Location
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting activity-based
asbestos sampling work at the South Bay Asbestos Superfund Site in Alviso,
Calif. during the week of Aug. 20-25, according to an EPA press release
dated Aug. 21, 2007.

Eric Yunker, the EPA project manager for the site, said, “We are sampling in
order to determine if there is any potential for significant exposure to
asbestos from normal dust-generating activities, such as driving a vehicle
or bicycling.”

The EPA will sample several different areas of the site including:

• Any unpaved truck yards where there is significant vehicular traffic.

• State Street and the majority of other streets in the community north of
the Guadalupe River.

• The sports field behind George Mayne Elementary School.

During a required five-year review conducted in 2005, the EPA found the site
does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. The major potential
sources of asbestos exposure at the site are being controlled by capping of
landfills or have been removed, such as the flood control ring levee.

The EPA is conducting the current round of sampling because recent
information has shown that previously conducted soil-based sampling can
underestimate the exposure to people who are involved in activities that
disturb asbestos-containing soils.

The EPA technicians will take air samples while simulating soil-disturbing
activities that might cause exposure to asbestos fibers, such as driving
vehicles, riding bicycles or raking the ground.

Technicians are connected to air monitors in order to measure asbestos
concentrations in the air where activities occur. Stationary air monitors
are also set up next to sampling locations to measure airborne asbestos
levels and identify sources.

During sampling activities, technicians wear white protective clothing and
respirators as a precaution. Because these technicians routinely work with
hazardous materials, federal health and safety rules require them to wear
protective gear.

The EPA will report sampling results in a fact sheet and on the agency’s Web
site later this year. The agency will evaluate the results, and continue to
inform the community of any future activities that may be necessary at the
site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $384.84M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s asbestos-related liability amounted to US$384,824,000
as of June 29, 2007, compared with US$424,628,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

The Company’s asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable amounted to
US$335,862,000 as of June 29, 2007, compared with US$350,322,000 as of Dec.
29, 2006.

Some of the Company’s U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants in numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the
United States and United Kingdom.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from
exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed
by the Company’s subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier.

With its U.S. base in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd. is a global company
offering, through its subsidiaries, a broad range of engineering,
procurement, construction, manufacturing, project development and
management, research and plant operation services. The Company serves the
upstream oil and gas, LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, petrochemicals,
chemicals, power, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 133,580 Claims in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. recorded 133,580 open asbestos-related claims filed
against its U.S. subsidiaries as of the three and six months ended June 29,
2007, compared with 161,440 open claims for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

For the three months ended June 29, 2007, the Company noted 1,500 new claims
filed in the U.S. and 3,180 U.S. claims resolved. For the three months ended
June 30, 2006, the Company noted 2,590 claims filed in the U.S. and 5,390
U.S. claims resolved.

For the six months ended June 29, 2007, the Company noted 3,140 new claims
filed in the U.S. and 5,450 U.S. claims resolved. For the six months ended
June 30, 2006, the Company noted 5,330 new claims filed in the U.S. and
8,710 U.S. claims resolved.

The Company’s total U.S. asbestos-related assets amounted to US$347.8
million as of June 29, 2007, compared with US$363.7 million as of Dec. 29,
2006.

The Company’s total U.S. asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$421
million as of June 29, 2007, compared with US$466 million as of Dec. 29,
2006.

The amount spent on asbestos litigation, defense and case resolution was
US$21.3 million (for the three months ended June 29, 2007) and US$44.9
million (for the six months ended June 29, 2007), and US$19.2 million (for
the three months ended June 30, 2006) and US$37.6 million (for the six
months ended June 30, 2006).

The Company funded US$18.4 million (for the three months ended June 29,
2007) and US$29 million (for the six months ended June 29, 2007) of the
payments made, while all remaining amounts were paid from insurance proceeds.

The Company funded US$19.1 million (for the three months ended June 30,
2006) and US$35.5 million (for the six months ended June 30, 2006) made,
while all remaining amounts were paid from insurance proceeds.

Through June 29, 2007, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were US$602
million and total cumulative defense costs paid were US$230 million.

As of June 29, 2007, total asbestos-related liabilities were comprised of an
estimated liability of US$158.6 million relating to open (outstanding)
claims being valued and an estimated liability of US$262.5 million relating
to future unasserted claims through year-end 2021.

The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost per
resolved claim through June 29, 2007 has been about US$2.5 million.

As of June 29, 2007, the Company estimated the value of its asbestos
insurance asset contested by its subsidiaries’ insurers in ongoing
litigation in New York state court at US$32.7 million. The litigation
relates to the amounts of insurance coverage available for asbestos-related
claims and the proper allocation of the coverage among Company subsidiaries’
various insurers and Company subsidiaries as self-insurers.

Over the last several years, certain Company subsidiaries have entered into
settlement agreements calling for insurers to make lump-sum payments, as
well as payments over time, for use by Company subsidiaries to fund asbestos-
related indemnity and defense costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement
for portions of out-of-pocket costs previously incurred.

In 2006, Company subsidiaries reached agreements to settle their disputed
asbestos-related insurance coverage with four of their insurers. The Company
increased its asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded a gain of
US$96.2 million in 2006. In the 2007-3rd quarter, Company subsidiaries
reached an agreement to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance
coverage with an additional insurer for US$6.4 million.

Also in 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of a New York state
trial court decision that previously had held that New York, rather than New
Jersey, law applies in the above coverage litigation with Company
subsidiaries’ insurers, and as a result, the Company increased its insurance
asset and recorded a gain of US$19.5 million.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the Company’s subsidiaries’ insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the New York
Court of Appeals.

At the year-end 2006 liability estimate, an increase of 25 percent in the
average per claim indemnity settlement amount would increase the liability
by US$81.2 million and the impact on expense would be dependent upon
available additional insurance recoveries.

The Company has funded US$29 million of the asbestos liability indemnity
payments and defense costs from its cash flow in the first six months of
2007, net of the cash received from insurance settlements.

The Company expects to fund a total of US$33.9 million of the asbestos
liability indemnity and defense costs from its cash flow in fiscal year
2007, net of the cash expected to be received from existing insurance
settlements.

With its U.S. base in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd. is a global company
offering, through its subsidiaries, a broad range of engineering,
procurement, construction, manufacturing, project development and
management, research and plant operation services. The Company serves the
upstream oil and gas, LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, petrochemicals,
chemicals, power, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 336 U.K. Claims at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of June 29, 2007, recorded 336 open asbestos-related
claims filed against its U.K. subsidiaries, out of 842 claims to date filed
against those units, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2007.

Some of the Company’s subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have received
claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos.

As of June 29, 2007, the Company had recorded total liabilities of US$36
million comprised of an estimated liability relating to open (outstanding)
claims of US$6.1 million and an estimated liability relating to future
unasserted claims through year-end 2021 of US$29.9 million.

Of the total, US$2.3 million was recorded in accrued expenses and US$33.7
million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the condensed
consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K. asbestos-
related insurance recoveries, of which US$2.3 million was recorded in
accounts and notes receivable-other and US$33.7 million was recorded as
asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable on the condensed consolidated
balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. court of appeal ruling that
pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable injury and accordingly,
the Company has reduced its liability assessment.

Should this ruling be reversed, the asbestos liability and the related asset
recorded in the U.K. would be about US$57.6 million.

With its U.S. base in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd. is a global company
offering, through its subsidiaries, a broad range of engineering,
procurement, construction, manufacturing, project development and
management, research and plant operation services. The Company serves the
upstream oil and gas, LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, petrochemicals,
chemicals, power, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Worker Sues 50 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Wielenbeck, a South Carolina resident who worked as a welder and X-
ray technician from 1947 to 1988 in various locations, filed an asbestos-
related action against 50 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., on Aug. 17, 2007, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

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

Defendants include Bondex International Inc., DaimlerChrysler Corp., Ford
Motor Co., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., John Crane Inc., MetLife Inc., and Union Carbide Corp.

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

According to Mr. Wielenbeck, he first became aware that he suffered from
mesothelioma on Jan. 10, 2007.

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

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

Mr. Wielenbeck also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to
obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the
defendants leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related
to asbestos.

"It was foreseeable to a reasonable person/entity in the respective
positions of defendants, that said documents and information constituted
evidence, which was material to potential civil litigation-namely asbestos
litigation," the complaint states.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Wielenbeck claims he was exposed
to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease caused only by
asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him, the complaint states. He
seeks damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment.

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

Mr. Wielenbeck seeks at least US$300,000 in damages for negligence, willful
and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among
other allegations.

Nicholas Angelides of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. Represents Mr.
Wielenbeck.

Case No. 07 L 737 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Gov’t Laws Now Allow for Fast Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Capital Territory has changed laws to make it easier for
asbestos victims’ relatives to receive compensation after the victim has
died, ABC News reports.

Previously, damages claims could not be paid if victims died before their
court action was finalized.

The Attorney General Simon Corbell said that meant families had to pursue
separate legal action after their relatives' death, which created extra
distress and anxiety.

Mr. Corbell said the amended law would allow payments to be made to the
estate of a deceased person.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wireman Sues British Telecom for GBP100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Springham is suing British Telecom for damages exceeding GBP100,000 for
exposing him to asbestos, icSurreyOnline reports.

The 86-year-old Mr. Springham, a wireman for British Telecom, claims he was
exposed to asbestos while working in London’s famous shops and public
buildings.

A writ claims Mr. Springham, who also suffers from stroke-related dementia
and is suing through his wife, was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers when
he worked for British Telecom between 1949 and 1981.

Mr. Springham worked at power stations, in boiler houses and basements
installing new telephones in shops including Harrods and Barkers, Earls
Court and Olympia exhibition centers and the Albert Hall.

The writ says, "He was installing new telephones worked close to laggers who
stripped off old asbestos insulation which created thick clouds of asbestos
dust as it fell to the ground.

"He worked in boiler houses and basements containing pipes and boilers
lagged with asbestos in poor condition, pulled cables through risers which
disturbed asbestos lagging, drilled through asbestos sheets and worked on
electrical switchgear containing asbestos rope."

The writ accuses British Telecom of negligence and breach of statutory duty
and it claims this caused Mr. Springham's illness.

The writ says British Telecom negligently failed to damp down dry asbestos,
failed to give Mr. Springham breathing apparatus and failed to provide him
with a safe system and place of work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Engineer’s Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Amersham Courthouse, U.K., ruled that the death of Leslie
Garner was due to asbestos, Bucks Free Press reports.

The inquest stated that Mr. Garner died from a 30cm-wide tumor in his chest
brought on by years of contact with asbestos at work.

Mr. Garner, of Hundred Acres Lane, Amersham, died on May 6, 2007 at the age
of 62. He leaves behind his wife Judith.

Dr. Yoon Chia, consultant pathologist at Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS
Trust, told the coroners court that Mr. Garner had died due to malignant
mesothelioma. She said, “There was no sign of any external abnormality. An
internal examination found asbestos in the respiratory system.”

Dr. Chia added that the rest of Mr. Garner's organs were found to be healthy
and that until shortly before he died he had been in very good health for a
man in his 60s.

Mr. Garner came into contact with asbestos at work from the 1960s onwards.
In August 1962, at the age of 17, he began a five year engineering
apprenticeship with Young, Austin and Young Ltd., staying on with them as a
project engineer after finishing his training.

Mr. Garner worked for them until he was made redundant in 1994, when he
continued to work as an engineer for other companies.

A section of a statement written by Mr. Garner several weeks before he died
and provided to the coroner on his behalf by London-based law firm Field
Fisher Waterhouse was read out in court.

Mr. Garner’s account, written on March 8, 2007, detailed the variety of
different ways in which he was exposed to asbestos at work, including
cutting sheets, spraying steel piping and laying blankets.

Coroner Richard Hulett said, “This man did not die of a natural cause of
death. In this case, Mr. Garner was aware of his predicament, an incurable
illness that was well established, and he had taken steps to instruct
lawyers.”

Mr. Hulett recorded the cause of death as an industrial disease, saying Mr.
Garner died of a malignant mesothelioma as a result of industrial contact
with asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker Files GBP150,000 Suit v. Mettoy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter White, an 81-year-old man with malignant mesothelioma, has launched a
GBP150,000 asbestos-related lawsuit against Mettoy Co. Ltd. the toy company
in the United Kingdom he worked in for over 40 years, Workplace Law reports.

Mr. White developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when he
worker for Mettoy as a joiner and maintenance man between 1939 and 1980.

In the course of his work, Mr. White removed old asbestos sheets used for
office partitions, and used new asbestos sheets to form office partitions,
which he cut with a circular saw, and he swept up the debris dry.

Mr. White also repaired asbestos roofs, by replacing old corrugated sections
with new sections which he cut to size with a hand saw, and he removed
damaged lagging and replaced it with new asbestos paste.

Mr. White suffered from wheezing for some years, but found his condition
deteriorated last summer, and he became increasingly short of breath and
suffered pain. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2006.

Mr. White has accused Mettoy of negligence and breach of statutory duty, and
is suing for damages worth GBP150,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Sues Wilkins & Coventry’s Insurer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Alsop, of Iron Acton in the U.K. and the widow of carpenter Lionel
Alsop, through her attorneys, is suing the insurance company of her
husband’s now-defunct former employer, Wilkins and Coventry, Gazette reports.

Mrs. Alsop is calling on her husband’s former work colleagues to support her
in her legal battle for compensation.

The Alsops were months into retirement when Mr. Alsop was diagnosed and
later died at the age of 66 from mesothelioma in August 2005.

Mrs. Alsop believes her husband contracted the cancer while working for
Wilkins and Coventry, in Bristol, between 1953 and 1963.

Mr. Alsop had moved to Iron Acton in 1982 to finish working as a driver for
Chipping Sodbury police before retiring in January 2003.

However, in April 2003, Mr. Alsop began showing symptoms of mesothelioma
after he experienced breathing difficulties. Three months later doctors
confirmed he did have the cancer.

Mrs. Alsop’s solicitor Kim Barrett, of Sheffield-based Irwin Mitchell, is
now preparing court proceedings against the insurance company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Links Docker’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coroner Nicola Mundy has ruled that docker John McCowen’s exposure to
asbestos at work probably played a part in his death, Lancashire Evening
Post reports.

The 74-year-old McCowen came into close contact with asbestos dust when he
worked as a docker in Manchester, U.K., in the 1960s after he left the Army.

Mr. McCowen also worked for a manufacturing firm which produced sheets of
asbestos, before moving to Preston in the early 1980s in order to take up a
job as a boilerman with British Aerospace.

Mr. McCowen's brother, Alan, told Preston Coroner's Court that he had urged
his brother to go to the doctor when he noticed his health had deteriorated
last Christmas.

Mr. McCowen, of Alder Road, Ribbleton, Preston, U.K., was diagnosed with
lung cancer a short time later. He died of bronchial pneumonia at St
Catherine's Hospice, Lostock Hall, in April 2007.

The court heard that Mr. McCowen, who was married with a stepson, had
received almost GBP12,000 in compensation before his death, from a
government scheme for people made ill from exposure to asbestos at work.

Ms. Mundy ruled that Mr McCowen had died from pneumonia, which was linked to
lung cancer, and that it was likely exposure to asbestos had played a part
in the diseases which led to his death.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Engineer Files Suit v. 92 Firms in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Wheelis, an operating engineer from Missouri, on Aug. 10, 2007, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 92 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Wheelis claims he was employed from 1961-1999 as an operating engineer
in various locations throughout Missouri and Illinois.

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

Defendants include Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., ConocoPhillips, Ford Motor
Co., General Motors Corp., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Honeywell
International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois
Inc., and Union Carbide Corp.

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

According to Mr. Wheelis he first became aware that he suffered from
mesothelioma in June 2007.

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

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

As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Wheelis claims he was exposed to
fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease caused only by asbestos
which has disabled and disfigured him, the complaint states. He seeks
damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment.

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

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

John Wagner, John Barnerd, Perry Browder, and Trent Miracle of SimmonsCooper
in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Wheelis.

Case No. 07 L 722 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Navy Worker’s Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of former U.K. Navy Worker, Francis Palmer,
was linked to asbestos exposure, The Ely Standard reports.

Mr. Palmer, who earned a Royal­Victorian Medal and two campaign medals, died
at his home on Brook Street, Soham, U.K., on March 31, at the age of 72.

Coroner William Morris recorded a verdict of death through industrial
disease.

Mr. Morris said the death was caused by mesothelioma and bronchopneumonia, a
form of pneumonia which involves bacteria invading the lungs.

Mr. Palmer served in the Navy between 1952 and 1959 as an engineer. He
worked in boiler engine rooms on various ships and during this time he
became regularly exposed to asbestos.

Pathologist Martin Goddard carried out the post mortem examination. He
said, “Mr Palmer was regularly exposed to blue asbestos which is the most
dangerous type.

“His exposure to asbestos was a long time ago, but it is commonly a 30 or 40
year timeline before asbestos exposure can cause disease.”


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *