CAR_Public/070907.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, September 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 178

                            Headlines


ADT SECURITY: Sued in Cal. for Slow Response to Burglary Alarm
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Passengers File Suit in Wash. Over Lost Luggage
COAST FINANCIAL: Fla. Suits Over CCI-Related Loans Consolidated
CRIMINAL DEFENSE: Sued for Allegedly Misusing Clients’ Fund
DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in California

FERRO CORP: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
FERRO CORP: Awaits Final Approval of $4M ERISA Suit Settlement
GRAND MUTUAL: Agrees to Return $51M to Overbilled Policyholders
HEARST-ARGYLE: Del. Lawsuit Seeks to Raise Public Shares Offer
IDACORP INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit

KERRY INGREDIENTS: Minn. Court Certifies Labor Lawsuit
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settles Suit Over MK Share Purchase for $14M
LOJACK CORP: Still Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
LONGHORN BOYDART: Canadian Tattoo Studio Faces CAD10M Lawsuit
LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Basell Holdings Deal

MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Decertifies Third-Party Payors’ Suit
OAKLEY INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Luxottica-Norma Deal
RIDLEY INC: Wants High Court to Review Motion to Junk BSE Suit
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Nixing of N.J. Securities Suit Appealed
UNUM GROUP: Tenn. Judge Certifies Suit by Disabled Americans

VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Partially Dismisses ERISA Litigation
WEST CORP: Consumer Class Certified; Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
YAHOO! INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California

* Death of Boy in Yamaha Rhino ATV Accident Prompts Tex. Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valentec Responds to La.’s Cleanup Demands
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Records $152M for Settlements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Estimates $173T for Removal at Okla.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits from Old Ventures Pending v. Magnetek
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Board Ruling in Favor of ACandS

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Delays Filing Due to SEC Review
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Has $7.2M Claims Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $66.8M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group OKs Senate’s Passage of Legislation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vulcan Spends $360,000 to Lobby for Ban

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 39 Firms in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Faces 10 Suits w/ 324 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Defends Sterling in 2,276 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Still Faces LaBour Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling in Todd’s Favor

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eitanit to Pay Nahariya ILS4.75M for Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges NIOSH to Produce Libby Records
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Amends Objections to 2 Damage Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian Groups Aim to End Ban Exemptions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found at Somerset School Premises

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Air Force Base in Calif. Checked for Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Wants Health Checks on Jail Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colorado Fire Station Closed Due to Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GBP8,000 Fine Imposed for Illegal Storage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Remands American Standard Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NAW Joins Brief on DiCenzo Lawsuit in Ohio
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Work Place Prosecutions Rise to 37 in 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thames Labs Pushes for Awareness Training
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC Clause Could Upset Hardie Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Road in England Closed After Asbestos Find

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in N.J. Catholic High School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Locker Records 40 Cases at June 18
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Removed from North Somerset School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Chick Case to Resume on Oct. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E Crews Remove Hazard from Calif. Site

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Completes Cleanup at Illinois Facility
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor’s Workmates Sought in Payout Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Commission Ruling in Austin Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Rochon Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Move to Dismiss Caradonna Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Reyes Case in Defendants’ Favor
ASBESTOS ALERT: County Waste Fined GBP1,200 for Disposal Breach


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JONES SODA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Wash.
MOTOROLA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
PALL CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
UTSTARCOM INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Fraud Suit
VALUECLICK INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


ADT SECURITY: Sued in Cal. for Slow Response to Burglary Alarm
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Security Services is facing a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court for
failing to immediately respond to a burglary alert, Reuters reports.

The suit was filed by former Paramount Pictures chief Sherry Lansing and her
director husband William Friedkin, who claim the company took nearly two
hours to respond to a burglary at their Bel-Air mansion in Los Angeles.  They
demand a refund of the $25,000 they spent installing the alarm, compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as class-action status for their suit.

ADT Security Services was founded as American District Telegraph in 1874.  
Acquired by conglomerate Tyco International in 1998, the security services
company has some eight million commercial, residential, and government
customers worldwide.  ADT provides services such as fire protection, access
control, alarm monitoring, medical alert system monitoring, video
surveillance, and intrusion detection through more than 180 sales and service
offices.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Passengers File Suit in Wash. Over Lost Luggage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three U.S. travelers filed a proposed class action in federal court in
Seattle alleging British Airways caused them a major inconvenience for
mishandling their luggage.

Washington-state residents Donald and Joan Smith and Aydan Kayserili of
Milwaukee, Wis. claimed that the world's second largest international
airline, British Airways (Pink Sheets: BAIRY) violated provisions of the
Montreal Convention, which governs how airlines handle passenger baggage.

If the court approves the case as a class-action, it would represent tens of
thousands of travelers who have experienced what the suit claims is reckless
handling of passenger luggage, and would award them actual losses not limited
to the $1,500 cap British Airways invokes.

According to the suit, filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, British Air
loses 23 bags per 1,000 passengers carried, about 60 percent more than the
industry average and twice as bad as the worst U.S. carrier.

The suit claims that British Airways has lost more than one million items of
baggage over the past two years.

Donald and Joan Smith flew British Airways to Italy for a two-week vacation
in June but their luggage did not arrive on their flight through Heathrow
Airport. The Smiths spent hours on the phone trying to locate the luggage but
say British Airways' customer service were uncooperative, with one agent
telling Donald Smith that the staff was "overworked and underpaid" the suit
states.

After two weeks of fruitless calls to the airlines, Joan Smith traveled to
the Naples airport, and over the angry objections of airline staff, gained
access to the lost-luggage storage area where she found the missing luggage.

According to Steve Berman, the attorney representing the proposed class, the
Smith's story didn't end there -- when Joan opened the suitcase, she found
the contents soaking wet, damaged beyond use.

"Most travelers have some patience for botched luggage issues, but what the
Smiths and thousands of other travelers have experienced with British Airways
is beyond the pale," Berman said. "I don't know what is worse -- British
Airways' deplorable baggage-handling skill, or their arrogant disregard of
passengers' concerns and complaints."

Aydan Kayserili's experience was similar. Traveling from Scotland to Madrid
on business, the suit alleges that her luggage didn't arrive. British
Airlines told her they located her bag and it would arrive on the next
flight. Over the next few days, the airline amended its predictions, saying
it would arrive the next day, and later, the third day. All proved to be
false, the suit states.

Eventually British Air confessed they didn't know where her luggage was, and
told her she should replace her clothes and would be reimbursed, the suit
states.

After 21 days of fruitless effort, British Air told Ms. Kayserili to consider
her luggage permanently lost.

To this date, the complaint alleges, she has not received fair compensation
for the value of her lost belongings, which far exceeded the $1,500
reimbursement British Air claims to provide for permanent losses.

"The sad reality is that there are thousands of other stories like Aydan's
and the Smiths'," Mr. Berman added.

British Air's director of operations, Chris Want, was quoted in the media
saying, "We accept that overall levels of service we offered to our customers
has not been up to an acceptable standard."

"Saying that British Air is not living up to an acceptable standard is a huge
understatement," said mr. Berman. "The infrastructure of this company's
ability to provide services to passengers has collapsed and British Air needs
to step up and take responsibility for its actions."

The suit seeks to recover actual losses incurred by travelers who had luggage
lost, delayed or damaged. According to the suit, the Montreal Convention
waives the $1,500 loss limit when the carrier is reckless and has knowledge
that damage would probably result.

"Studies have shown that travelers on British Airways stand a 1 in 36 chance
of having the carrier lose their baggage -- we think that defines reckless
behavior," Mr. Berman added.

This case comes just weeks after the airline admitted to illegally fixing
prices on passenger flights. The airline has been ordered to pay a $300
million fine to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The complaint claims British Airways violated provisions of the Montreal
Convention, which governs how airlines handle passenger baggage. The
convention, to which the United States and 124 other countries are
signatories, also provides means by which airlines can be held legally and
financially liable for damages sustained in cases of destruction, damage to,
or temporary or complete loss of checked baggage.

The suit seeks to represent American international British Air travelers who
had luggage lost or damaged or delayed between September 5, 2005 and
September 5, 2007.

For more information, contact:
          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com/britishair.htm.

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani & Associates, Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: mark@firmani.com


COAST FINANCIAL: Fla. Suits Over CCI-Related Loans Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara consolidated three suits filed against
Coast Bank of Florida and its parent Coast Financial Holdings Inc. over
problem loans related to a bankrupt home builder, Duane Marsteller of
Bradenton Herald reports.

Coast Financial and certain of its present and former officers were named as
defendants in three purported class action complaints filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suits are:

     * "Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al.,
        Case No. 8:07-cv-00479-RAL-EAJ," filed with the Court on
        March 20, 2007;

     * "Troy Ratcliff v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 8:07-cv-00504-RAL-MAP," filed on March 26,
        2007; and

     * "Daniel Altenburg v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et
        al., Case No. 8:07-cv-642-T-17TGW," filed on April 13,
        2007.

Each complaint was brought by purchasers of the Company’s common stock.  

According to a report of Brian Neill of Bradenton Herald, a new complaint
filed in the suit alleges that investors were never told that Coast Financial
financed a "quasi-Ponzi" scheme that enabled it to report staggering year-
over-year growth.

Coast Bank committed to $110 million in loans to 482 borrowers whose homes in
North Port area were built by developer Construction Compliance Inc. (CCI).
The borrowers were offered no-money-down financing.  "Unfortunately, the
investors were never told that the scheme entailed [Coast Financial]
financing the purchase of other land for continuing North Port marketing
efforts with their money," the complaint states. "This real estate scheme was
so successful that [the company] was able to report staggering year-over-year
growth . . . "

The majority of the real estate investors were left with mortgages on empty
lots or unfinished homes.  Coast Bank and Coast Financial face at least 113
suits in state court.  At least 109 have been filed in Charlotte, Highlands
and Sarasota counties since June 14.

Coast Financial Holdings is accused of failing to conduct proper accounting
and reporting of its financial condition to shareholders and neglected to do
proper due diligence on the financial condition of Construction Compliance,
according to the suit.

Plaintiffs in the case are seeking unspecified compensation for their
investment loss, as well as attorney and expert witness fees.

Tramm Hudson, an adviser and spokesman for Coast Bank, said the bank's
attorneys were preparing a response to the complaint, scheduled to be filed
no later than Oct. 12.


CRIMINAL DEFENSE: Sued for Allegedly Misusing Clients’ Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint accuses Criminal Defense Associates Inc. of
converting and misappropriating clients’ funds, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The suit accuses Robert Nudelman, the founder, sole shareholder and managing
partner of the company, of accepting large fees from new clients while being
fully aware that he could no longer afford to pay his attorneys and staff.  
He and his firm were allegedly incapable of delivering quality service to
clients and that he had no experience handling criminal matters.

He allegedly took advance retainers, typically of $50,000, knowing he would
be unable to do the legal work.  When most of his staff resigned, the company
has 150 cases pending.

In July, the Los Angeles County Superior Court, acting on a request by The
State Bar of California, assumed jurisdiction over Criminal Defense
Associates.  A statement by the State Bar says it was granted authority to
shut down the practice, and had seized approximately 700 files and has frozen
the firm’s bank accounts.

Mr. Nudelman reportedly agreed to the State Bar’s application to take over
his law practice. He admitted that he and the firm, which is in financial
trouble, were incapable of providing the necessary quality of service to
clients.  Mr. Nudelman submitted his resignation from the State Bar.

In a declaration filed with the Superior Court, Mr. Nudelman claimed that the
law firm became insolvent due to the high cost of Internet advertising.  
Criminal Defense marketed itself as a nationwide law firm specializing in
sexual and drug offenses.

Plaintiffs are represented in Superior Court by Johnson & Johnson of Beverly
Hills.


DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
The DIRECTV Group, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court over an alleged failure to disclose the full terms of
its television services.

According to CourtHouse News Service, the suit accuses the company of failing
to inform customers of a monthly $4.99 leasing fee; a $150 “non-activation
fee” if they do not subscribe within 30 days; a possible $29.99 payment a
month or more for the service.  They also said they were not informed that
DirecTV can increase the fees at any time for no reason, and that they cannot
cancel service without an early termination fee of “several hundreds of
dollars.”

Named plaintiff John Murphy demands punitive damages for fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation, false advertising and unfair trade.


FERRO CORP: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Ferro Corp.

In a July 23, 2004, press release, Ferro announced that its Polymer Additives
business performance in the second quarter of 2004 fell short of expectations
and that its Audit Committee would investigate possible inappropriate
accounting entries in Ferro's Polymer Additives business.

A consolidated putative securities class action arising from and related to
the July 23, 2004, announcement is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Ferro, its deceased former
chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, and a former operating
vice president of Ferro.

The claim is based on alleged violations of federal securities laws.

In June 2007, the Court dismissed the consolidated case without prejudice.

Ferro Corp. -- http://www.ferro.com-- is a producer of specialty materials  
and chemicals.  It manages its businesses in eight business units, which are
organized as six segments: Performance Coatings (comprising Tile Coating
Systems and Porcelain Enamel), Electronic Materials, Color and Glass
Performance Materials, Polymer Additives, Specialty Plastics and Other
Businesses (comprising Pharmaceuticals and Fine Chemicals).

   
FERRO CORP: Awaits Final Approval of $4M ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has yet to grant
final approval to a $4 million settlement of a purported class action filed
against Ferro Corp. over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

On June 10, 2005, a putative class action was filed against Ferro Corp., and
certain former and current employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty with
respect to ERISA plans.

In October 2006, the parties reached a settlement in principle that would
result in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice in exchange for the
settlement amount of $4.0 million, which would be paid by the company's
liability insurer subject to the company's satisfaction of the remaining
retention amount under the insurance policy.

The company and the individual defendants expressly deny any and all
liability.  

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Nov. 3, 2006.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Duquette v. Ferro Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01594-JMM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under
Judge John M. Manos.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Dworken & Bernstein
          60 South Park Place
          Painsville, OH 44077
          Phone: 440-352-3391
          Fax: 440-352-3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile
          Ste. 1005, 485 Seventh
          Avenue, New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          Fax: 212-918-7967

              - and -

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          Shalov Stone & Bonner
          Ste. 1000, 485 7th Street
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-239-4340
          Fax: 212-239-4310
          E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Steven A. Friedman, Esq.
          Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
          4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-479-8327
          Fax: 216-479-8777
          E-mail: sfriedman@ssd.com


GRAND MUTUAL: Agrees to Return $51M to Overbilled Policyholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grange Mutual Casualty Co. reached an agreement to settle for $51 million a
suit filed by policyholders seeking to collect overbilled fees from the
1990s, Business First of Columbus reports.

The suit filed in Geauga County court claims 199,600 policyholders in Ohio
were unlawfully billed extra premiums for under- and uninsured motorist
coverage between 1994 and 1997.

Before 1994, Grange and other insurance companies were charging a per-vehicle
premium for the coverage, indicating that each vehicle must be covered in the
event of an accident with an under- or uninsured motorist.  A policyholder
afterwards took a case to the Ohio Supreme Court when Midwestern Group
Insurance Co. wouldn't pay out because the plaintiff's motorcycle wasn't
specifically covered under the premium.  

The court found that a single premium covers the policyholder, with no need
for per-vehicle charges.  But Grange continued the practice until 1997, and
that’s where a class action against it started.

According to James Ewinger of Plain Dealer Reporter, the lead counsel for the
plaintiffs Patrick Perotti said the settlement was reached after a jury found
the insurance company liable and awarded compensatory damages.  The agreement
also means there will be no appeals.  The company admitted no wrongdoing
through the settlement and believes its premium charges were lawful.

The settlement provides for as much as $35 million to policyholders.  If the
money is not claimed, up to $30 million of these will be turned over to
charity.

The plaintiffs' firm, Painesville-based Dworken and Bernstein Co. LPA -–
http://www.dworken-bernstein.com/-- is collecting a $16 million fee.  

The settlement and any payouts will have to be approved by Common Pleas Judge
Forrest Burt.

Mr. Perotti said policyholders can contact the settlement administrator at 1-
800-495-5737.  They also will receive direct-mail notices.


HEARST-ARGYLE: Del. Lawsuit Seeks to Raise Public Shares Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announced that a class action has been
commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery commenced on behalf of
shareholders of Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. (NYSE: HTV) in connection with
the offer by Hearst Corp. to acquire all of the outstanding shares of HTV.

The goal of the lawsuit is to seek the highest possible offer for the public
shares.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046
          Phone: (215) 886-1900
          E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net


IDACORP INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against IDACORP, Inc., and certain
of its officers and directors, have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit the rulings made by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho that effectively dismissed the matter.

On May 26, 2004 and June 22, 2004, two shareholder lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against IDACORP and certain of
its directors and officers.  

The lawsuits captioned, “Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al.,”
and “Shorthouse, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al.,” raised largely similar
allegations.  

They were putative class actions brought on behalf of purchasers of IDACORP
stock between Feb. 1, 2002 and June 4, 2002.

On May 21, 2007, the U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint because it failed to
satisfy the pleading requirements for loss causation.  The court also denied
the plaintiffs' request to further amend the complaint.

On June 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the District
Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit is "Powell v. Idacorp., Inc., et al., case no. 1:04-cv-
00249-EJL-MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
under Judge Edward J. Lodge.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John K. Grant, Esq.
          Eli Greenstein, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins
         100 Pine St. #2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com
                 e_file_ny@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener, Esq.
         John T. Simmons, Esq.
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker P.A.
         815 W Washington
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600
         Fax: (208) 319-2601
         E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com
                 jsimmons@greenerlaw.com

Representing the company are:

         Rex Blackburn, Esq.
         Blackburn & Jones
         P.O. Box 7808,
         Boise, ID 83707
         Phone: (208) 489-8989
         Fax: (208) 489-8988
         E-mail: rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com

              - and -

         David G. Hetzel, Esq.
         Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., Esq.
         Leboeuf Lamb Greene & Macrae
         125 W 55th St.
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 424-8000
         Fax: (212) 424-8000
         E-mail: dghetzel@llgm.com
                 dennis.kerrigan@llgm.com


KERRY INGREDIENTS: Minn. Court Certifies Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Minnesota allowed a labor lawsuit filed against Kerry
Ingredients to proceed as a class action, Hillary Wundrow of Beloit Daily
News reports.

The order allows more than 800 current and former workers at Kerry Specialty
Ingredients plants in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Ohio to join a lawsuit
for unpaid time changing into working gear.

The suit alleges Kerry does not pay its workers for time spent putting on and
taking off protective gear before and after shifts.  The practice allegedly
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Senior Counsel for Kerry Americas
Suzanne Kiwaiko said Kerry is not obligated to count uniform changing time as
working time at the union plants.

The court has ordered the notification of Kerry employees who worked in
production, maintenance, and sanitation jobs any time on or after Feb. 1,
2003, in Albert Lea, Minn., Covington, Ohio, Fredericksburg, Iowa, and
Beloit, Jackson, Owen and Vesper, Wis.  Workers have until Oct. 29 to fill
out and return a “consent form” to be included in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs seek to recover all compensation for donning and doffing including
overtime pay.  In addition, plaintiffs are seeking double damages, interest,
costs of the suit and attorneys' fees.

Representing the plaintiffs is Bill Gengler of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P.  On the Net: http://www.locklaw.com/.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settles Suit Over MK Share Purchase for $14M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action against Leucadia National Corp. in
relation to its 2005 acquisition of minority interest in MK Resources Co.
have settled the matter, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The case is "Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al. v. Leucadia National
Corp., et al.," a consolidated action involving a petition for appraisal and
a class action pending in the Delaware Chancery Court.

The pending appraisal petition seeks a judicial determination of the fair
value of approximately 3,979,400 shares of MK Resources' common stock as of
Aug. 19, 2005, the date of the merger of one of the company's subsidiaries
into MK Resources.

The class action alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the former MK Resources
directors and the Company and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, costs, disbursements and any further relief that the court may deem
just and proper and, in the alternative, seeks rescissory damages, in each
case taking into account the $1.27 per share in Company stock paid in the MK
Merger to the minority stockholders of MK Resources who did not seek
appraisal.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to settle these lawsuits
for complete releases and a dismissal with prejudice in exchange for an
aggregate settlement payment by the Company of approximately $13,800,000,
including a payment in the appraisal proceeding of approximately $5,000,000
that the appraisal petitioners would have received (based on the value at the
merger date of Company shares issued in the merger) had they participated in
the MK Merger.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval, which is not expected
to be received before the fourth quarter of 2007.

Leucadia National Corp. -- http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a diversified  
holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including manufacturing,
real estate activities, medical product development, winery operations, and
residual banking and lending activities that are in run-off.  Its segments
include Manufacturing, Domestic Real Estate, Medical Product Development and
Other Operations.  


LOJACK CORP: Still Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lojack Corp. continues to face a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California
Business & Professions Code.

The suit was filed on April 5, 2006 by an employee who is seeking class
action status for the matter.

The plaintiff contends that the company improperly credited break time and
overtime pay and seeks unspecified monetary and injunctive relief.

The suit is "Mike Rutti v. Lojack Corp. Inc., Case No. 8:06-cv-00350-DOC-
RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge David O. Carter with referral to judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Glugoski, Esq.
          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          Righetti & Wynne
          456 Montgomery St., Ste. 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-983-0900
          E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com
                  matt@righettilaw.com

Representing the company are:

          Dan Chammas, Esq.
          Peter D. Holbrook, Esq.
          Christopher C. Scheithauer, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery
          2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Phone: 310-277-4110 and 949-851-0633
          E-mail: dchammas@mwe.com
                  lbates@mwe.com


LONGHORN BOYDART: Canadian Tattoo Studio Faces CAD10M Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of people who had gotten a tattoo at the Longhorn Bodyart Studio on
Centre St. in Oshawa filed a CAD10 million class action on fear they have
contracted a disease from unsterilized equipment, CityNews.ca reports.

A machine used to sterilize tattooing equipment at the studio has
malfunctioned for a while, raising the possibility that as many as 2,000
customers have been exposed to a host of blood-borne diseases, the report
said.  The firm's owner has previously dismissed the charges as absurd.  
Longhorn has been ordered to have bi-weekly inspections of its equipment.

Those who are suing are waiting for blood tests to find out whether they’ll
be declared as safer or not.  It will be another six months before they get
the results for the HIV tests.  Health officials say so far 530 customer
tests for Hepatitis have come back negative.  Regardless, attorney Colleen
Arsenault maintains her clients have been put through an arduous ordeal and
deserve compensation.

Mr. Arsenault says 45 people have already joined the class action.

The suit was filed on behalf of customers who received a tattoo or body
piercing between last Nov. 17 and Aug. 1.


LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Basell Holdings Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lyondell Chemical Co. faces a purported class action filed by the Plumbers
and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund in Texas state court.

The Dutch chemical company Basell Holdings -- which is owned by billionaire
industrialist Leonard Blavatnik's Access Industries -- offered more than $12
billion in cash for Lyondell, one of the nation's largest chemical makers
(Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2007).

The offer equates to $48 per share, which was 20% higher than Lyondell's
stock price on July 16, 2007 the day before the deal was announced.

The shareholder lawsuit was filed on July 23, 2007 in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas and was styled as a class action.   

It generally alleges that the members of Lyondell’s board of directors:

       -- breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
          merger by administering a sale process that failed to
          maximize shareholder value, and
    
       -- engaged in self dealing by obtaining unspecified
          personal benefits in connection with the merger not
          shared equally by other shareholders, and that
          Lyondell aided and abetted the defendants in breaching
          their fiduciary duties.  

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger and to rescind
the merger agreement.  

Lyondell Chemical Co. -- http://www.lyondell.com-- is a global manufacturer  
of chemicals and plastics, a refiner of heavy, high sulfur crude oil and a
producer of fuel products.  Lyondell’s operations primarily comprise four
business segments: the ethylene, co-products and derivatives (EC&D) segment,
the propylene oxide and related products (PO&RP) segment, the refining
segment and the inorganic chemicals segment.


MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Decertifies Third-Party Payors’ Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that certification of a nationwide
class of third-party payors that paid for the purchase of the prescription
drug Vioxx is not appropriate because common questions of fact or law do not
predominate and a class action is not superior to other available mechanisms
for redress.  The court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and
remanded the case to the Law Division for further proceedings.

The case was argued on March 19 and decided Sept. 6.

Justices Long, Lavecchia, Wallace, Rivera-Soto, And Hoens join in this
opinion.  Justice Albin did not participate.

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund
(Welfare Fund) is a joint union-employer Taft-Hartley trust fund which is
organized and operates pursuant to the laws of New Jersey.  As a part of its
services, the Trust Fund acts as a sponsor of health benefit plans that
provide prescription drug coverage for its members and their beneficiaries.  
It is therefore a third-party payor, meaning it makes payments to
pharmaceutical companies for prescription medications for those members.

The Trust Fund asserts that as a third-party payor it made payments and
incurred costs for Vioxx, the prescription drug manufactured and marketed by
defendant, Merck. The Trust Fund further asserts that it was induced by
Merck’s fraudulent marketing scheme to pay a higher price than that charged
for similar medications. In addition, the Trust Fund claims that Merck was
aware that its product was neither more effective nor safer than other
available products, and that Merck engaged in extensive efforts to conceal or
minimize information that there were significant health and safety risks
associated with the continued use of Vioxx.

The Trust Fund also asserts that Merck’s marketing intentionally targeted
third-party payors that oversee and make payments for the vast majority of
prescription medications. Third-party payors rely on Prescription Benefit
Managers (PBMs) that select drugs to be included on the payor’s approved
purchase listing, known as a formulary. The Trust Fund’s expert contends that
there is an agreed-upon set of principles and guidelines governing the
practices of third-party payors and PBMs in establishing the terms under
which the third-party payor agrees to be responsible for the costs of
members’ prescriptions.

As a result, the Fund claims it can fairly represent the interests of a
variety of third-party payors, including funds like itself, as well as such
diverse entities as corporate health insurers, health maintenance
organizations and self-insured employers. Merck’s expert asserts that the way
in which PBMs operate in evaluating drugs for formulary purposes varies
greatly. The expert’s research showed that different managed care plans
accorded Vioxx widely different formulary treatment. Merck’s expert asserts
that there are such divergences among class members and in how they analyzed
Merck’s information on Vioxx that class certification is inappropriate.

Central to the Trust Fund’s assertions is its argument that if Merck had
disclosed the adverse information about which it was aware, the Trust Fund
and other class members would have taken action to discourage consumers from
purchasing Vioxx, thereby reducing the amounts paid to reimburse members for
the drug’s cost. Merck contends that this argument amounts to nothing more
than a “fraud on the market” theory that cannot be sustained in accordance
with this State’s law.

The suit is “International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare
Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc.”

The plaintiffs' lead lawyer is:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          One William Street
          New York, New York 10004
          (New York Co.)
          Phone: 212-584-0700
          Fax: 212-584-0799

Merck’s lawyer is:

          John H. Beisner, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, District of Columbia 20006-4001
          Phone: 202-383-5300
          Fax: 202-383-5414


OAKLEY INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Luxottica-Norma Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oakley, Inc. faces a purported class action in the California state court
over an agreement and plan of merger, dated June 20, 2007, by and among
Luxottica Group S.p.A., Norma Acquisition Corp. and the company.

On June 26, 2007, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan filed a
purported class action complaint, Case No. 07CC01306, in the Superior Court
of California, County of Orange, on behalf of itself and all other
shareholders of Oakley except those named as defendants and any person, firm,
trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with any
defendant, against Oakley and each of its directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and independence by entering
into a transaction without engaging in a fair and reasonable sale process,
insofar as they engaged in self-dealing and obtained for themselves personal
benefits, including personal financial benefits not shared equally by
Oakley’s other stockholders and failed to make proper, timely disclosures to
Oakley’s shareholders concerning the merger.

It seeks, among other things, to

       -- enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed
          merger, unless and until the Company adopts and
          implements a fair sales process;

       -- declare that the merger agreement was entered into in
          breach of defendant’s fiduciary duties and is
          therefore unlawful and unenforceable;

       -- rescind, to the extent already implemented, the
          proposed merger; and

       -- award plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this
          action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’
          fees.

The case has not been granted class action status, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Oakley, Inc. -- http://oakley.com/--- is engaged in the design, development,  
manufacture, distribution and worldwide marketing of consumer products,
including eyewear (sunglasses, prescription eyewear, goggles and
electronically enabled eyewear), apparel, footwear, watches and accessories.  
It sells its products to retail accounts, through Oakley-owned O Stores,
Vaults, through more than 100 mall-based sunglass specialty stores in the
U.S, and through a mix of independent distributors and licensees in more than
100 countries.


RIDLEY INC: Wants High Court to Review Motion to Junk BSE Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley Inc. is filing an application with the Supreme Court of Canada to
appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal denying Ridley's motion to
strike claims of economic losses by cattle producers affected by an
international meat ban in 2004.

In April 2005, Ridley Inc. along with its majority shareholder, Ridley
Corporation Limited of Sydney Australia, and the Government of Canada were
named defendants in proposed class actions filed in four Canadian provinces.
These lawsuits sought damages, including punitive damages, for losses
allegedly incurred by Canadian cattle producers as a result of international
bans on the importation of Canadian beef and cattle.

These bans followed the May 20, 2004 announcement of a bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) diagnosis in an Alberta cow. None of the plaintiffs in
any of the cases alleged any direct connection between them and Ridley Inc.

Representative plaintiffs seek to certify class actions in Ontario, Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Quebec to include all Canadian cattle farmers who allegedly
suffered damage as a result of international bans.

In October 2005, Ridley disclosed that it had filed and argued preliminary
motions seeking early dismissal of the BSE lawsuit filed in the Ontario
Superior Court for failure to state actionable claims under Canadian law.  
Ridley had asserted strong legal arguments supporting its request that the
Court strike the claims in advance of class certification hearings or
commencement of discovery.

In 2006, Ridley reported that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied
its motion for early dismissal of the proposed class action (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).  In its June 21, 2007 decision, the Court of Appeal
for Ontario upheld the January 2006 decision of the Ontario Superior Court.

A hearing of the plaintiff's motion to certify the Ontario action as a class
action has yet to be scheduled. The Ontario action seeks a national class to
include affected cattle farmers residing in the six remaining Canadian
provinces.

Ridley Inc. is requesting leave to appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision because it believes the decision conflicts with Supreme Court of
Canada case law and other court decisions, and because the proposed appeal
raises issues of national importance.

Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg, Manitoba, is
one of North America's leading commercial animal nutrition companies.  Ridley
manufactures and/or distributes a full range of animal nutrition products
under a number of highly regarded trade names.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Nixing of N.J. Securities Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiffs'
appeal against a dismissal of the purported class action, "In re Bio-
Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation."

The original class-action complaints were filed in December 2002, and January
2003, against Bio-Technology General Corp., now known as Savient
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  

They were brought on behalf of investors who had purchased shares of Bio-
Technology General during an alleged Class Period of April 19, 1999 through
Aug. 2, 2002.

The complaints alleged that these investors had been defrauded because, on
Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated year-end and quarterly reports of
its earnings and related financial statements for the years 1999, 2000 and
2001, which the company had previously announced would be forthcoming in its
Form 8-K and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002.  

The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint on
Sept. 25, 2003.  

On Aug. 10, 2005, the court granted, without prejudice, Savient
Pharmaceuticals' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, and allowed
the plaintiffs to re-plead their complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, again
seeking unspecified compensatory damages, purporting to set forth
particularized facts to support their allegations of violations of Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and
its former officers.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  On Oct. 26, 2006, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the second
amended complaint.

The district court declined to allow plaintiffs to file another amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 3rd Circuit, which is currently pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey under Judge Harold A. Ackerman with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rives, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, New Jersey 07102-5003
          Phone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Roger B. Kaplan, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          200 Campus Drive, P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: (973) 360-7957
          Fax: (973) 301-8410
          E-mail: kaplanr@gtlaw.com


UNUM GROUP: Tenn. Judge Certifies Suit by Disabled Americans
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Curtis L. Collier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee has granted class-action status to a lawsuit that contends that
disability insurer Unum Group (NYSE: UNM), has schemed to deny or terminate
claims of thousands of disabled Americans.

The suit contends Unum Group violated the 1974 Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, in claims handling, partly by creating secret documents in
which non-medical employees set a "target date for cutting off future
disability payments."

The lawsuit was filed before 2004, when insurance regulators in 49 states
agreed to settle an investigation of Unum Group's claims handling. That
agreement required Unum Group, formerly UnumProvident, to reconsider about
200,000 claims and pay a $15 million fine.

The company in March changed its name to Unum Group, which includes
subsidiaries Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, Paul Revere Life Insurance
Co., Unum National Insurance Co., and Provident Life and Accident Insurance
Co. The order signed by Judge Collier shows the suit was filed by seven
plaintiffs who are "insured under group long-term disability benefit plans'
policies underwritten and managed by UnumProvident's subsidiaries."

The plaintiffs contend the company denied more than 31,000 new claims from
June 30, 1999 to the date of the suit filing and that at least 6,200 plan
beneficiaries were "subjected to defendants' alleged illegal claims
practice." Unum shares rose 48 cents to close at $24.95.


VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against Visteon Corp. have
appealed a ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan dismissing an amended complaint.

The Van Buren Township, Michigan-based company is a leading global supplier
of automotive systems, modules and components to global vehicle manufacturers
and the automotive aftermarket.

In February 2005, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan against it and certain of its current
and former officers.

In July 2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was
appointed as lead plaintiff in this matter.  In September 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleges, among other things, that
the company and its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of material fact or
omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of purchasers of
the company's securities during the period between June 28, 2000 and Jan. 31,
2005.  Class action status has not
yet been certified in this litigation.  

On Aug. 31, 2006, the defendants motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim was granted.  The plaintiffs have appealed this
decision.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Ley v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cc-70737-RHC-VMM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under
Robert H. Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Marc L. Newman, Esq.
          Miller Shea (Rochester)
          950 W. University Drive Suite 300  
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: 248-841-2200
          E-mail: emiller335@aol.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael A. Duffy, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis
          200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-2000
          Fax: 312-861-2200
          E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com

          Jenice C. Mitchell, Esq.
          Foley & Lardner
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700
          Detroit, MI 48226-3489
          Phone: 313-234-7100
          E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com  

               - and -

          Thomas P. Bruetsch, Esq.
          Bodman (Troy)
          201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500
          Troy, MI 48084
          Phone: 248-743-6000
          E-mail: tbruetsch@bodmanllp.com


VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Partially Dismisses ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan partially
dismissed a purported class action filed against Visteon Corp. and Ford Motor
Co. over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

In June 2006, the company and Ford Motor Co. were named as defendants in a
purported class action brought under ERISA in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of certain former salaried employees
of the company associated with two plants located in Michigan.

The complaint alleges that the company and Ford violated their fiduciary
duties under ERISA when they established and spun off the company and
allocated certain pension liabilities between them, and later when they
transferred the subject employees to Ford as new hires in 2006 after Ford
acquired the plants.

In August 2006, the company and Ford moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.

In July 2007, the motion to dismiss the complaint filed on behalf of the
Company and Ford was granted in part and denied in part.

The suit is "Mark Ensley et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
12845-AJT-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
ofMichigan under Judge Arthur J. Tarnow with referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
         Robert W. Palmer, Esq.
         Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
         Peggy G. Pitt, Esq.
         Pitt, Dowty
         117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
         Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804
         Phone: 248-398-9800
         E-mail: cmcgehee@pdmmp.com
                 rpalmer@pdmmp.com
                 attorneypitt@aol.com


WEST CORP: Consumer Class Certified; Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio stayed all actions in the
suit, "Brandy L. Ritt, et al. v. Billy Blanks Enterprises, et al.," pending
an appeal against the certification of a class of Ohio residents in the case.

The original suit was filed in January 2001 in the Court of Common Pleas in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against two of the company's clients.  

The case, a purported class action, was amended for the third time in July
2001 and West Corp. was added as a defendant at that time.  

The suit, which seeks statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages as well
as injunctive and other relief, alleges violations of various provisions of
Ohio's consumer protection laws, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach
of contract, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy in connection with the
marketing of certain membership programs offered by the company's clients.

On Feb. 6, 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  On July 21, 2003, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint naming West Telemarketing
Corp. as an additional defendant and a renewed motion for class certification.

One of the defendants, NCP Marketing Group, filed for bankruptcy and on July
12, 2004 removed the case to federal court.   Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the case back to state court.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada
remanded the case back to the state court in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  The
Bankruptcy Court also approved a settlement between the named plaintiffs and:

     -- NCP,
     -- Shape The Future International LLP, and
     -- Integrity Global Marketing LLC.

West Corp. and West Telemarketing Corp. (WTC) have filed motions for judgment
on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment.  

On March 28, 2006, the state trial court certified a class of Ohio
residents.  West and WTC filed a notice of appeal from that decision, and
plaintiffs cross-appealed.  The appeal was briefed and was then argued on
Feb. 26, 2007.

On April 12, 2007, the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part
the trial court’s Order.  

The Court of Appeal ordered certification of a class of “All residents of
Ohio who, from September 1, 1998 through July 2, 2001:

     (a) called a toll-free number, marketed by West and MWI, to
         purchase any Tae-Bo product;

     (b) purchased a Tae-Bo product;

     (c) subsequently were enrolled in an MWI membership
         program; and

     (d) were charged for the MWI membership on their
         credit/debit card.

Not included in the class are defendants, and their officers, directors,
employees, agents, and/or affiliates.”  

West and WTC sought review of this ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court on June
7, 2007 which is currently pending.  

On April 20, 2006, the trial court denied West and WTC’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings.  West and WTC’s summary judgment motion remains pending.  

The trial court has stayed all further action in the case pending resolution
of the appeal, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2007.

West Corp. -- http://www.west.com/-- is a  Customer Relationship Management  
solution provider, offering comprehensive customer service outsourcing
programs to keep you connected with your customers


YAHOO! INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. faces two purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the first of two purported securities class actions was
filed against Yahoo! Inc. and certain of its officers and members of the
Board of Directors.

The first lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by plaintiff Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky and the second
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California by plaintiff Manfred Hacker. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 sections 10(b)
and 20(a), as well as Rule 10b-5.

The plaintiffs generally claim that Yahoo! issued false, deceptive or
misleading statements concerning its advertising business, financial results,
and sales and growth potential between April 8, 2004 and July 18, 2006.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
costs and attorneys’ fees.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com-- is a global Internet brand. To its  
global users, it provides owned and operated online properties and services.  
To its advertisers, it provides tools and marketing solutions.  Many of
Yahoo!'s services are free to its users.  


* Death of Boy in Yamaha Rhino ATV Accident Prompts Tex. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy and Heidi Crow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Yamaha Motor
Corp. based on the death of their nine-year old son Jeremy Todd (J.T.) Crow.

On June 22, 2007, the Yamaha Rhino ATV that J.T. Crow was riding on rolled
over at a slow speed.  The Yamaha Rhino's lack of doors resulted in his
ejection despite being belted, according to a statement by Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

J.T. was pinned underneath the Rhino and suffered substantial injuries.
Emergency personnel rushed J.T. Crow to the emergency room of Jasper Memorial
Hospital in Jasper, Texas, where he was pronounced dead.

"Because of this tragedy so many persons have been deeply affected for the
remainder of their lives. J.T. was a very smart and beautiful boy. He
excelled at academics and sports, but most special was his compassion for
others and gift for making people feel important," stated Heidi Crow. "It is
written, 'He who saves one life, saves the entire world.' That is why our
family has filed suit against Yamaha. The Rhino vehicle is unsafe and poses a
grave hazard to its riders."

"The complaint charges that the Yamaha Rhino ATV is prone to roll over during
turns even at low speeds because of inherent flaws in its design," stated
Fabrice N. Vincent of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, which is
representing the Crows. "Yamaha has been aware for years of serious injuries
and deaths of drivers and passengers in rollover accidents, yet has not
modified the Rhino's design to correct for its stability problems."

In August 2007, Yamaha announced that in response to the risk of injury
during side rollover accidents, it is offering to install doors and passenger
handholds for the Rhino ATV. The doors are meant to prevent riders from
sticking out arms or legs during rollover accidents. Yamaha is offering to
install these new safety features free of charge to all 2004-2007 Rhino
owners, regardless of whether the vehicle was purchased new or used. Owners
are instructed to visit Yamaha dealerships for details.

"I am gratified to see that Yamaha is beginning to recognize that the Rhino
is prone to rollover even on flat surfaces during turns," stated Heidi
Crow. "Yamaha should widely publicize its offer of safety upgrades for Rhino.
Doors and passenger handholds, however, do not prevent rollovers. If safety
is its highest goal, Yamaha must modify the design of the Rhino itself to
eliminate its instability."

"No more children should die in Yamaha Rhino accidents," stated plaintiffs'
counsel Glenn M. Douglas of Crowley Douglas & Norman LLP. "Yamaha must
acknowledge its legal responsibility to families of loved ones killed in
rollover accidents as it works to make the Rhino a safe vehicle."

Plaintiffs' attorney Enrique Serna of Serna & Associates PLLC,
observed, "Sadly, Yamaha's retrofit is too late to bring life and health back
to those killed and maimed by the dangerously unstable Yamaha Rhino."

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Fabrice N. Vincent
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Phone: 415-956-1000

          Glenn M. Douglas
          Crowley Douglas & Norman LLP
          Phone: 713-651-1771

          - and -

          Enrique G. Serna
          Serna & Associates PLLC
          Phone: 210-228-0095


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valentec Responds to La.’s Cleanup Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentec Systems Inc. responded to the State of Louisiana’s June 29, 2007
letter, which asserted a claim demanding US$7.5 million in cleanup and
rebuilding compensation as a result of an Aug. 14, 2006 fire at the Company’s
Louisiana facility.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the Company experienced a small detonation in an unattended
(by personnel) granulation process at its Louisiana facility. This detonation
occurred in a facility that had concrete walls and was self-contained.

However, the resulting fire completely destroyed 75,000 square feet of space
at this manufacturing facility, completely eliminating the Company’s existing
40mm flare capability.

The Company was leasing this facility from the State of Louisiana by the
Company and had obtained the required insurance coverage.

The Company engaged in discussions with the State of Louisiana concerning the
responsibility for rebuilding of this 65-year old facility and for debris
removal because some of the original construction material contains small
amounts of asbestos.

The Company contends that the insurance coverage as required by the lease was
in place and that such insurance should cover any liability on the part of
the Company.

With regards to the asbestos issue, the Company said it believes that the
asbestos removal and abatement is the responsibility of the property owner,
the State of Louisiana.

The Company has responded to the State of Louisiana’s June 29, 2007 letter
citing section 9 subsection b of the Lease, in effect at the time of the
fire, which provides a hold harmless clause thereby releasing the Company
from any and all responsibility above the stated US$50,000 that was paid by
the initial cleanup.

Minden, La.-based Valentec Systems Inc.’s subsidiary, Valentec Operating
Corp., is an ammunition and systems integration company that provides
ammunition to the U.S. Army and systems integration for foreign governments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Records $152M for Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reunion Industries Inc., in the first half of 2007, recorded a gross of
US$152 million for settlements of 124 asbestos-related cases, according to
the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 20, 2007.

Since the end of 2006, 203 new cases have been opened, 302 cases have been
dismissed and 124 cases have been settled for a net reduction of 223 cases
during the first half of 2007.

The gross amount of legal fees and costs incurred during the first half of
2007 was US$449 million.

The Company's insurance carriers cover the significant majority of these
costs and the Company's total share of the US$601 million in settlement and
other costs in the first half of 2007 was US$86 million.

Pittsburgh-based Reunion Industries Inc. makes machined and fabricated
industrial products like fluid power cylinders, gratings, and steel pressure
vessels. The Company’s CP Industries unit makes large seamless steel pressure
vessels for highly pressurized gases such as natural gas, hydrogen, oxygen,
and helium. Hanna Cylinders produces hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders,
actuators, accumulators, and manifolds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Estimates $173T for Removal at Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerex Group Inc. estimates about US$173,000, at June 30, 2007, as remaining
cost to remediate asbestos at a Pryor, Okla., site it acquired from Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical Co., according to the Company’s quarterly report, on
Form 10-QSB, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug.
21, 2007.

On Feb. 1, 2006, the Company acquired the certain fixed assets located in
Pryor for US$700,000 plus related costs of US$12,070.

Properties acquired contain asbestos, which the Company initially estimated
the cost to remove to be US$875,000.

As part of the asset purchase agreement, the Company assumed all obligations
for removing the asbestos within 18 months, and was required to provide an
US$800,000 letter of credit to the seller.

If the asbestos obligations have not been settled within the required period,
the seller may draw upon the letter of credit for any costs incurred by the
seller to complete the asbestos removal and any damages permitted to be
recovered under the agreement.

The Company placed about US$800,000 in a separate bank account as collateral
to the bank issuing the letter of credit. The US$1,587,070 fixed asset cost
was allocated to the individual assets based on their estimated fair values.

The Company identified selected assets to sell, to which it assigned a cost
of US$656,062.

As a result of sales, this amount has been reduced to US$220,889, which is
presented as assets held for sale at June 30, 2007 and included in the Amerex
segment.   

New York-based Amerex Group Inc. makes outerwear for men, women, and
children. Founded in 1946, the Company has licensing agreements with brands
like Jones New York, London Fog, OshKosh, and Mudd. The Company also sells
outerwear under its own labels (Static and Weather Tamer) and sports-oriented
outdoor wear through subsidiary Gerry (Bombshell and Mambosok).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits from Old Ventures Pending v. Magnetek
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek Inc. has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with
business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no
longer owned, according to the Company’s annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 24, 2007.

During the Company’s ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold
asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims, the Company is
either contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related
claims or believes that it has no liability for such claims.

The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and has also
tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of the previously
acquired businesses.

Several insurance carriers have filed a declaratory judgment action relating
to insurance coverage for such previously acquired businesses, seeking a
determination that no coverage is available under the policies.

The Company has also filed late claims in the Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy
proceedings to recover attorney’s fees paid for the defense of these claims.

The Company and Federal-Mogul entered into a settlement agreement under which
the Company is entitled to receive amounts from a settlement trust
established under Federal-Mogul’s reorganization plan and funded by insurance
proceeds.

The Company is entitled to receive 15 percent of the first US$20 million and
10 percent of the next US$25 million of insurance proceeds, up to a maximum
of US$5.5 million, in exchange for withdrawing its bankruptcy claims and
objections to the reorganization plan and execution of certain releases.

The settlement is subject to final approval of the plan by the Bankruptcy
Court.

There is no guarantee that any amounts will be collected on any insurance
policies, and Federal-Mogul and the trust have control over the collection
process.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek Inc. provides digital power control
systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in material
handling, people moving, telecommunications and energy delivery applications.
The Company’s products are sold directly or through manufacturers’
representatives to original equipment manufacturers. The Company operates in
a single segment, Digital Power Control Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Board Ruling in Favor of ACandS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the Indiana Worker’s Compensation
Board ruling, which dismissed the asbestos-related compensation claim of
Beverly Roberts against the employer of her husband Robert, ACandS Inc.

Judges Bailey, Baker, and Vaidik entered decision of Case No. 93A02-0702-EX-
180 on Aug. 8, 2007.

Mr. Roberts was a union insulator from 1957 through his retirement in 1994.
During his over 25 years of employment with ACandS, he worked on a multitude
of jobs installing, handling, removing, or otherwise working directly with
asbestos-containing insulation products. As a result, he developed
mesothelioma and was diagnosed with the disease in July 2001.

On Aug. 1, 2001, the Roberts couple filed a civil suit for damages in Marion
County Superior Court against a number of defendants whom they alleged
contributed to his disease.

On Nov. 10, 2001, Mr. Roberts filed with the Indiana Worker's Compensation
Board an Application for Adjustment of Claim against ACandS.

Before a jury trial upon his complaint, Mr. Roberts accepted payment under
several settlement agreements, which he had reached with one or more
defendants whom he had named in the civil action. The total amount of these
settlements exceeded US$3.8 million.

On May 24, 2002, a jury returned a verdict assessing damages for Mr. Roberts
in the amount of US$2.8 million and damages for Mrs. Roberts in the amount of
US$1 million.

When the verdict was returned, four defendants and numerous nonparties,
including ACandS, remained in the action.

On Aug. 1, 2002, ACandS filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Roberts's worker's
compensation Application. On March 6, 2003, a single hearing member of the
Board issued an order dismissing Roberts's Application.

Mr. Roberts sought review of the single hearing member's decision by the full
Board, and a hearing was subsequently held on June 24, 2003. On July 28,
2003, the full Board adopted and affirmed the single hearing member's
decision dismissing Mr. Roberts's Application.

Mr. Roberts appealed the dismissal of his Application. He passed away on
March 21, 2004, and his Estate was substituted as Plaintiff in this action.

ACandS filed a second motion to dismiss Mr. Roberts's Application. On Nov.
22, 2006, a Single Hearing Member of the Board issued an order granting the
motion to dismiss.

In response to the Estate's request for a Full Board review, the Full Board
issued an order affirming the Single Hearing Member's decision. This appeal
ensued.

The Appeals Court ruled that the dismissal of Mr. Roberts's application for
compensation under the Occupational Diseases Act was not premature because
his Estate had obtained paid settlements and a judgment against liable third
parties.

The release of liability provision of the ODA is not unconstitutional as
applied to the facts of this case.

Linda George, W. Russell Sipes, and Aaron T. Milewski of George & Sipes LLP,
Indianapolis, represented Beverly Roberts on behalf of the Estate of William
L. Roberts, Jr.

Sharon Funcheon Murphy of Lewis Wagner LLP, Indianapolis, represented ACandS
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Delays Filing Due to SEC Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp. has delayed filing its 10-Q pending completion of a review by
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of its accounting policies and
disclosures with respect to asbestos liabilities, insurance settlements, and
related costs, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 27, 2007.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Company reported that it has received a letter from the
American Stock Exchange indicating that it is not in compliance with Sections
134 and 1101 of the Amex Company Guide due to the fact that it has not yet
filed its Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007.

The letter also stated that the Company must submit a plan by Sept. 5, 2007
advising the Amex of actions it has taken or will take to achieve compliance
with the continued listing standards, and that this plan must be approved by
the Amex, for the Company to maintain its listing on the Amex.

In June 2007, the Company received a comment letter from the SEC indicating
it had reviewed the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006 and
requesting supplemental information on the Company’s accounting policies and
disclosures related to asbestos liabilities, insurance settlements, and
related costs.

The Company responded to this request on Aug. 1, 2007, and it received
correspondence seeking additional information from the SEC on Aug. 22, 2007.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "We discussed the SEC
review process and the potential 10-Q filing delay with the Amex prior to the
filing deadline and were aware a "compliance plan" would be needed. While the
accounting issues raised by our asbestos situation are complex, we are
responding to the SEC's inquiries and expect they will complete their review
within a reasonable period of time. Once their review is completed, we will
complete and file our 10-Q accordingly."

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 03-51524) seeking
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve
claims asserted against it related to the use of asbestos in its products
decades ago.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes resilient flooring, serving
both residential and commercial markets. Its sheet, tile and plank products
are available in a wide variety of designs and colors, and are used in
remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction and commercial
applications. The Company is a 55 percent owned subsidiary of American
Biltrite Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Has $7.2M Claims Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corp., at July 1, 2007, recorded US$7.2 million as reserve
for product and general liability claims, which includes asbestos-related
liabilities, according to the Company’s annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 30, 2007.

On July 2, 2006, the Company’s reserve for product and general liability
claims, which includes asbestos-related liabilities, was US$7.3 million.

The Company asserts that product and general liability claims arise from time
to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company is generally self-
insured for claims up to US$2 million per claim. Accordingly, a reserve is
maintained for the estimated costs of those claims.

Because there is inherent uncertainty as to the eventual resolution of
unsettled claims, no reasonable range of possible losses can be determined.

Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corp. produces air cooled gasoline
engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company designs, manufactures,
markets and services these products for original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) worldwide. The Company conducts its operations in two reportable
segments: Engines and Power Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $66.8M Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.’s current asbestos liability totaled US$66.8
million (AUD78.7 million) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$63.5 million
(AUD78.7 million) as of March 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on
Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August
17, 2007.

The Company’s long-term asbestos liability totaled US$1.272 billion (AUD1.499
billion) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$1.226 billion (AUD1.519
billion) as of March 31, 2007.

The Company’s current asbestos insurance receivable totaled US$9.9 million
(AUD11.7 million) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$9.4 million (AUD11.7
million) as of March 31, 2007.

The Company recorded US$2.9 million (AUD3.4 million) for workers’
compensation (current) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$2.7 million
(AUD3.3 million) as of March 31, 2007.

The Company’s current asbestos-related deferred income taxes totaled US$9.4
million (AUD11.1 million) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$7.8 million
(AUD9.7 million) as of March 31, 2007.

The Company’s long-term asbestos insurance receivable totaled US$167.5
million (AUD197.3 million) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$165.1
million (AUD204.6 million) as of March 31, 2007.

The Company’s long-term workers’ compensation for asbestos claims totaled
US$80.5 million (AUD94.8 million) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$ 76.5
million (AUD94.8 million) as of March 31, 2007.

The Company’s long-term asbestos deferred income taxes total US$330.8 million
(AUD389.7 million) as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$318.2 million
(AUD394.4 million) as of March 31, 2007.

Asbestos adjustments were AUD36.2 million for the three months ended June 30,
2007, compared with AUD36.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2006.

The asbestos adjustments were US$30.1 million for the fiscal 2008-1st
quarter, compared with US$27.2 million for the fiscal 2007-1st quarter.

For the three months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 155 claims
filed, 31 claims dismissed, and 109 claims settled or otherwise resolved. The
average settlement amount per settled claim was AUD135,742 (US$112,893).

For the 12 months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded 463 claims filed,
121 claims dismissed, and 416 claims settled or otherwise resolved. The
average settlement amount per settled claim was US$166,164 (US$127,165).

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries N.V. uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for residential and
commercial construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding,
walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete
pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group OKs Senate’s Passage of Legislation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Working Group (EWG) Executive Director Richard Wiles issued the
following statement on Aug. 31, 2007 applauding the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee for adopting landmark asbestos legislation, according
to an EWG press release dated Aug. 31, 2007.

The bill would ban the importation, manufacturing and distribution of
virtually all products containing asbestos.

Mr. Wiles said, "Senator Murray, Chairman Boxer and the Senate committee sent
a clear message that asbestos has no place in the marketplace. Hundreds of
thousands of families have suffered the loss of loved ones in large part due
to government inaction. Asbestos is responsible for at least 10,000 deaths a
year, which is 10,000 too many. Now, the full Congress needs to step up to
the plate and put the public's health first by sending this bill to the
President."

The Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007 (S.742) would prohibit importation,
manufacturing or distribution of almost all asbestos-containing products,
with small exceptions for the Defense Department and NASA.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced the legislation in the Senate in March
2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vulcan Spends $360,000 to Lobby for Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Co., in the 2007-1st half, spent US$360,000 to lobby for the
ban of asbestos in the United States, Forbes.com reports.

The Company also lobbied for issues related to transportation funding,
according to the form posted online Aug. 14, 2007 by the Senate's public
records office.

Under a federal law enacted in 1995, lobbyists are required to disclose
activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative
branches. They must register with Congress within 45 days of being hired or
engaging in lobbying.

Birmingham, Ala.-based Vulcan Materials Co. produces construction aggregates
(crushed stone, gravel, and sand). The Company produces aggregates, asphalt
mixes, and ready-mixed concrete at more than 220 aggregate plants in the U.S.
and Mexico. The Company also operates truck, rail, and water distribution
locations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 39 Firms in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Anne Warren, on behalf of her late husband Jerry Allen Warren,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 39 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., on Aug. 16, 2007, The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Warren died on Jan. 27, 2007. His estate is represented by attorney David
B. Richardson.

According to the suit, Mr. Warren, who smoked one pack of cigarettes a day
from 1950 to 1993, died of lung cancer. He worked as a utility man at Owens-
Illinois Inc. in Huntington, and a laborer, mechanic, and operator at the
Armco Steel plant in Ashland, Ky., from 1955 to 1997.

Mrs. Warren claims her husband was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers while
working in the plant, because of the use of pipe insulations, pipe and cement
finishing products, building insulations and gasket materials, and other
products that contained asbestos.

Mrs. Warren also claims A.K. Steel Corp. and Owens Illinois failed to provide
adequate inspections and supervision in regard to the use of asbestos,
creating an unsafe working condition.

According to the suit, Mrs. Warren claims she lost the general services,
companionship and society of her spouse.

In the 10-count suit, Mrs. Warren seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-1724 will be assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Faces 10 Suits w/ 324 Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. faces 10 lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a
total of about 324 individual plaintiffs, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 20, 2007.

There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 10 cases, the
Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their
employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result,
contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness.

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries Inc. makes maintenance products
(cleaning supplies, abrasives, stains). The Company also makes electric-
corded products (extension cords, surge protectors, garden lighting), through
its Woods Industries unit. Brands include Brillo, Kleenfast, and Yellow
Jacket.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Defends Sterling in 2,276 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. states that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered
over 2,276 asbestos-related cases to the Company for defense and
indemnification, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 20, 2007.

These cases are pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada,
Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and California.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company indemnify it
for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on
the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties
whereby Sterling purchased the the Company’s LaBour Pump business and other
assets from the Company.

Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection with these
matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against Sterling and its
subsidiaries. The Company and its current subsidiaries are not named as
defendants.

The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos
and products containing asbestos in the course of their employment. Each
complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products containing
asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of
different products in the course of their employment.

Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump and/or Sterling may have manufactured some
of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one settled by
Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the position that Sterling has
waived its right to indemnity by failing to timely request it as required
under the 1993 Purchase Agreement.

With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the Company has
elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in these matters.

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries Inc. makes maintenance products
(cleaning supplies, abrasives, stains). The Company also makes electric-
corded products (extension cords, surge protectors, garden lighting), through
its Woods Industries unit. Brands include Brillo, Kleenfast, and Yellow
Jacket.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Still Faces LaBour Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. says that it has elected to defend asbestos-related
cases filed against its former subsidiary LaBour Pump Co., according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 20, 2007.

LaBour has been named as a defendant in over 379 asbestos-related cases in
New Jersey. These cases have been tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA),
which bought LaBour from the Company in 1993.

Many of these cases have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries Inc. makes maintenance products
(cleaning supplies, abrasives, stains). The Company also makes electric-
corded products (extension cords, surge protectors, garden lighting), through
its Woods Industries unit. Brands include Brillo, Kleenfast, and Yellow
Jacket.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling in Todd’s Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington reversed an appeals court’s ruling in favor
of Todd Shipyards Corp. and reinstated the dismissal of Roger Herring’s
asbestos action in the King County Superior Court.

Judges Chambers, Gerry L. Alexander, Charles W. Johnson, Susan Owens, Barbara
A. Madsen, Mary E. Fairhurst, Richard B. Sanders, James M. Johnson, and Bobbe
J. Bridge entered decision of Case No. 78774-3 on Aug. 9, 2007.

After working with asbestos for at least 20 years, Roger Herring was
diagnosed with pleural thickening in 1986. Three years later, he developed
asbestosis, a scarring of his lungs. In 1989, he sued several manufacturers
of asbestos-containing products. Todd was not among the defendants.

In 1987, after Roger Herring's diagnosis, Todd filed for bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. At the time, Todd
likely knew it was at risk for asbestos-related claims. The bankruptcy court
issued a bar claims date for filing proofs of claims in 1988.

Todd emerged from bankruptcy in 1989.

In 2002, Roger Herring was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He filed a lawsuit
based on that diagnosis, and his estate is continuing this suit. Sometime
after his suit was filed, Todd was added as a defendant. Todd was unaware of
Roger Herring and his claims until about that time.

Neither Roger Herring nor his union has received actual notice of Todd's
bankruptcy. Officers of his union have submitted declarations asserting that
if they had received notice, they would have passed it on to their members.

In March 2004, Todd successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground
that Roger Herring's claims had been discharged in the earlier bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding due process required Todd to give
actual notice of its bankruptcy to Roger Herring's union before his claims
could have been discharged.

The main issue for the Supreme Court’s review was whether Todd's bankruptcy
discharged Mr. Herring's claim. Specifically, Edwin Herring argued that Todd
should have given actual notice of its bankruptcy to Roger Herring's union.

The Supreme Court concluded that under controlling federal law, Todd had no
obligation to give actual notice of the bankruptcy to Roger Herring's union.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the dismissal
of King County Superior Court.

Walter Eugene Barton, Seattle, and Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge Law Group
PLLC, Tukwila, Wash., represented Todd Shipyards Corp.

Janet L. Rice, William Joel Rutzick of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Seattle,
WA, represented Edwin Herring and the estate of Roger Herring.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eitanit to Pay Nahariya ILS4.75M for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eitanit construction materials company will pay the City of Nahariya in
Israel ILS4.75 million for polluting the beaches and land with asbestos,
Haaretz reports.

Nahariya and Eitanit have reached an agreement, which will also include
ILS400,000 for the municipality's legal fees.

The firm was sued for polluting the area since the 1950s and not taking steps
to clean up its damage. As a result, large regions in the northern part of
Nahariya were considered dangerous for residents.

In addition, Eitanit ignored a cleanup order from the Environment Ministry.

The city then cleaned up the damage and demanded reimbursement from the
Company. The deal was reached in mediation before two retired judges and was
approved by the Haifa District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges NIOSH to Produce Libby Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors have served a subpoena on the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, seeking documents pertaining to
the "Vermiculite, Respiratory Disease and Asbestos Exposure in Libby,
Montana: Update of a Cohort Mortality Study" that contain material protected
from disclosure under the Privacy Act and Section 242m(d) of the U.S. Public
Health and Welfare Code.

By exception, the Privacy Act authorizes NIOSH to produce subject records
under a court order.

Accordingly, the Debtors and the NIOSH ask the Court for a protective order
so that NIOSH can disclose the records, which are necessary for the conduct
of discovery on the Debtors' asbestos liabilities.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 137, Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc., 215-945-7000, Fax: 215-945-7001)  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Amends Objections to 2 Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors amend their objections to two asbestos-
related property damage claims filed by Speights & Runyan on behalf of two
asbestos claimants.

The Claimants are Gulf Atlantic Properties Inc. (Claim No. 6637) and Hyatt
Corp. (Claim No. 9915).

In July 2007, Spieghts & Runyan submitted supplemental information in support
of Claim Nos. 6637 and 9915. With respect to Claim No. 6637, Speights &
Runyan provided supplemental documentation purporting to show product
identification.

With respect to Claim No. 9915, Speights & Runyan supplemented the claim with
a 1998 asbestos survey that shows asbestos removal at the Hyatt Corporation
Property and a 1986 asbestos survey.

The Debtors further object to Claim No. 6637 for lack of product
identification and to Claim No. 9915 because the Claim is barred by the
applicable limitations periods based on claimant's actual knowledge.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 137, Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc., 215-945-7000, Fax: 215-945-7001)  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian Groups Aim to End Ban Exemptions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos victims’ groups assert that Australia’s Department of Defence should
not be allowed to continue using products containing asbestos, ABC News
reports.

The department seeks a further three-year exemption from the ban on using
products with asbestos. The Army, Navy and Air Force use asbestos in brake
pads, gaskets and other small items.

Leigh Hubbard, from Victoria's Asbestos Diseases Society, says Defence should
be banned from any use of the product.

The Defence Department wants to keep using spare parts and equipment with
asbestos because it says it has been unable to find alternative products.

In 2004, Defence was granted a three-year exemption from laws banning the use
of products containing asbestos to give it time to replace existing parts.

However, with the deadline due to expire, Defence has applied for another
three years to keep using asbestos components, including everyday items such
as brake pads, gaskets, seals, fire barriers, insulation and packaging.

The navy has listed more than 130,000 items of equipment parts that contain
asbestos. The air force and army have listed hundreds of products containing
asbestos that are still in use.

Exposure to asbestos over the past 80 years has resulted in thousands of
cases of asbestos-related disease among Defence personnel, some resulting in
premature death.

In 2001, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission declared a
nationwide prohibition on the workplace use of asbestos products. It came
into effect in January 2004.

Labor's defense spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said, “This is just a typical
example of a government which talks up its national security credentials and
has been spending big on major acquisitions, but has underinvested in the
things that go to the safety and welfare of our troops.”

Defence Force Welfare Association national president David Jamison called on
Defence to rapidly speed up the phasing out of asbestos components.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found at Somerset School Premises
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been found uncovered at a primary school in Westonzoyland,
Somerset, U.K., BBC News reports.

The school will not now open for the start of the new term next week as a
result.

The asbestos was discovered during maintenance work on the school during the
summer holidays. The 190 pupils will be taught in temporary classrooms.

The Health and Safety Executive said asbestos remained the greatest single
cause of work-related deaths in Britain.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Air Force Base in Calif. Checked for Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Air pollution officials, on Aug. 29, 2007, searched the old Cambria Air Force
Station in Cambria, Calif., for evidence of illegal construction in asbestos-
laced building and improper disposal of the hazardous material,
SanLuisObispo.com reports.

Authorities received reports from at least two people living at the old
station who feared they were exposed to toxic asbestos fibers during
construction on base buildings. Those residents also said a garbage company
unknowingly collected dozens of bags containing asbestos.

The residents said that about 50 people who attend church there on a weekly
basis may have been exposed to the carcinogen.

On Aug. 29, 2007, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
confirmed that it was investigating a case at the station but would not
provide details.

County Health Officer Greg Thomas said the Public Health Department received
a call about asbestos in August 2007 and referred it to the pollution control
district, which has jurisdiction in this case.

Hollywood movie producer Bernd Schaefers bought the 34-acre site at 202 Julin
Lane in 2004. On Aug. 29, 2007, he told The Tribune that he gave authorities
permission to go on his property but did not know what they were
investigating.

Since the military stopped using the hill south of Cambria to track planes
and missiles in 1979, the property has had various private owners and, in
recent years, numerous visits from sheriff’s deputies.

Accusations of illegal asbestos abatement at the site date to 2002, when the
former owner was battling over rights to the property. Air pollution
officials investigated but did not find evidence to support the claims.

Owen Kelly, who rented a room in a building at the station, told The Tribune
that he told air pollution authorities that after his two years of living at
the base he tore out ceilings, cut insulation off pipes and scraped tile
floors at the request of property manager Luther Akers.

Mr. Kelly said he assumes now that all the material he removed was asbestos
because it was similar to a sample recently torn from a building that an
independent laboratory confirmed earlier this month was asbestos.

Mark Milligan, another renter, said he collected that sample after a crew
under Mr. Akers’ direction began tearing out the ceiling and floor in the
same building where his family lived. Mr. Milligan said he suspected the
building was laced with asbestos.

A lab test confirmed his suspicions Aug. 18, 2007, and Mr. Milligan moved his
wife and 14-year-old daughter out the same day. Mr. Kelly followed.

Mr. Kelly and the Milligans had physicals done on Aug. 29, 2007 so they can
track their health. They said Mr. Schaefers agreed to pay their medical bills.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Wants Health Checks on Jail Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union representing workers
exposed to asbestos at the Bunbury Regional Prison, in Bunbury, Western
Australia, says health checks should be carried out on affected workers, ABC
South West WA reports.

Doug Heath from the union says he wants all workers to be X-rayed.

About 50 construction workers who are involved in an upgrade of the prison
walked off the job after an asbestos scare.

The Department of Housing and Works admitted that asbestos material was found
on six items at the construction site. A total of 150 kilograms of matter was
removed from the site.

The Department of Environment and Conservation is investigating work being
carried out as part of the Bunbury Regional Prison expansion project.

Part of the upgrade to the prison includes the construction of a pipeline
which runs through the southern end of Manea Park and connects to the water
main at College Grove.

During construction a track which runs through the park to accommodate the
pipe was widened.

Bob Chandler from the department says it will speak to all interested parties
to determine if there has been any significant damage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colorado Fire Station Closed Due to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fire station for Littleton Fire Rescue in Littleton, Colo., is closed for
several weeks because a water leak revealed asbestos and mold in the drywall
and ceiling, 9News.com reports.

The water leak at Station #14, at 6600 S. Colorado Blvd., started after a
rainstorm on Aug. 23, 2007.

A US$268,000 remodel of the station, which was built in 1971, was under way
and there were exposed areas of the roof.

The station had to be evacuated and the staff has moved to a nearby fire
station.

The Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office plans to provide increased patrol of the
area until the building is reoccupied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GBP8,000 Fine Imposed for Illegal Storage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Julian West, on Aug. 30, 2007, was issued a GBP8,000 fine and was
ordered to pay GBP1,359 costs for two asbestos-related offenses at Bedford
Magistrates’ Court, Environment Agency reports.

Four tons of asbestos roof sheeting was illegally stored on land owned by Mr.
West in Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, England.

The first offense related to storing the asbestos without a license and the
second offense related to the removal of the asbestos from a farm in Odell
without notifying the Environment Agency.

The offenses came to light, magistrates were told, because Agency staff was
aware that a barn with cement bonded sheet roof at Odell, Bedfordshire, was
being demolished and knew there was a strong possibility that asbestos would
be present.

Investigations led the Agency to land off Park Lane at Sharnbrook which
belonged to Mr. West. He originally denied carrying out any demolition work
at Odell, then agreed that he had taken away scrap metal from the Odell site
but not asbestos roof sheeting. He did not have any paperwork relating to the
removal of the scrap metal.

Two officers revisited the site to search for roofing sheets and found some
at the back of the yard. It was on that visit that Mr. West admitted the
sheets had come from the Odell site. It took him nearly three weeks to admit
that there was no paperwork relating to the asbestos.

At a following interview, Mr. West said he was keeping the asbestos until
there was a bulk amount to take for disposal in order to reduce the cost.

Magistrates were told that Mr. West had put the owner of the Odell site at
risk of prosecution for breaching his duty of care obligations to make sure
his waste was taken to a proper place for disposal. Mr. West had told him
that part of the cost for demolishing the barn was to pay the high cost of
disposing of asbestos.

Mr. West had not had the roof sheeting checked for asbestos and was reckless
as to whether or not it did contain any.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Remands American Standard Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, remanded to state court an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by American Standard Inc. against OakFabco Inc. (f/k/a
Kewanee Boiler Corp.).

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Holwell entered decision of Case No. 06 Civ.
3227 (RJH) on Aug. 9, 2007.

American Standard and OakFabco are both actively involved in the New York
City Asbestos Litigation ("NYCAL") ongoing in state court.

At the invitation of a state judge overseeing NYCAL, American Standard filed
this action in state court under New York's declaratory judgment statute.

American Standard sought a declaratory judgment that OakFabco is directly
liable to third party plaintiffs for personal injury and product liability
claims arising from Kewanee boilers manufactured before 1970 under the
agreements by which OakFabco acquired the business in 1970 from American
Standard.

American Standard also sought an order permanently enjoining OakFabco from
disclaiming its obligations to product liability plaintiffs.

On April 26, 2006, OakFabco removed American Standard's action from state
court. Shortly after, OakFabco filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that
the relief requested by American Standard is foreclosed by a decision, and
subsequent judgment, entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

American Standard argued in opposition to the motion to dismiss that the
issue decided by the bankruptcy court was that OakFabco's obligation to
indemnify American Standard was discharged in bankruptcy, and that the
decision had no effect whatsoever on OakFabco's liability post-bankruptcy to
alleged injured plaintiffs whose liabilities were not discharged in
bankruptcy.

The Court requested the parties to address the issue of whether the amount-in-
controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction had been met. At argument,
the Court also raised the question of whether American Standard had standing
to seek declaratory relief as to OakFabco's potential liabilities, not to
American Standard, but to third parties.

Because the Court finds itself without subject matter jurisdiction over the
removed action, the case is remanded to state court.

Yvette Harmon, Sarah Henriette Emili Schaeffer-Roth, McGuirewoods LLP, New
York, represented American Standard Inc.

Michael Louis Gioia, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford PC, New York, represented
OakFabco Inc. (f/k/a Kewanee Boiler Corp.).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NAW Joins Brief on DiCenzo Lawsuit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Assocation of Wholesaler-Distributors has joined nine
organizations in a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief in an Ohio
asbestos-related lawsuit, Industrial Distribution reports.

Pending in the Supreme Court of Ohio, the case is styled DiCenzo v. A-Best
Products Co., Inc. et al.

The case concerns the retroactive application of the doctrine of strict
liability—liability based on the condition of a manufacturer’s product rather
than the conduct of the defendant—in product liability actions brought
against non-manufacturer product sellers; for example, wholesalers,
distributors and retailers.

The DiCenzo case revolves around workplace exposure to asbestos. In their
brief, NAW and its fellow amici outline the nature and dimension of the
asbestos litigation crisis, pointing out that “the net has spread from the
asbestos makers to companies far removed from the scene of any putative
wrongdoing. Non-traditional defendants now account for over half of asbestos
expenditures.”

In DiCenzo, the Ohio Appeals Court held in June that strict liability in
product seller liability actions, first recognized in Ohio in 1977 in Temple
v. Wean United Inc ., may be applied retroactively back to 1966, when the
Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp. was issued.

The NAW brief contends that the appellate court erred in the application of
strict product liability to non-manufacturer suppliers to pre-1977 sales,
saying that “the lower court’s decision is inconsistent with Ohio law before
1977 and will have significant negative impacts on smaller and medium size
Ohio businesses unless it is overturned.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Work Place Prosecutions Rise to 37 in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal prosecutions brought under the Control of Asbestos at Work
Regulations 2002 more than tripled to 37 in 2006, Work Place Law reports.

In 2003 to 2004, after the 2002 rules came into force, Britain’s Health and
Safety Executive launched seven criminal prosecutions. This rose to 12 in
2004 to 2005, but jumped to 37 in 2005 to 2006, which is the most recent year
for which statistics are available.

The 2002 rules extended the responsibility for managing asbestos to all
workplaces, not just those in “high-risk” industries where workers are most
likely to come into contact with asbestos.

In November 2006, the rules were further strengthened in to improve overall
worker protection by reducing exposure limits and introducing mandatory
training for work with asbestos. Statistics for prosecutions under the 2006
rules are not yet available.

Nick McMahon, specialist health and safety Partner at Reynolds Porter
Chamberlain says, “The rapidly increasing number of criminal prosecutions
under the 2002 rules - more than tripling in just one year - is a clear
indication that all businesses, not just those in the highest risk
industries, need to sit up and take notice of the asbestos issue. The HSE
appear to be making full use of the enforcement tools at their disposal to
clamp down.”

The average penalty for health and safety convictions in 2005-2006 was
GBP29,997. This included several fines of more than GBP100,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thames Labs Pushes for Awareness Training
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thames Laboratories has issued a warning to employers about the importance of
asbestos awareness training, which is now a legal requirement in certain
situations, according to a Thames Laboratories press release dated Sept. 2,
2007.

Among the changes made in the updated Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
was the inclusion, within Regulation 10, of a requirement for specified
groups to receive asbestos awareness training.

Furthermore this may impact on Regulation 4, where Duty Holders may be
responsible for ensuring that visiting contractors are properly trained.

John Richards of Thames Laboratories comments, “Asbestos Awareness Training
is vital for employers, property owners, facilities managers and all those
responsible for health and safety within their organization. Recent
prosecutions and publicity from the government indicates that training is a
crucial part of complying with the new regulations. Employers in at-risk
environments ignore health and safety training at their peril.”

Thames Laboratories is one of the U.K.’s leading asbestos consultancies and
has been providing a full range of surveying, management, and testing
services since 1991. Thames Laboratories has offices in Cambridgeshire,
Leicestershire and Wakefield and employs 23 full-time staff.

For more information contact:

Thames Laboratories
The Granary
Brook Farm
Thrapston Road
Ellington
Cambridgeshire PE28 0AE scuttle

T: 0800 085 2348
Web: http://www.thameslabs.co.uk


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC Clause Could Upset Hardie Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A clause in a claim filed by the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission against 10 directors of James Hardie Industries N.V. may upset the
asbestos compensation claim that took six years to finish, The Australian
reports.

If the court upholds the order, lawyers from countries like the U.S., which
was sold asbestos, could be put ahead of any other compensation claim made in
Australia.

Buried on page 193 of a 220-page statement of claim lodged by ASIC, who is
now headed by Tony D'Aloisio, in February 2007 and subsequently amended three
times, sits a clause that could arguably put creditors ahead of asbestos
victims.

The clause states, “ASIC has asked James Hardie N.V. (the listed James Hardie
company) to execute a deed of indemnity in favor of James Hardie Industries
Ltd. (JHIL), providing that they indemnify it for up to a maximum of AUD1.9
billion for such an amount as JHIL or its directors, consider, after giving
careful consideration, is necessary to ensure that JHIL is able to pay its
debts as and when they fall due, and for such an amount as JHIL or its
directors reasonably believe is necessary to ensure that JHIL remains
solvent.”

What this means is JHIL, the former Australian holding company, which has had
all its assets stripped out of it and is now dormant, has a potential AUD1.9
billion nest egg.

The hearing is not scheduled to begin until September 2008 and the case could
go into 2010.

With up to AUD1.9 billion available, U.S. litigants are believed to be
waiting with interest to see what happens if the court grants the orders
sought by ASIC.

If the court grants the release sought by ASIC in this clause, another
repercussion is the listed company James Hardie N.V. will have to include an
AUD1.9 billion contingent liability on its balance sheet.

ASIC wants all 10 defendants, including former chairman Meredith Hellicar and
prominent directors Peter Willcox and Michael Brown, fined and banned from
company directorships.

ASIC has alleged a range of breaches of directors' duties centering on
Hardie's statements in February 2001 that an independent asbestos
compensation trust would be "fully funded" with AUD294 million.

Within months the trust managers found this would be inadequate, and Hardie
this year finalized a deal in which it will pay an estimated AUD4.5 billion,
inflation adjusted, in compensation over the next 40 years.

The bill passed in the New South Wales parliament in 2005 called the James
Hardie (Civil Penalty Compensation Release) Bill, states, “"Under the release
bill, liability to pay compensation for loss or damage resulting from conduct
that is capable of being the subject of a penalty order of a civil nature
imposed by or under legislation is extinguished.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Road in England Closed After Asbestos Find
----------------------------------------------------------------
A portion of Hereford's Hoarwithy Road in Hereford, U.K. has been sealed off
after a suspected asbestos find south of the city, Hereford Times reports.

Residents living near the site of the first find at Saxon Gate, the old
Stirling Lines SAS base, have reported what they thought was asbestos
lying "in pieces" along a stretch of Hoarwithy Road between Web Tree Avenue
and Winston Road.

The scene has now been sealed off and environmental health teams from
Herefordshire Council are due on site this morning to make a preliminary
investigation.

This latest suspected asbestos find is around 100 yards away from the find
confirmed in Saxon Gate nearly two weeks ago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in N.J. Catholic High School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Official of St. Mary’s Parish in Newark, N.J., reported that asbestos has
been found in the ceiling of the wrestling team's locker room and traces were
suspected on a steam pipe in the cafeteria at St. Mary's High School that had
been repaired last November 2006, NorthJersey.com reports.

Parents were informed of the asbestos situation at the 350-student high
school in a letter from the parish.

"We addressed concerns that there could have been a possible episode," said
James Goodness, director of communications for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese
of Newark. "We were not aware that there was a concern before anybody called.
We felt that we had done all we needed to do."

The archdiocese's property maintenance team had scrubbed the steam pipe in
the cafeteria at the high school on Chestnut Street, which had been
originally wrapped in asbestos, after a leak in November 2006 and thought
that the issue had been remedied, Mr. Goodness said.

The steam pipe was scrubbed after the repair by parish personnel who are
certified to remove small amounts of asbestos by the Environmental Protection
Agency and under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986, Mr.
Goodness added.

Mr. Goodness said an EPA investigator visited the high school on Aug. 29,
2007 and recommended that parish officials take another look at the steam
pipe. The rescrubbing work was completed on Aug. 31, 2007.

During an EPA inspection on Aug. 29, 2007, St. Mary's High School was also
given a notice of deficiency for failing to have a required asbestos
management plan in the office. Now the school has a plan that is available
for viewing during school hours, Mr. Goodness said.

Additionally, the inspector noted that many members of the school's
maintenance and custodial staff had not received required training in
asbestos abatement and removal. Both deficiencies have been remedied, Mr.
Goodness said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Locker Records 40 Cases at June 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Inc., as of June 18, 2007, recorded about 40 unresolved
asbestos-related cases filed against it, according to the Company’s annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 4,
2007.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through the date of filing of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K (with Dec. 31, 2006 as the period of report), the
Company has been named as an additional defendant in about 160 cases pending
in state court in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company
manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard
during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to
those products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973.

During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from
sources outside the Company have been produced which indicate that the
Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall
panels which contained asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts
shipyards.

Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier,
subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered
in about 20 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company's
insurance carrier.

Further, over 100 cases have been terminated as to the Company without
liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules.

Grapevine, Tex.-based American Locker Group Inc. is an engineering,
assembling, manufacturing and marketing enterprise engaged primarily in the
sale of lockers. This includes coin operated, key-only and electronically
controlled checking lockers and related locks and aluminum centralized mail
and parcel distribution systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Removed from North Somerset School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos that was found at the Priory Community School in Worle, North
Somerset, U.K., has been removed, Weston & Somerset Mercury reports.

Priory Community School was built in 1977.

Head teacher Neville Coles said, “All the asbestos has been removed and the
school was open for business as usual yesterday (September 4). Parents need
not worry as both children and staff are now perfectly safe, but I will be
sending a letter out to everyone to explain the situation.”

The asbestos was found by builders working to refurbish the gym and sports
hall changing rooms and the canteen kitchen at the school. The discovery was
made in the summer holidays and a clean-up operation was launched to remove
all traces of the chemical.

Tests on the asbestos revealed it was chrysotile, which is eliminated from
the body when inhaled, unlike other more dangerous forms of asbestos which
can stay in the lungs and sometimes result in death.

Asbestos is safe unless it is moved around or disturbed and is often found in
older buildings, as the risks of using the substance have only become known
in the last decade.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Chick Case to Resume on Oct. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
The sentencing hearing on an asbestos-related case filed against Cayuga
County, N.Y., carpenter John Chick will resume on Oct. 29, 2007, The Post-
Standard reports.

Mr. Chick is the county carpenter who admitted in January 2007 to dumping the
asbestos from the county's Board of Elections Building on Court Street at
Auburn, N.Y., landfill.

Former Cayuga County Buildings and Grounds Superintendent Ernest De Caro
could face criminal charges in the illegal dumping of asbestos at the Auburn,
N.Y., landfill in 2006 after U.S. District Court Senior Judge Frederick J.
Scullin, Jr., on Sept. 4, 2007, ordered prosecutors to widen the scope of
their probe.

Judge Scullin ordered the U.S. Attorney's Office in Syracuse, N.Y., to
investigate Mr. De Caro’s role in the asbestos case after he testified during
a sentencing hearing in the case of Mr. Chick.

Mr. Chick faces up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to
US$250,000. Mr. De Caro was Mr. Chick's immediate supervisor.

"You are exposing yourself as far as criminal liability," Judge Scullin told
Mr. De Caro after the former superintendent testified he led county
Legislature Chairman George Fearon to the room where workers were dismantling
the boiler and left him with Mr. Chick.

Judge Scullin interrupted Mr. De Caro's testimony, turned to Assistant U.S.
Attorney Craig Benedict and asked if Mr. De Caro had had a chance to talk
with his lawyer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E Crews Remove Hazard from Calif. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crews of San Diego Gas & Electric Co. are removing underground wire casings
made of concrete and asbestos from the Harbor Drive in Oceanside, Calif.,
North County Times reports.

SDG&E spokesperson Peter Hidalgo said extreme caution is required. He
said, "We have to use certified asbestos removal contractors, and we want to
be very cautious when we take it out."

Mr. Hidalgo said that it was once common to protect electrical lines with
asbestos pipes, though the material was later abandoned after it was found
that inhaling tiny airborne particles of the fire-retardant material can
cause cancer.

The city and SDG&E sent out a letter in August 2007 to all harbor residents
and businesses explaining that the work was necessary to make way for the new
Pacific Street Bridge.

Old electrical lines under Harbor Drive have to be removed so the
thoroughfare can be raised high enough to link with the new concrete bridge.

Mr. Hidalgo said that any dust emanating from the area should not be taken as
a health threat. He said the project complies with all state and federal
regulations surrounding asbestos removal.

While the asbestos-removal crew did its work on Sept. 4, 2007, large cranes
and drills continued to bore holes for bridge pilings that will eventually
hold the new 600-foot bridge deck above the mouth of the San Luis Rey River.

The new US$18 million bridge will carry Pacific Street north to the Oceanside
Harbor and will replace the vulnerable earth-and-rock crossing that now
provides a second path to the harbor from the city's downtown district.

SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Completes Cleanup at Illinois Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup wraps up this week at the abandoned Southern Medical Center facility
in Cairo, Ill., according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency press
release dated Sept. 5, 2007.

An EPA Region 5 Superfund team, in consultation with Illinois EPA, supervised
and paid for the US$900,000 project. The effort began in April 2007.

The Southern Medical Center, at 2020 Cedar St., contained a three-story
hospital, a doctors' building, and a now-demolished medical waste
incinerator. It opened 1958 as St. Mary's Hospital.

When it closed in the mid-1980s, the buildings were poorly secured. EPA crews
found crumbling asbestos piping and floor surfaces containing asbestos,
containers of unidentified chemicals and medical equipment containing small
amounts of mercury.

Medications and medical records were scattered among debris found in the
building.

Over the course of the project, 434 tons of construction debris, 23 tons of
scrap metal, 2,190 cubic yards of asbestos waste, 880 gallons of hazardous
liquids and 110 gallons of biological medical waste were safely removed and
sent for off-site disposal. Most non-hazardous waste went to a landfill in
Jackson County.

Additionally, 19,000 gallons of wastewater were pumped from basement areas
and three underground storage tanks containing 4,500 gallons of fuel oil were
removed and dismantled.

Team Illinois, a state initiative to revitalize underserved communities, is
currently exploring potential redevelopment options for the site.

Photos from the project are posted at
http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/index.htm#smc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor’s Workmates Sought in Payout Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of John Rice, a contractor who died from mesothelioma in 2004,
appeals for his former colleagues to help with a compensation bid, Evening
Post reports.

Mr. Rice worked in Nottingham, England, U.K., as a carpenter and joiner in
the 1960s. He handled asbestos while working on a multi-storey car park at
York House, Mansfield Road.

Mr. Rice’s daughter Jackie Rice Coxall believes it was a direct result of his
employment.

Mrs. Coxall and other family members have instructed solicitors, who want to
hear from anyone who worked alongside Mr. Rice at York House as they gather
evidence for possible legal proceedings.

Victoria Bateman, of Barnsley-based Raleys Solicitors, who are handling the
compensation claim, said, “We're looking for anyone who worked alongside him
in the years 1962/63 and 1967/68, or anyone who has another connection to the
building that might be of interest.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Commission Ruling in Austin Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld a May 30, 2006 ruling of the
North Carolina Industrial Commission, which entitled Wayne Austin to certain
benefits stemming from his exposure to asbestos while he worked for
Continental General Tire.

Judges Elmore, McGee, and Jackson entered decision of Case No. COA06-1390 on
Aug. 21, 2007.

Mr. Austin was employed by Continental General for over 20 years, during
which time the record shows he was repeatedly exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers. He retired on June 1, 1987 for reasons unrelated to asbestos exposure.

In 1989, Mr. Austin filed a notice of accident, seeking workers' compensation
benefits for asbestosis. In 1995, he filed a request for hearing.

Continental General denied liability, and a hearing was conducted before a
Deputy Commissioner in May 1996. In July 1998, the Deputy Commissioner
entered an Opinion and Award making thorough and extensive findings of fact
and concluding that Mr. Austin had contracted asbestosis, entitling him to
104 weeks of compensation.

Mr. Austin appealed to the Commission, which determined that Mr. Austin
suffered from asbestosis and was entitled to 104 weeks of compensation, but
at the rate of US$308 per week.

Continental General appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the Full
Commission.

On remand, the Full Commission remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for a
hearing to determine Mr. Austin’s eligibility for workers' compensation
benefits. Continental General objected.

After a hearing in June 2004, the Deputy Commissioner issued an Opinion and
Award on Dec. 16, 2004, from which Continental General appealed.

The Full Commission vacated the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner
and issued its own Opinion and Award on May 30, 2006.

The Full Commission found that Mr. Austin was diagnosed with asbestosis in
1994, and had been totally disabled by February 1998. The Full Commission
awarded "permanent total disability benefits to plaintiff at the rate of
US$308 per week beginning Feb. 2, 1998 and continuing throughout plaintiff's
lifetime."  

The Full Commission also ordered Continental General to pay for all medical
expenses arising from Mr. Austin’s asbestosis. From this Opinion and Award,
Continental General appealed.

The Appeals Court had considered Continental General’s remaining arguments,
and concluded that they are without merit. The Appeals Court also concluded
that the Commission did not err and that its Opinion and Award should be
affirmed.

Wallace & Graham, PA, by Mona L. Wallace, Cathy Williams, and Edward Pauley,
represented Wayne Austin.

Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P., by J.A. Gardner represented
Continental General Tire.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Rochon Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, affirmed in part and reversed
in part the trial court’s decision in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
Adeline and Lawrence Rochon.

The matter has been remanded for further proceedings.

Judges Cox, Appelwick, and Coleman entered decision of Case No. 58579-7-I on
Aug. 13, 2007.

Mr. Rochon was employed by Scott Paper Co., the predecessor in interest to
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc., Kimberly Clark Global Sales Inc., and Kimberly-
Clark Corp. (collectively, Kimberly-Clark), from 1956 to 1966.

Mrs. Rochon alleged that during Mr. Rochon's employment, he was exposed to
asbestos in the workplace and that he brought asbestos fibers into their home
on his clothing. Their home was not located on Kimberly-Clark's property.

Mrs. Rochon allegedly inhaled those fibers while laundering Mr. Rochon’s
clothing and eventually developed mesothelioma.

The Rochons sued Kimberly-Clark. The company moved for summary judgment on
the theory that it owed no duty of care to Mrs. Rochon. The trial court
granted the motion.

The trial court dismissed the claims of Mrs. Rochon on summary judgment. The
decision was based, in part, on its conclusion that "foreseeability does not
independently create a duty of care ... [and] only when a duty has been found
to exist, foreseeability ... serves to limit the scope of that duty of care."

The Rochons appealed.

To the extent that this decision excluded foreseeability from the
determination of whether a duty exists, the Appeals Court disagreed.

Thus, the trial court erred in dismissing Mrs. Rochon's claim under a general
negligence theory.

However, the Appeals Court agreed that under the facts of this case, Mrs.
Rochon failed to establish liability under the alternative negligence
theories based on Kimberly-Clark's duties as an employer or landowner.

The Appeals Court ruled that Kimberly-Clark did not owe a special duty to
Mrs. Rochon as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser upon its land.

Summary judgment on this theory was proper as well.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Move to Dismiss Caradonna Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, N.Y., denied Long Island Railroad’s and
Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to dismiss Joseph Caradonna’s
asbestos-related lawsuit.

Judge Freedman entered decision of Case No. 106785/06 on Aug. 10, 2007.

Mr. Caradonna, a long time employee of the LIRR, claimed exposure to asbestos
from brake shoes and gaskets and other asbestos containing materials.

Mr. Caradonna worked as a mechanic's helper, welder, train car inspector,
coach cleaner, and assistant foreman from 1949 to 1977 and was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in or about February 2006 and died about a year later.

The Supreme Court found that the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (BIA or
LIA) preempted product liability claims because the BIA occupied the entire
field of locomotive regulation. The Court also found that the Federal Safety
Standards Act (SAA) occupied the field of rail car safety appliance
regulation.

The Court also found that Mr. Caradonna was relegated to a claim under the
Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) as to any negligence or violation of
safety standards by the railroad.

LIRR and MTA moved to dismiss the FELA case on the ground that the FELA
negligence claims are also preempted by BIA.

Defendants averred that it would be anomalous to dismiss claims against the
product manufacturers but allow claims against the employer under FELA. They
also argued that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) report submitted
to Congress in 1996 found that the presence of asbestos in locomotives did
not warrant action and posed no threat to employees.

Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the FELA claim.

Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, by Pat Timmins, Holly C. Peterson, and
Bracha Statman, Nancy A. Perry, N.Y., represented Joseph Caradonna.

Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., Bhavna Changrani, Newark, N.J.,
represented Long Island Railroad and Metropolitan Transport Authority.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Reyes Case in Defendants’ Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Arizona, dismissed a Complaint filed by Arturo
Reyes, in which the complaint sought damages for exposure to asbestos and
other matters related to his confinement at the Maricopa County Durango Jail.

U.S. District Judge Mary H. Murguia entered decision of Case No. CV 07-1451-
PHX-MHM (JRI) on Aug. 8, 2007.

Mr. Reyes has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint and an Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Mr. Reyes named the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joe Arpaio
as Defendants. The Complaint contained three counts, arising from Mr. Reyes’
conditions of confinement.

In Count I, Mr. Reyes alleged that his right to be in a facility with
population limitations has been violated, which resulted in him sitting on
the floor because there were too few seats in the eating areas. He alleged he
was exposed to floor cleaning chemicals.

In Count II, Mr. Reyes alleged that he was exposed to asbestos, which caused
a sore throat, runny nose, chest pains and other complaints.

In Count III, Mr. Reyes alleged that his right to access to legal materials
was violated.

Mr. Reyes sought damages.

The Court dismissed Mr. Reyes’ Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Mr. Reyes may submit a first
amended complaint.

The Court ruled:

-- Mr. Reyes’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the
Complaint, is granted.

-- As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government
agency, Mr. Reyes must pay the US$350 filing fee and is assessed an initial
partial filing fee of US$9.00.

-- The Complaint (Doc. # 1) was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Mr.
Reyes has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended
complaint in compliance with this Order.

-- If Mr. Reyes fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk
of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice
that states that the dismissal counts as a "strike."

-- The Clerk of Court must mail Mr. Reyes’ a court-approved form for filing a
civil rights complaint by a prisoner.


ASBESTOS ALERT: County Waste Fined GBP1,200 for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skip company County Waste Ltd. has been issued a GBP1,200 penalty for fly-
tipping waste, which included asbestos, at a Coventry industrial estate in
Coventry, England, U.K., icCoventry.co.uk reports.

The Southam-based Company was also ordered to pay GBP398 costs after pleading
guilty at Coventry Magistrates Court on Aug. 30, 2007 to dumping waste
illegally at the Arches Industrial Estate in Spon End, Coventry.

In March, Coventry City Council's environmental health department received
complaints from tenants at the industrial estate after they saw a skip
company dumping waste on the site.

It is understood that a large skip had been hired by a business operating
from the industrial estate but, after a disagreement over payment, staff from
County Waste emptied the full container on to the site before taking the skip
away with them.

Officers from the environment crime unit visited the estate and found a large
amount of rubbish had been dumped, including a significant amount of asbestos.

Cabinet member for city services Councilor Hazel Noonan said the authority
would always take action against those dumping illegally.

Ms. Noonan said, “All companies have a legal responsibility to dispose of
their waste responsibly, and the city council will take strong action against
companies who disregard this, and dump their waste in our city.”


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


JONES SODA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Jones Soda Company
between the period of November 1, 2006, and August 2, 2007, inclusive.

The suit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934), 15 U.S.C. #78j(b), and the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, including Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. #240.10b-5.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous, positive but false statements to investors and the market at large
that misrepresented the Company's growth prospects and ability to penetrate
new markets.

Defendants further issued extremely positive statements about the Company's
new distribution and production agreement with National Beverage Corporation
and agreements with numerous major retailers to garner precious shelf space
for the Company's products. Defendants stated that each of these agreements
was cemented and that the Company was poised to realize the financial
benefits thereof.

Moreover, Defendant Peter M. von Stolk, the Company's founder, President,
Chief Executive Officer and a Director issued numerous statements that led
the market to believe that major retailers had stocked the Company's sodas on
their shelves for sale, or that the sodas would be stocked on these
retailers' shelves for sale by a date certain. These statements, however,
were false or were issued with such a degree of severe recklessness to render
them actionable.

On August 3, 2007, the Company announced that earnings for the quarter ended
June 30, 2007 were well below Wall Street's expectations. In connection with
the release (and despite his earlier promises), Mr. van Stolk said that the
Company's canned products were not on enough store shelves in time for peak
summer sales, which began during the Memorial Day weekend.

This news caused the Company's stock to plummet nearly 23 percent in after-
hours trading to $11.70 a share, causing stockholders to suffer significant
damages.

Moreover, as detailed in the Complaint, during an 85-day period this last
spring, Mr. van Stolk and five of the six members of the board sold huge
amounts of their holdings of Jones Soda while touting the Company's
aggressive expansion plan and new arrangements with major retailers. The
truth of the matter was that the Company's plan was not on pace as disclosed.

The Company's beverages were not getting on shelves in time for the summer
sales bump. Costs associated with the Company's new "can" were significantly
impacting earnings and Mr. van Stolk falsely portrayed the Company in an
overly positive light despite facts that he knew to the contrary.

Indeed, as detailed in the Complaint, he stated during a conference call with
analysts that he saw major sales data from retailers on a daily basis.
Accordingly, he knew at all relevant times that the Company's products were
not on the shelves and thus not being sold at a pace that comported with his
public statements concerning the Company's penetration into the $66 billion
carbonated soft drink market.

For more information, contact:

          Alizabeth Rasmussen, Paralegal
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          Phone: 800-776-6044
          E-mail: arasmussen@kellerrohrback.com
          Website: http://www.krclassaction.com


MOTOROLA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP lodged a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
all purchasers of securities of Motorola, Inc. from July 19, 2006 and January
4, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the Company was suffering from poor product and
         geographic mix in the Mobile Services segment;

     (2) that the Company was suffering from reduced margins and
         pricing pressures as a result of shifting consumer
         demand and purchases;

     (3) that the Company was unable to adequately offer 3G
         products when consumer demand increased as the Company
         was not acquiring the necessary chipsets from its
         suppliers;

     (4) that the Company's performance in Europe was suffering
         as a result of its limited 3G product portfolio;

     (5) that the Company's products were not meeting internal
         expectations or sales targets; and

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Motorola builds, markets and sells products, services and applications that
make connections to people, information and entertainment through broadband,
embedded systems and wireless networks.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 9, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


PALL CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Pall Corporation from March
22, 2007 through August 8, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that Pall had overstated its financial results by
         materially understating its income tax liability;

     (2) that the Company had misstated its effective tax rate,
         and the factors affecting the Company's effective tax
         rate;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On July 19, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it disclosed that the
Audit Committee of its Board of Directors had commenced an inquiry into a
possible material understatement of U.S. income tax payments, and into the
Company's provision for income taxes in certain prior periods commencing with
the fiscal year ended July 31, 1999. Upon the release of this news, Pall's
shares declined $7.67 per share, or over 15.7 percent, to close on July 20,
2007 at $41.11 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on August 2, 2007, Pall disclosed that it was restating its financial
statements for the fiscal years 1999 through 2006, and for each of the fiscal
quarters ended October 31, 2006, January 31, 2007, and April 30, 2007. The
need for the restatement resulted from the Company's understatement of U.S.
income tax payments, and from its provision for income taxes. The Company
stated that the taxes payable could be in excess of $130 million, exclusive
of interest and penalties.

Further, the Company instructed investors that they could no longer rely on
the Company's previously issued financial statements. On this news, Pall's
shares fell an additional $1.21 per share, or almost 3 percent, to close on
August 2, 2007 at $39.90 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The
following day, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.28 per share,
or 3.2 percent.

Finally, as a result of the Company's disclosures, Standard & Poor's Ratings
Service cut the Company's corporate credit rating from A- to BBB, and also
lowered the Company's short-term credit rating. An article published on
August 9, 2007 revealed that the downgrade reflected the significance of the
tax issue, the unreliability of the Company's previously issued financial
statements, the risk of noncompliance with various lending agreements, and
the uncertainty regarding the cause of the matter. On this news, Pall's
shares declined an additional $1.64 per share, or over 4.1 percent, to close
on August 9, 2007 at $37.82 per share, again on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Pall, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets filtration,
purification, and separation products worldwide.

For more information, contact:

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


UTSTARCOM INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of UTStarcom, Inc. (Nasdaq: UTSI) between July 24, 2002 and
September 4, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning the Company's backdating
of stock option grants to its officers and executives. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that at all times during the Class Period, UTStarcom
represented that the exercise price of all stock options would be no less
than the fair market value of the Company's common stock, measured by the
publicly traded closing price for UTStarcom stock on the day of the grant.

However, in reality, options granted in 2002 were backdated so their exercise
price correlated to a day on or near the day UTStarcom's stock hit a
significantly low price for the year, or directly in advance of sharp
increases in the price of UTStarcom stock.

The truth regarding the Company's option granting practices was revealed on
July 24, 2007. On that date, UTStarcom announced that a review of the
Company's historical stock option grant practices uncovered evidence that
stock option grants were backdated. As a result of these findings, the
Company further announced that its previously issued financial statements for
the years 2000 through 2006 should no longer be relied upon, and would be
restated by at least $28 million. In response to this news, UTStarcom's share
price fell 22%, from a close of $4.73 on July 23, 2007 to a close of $3.70 on
July 25, 2007. The share price continued to decline thereafter.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          Phone: +1-877-337-1050
          E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com


VALUECLICK INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of ValueClick, Inc. from
November 1, 2006 through July 27, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that certain of the Company's lead-generation practices
         violated the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
         Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN-SPAM") and
         Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Guidelines;

     (2) that the Company's use of long surveys to generate
         email addresses for resale violated industry standards;

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

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

On May 18, 2007, the Company disclosed that the FTC was conducting an inquiry
to determine whether the Company's "lead generation" activities violated the
FTC Act or the CAN-SPAM Act. Specifically, the FTC was investigating certain
of ValueClick's websites which promised consumers a free gift of substantial
value, and the manner in which the Company diverted traffic to such websites,
in particular through their use of email.

On May 22, 2007, the Company disclosed that its lead generation activities
accounted for more than 60 percent of the Company's quarterly Media segment
revenue, and that the promotion-based sub-category of lead generation, the
subject of the FTC inquiry, accounted for approximately 30 percent of its
quarterly Media segment revenue.

Then on July 30, 2007, the Company announced disappointing quarterly
financial results. The Company stated that its revenue results were
negatively impacted by the Company's promotion-based business,
which "suffered a downturn that began in late May and became more pronounced
in June."

As a result, the Company was forced to lower its yearly revenue guidance from
$655 million to $665 million down to $645 million to $660 million.
Additionally, the Company was forced to lower its earnings-per-share guidance
for the year, from $0.79 to $0.81 down to $0.74 to $0.76. Upon the release of
this news, the Company's shares declined $5.00 per share, or 19.2 percent, to
close on July 30, 2007 at $21.01 per share, on unusually heavy trading.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

ValueClick provides online advertising campaigns and programs for advertisers
and advertising agency customers in the United States and Europe.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********



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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *