CAR_Public/071005.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, October 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 197

                            Headlines


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Ordered to Widen Holocaust Deal Notices
BODISEN BIOTECH: Amendment to N.Y. Securities Suit Due Oct. 17
BORDERS GROUP: Settles Calif. Labor Law Violations Lawsuit
BUILDING INDUSTRY: Accused of Diverting $38M from Rebate Program
CANADA HOUSING: Condo Owners’ Suit Denied Class Certification

CHAMPPS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Col. Suit Over F&H Acquisition
CONCORD CAMERA: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
COPART INC: Summary Judgment Motion in Ga. Consumer Suit Denied
COPART INC: Parties Settle Calif. Litigation Over Storage Liens
COPART INC: Seeks Dismissal of FCS Antitrust Litigation in La.

H&R BLOCK: Faces New Lawsuit Over Peace of Mind Program
H&R BLOCK: Seeks Review of Order Reinstating Pa. RAL Lawsuit
H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
HONEYWELL INT’L: Recalls Fireplace Gas Valves for Design Defect
ISOLAGEN INC: Penn. Court Revives Securities Fraud Lawsuit

JACKSON HEWITT: Nov. 14 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation
JACKSON HEWITT: Ohio RALs Lawsuit in Discovery, Pretrial Stage
JACKSON HEWITT: Ill. Court Denies Motion to Junk “Wooley” Suit
JENSEN'S OLD: Recalls Salmon Spread for Possible Health Risk
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Commences in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Underway in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Litigation
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Securities Lawsuit
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: No Hearing Date Set for Securities Suit Appeal
TARGET STORES: Recalls Plush Boys Rattles Due to Choking Hazard

TOLL BROTHERS: Amended Complaint Filed in Pa. Securities Lawsuit
TOLL BROTHERS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Withdrew RESPA Complaint
TOPPS MEAT: Faces First Suit Over Recalled Contaminated Meat
VOYAGER LEARNING: Mich. Court Grants Motion to Junk ERISA Suit
VOYAGER LEARNING: Seeks Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit

ZALE CORP: Settles Securities Fraud, ERISA Lawsuits in Texas
ZALE CORP: Settles Cal. Employees Wage, Hour Suit for $3.8M

* “Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta” Case Conference Set Today


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Spends JPY4.035B at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Records 161 Pending Claims at Aug.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipbuilder’s Kin Gets GBP100T Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Govt. to Check 19,000 Housing Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Conduct Sampling at California Sites

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chem. Unit Settles Coverage Dispute
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indiana Labor Dept. Probes Exposure Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement of Norwalk Station to Cost $658T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling v. Hamilton Materials
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Remand Motion in Action v. GE, Viad Junked

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Michigan Worker Sues 92 Firms in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Gov’t. Proceeds with Town’s Closure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Court Issues GBP19,600 Fine to Seacroft
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Gov’t. Orders Cleanup of Balfour Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TCEQ Finds Asbestos Pipe in Texas Landfill

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shiretown Group Finds Hazard in Maine Bldg.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nexus Housing Rules Out Threat at Worcester
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Ore. Firms to Pay $37T for CAA Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 44 Corporations Filed in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suffolk Van Owner Penalized for Fly-Tipping

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Star Lane Officials Assure Safety of Locals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Asks for 8th Extension to File Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int’l. Has $53M Liabilities at Aug. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widower Sues Amoco, 58 Corporations in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plant Worker’s Widow Sues 42 Firms in Texas

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: University of Missouri Cleanup Nearly Done
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADEQ to Launch Route 66 Asbestos Initiative
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Councilors to Settle Sports Center Scandal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Council Approves $9,800 Removal Offer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in A.P.I. Action


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

        
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
JONES SODA: Bruce G. Murphy Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Ordered to Widen Holocaust Deal Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set aside a lower court's order
approving an estimated $49.7 million settlement of the class action "In re:
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation, No. 1374," the
Business Insurance reports.

The court said the notice that had been given to class members seemed
inadequate and ordered that additional notices be sent by Nov. 26.  It ordered
Generali and the plaintiffs’ lawyers to mail notices of the settlement
individually to “all class members whose names are known” by the insurers
within 60 days.  

"Notice by first class mail should be sent to all class members whose names
are known by Generali," the three-judge panel said in a written order.  It
remanded the case back to the lower court "so that appropriate notice may be
given in an expeditious manner" and ordered it to hold a fairness hearing by
Jan. 7.

According to the report, Generali said it had already paid some $175 million
in Holocaust-era insurance claims. It said it was hopeful the settlement would
be finalized by early 2008.

                    Summary of the Litigation

The class action alleges, among other things, that: (a) Generali (and its
related companies) withheld the value and/or proceeds of insurance policies
sold to the Holocaust era victims prior to and during the Holocaust era; and
(b) after the Holocaust, Generali refused to pay on the policies, did not
disclose the nature and scope of its unpaid policies, and refused to identify
or disgorge the value or proceeds of such policies.

The Court decided that everyone who fits the following description is a Class
member:

All persons worldwide who:

     (1) were:
         -- Holocaust Victims as defined, infra; and
         -- during the Class Period were:

        * named in or were parties to any Insurance Policies as
          defined infra, including, but not limited to, the
          insureds, beneficiaries and owners under such
          Insurance Policies; or

        * persons who succeeded to their rights by operation of
          law or otherwise, including but not limited to heirs,
          distributees, legatees, and the like; or

     (2) persons claiming by, through, or in the right of any
         one or more of the foregoing persons (including but not
         limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the
         like), whether or not such claimants in this clause (2)
         are Holocaust Victims; provided however that "Generali
         Settlement Class" and "Releasors" shall not include
         persons:

         * who timely elect to be excluded from the "Generali
           Settlement Class"; or
        
         * who for any reason previously released any one or
           more of the Generali Group from liability in respect
           to the claims being compromised (whether such
           previous release was provided in connection with
           receiving compensation in respect of an Insurance
           Policy or for any other reason).

The Class Period is Jan. 1, 1920, through Dec. 31, 1945.  A "Holocaust Victim"
means any person who was persecuted by the Nazis (or their allies or by
persons acting in concert with them or pursuant to their direction) at any
time on account of religion, sexual orientation, racial background, or
political views, including but not limited to Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and
Jehovah's Witnesses.

Important terms of the proposed Settlement are:

     * Generali will process and fund Claim Forms under
       valuation and eligibility standards established by The
       International Commission On Holocaust Era Insurance
       Claims (ICHEIC), including all pending and unpaid claims         
       already received by ICHEIC;

     * Generali will process new Claim Forms, with Court
       supervision, with the same eligibility standards as used
       in ICHEIC and with valuation criteria described in the
       Settlement Agreement that are similar (but not identical)
       to the criteria used in processing and paying claims
       through ICHEIC.  Generali will bear the cost for
       reviewing and processing Claim Forms and Court
       supervision;

     * Validated Claim Forms will be paid based on a formula
       that takes into consideration amounts due on policies,
       currency conversion and interest, among other factors.  
       The minimum payment for any valid claim is $1,000;

     * Generali will be released as to all Holocaust era
       insurance claims, and the class action Litigation will be
       dismissed with prejudice;

     * Generali will pay incentive awards to each of the four    
       Named Plaintiffs up to $5,000, as the Court may award;

     * Generali will pay counsel fees and costs, but the payment
       thereof will not diminish the compensation available to
       Class Members with valid Claim Forms.  

In Feb. Generali agreed to extend by as much as 18 months the March 31 claims
filing deadline in the settlement of the class action (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 13, 2007).

Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York gave final approval to an estimated $49.7 million settlement of
the class action "In re: Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance
Litigation, No. 1374" (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2007).


BODISEN BIOTECH: Amendment to N.Y. Securities Suit Due Oct. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against
Bodisen Biotech, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York have until Oct. 17, 2007 to file an amended complaint.

In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight purported class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.

The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations about prior
financial disclosures and the company's internal controls and a prior,
now-terminated relationship with New York Global Group.

The eight actions are:

      -- "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13220 (filed November 2006),"
      
      -- "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13254 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13454 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         13567 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13739 (filed December 2006),"

      -- "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006),"

      -- "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         15179 (filed December 2006)," and

      -- "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No.
         06-15399 (filed December 2006)."

The court has also established a schedule, based on stipulation of the
parties, that allows plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by Oct. 17, 2007
and sets the date for defendants, including the Company, to file motions to
dismiss the amended complaint Dec. 17, 2007.  

The complaints do not specify an amount of damages that plaintiffs seek.

The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Victor Marrero.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, PA
         Phone: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com  

Representing the defendants is:
       
         Judd Burstein, Esq.
         Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P.
         1790 Broadway
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 974-2400
         Fax: 212-974-2944
         E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com


BORDERS GROUP: Settles Calif. Labor Law Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported labor-related class action filed against Borders Group,
Inc. in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco are
working to settle the matter, according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 6, 2007.

Two former employees filed the suit, both individually and on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all current and former employees who work or
worked as inventory managers or sales managers in company stores in the state
of California at any time from Sept. 30, 2001 through the trial date.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual plaintiffs and
the purported class members were improperly classified as exempt employees and
that the company violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code by failing to:  

      -- pay required overtime;  

      -- provide meal periods, rest periods, and accurate  
         itemized wage statements;  

      -- keep accurate records of employees' hours of work; and  

      -- pay all compensation owed at the time of termination of  
         employment to certain members of the purported class.  

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties, injunctive relief,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief, as the court deems
proper.  

The parties have reached a tentative settlement, subject to the execution of a
definitive agreement and court approval, pursuant to which the Company will
pay $3.5 million to settle the matter.

Borders Group, Inc., -- http://www.bordersgroupinc.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, operates book, music and movie superstores, and mall-based
bookstores.  


BUILDING INDUSTRY: Accused of Diverting $38M from Rebate Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Building Industry Association of Washington is facing a class action filed
Sept. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
accusing it of diverting more than $38 million from a workers’ comp rebate
program, the CourtHouse New Service reports.

The BIA was supposed to hold in trust the fund that the state Department of
Labor and Industries paid it for its members as refunds on workers’ comp
premiums.  But it allegedly “skimmed 20 percent off the top” and “covertly
diverted a large portion of it to political campaigns without members’
knowledge or consent.

The rightful owners of these trust funds were never informed of this fact or
provided with their constitutional right to refuse to fund such political
support,” lead plaintiff Re-Sources for Sustainable Communities claims.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all employers who have participated
in BIAW's ROII program and whose rebates have been reduced due to withholding
by BIAW and/or its affiliates."

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the extent of fiduciary duties taken on by BIAW
         when it received the ROII Beneficiaries rebates from
         DLI;

     (b) whether the trustees had discretion to divert trust \
         assets for non-trust related purposes;

     (c) whether the BIAW breached its fiduciary duties owed to
         ROII Beneficiaries when it withheld and/or transferred
         20% of the rebates, knowing that these amounts were in
         excess of foreseeable trust-related expenses and
         intending that such amounts would be used for purposes
         unrelated to the trust;

     (d) whether the BIAW breached its fiduciary duties by
         failing to prudently invest trust fund assets for the
         sole benefit of the ROII Beneficiaries;

     (e) whether the court should order an accounting and
         require restoration of the trust; and

     (f) whether the court should replace the trustee for
         breaching the fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs pray that this case be certified and maintained as a class action
and for judgment against defendants s follows:

     -- for an order declaring defendants subject to express or
        constructive trust and owing fiduciary duties to the
        class;

     -- for an order declaring defendants to be in violation of
        their fiduciary duties to the class;

     -- for an order requiring accounting of trust funds,
        wherever the lie;

     -- for imposition of a constructive trust upon the Masters
        Builders of King and Snohomish Counties and all
        recipients of trust funds who were not bona fide
        purchasers, requiring such recipients to account for and
        return such funds;

     -- for an order requiring BIAW and all recipients of trust
        assets to return trust funds to the plan/trust;

     -- for an order providing such injunctive and declaratory
        relief as is necessary to protect the federal and state
        constitutional rights of the class;

     -- for judgment against the BIAW of treble and/or punitive
        damages, and statutory minimum penalties, and recovery
        of costs and attorneys' fees, as provided for under RCW
        Section 19.86 et seq.;

     -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of all
        costs for the prosecution of this action, based upon
        benefit achieved for the common fund; and

     -- for such other and further relief as this court deems
        just and appropriate.

The suit is "RE Sources for Sustainable Communities et al. v. Building
Industry Association of Washington et al., Case No. C07-1519," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Smith
          Bridget Baker-White
          Brian Knutsen
          Knoll Lowney
          2317 E. John St.
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Phone: (206) 860-2883

          Michael Whithey
          Law Offices of Michael Whithey
          Two Union Square
          601 Union Street, Suite 4200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 405-1800

          - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 776-5902


CANADA HOUSING: Condo Owners’ Suit Denied Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The B.C. Supreme Court refused to certify a class action filed against the
Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp. (CMHC) to recover damages for leaky condo
owners, The Province reports.

Surrey city councilor Linda Hepner and her husband Alan McMillan filed the
suit in 2005.  The complaint alleges CMHC owed a common-law duty to the
plaintiffs to warn homeowners their buildings would leak.

The suit was filed on behalf of anyone who paid to repair such buildings that
were built between 1982 and Dec. 1, 2005.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer John Singleton said internal documents show the CMHC knew
of the possible danger of the condos’ design.  CMHC denied every allegation in
the original statement of claim and Madame Justice Lynn Smith of the B.C.
Supreme Court agreed, ruling the plaintiffs didn't prove cause of action, the
report said.

Justice Smith wrote that CMHC had no regulatory responsibility for housing
construction in B.C. and had no duty of care to individual homeowners. She
referred in her judgment to a similar failed class action brought by Victoria
condo owner Mary Kimpton against the CMHC and the provincial and federal
governments in 2002.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) --
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp-- is Canada’s national housing agency.
Established as a government-owned corporation in 1946 to address Canada’s
post-war housing shortage, the agency has grown into a major national
institution. CMHC is Canada’s premier provider of mortgage loan insurance,
mortgage-backed securities, housing policy and programs, and housing research.


CHAMPPS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Col. Suit Over F&H Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Champps Entertainment, Inc. faces a purported class action in the District
Court of Douglas County, Colorado over its merger agreement with F&H
Acquisition Corp., according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 1, 2007.

On July 3, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
F&H Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, and Last Call Acquisition
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a newly-formed, wholly-owned subsidiary of
F&H (Merger Sub), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation.

On July 13, 2007, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed
against the company, its directors, and F&H Acquisition Corp. in the District
Court of Douglas County, Colorado.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants
breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted in the breach of those
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by
F&H Acquisition Corp. by failing to maximize stockholder value and by failing
to disclose certain material information relating to the sale process leading
up to the Merger.

Among other things, the complaint seeks to enjoin completion of the Merger.

Champps Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.champps.com/-- is a restaurant
company competing in the upscale casual dining market.  


CONCORD CAMERA: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers reached a settlement for a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against them in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida

In September 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers by individuals purporting to be holders of the
Company's Common Stock.

In August 2005, plaintiffs who purport to be shareholders of the company
amended their complaint to add a former officer of the company as a defendant.  

The lead plaintiff in the amended complaint seeks to act as a representative
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
from Aug. 14, 2003 to Aug. 31, 2004, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged
thereby.

On March 23, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons who purchased the Common
Stock between Aug. 14, 2003 and Aug. 31, 2004, inclusive, and who were
allegedly damaged thereby.

The allegations in the Amended Complaint are centered around claims that the
Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it filed with the SEC and in
press releases it made to the public during the Class Period regarding its
operations and financial results:

       -- the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
          otherwise impaired inventory;

       -- the departure from the Company of the aforementioned
          former officer defendant until several months after
          his departure; and

       -- that Eastman Kodak Co. had notified the Company that
          it would stop purchasing cameras from the Company
          under its two design and manufacturing services (DMS)
          contracts with the Company due to the Company's
          alleged infringement of Kodak's patents.

The Amended Complaint also alleged that the Company improperly recognized
revenue contrary to generally accepted accounting principles due to an alleged
inability to reasonably estimate digital camera returns.  It claimed that such
failures artificially inflated the price of the Common Stock.  

The Amended Complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the court.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs on the
settlement of this lawsuit, according to the company's Sept. 27, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.  The settlement is subject to the negotiation and
execution of a mutually agreeable settlement agreement and approval by the
class shareholders and the court.

The suit is “Mazur, et al. v. Lampert, et al., Case No. 0:04-cv-61159-JAL”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Joan A. Lenard with referral to Judge Edwin G. Torres.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
         Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
         Phone: 215-875-3071
         Fax: 215-875-4604

              - and -

         Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
         Vianale & Vianale
         2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 561-392-4750
         Fax: 561-392-4775
         E-mail: jvianale@vianalelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Hilarie Bass, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig
         1221 Brickell Avenue
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-579-0745
         Fax: 305-579-0717
         E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com

              - and -

         Richard Eugene Brodsky, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         Wachovia Financial Ctr., 200 S Biscayne Blvd., 40th Fl.
         Miami, FL 33131-2398
         Phone: 305-577-7000
         Fax: 305-577-7001
         E-mail: rbrodsky@ssd.com


COPART INC: Summary Judgment Motion in Ga. Consumer Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court for the County of Chatham, Georgia denied a motion for summary
judgment in a class action filed against Copart, Inc. over allegations the
company charges unreasonable amounts for storage liens.

On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking relief, including
class certification, damages, fees, costs and expenses.  

The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Jan. 31, 2007, and was
denied, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007.

Copart, Inc. -- http://www.copart.com/-- is a provider of salvage vehicle
sales services in the U.S.  It also provides vehicle suppliers, primarily
insurance companies with a range of services to process and sell salvage
vehicles over the Internet through its virtual bidding second-generation (VB2)
Internet auction technology.   


COPART INC: Parties Settle Calif. Litigation Over Storage Liens
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a purported class action filed against Copart
Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento.  

The suit -- filed on Aug. 7, 2006 by Kimberly and Jason Green -- makes
allegations pursuant to a California consumer protection statute similar to a
class action for unreasonable amounts claimed for storage liens by Copart, and
related claims.  

The suit seeks class certification, and payment for damages, fees, costs and
expenses.  Copart filed an answer on Sept. 1, 2006 denying the claim.   

On July 2, 2007, the parties entered into a settlement agreement terminating
the lawsuit, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007.

Copart, Inc. -- http://www.copart.com/-- is a provider of salvage vehicle
sales services in the U.S.  It also provides vehicle suppliers, primarily
insurance companies with a range of services to process and sell salvage
vehicles over the Internet through its virtual bidding second-generation (VB2)
Internet auction technology.   


COPART INC: Seeks Dismissal of FCS Antitrust Litigation in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported antitrust class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana.

The suit was brought on July 28, 2006 by Foreign Car Sales and Service, LLC,
(FCS) alleging antitrust violations and unfair trade practices.

Relief sought originally included class certification based on unfair trade
practices and Sherman Act violations, damages, fees, costs and expenses.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the Magistrate required FCS to amend its complaint.  A First
Amended Complaint was rejected, and a Second Amended Complaint was submitted
Feb. 16, 2007, in which FCS abandoned its unfair trade practices claims, and
now relies simply on breach of contract claims.

FCS continues to seek certification of a class based upon violations of the
Sherman Act.  Plaintiff is in pro se and is demanding a total award of 51% of
the company's issued stock, as well as approximately $97,000 in damages
arising from damages to vehicles.

The company filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim, according to the
company's Oct. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007.

The suit is "F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00535-FJP-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola with referral to Judge Stephen C.
Riedlinger.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kimuel Wayne Lee, Esq.
          16137 Berryhill Drive
          Baton Rouge, LA 70817
          Phone: 225-751-3775

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles A. Schutte, Jr., Esq.
          Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love
          320 Somerulos Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Phone:  225-387-6966
          Fax: 225-387-8230
          E-mail: cschutte@gmstl.com


H&R BLOCK: Faces New Lawsuit Over Peace of Mind Program
-------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc., still faces purported
class actions in Illinois and Texas in relation to the its Peace of Mind (POM)
Program, according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July
31, 2007.

                      Illinois Litigation

One of the cases is the purported class action, "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v.
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004," which was
filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois.

The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002 and granted class-action status on Aug.
27, 2003.  Plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the POM
Program under which the applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes
liability for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes consisting of all
persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block Premium office and
persons who reside in Alabama are excluded from the plaintiff class.  

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any entity with names
that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are otherwise affiliated or associated
with H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.  

The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to certify class
certification issues for interlocutory appeal.  

Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set.

                       Texas Litigation

There is one other putative class action pending against the company in Texas
that involves the POM guarantee.

This case involves the same plaintiffs’ attorneys that are involved in the
Marshall litigation, and contains similar allegations. No class has been
certified in this case.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com-- is a financial services
company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting
and business consulting services and products.  


H&R BLOCK: Seeks Review of Order Reinstating Pa. RAL Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. is asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of an appellate
court’s decision reversing a decertification of the suit, “Sandra J. Basile,
et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al, April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246.”

The Basile matter was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial
District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23,
1993.

The case is in connection with the company's refund anticipation loan (RAL)
programs.  In general plaintiffs in similar cases have alleged, among other
things:

     (1) that disclosures in the RAL applications were  
         inadequate, misleading and untimely;  

     (2) that the RAL interest rates were usurious and  
         unconscionable;  

     (3) that the Company did not disclose that it would receive  
         part of the finance charges paid by the customer for  
         such loans;  

     (4) that Company breached state laws on credit service  
         organizations;  

     (5) that the Company committed a breach of contract, unjust
         enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and  
         violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt  
         Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices  
         Act; and  

     (6) that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty  
         to its customers in connection with the RAL program.  

The court decertified the class on December 31, 2003.  The Pennsylvania
appellate court subsequently reversed the trial court’s decertification decision.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the appellate
court’s reversal of the trial court’s decision to decertify the class.  

On June 4, 2007, the appellate court affirmed its earlier decision.  The
Company is currently seeking review of the appellate court’s decision by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com-- is a financial services
company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting
and business consulting services and products.  

    
H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. continues to face a consolidated securities fraud class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

On March 17, 2006, the first of three putative class actions alleging
violations of certain securities laws are were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The suits alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading
financial statements, failure to prepare financial statements in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and concealment of the potential
for lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's
operations.  They seek unspecified damages and equitable relief.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri ordered all of the cases consolidated into a single action, "In re
H&R Block Securities Litigation."

On April 6, 2007, an amended complaint was filed in the matter, which alleges,
among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements,
failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits stemming
from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the Company’s operations.  It seeks
unspecified damages and equitable relief.

The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles F. Speer, Esq.
          Speer Law Firm
          104 West 9th Street, Suite 305
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 472-3560
          Fax: (816) 421-2150
          E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Sameer Advani, Esq.
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 7thAvenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Phone: (212) 728-8000
          Fax: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: sadvani@willkie.com

               - and -

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 320-4858
          Fax: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: jbirn@wsgr.com


HONEYWELL INT’L: Recalls Fireplace Gas Valves for Design Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., of Morristown, New Jersey, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,000 gas
valves used in decorative fireplaces and stoves.

The company said the activation knob on the valve can be left in a position
between OFF and PILOT, which can cause the pilot gas to leak and accumulate
prior to burner ignition. This can pose the risk of thermal burns to consumers
when they light the pilot of the fireplace or stove.

Honeywell has received one report of gas accumulating and combusting when the
consumer lit the fireplace, resulting in a minor injury when the hair in the
back of the consumer’s hand was singed.

This recall involves gas valves used in liquid-propane-fueled decorative
fireplaces and Franklin-type stoves. These stoves and fireplaces have direct
pressure relief vents via a spring-loaded door. Fireplaces and stoves with a
side or rear vent are not included in this recall. The recalled valves were
installed in these fireplaces and stoves.

Pictures of recalled gas valves:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08003a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08003b.jpg

These recalled gas valves were manufactured in Mexico and are being sold at
Honeywell sold the gas valves exclusively to original equipment manufacturers
for use in fireplaces and stoves from April 2004 through August 2007. Those
manufacturers sold fireplaces and stoves at retailers nationwide.

Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately and contact
Honeywell for information on how to receive a free inspection and replacement
valve.

For additional information, contact Honeywell at (800) 939-4836 between 9 a.m.
and 5p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s web site:
http://www.nvp-hearth.honeywell.com


ISOLAGEN INC: Penn. Court Revives Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has
denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Isolagen, Inc.

On Aug. 18, 2005, Elliot Liff brought an action, "Elliot Liff v.   Isolagen,
Inc. et al., C.A. No. H-05-2887," in the U.S. District   
Court for the Southern District of Texas.   

In this action, the plaintiff purports to bring a federal securities fraud
class action on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the
company between March 3, 2004 and Aug. 1, 2005, including purchasers of
Isolagen stock issued in connection with and traceable to the company's June
2004 common stock offering.   
  
The action asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 by making certain false statements and omissions to the
investing public regarding the company's business operations, management, and
intrinsic value of Isolagen's publicly traded securities.  

It also alleges liability against the individual defendants under Section 20
(a) of the Exchange Act.  
  
Subsequent cases filed against the company are:  
   
     -- "Michael Cummisky v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 05-  
        cv-03105," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern   
        District of Texas filed on Sept. 6, 2005;  
  
     -- "Ronald A. Gargiulo v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.   
        05-cv-4983," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern   
        District of Pennsylvania filed on Sept. 16, 2005; and  
  
     -- "Gregory J. Newman v. Frank M. DeLape, et al., C.A. No.   
        05-cv-5090," in the U.S, District Court for the Eastern   
        District of Pennsylvania filed on Sept. 23, 2005.  
  
These actions make allegations against the defendants   substantially similar
to those made in the Liff action.   
Together, the Liff, Cummiskey, Gargiulo and Newman actions comprise the
"Federal Securities Actions."  
  
The Liff and Cummiskey actions were consolidated on Oct. 7,   
2005.  The Gargiolo and Newman actions were consolidated on Nov. 29, 2005.    
  
On Nov. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion with the Judicial   
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the Federal   
Securities Actions plus a derivative action to the U.S. District   
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.    
  
The Liff and Cummiskey actions were stayed on Nov. 23, 2005 pending resolution
of the MDL Motion.  The Gargiulo and Newman actions were stayed on Dec. 7,
2005 pending resolution of the MDL Motion.   
  
The MDL Motion was heard on Jan. 7, 2006 and a ruling was issued on Feb. 23,
2006 transferring the actions pending in the Southern District of Texas to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
  
On April 4, 2006, the court appointed as lead plaintiffs:  
  
      -- Silverback Asset Management, LLC,   
      -- Silverback Master, Ltd.,   
      -- Silverback Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd.,   
      -- Context Capital Management, LLC   
      -- Michael F. McNulty.   

It also appointed as lead counsel in the Federal Securities Actions, the law
firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Kirby McInerney & Squire
LLP.

On July 14, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
in the federal securities litigation on behalf of a putative class of persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Isolagen common stock or
convertible debt securities between March 3, 2004 and Aug. 9, 2005.  

The complaint purports to assert claims for securities fraud in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Isolagen and certain of its former officers and directors.   

It also purports to assert claims for violations of Section 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in connection with the registration and sale of
certain shares of Isolagen common stock and certain convertible debt securities.  

The complaint also purports to assert claims against the following, as
underwriters in connection with an April 2004 public offering of Isolagen
common stock and a 2005 sale of convertible notes:  

      -- CIBC World Markets Corp.,  
      -- Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.,  
      -- Canaccord Adams, Inc., and  
      -- UBS Securities, LLC.  

On Nov. 1, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  

On Oct. 3, the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP and
Kirby McInerney, LLP announced the dismissal of the suit.

In denying defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court specifically rejected
arguments raised by the underwriters for Isolagen's June 2004 and January 2005
secondary stock offering and Isolagen's February 2005 registration of
convertible notes that none of the lead plaintiffs had purchased Isolagen
shares or convertible notes in those offerings, and therefore lead plaintiffs
could not pursue claims that arose from misleading statements in the offering
documents.

The suit is "Isolagen, Inc., Securities & Derivative Litigation,  
Case No. 2:06-md-01741-RB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter.  
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:  
  
         Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
         Crowley Douglas, et al.
         1301 McKinney, Suite 3500
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-651-1771

              - and -
  
         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-594-5300
     
Representing the company are:  
  
         Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
         Skadden Arps, et al.
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 6800
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-655-5160

              - and -
  
         Robert W. Hayes, Esq.
         Cozen O'Connor
         1900 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-665-2094
         Fax: 215-665-2013
         E-mail: rhayes@cozen.com


JACKSON HEWITT: Nov. 14 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 14, 2007 class certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled for
a lawsuit filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa Barbara Bank &
Trust (SBB&T), and Cendant Corp. in relation to Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs).

On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors brought the
purported class action in the Superior Court of California (San Francisco),
subsequently adding Cendant, in the Superior Court of California (Santa
Barbara, following a transfer from San Francisco).

The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the provision of RALs, as
to the lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, as to the
validity of Santa Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as to
whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to the provision is
unlawful or fraudulent.

It is also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses.

The company is a party in the action for allegedly collaborating, and aiding
and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.

The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third-party bank
defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed all other proceedings
pending appeal.  

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's preemption decision.
The California Supreme Court denied review.

SBB&T and third-party banks moved in the California Court of Appeal to stay
remittitur pending certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, and the purported
class action suit is proceeding in the trial court.

A class certification hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 14, 2007, according
to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax
returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices
operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The
Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services
and electronic filing.  


JACKSON HEWITT: Ohio RALs Lawsuit in Discovery, Pretrial Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit over Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) that was filed against Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service Inc. in Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Montgomery County) is
in its discovery and pretrial stage.

On Dec. 18, 2003, Canieva Hood filed the purported class action against the
Company.  She is seeking to certify a class in the action.

The allegations of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of
certain Ohio law.

Plaintiff seeks equitable and declaratory relief, damages, attorneys’ fees,
and expenses.  

The case is in its discovery and pretrial stage, according to the company's
Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax
returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices
operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The
Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services
and electronic filing.  

    
JACKSON HEWITT: Ill. Court Denies Motion to Junk “Wooley” Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion
that sought for the dismissal of a purported class action filed against
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. with regards to the company’s tax return
preparation services, according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2007.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought the purported class action complaint
against the company and certain unknown franchisees on behalf of customers who
obtained tax return preparation services that allegedly included false
deductions without support by the customer.  The practice allegedly resulted
in penalties being assessed by the IRS against the taxpayer.  The suit was
brought for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act, and the Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act.  It sought
compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act relate to representations regarding tax return preparation and Gold
Guarantee coverage and denial of Gold Guarantee claims.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which, on Sept. 5,
2007, was denied without prejudice to permit the plaintiff to further amend
the complaint.

The suit is “Wooley v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-02201,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
         Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
         20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 606-0500
         E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Christina M. Tchen, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         Fax: (312) 407-0411
         E-mail: ttchen@skadden.com


JENSEN'S OLD: Recalls Salmon Spread for Possible Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Jensen's Old Fashioned Smokehouse Inc. of Seattle, Wash. is recalling 936 tubs
of Jensen's Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread Lemon Dill and Onion which
was made by Carso's Pasta of Lynnwood, Wash. because it has the potential to
be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Jensen's Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread Lemon Dill and Onion was
distributed in retail stores in Western Washington.

Jensen's Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread Lemon Dill and Onion is coded
Sell By 10/20/07. This product was sold in 7 oz. plastic tubs.

No illnesses have been CONFIRMED to date. The recall was the result of testing
by the FDA which revealed that the finished product contained the bacteria.

Consumers who have purchased Jensen's Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread
Lemon Dill and Onion are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the Quality Assurance Department at
Jensen's Smokehouse at 206-364-5569.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Commences in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is commencing in a consolidated class action pending against Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit was brought on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased or
acquired MMC’s publicly-traded securities during the purported class period of
Oct. 14, 1999 to Oct. 13, 2004.

The pending complaint of the lead plaintiffs in this action names MMC, Marsh,
MMC’s former chief executive and one former Marsh officer as defendants.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that MMC artificially inflated its
share price by making misrepresentations and omissions relating to Marsh’s
market service agreements and business practices.

They allege that MMC also failed to disclose alleged anti-competitive and
illegal practices at Marsh, such as “bid-rigging” and soliciting fictitious
quotes.

The complaint includes factual allegations similar to those asserted in the
New York Attorney General Lawsuit, as well as factual allegations concerning
alleged misconduct at MMC’s subsidiaries, and alleged conflicts of interest
associated with MMC’s former private equity subsidiary, MMC Capital.

The complaint includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933, based on MMC’s allegedly false or incomplete disclosures.

MMC has responded to the complaint and discovery in this matter has commenced,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 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: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-8144,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

             Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP
             10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
             New York, NY, 10016
             Phone: 800.217.1522
             E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
             Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com/

                  - and -

             Grant & Eisenhofer PA
             1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
             Wilmington, DE, 19801
             Phone: 302.622.7000
             Fax: 302.622.7100
             E-mail: info@gelaw.com
             Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Underway in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in the class action, “In re Marsh ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 04-8157,” which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The proceeding, which consolidated 20 purported class actions, were filed
against Marsh & McClennan Companies Inc., (MMC) and other fiduciaries of the
Marsh & McLennan Stock Investment Plan, on behalf of Plan participants and
beneficiaries who were invested in MMC common stock at any time between July
1, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2005

The consolidated class action complaint names MMC and various current and
former employees, officers and directors as defendants and alleges, among
other things, that in view of the purportedly fraudulent bidding activity and
the receipt of contingent commissions pursuant to market service agreements,
the defendants knew or should have known that the investment of the Plan’s
assets in MMC stock was imprudent.

The consolidated complaint also asserts that certain defendants failed to
provide the Plan’s participants with complete and accurate information about
MMC stock, that certain defendants responsible for selecting, removing and
monitoring other fiduciaries did not comply with ERISA, and that MMC knowingly
participated in other defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The amount of Plan assets invested in MMC stock at Oct. 13, 2004 (immediately
prior to the announcement of the New York Attorney General Lawsuit) was
approximately $1.2 billion.

The consolidated complaint alleges that during the purported class period,
which extends from July 1, 2000 until Jan. 31, 2005, MMC’s stock price fell
from $52.22 to $32.50.

In December 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to
dismiss filed by MMC and the other defendants.

Discovery is underway in this matter, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Walsh v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-08157-SWK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          T. David Copley, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, Washington 98101-3052
          Phone: 206.224.7557
          Fax: 206.623.3384
          E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          Phone: 202.408.4600
          Fax: 202.408.4699
          E-mail: lgrant@cmht.com
          Web site: http://www.cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          William Joseph Sushon, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          Times Square Tower
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 728-5693
          Fax: (212) 326-2061
          E-Mail: wsushon@omm.com

               - and -

          Pamela Rogers Chepiga
          Allen & Overy LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 610-6300 and (212) 756-1125
          Fax: (212) 610-6399
          

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California

Between Oct. 5, 2006 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class actions were filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  

The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options.  

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common
stock during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified
damages, interest, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and
disbursements.  

Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four putative
class actions were consolidated as a single action entitled, “In re Marvell
Technology Group Ltd. Securities Litigation.”  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 16, 2007, according to the
company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 28, 2007.

The suit is “In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:06-cv-06286-RMW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge
Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         425 California Street, Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
         Phone: 415-433-3200 x241
         Fax: 415-433-6382
         E-mail: jbai@bermanesq.com

              - and -

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610/667-7706
         E-mail: sberman@sbtklaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Boris Feldman, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100
         E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and certain of its executive officers are
seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action filed
against them on behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company between
April 29, 2004 and July 5, 2006.

The lawsuits followed the Company’s July 5, 2006 announcement that it will
restate certain of its financial statements and allege that the Company and
certain members of its management engaged in violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the Company’s financial condition and results.

The class actions have been consolidated and are pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The Court has appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

Co-lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 30, 2006,
purporting to represent purchasers of common stock of the Company between July
23, 2001 and July 5, 2006.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 29, 2007,
according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is “Weissmann, et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-03226,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Hon. Ronald J. Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI, 53110
          Phone: 866-264-3995
          Fax: 414-482-8001
          E-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

          Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C.
          Phone: 1.866.389.0274
          E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com

          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower     
          Washington, DC, 20005
          Phone: 202.408.4600
          Fax: 202.408.4699
          E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

                - and -
   
           Federman & Sherwood
           120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
           Oklahoma City, OK, 73102
           Phone: 405-235-1560
           E-mail: wfederman@aol.com


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: No Hearing Date Set for Securities Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to set
a date for oral argument on an appeal against the dismissal of a securities
fraud complaint against Siebel Systems, Inc.

On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and purportedly on
behalf of a class of stockholders of Siebel Systems, a company acquired by
Oracle Corp. in January 2006, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Siebel and certain of its officers
relating to predicted adoption rates of Siebel v7.0 and certain customer
satisfaction surveys.

This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004, with the
Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being appointed to serve as
lead plaintiff.  The consolidated complaint also raised claims regarding
Siebel's business performance in 2002.  

In October 2004, Siebel filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on
January 28, 2005 with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on March 1, 2005.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and equitable and injunctive relief.  Siebel filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 27, 2005, and on Dec. 28, 2005, the Court dismissed
the case with prejudice.  

On Jan. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on Sept. 18, 2006,
plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants’ responsive brief
was filed on Dec. 15, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on Jan. 16, 2007.  The court has not yet
set a date for oral argument on this appeal.

Oracle Corp. reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 26, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Wollrab v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00983-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 850
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 230-0800
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

         Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         Symphony Towers, 750 B. Street, Suite 2770
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-239-4599
         E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com

         Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
         Fax: 212-779-3218
         E-mail: lifshitz@bernlieb.com

              - and -

         Dale MacDiarmid, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael D. Torpey, Esq.
         Erin L. Bansal, Esq.
         Penelope Graboys, Esq.
         Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
         The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
         Phone: 415-778-5700
         Fax: 415-778-5759
         E-mail: mtorpey@orrick.com
                 ebansal@orrick.com
                 pgraboysblair@orrick.com


TARGET STORES: Recalls Plush Boys Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 82,000 plush boys’ rattles.

The company said the recalled rattles can break open releasing the small beads
inside, posing a choking hazard to young children.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled rattles were sold in three styles: a white baseball with red
stitching, a brown football with white stitching, and an orange basketball
with black stitching. The tag sewn into the rattle contains: "Reg. No.
PA5706(CN), Distributed by Double Nice Co Ltd. 3f-2 No. 325, Wu Chuan Road,
Taichung, Taiwan, Made in China."

These recalled plush boys’ rattles have been manufactured in China and are
being sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide from March 2007 through May
2007 for about $1.

Pictures of recalled plush boys’ rattles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08002.jpg

Consumers should take the recalled rattles away from young children
immediately and return them to any Target store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7 a.m.
and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.target.com


TOLL BROTHERS: Amended Complaint Filed in Pa. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc. and two of its current officers continue to face a
purported securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

On April 17, 2007, a securities class action was filed against Toll Brothers,
Inc. and Robert I. and Bruce E. Toll in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The original plaintiff, Desmond Lowrey, has been replaced by two new lead
plaintiffs: The City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System and the Laborers
Pension Trust Funds for Northern California.

On Aug. 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of the purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and
Nov. 8, 2005 and the following individual defendants, who are directors and/or
officers of Toll Brothers, Inc., were added to the suit:

       -- Zvi Barzilay,
       -- Joel H. Rassman,
       -- Robert S. Blank,
       -- Paul E. Shapiro,
       -- Carl B. Marbach,
       -- Richard Braemer, and
       -- Joseph R. Sicree.

The amended complaint on behalf of the purported class alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit is “Lowrey v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01513-JG,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge James T. Giles.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
        Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP
        655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Phone: 619-231-1058
        E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com

Representing the defendant is:

        Steven B. Feirson
        Dechert, Price & Rhoads
        1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
        Phone: 215-994-2749
        E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com


TOLL BROTHERS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Withdrew RESPA Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Toll Brothers, Inc. voluntarily
withdrew their complaint.

On May 21, 2007, a consumer class action was filed against Toll Brothers,
Inc., its mortgage company subsidiary and its title company subsidiary in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Lead plaintiffs Robert J. Emrich, Jr. and Shelley D. Emrich bring this action
on behalf of all residential mortgage borrowers, nationally, who, within one
year of the filing of this Class Action Complaint,

     -- purchased a home from Toll Brothers, Inc.;

     -- received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that was
        originated, processed and/or brokered by TBI Mortgage
        Corporation; and/or

     -- bought title insurance for such home purchase that was
        provided, processed and/or brokered by Westminster
        Abstract Company,

wherein the borrowers were allegedly required by the literal
terms of their real estate purchase agreement with Toll Brothers to finance
their purchase through TBI Mortgage and obtain title insurance through
Westminster, or else forfeit various discounts off of the purchase price
and/or closing costs for their new home (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007).

TBI Mortgage and Westminster are subsidiaries of, or otherwise share a common
ownership with, Toll Brothers and for this reason, among others, their
relationship constitutes an "affiliated business arrangement" within the
meaning of Section 8(c) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12
U.S.C. Section 2607(c) (RESPA).

Affiliated business arrangements are exempt from RESPA's prohibition against
kickbacks and unearned fees only if, inter alia, there is no requirement that
the borrower use a particular settlement service provider.

By requiring home buyers to finance their purchase through TBI
Mortgage and to obtain title insurance through Westminster, under the direct
threat of having to otherwise pay more money for their new home, Defendants
have allegedly failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for exemption
as an affiliated business arrangement and, consequently, have violated RESPA's
prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees.

Additionally, Toll Brothers, as a seller of property, has violated Section 9
of RESPA by requiring the use of a particular title insurance company.

This action is brought as a Plaintiff Class Action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23, on behalf of all persons nationwide and within the territories of
the U.S. who are:

     (a) required to finance their home purchases through Toll
         Brothers' affiliate, TBI Mortgage, within the meaning
         and in violation of Section 8 of RESPA;

     (b) required to obtain title insurance through Toll
         Brothers' affiliate, Westminster, within the meaning
         and in violation of Sections 8 and 9 of RESPA;

     (c) if the relationship between and among Toll Brothers,
         TBI Mortgage, and Westminster constitute an "affiliated
         business arrangement" within the meaning of RESPA;

     (d) if Defendants' affiliated business arrangement failed
         to meet the prerequisites for exemption from liability
         under Section 8 of RESPA;

     (e) if Defendants engaged in an illegal referral scheme, in
         violation of Section 8(a) of RESPA;

     (f) if Defendants accepted an unearned fee in violation of
         Section 8(b) of RESPA;

     (g) if Defendants' failure to meet the requirements for
         exemption as an affiliated business arrangement
         automatically resulted in a violation of Section 8 of
         RESPA;

     (h) measure of damages appropriated; and

     (i) declaratory or injunctive relief appropriated.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant, as follows:

     -- for an Order certifying this action may be maintained as
        a class action, as defined, under Fed. R. Civ. P.
        23(a) and 23(b)(3);

     -- for an Order appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of
        the class;

     -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as class
        counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- for an Order directing that reasonable notice of the
        class action be provided to all members of the class at
        the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive
        motions have been resolved;

     -- for violating RESPA, an Order and Judgment finding that
        the Defendants are liable as a matter of law to each
        member of the class for treble damages;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by
        law or equity, including enjoining Defendants from
        continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law and
        statute;

     -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in
        an amount according to proof at trial;

     -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- for such other relief as the Court may deem just and
        proper.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and, thereafter, the
complaint was voluntarily withdrawn, without prejudice, according to the
company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

The suit is "Emrich et al. v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-02046-HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, under Judge Harvey Bartle, III.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Carlson Lynch Ltd.
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. BOX 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Phone: 724-656-1555
          Fax: 724-656-1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


TOPPS MEAT: Faces First Suit Over Recalled Contaminated Meat
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, and Janet, Jenner &
Suggs, LLC on Oct. 3 filed the first nationwide class action against:

          -- Topps Meat Company, LLC,
          -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
          -- Pathmark Stores, Inc.,
          -- Wakefern Foodcorp. d/b/a Shoprite and
          -- Rastelli Fine Foods, Ltd.

in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on
behalf of

    (1) all consumers who purchased and consumed ground beef
        products contaminated with E. coli O157:H7; and

    (2) all consumers who suffered personal injuries after
        consuming ground beef products contaminated with E. coli
        O157:H7.

"This Class Action was filed to protect the rights of all victims that have
been wronged by the carelessness of the manufacturer, suppliers and
distributors of the contaminated ground beef products. These defendant
corporations must be held accountable for not protecting basic food, health
and safety," said Tobias L. Millrood, partner with Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
Kessler, LLP, in Radnor, Pennsylvania.

On September 29, 2007, Topps Meat Company, LLC, announced that it was
expanding its September 25, 2007 recall to include a total of 21.7 million
pounds of frozen ground beef products distributed to retail grocery stores and
food service institutions, including Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Pathmark Stores,
Inc., Wakefern Foodcorp. d/b/a Shoprite and Rastelli Fine Foods, Ltd.,
throughout the United States (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 1, 2007).

The recall now includes all products produced by Topps with a "sell by date"
or "best if used by date" that falls between September 25, 2007 and September
25, 2008. All recalled products have the USDA establishment number of EST 9748
located on the back panel of the package and/or in the USDA legend. The
expansion came one day after the USDA suspended the grinding of raw products
at the Topps plant in Elizabeth, New Jersey after inspectors found inadequate
safety measures.

According to the CDC, 25 people in eight states may have fallen ill after
eating hamburgers possibly contaminated with E. coli bacteria. Three cases --
two in New York and one in Florida -- are confirmed as being linked to the
ground beef, with the other 22 cases possibly linked and under investigation.
Illnesses were reported in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Health Department has stated
that there are four suspected cases under investigation.

The expanded recall now includes frozen ground beef products sold under the
brand names Butcher's Best 100% all beef patties; Kohler Foods flat hamburger;
Mike's seasoned beef patties; Pathmark 100% all beef burger; Rastelli's Fine
Foods 100% premium beef hamburger; Roma - Topps 100% premium hamburger; Sam's
Choice Backyard Gourmet Beef Burgers; Sand Castle Fine Meat 100% premium beef
hamburger; Sand Castle Fine Meat Angus Chuck burger; Shop Rite 100% pure
ground beef hamburgers; Shop Rite 100% pure quarter pound ground beef
hamburgers; TOPPS 100% premium hamburger; TOPPS 100% pure ground beef
hamburgers; TOPPS sirloin steak burgers; and West Side 100% premium hamburger.

An investigation into a cluster of illnesses in the Northeast region carried
out by the New York State Department of Health in coordination with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention led to a positive product sample
collected by the New York Department of Health.

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

"Consumers should have an expectation that food products labeled 100% PURE
should be safe for human consumption and not be concerned that their food is
contaminated with a potentially lethal bacteria," said Robert K. Jenner,
partner with Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC in Baltimore, Maryland.

For more information, contact:

          Tobias L. Millrood, Esq.
          Hal J. Kleinman, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-348-6787 (toll free) or 1-610-822-0249
          E-mail: masstortinfo@sbtklaw.com

          - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Gerald D. Jowers, Jr., Esq.
          Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC
          Woodholme Center
          1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 320
          Baltimore, Maryland 21208
          Phone: 1-888-463-3529 (toll free) or 1-410-653-3200
          E-mail: rjenner@medlawlegalteam.com


VOYAGER LEARNING: Mich. Court Grants Motion to Junk ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted a motion
by Voyager Learning Co., formerly ProQuest Co., to dismiss a purported class
action filed against the company that alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On May 22, 2006, a former employee and participant in the Company’s 401(k)
Defined Contribution Plan filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan challenging the inclusion of Company Stock as an
investment option for participants to select.

The action purports to represent a class of all similarly-situated plan
participants and names the Company, as well as numerous officers and
directors, as defendants.

The Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit on Nov. 30, 2006, on the grounds that
the plaintiff has no standing to bring this action and that it fails to state
a legal claim.

On April 23, 2007, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss,
according to the company's Aug. 31, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

Voyager Learning Co. -- http://www.proquestcompany.com/-- formerly ProQuest
Company, is a publisher of information solutions for the education, automotive
and power equipment markets.


VOYAGER LEARNING: Seeks Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voyager Learning Co., formerly ProQuest Co., is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the company in Michigan.

Between February and April 2006, four putative securities class actions, now
consolidated and designated, “In re ProQuest Company Securities Litigation,”
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against the Company and certain of its former and then-current officers and
directors.

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, as well as the associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the
Company’s proposed restatement.

On May 2, 2006, the Court ordered the four cases consolidated and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel.  By stipulation of the parties,
the consolidated lawsuit was stayed pending restatement of the Company’s
financial statements.

Lead Plaintiffs subsequently asked the Court to lift the stay of proceedings
to enable them to file a Consolidated Complaint, which they did on July 17, 2006.

Defendants filed motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11 and to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 13 and 16, 2006,
respectively.

Rather than respond to these motions, Lead Plaintiffs moved to reinstate the
stay of proceedings, which was granted.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the Court again lifted the stay of proceedings and ordered
Lead Plaintiffs to either respond to the previously filed motions to dismiss
and for sanctions, or to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On Jan. 24, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Complaint,
which defendants moved to dismiss on March 15, 2007, according to the
company's Aug. 31, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The suit is “In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:06-cv-10619-AC-MKM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn with referral to Judge Mona K.
Majzoub.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stuart J. Berman, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-5108
          Phone: 610-667-7706

               - and -

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          Cafferty Faucher
          101 N. Main Street, Suite 450
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: 734-769-2144
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Faris, Esq.
          Latham & Watkins
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800
          Chicago, IL 60606-6401
          Phone: 312-876-7700
          Fax: 312-993-9767
          E-mail: michael.faris@lw.com

               - and -

          George B. Donnini, Esq.
          Butzel Long
          150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100
          Detroit, MI 48226-4430
          Phone: 313-225-7000
          Fax: 313-225-7080
          E-mail: donnini@butzel.com


ZALE CORP: Settles Securities Fraud, ERISA Lawsuits in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Zale Corp. reached settlements for two consolidated class actions pending
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
according to the company's Oct. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007.

On April 10, 2006, the company announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission had initiated a non-public investigation into various accounting
and other matters related to the company's business, including accounting for
Extended Service Agreements, leases and accrued payroll.   

Subpoenas issued in connection with the investigation requested materials
relating to these accounting matters as well as to executive compensation and
severance, earnings guidance, stock trading, and the timing of certain vendor
payments.  

The company would later be named as a defendant in two lawsuits arising, in
general, from matters that were the subject of the Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation that was terminated, as it announced on Sept. 24,
2006, with no enforcement action being recommended.  

The suits are:

       -- “In re Zale Corporation Securities Litigation No.
          3:06-CV-01470-K, filed Jan. 29, 2007, U.S. District
          Court for the Northern District of Texas;” and

       -- “Salvato v. Zale Corp., No. 3:06-CV-1124 (SAF),” filed
          March 5, 2007, U.S. District Court for the Northern
          District of Texas.

          The case was originally filed June 26, 2006 and
          consolidated with “Connell v. Zale Corp.,” originally
          filed Aug. 7, 2006, U.S. District Court for the
          Southern District of New York and transferred to the
          U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
          Texas.

These lawsuits are the product of the consolidation of six lawsuits that were
initially filed in New York and Texas. Various current and former officers and
directors also are defendants.  Both lawsuits are purported class actions.

In “In re Zale Corporation Securities Litigation,” the plaintiffs allege
various violations of securities laws based upon the company's public
disclosures.

In “Salvato,” the plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) based upon the investment by
the Zale Corporation Savings and Investment Plan in Company stock.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the parties in “In re Zale Corporation Securities
Litigation,” jointly notified the court that they have reached a settlement in
principle on the plaintiffs' claims.

On Sept. 24, 2007, counsel for the parties in Salvato notified the court that
they have reached a settlement in principle on the plaintiffs' claims, subject
to approval by their clients.

In each case, the proposed settlement involves payment to the plaintiffs of an
amount that is within the limits of the applicable insurance policy and that
will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

Both agreements in principle are subject to negotiation of formal settlement
documents and court approval.

Zale Corp. -- http://www.zalecorp.com-- is a specialty retailer of fine
jewelry in North America.  The Company also provides insurance and reinsurance
facilities for various types of insurance coverage, which typically are
marketed to private-label credit card customers.


ZALE CORP: Settles Cal. Employees Wage, Hour Suit for $3.8M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zale Corp. settled a purported class action in Sacramento County Superior
Court that was filed by certain current and former employees.

In June 2007, the company agreed to settle a California wage and hour dispute
that was filed against it as a purported class action.

The settlement totals $3.8 million and requires the company to make payments
on a claims-made basis, subject to a minimum payout.  The settlement is
subject to court approval.

Zale Corp. -- http://www.zalecorp.com-- is a specialty retailer of fine
jewelry in North America.  The Company also provides insurance and reinsurance
facilities for various types of insurance coverage, which typically are
marketed to private-label credit card customers.


* “Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta” Case Conference Set Today
--------------------------------------------------------------
The AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest presents:

            “Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta”

Friday, October 5, 2007, 9:00–11:00 a.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

On October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in “Stoneridge
v. Scientific-Atlanta,” a case that many are calling the most important
securities case in years.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a class action against
third-party vendors (in this case Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta) that
plaintiffs sought to hold liable for transactions misreported by one of their
customers, cable television company Charter Communications, thus rejecting the
plaintiffs’ theory of “scheme liability”—that is, holding secondary parties
liable for their alleged role in aiding and abetting securities fraud.

The theory of secondary liability and the case have been hotly debated, with
30  parties —- including the federal government, congressmen, and several
former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission commissioners —- filing “friend
of the court” briefs on both sides. The decision will have implications for
the future of securities litigation, including the pending multi-billion
dollar Enron securities litigation appeal before the Supreme Court.

At this AEI event, just days before the Supreme Court’s hearings, former SEC
Chairman Harvey Pitt, Louis M. Bograd of the Center for Constitutional
Litigation, Jonathan Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, Robert Gasaway of
Kirkland & Ellis, and AEI Legal Center director Theodore H. Frank will discuss
the possible legal and policy implications of this case.  Michael S. Greve,
the John G. Searle Scholar at AEI, will moderate.

8:45 a.m.  
Registration and Breakfast

9:00      Panelists:    
          Louis M. Bograd, Center for Constitutional Litigation
          Jonathan Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP
          Theodore H. Frank, AEI
          Robert Gasaway, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          Harvey Pitt, Kalorama Partners, LLC

          Moderator:   
          Michael S. Greve, AEI                    

11:00     Adjournment


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Spends JPY4.035B at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corp., during the year ended March 31, 2007, recorded about JPY4.035
billion (US$34,195,000) as expenses and payments for asbestos-related matters,
according to the Company’s annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 26, 2007.

Of this amount, JPY2.030 billion (US$17,203,000) were expenses related to the
payment for the relief payment system established in April 2006.

Until 1995, the Company’s plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, which is now a
Company office, had produced products containing asbestos. In April 2005, the
Company was advised that some residents who lived near the former plant
suffered from mesothelioma.

In June 2005, the Company announced its intention to act seriously and
faithfully concerning various issues of the health hazard of asbestos from the
viewpoint of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a company that had once
manufactured products containing asbestos for a long time.

In April 2006, the Company decided to establish the relief payment system in
place of the consolation payment system and make additional payment to the
residents to whom consolation payment were eligible to be paid or payable.

After the Company established its internal policies and procedures of relief
payment system, the Company has received claims for relief payments from 149
residents and paid or accrued relief payments to 140 of those residents after
carefully reviewing those claims as of March 31, 2007.

The cumulative number of current and former employees who are eligible for
compensation in accordance with the Company’s internal policies that are not
required by law is 94 as of the end of March 2005, 132 as of the end of March
2006, and 152 as of the end of March 2007.

In August 2006, the Company announced that the Company would donate a total of
JPY1.2 billion to Hyogo College of Medicine in 10 years and a total of JPY0.5
billion donation to Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular
Diseases in five years. The Company donated JPY400 million (US$3,390,000) as a
contribution for the year ended March 31, 2007.

As a result of the asbestos issue becoming an object of public concern, the
Japanese government newly established the Law for the Relief of Patients
Suffering from Asbestos-Related Diseases (New Asbestos Law) in March 2006.

This law was enacted for the purpose of promptly providing relief to people
suffering from asbestos-related diseases who are not eligible for relief by
compensation from the Insurance in accordance with the Workers’ Accident
Compensation Insurance Law. The relief aid payments are contributed by the
national government, municipal governments, and business entities.

The contribution, which includes a special contribution by the companies which
operated a business closely related to asbestos, to be made by business
entities shall commence from the year ending March 31, 2008.

During the year ended March 31, 2007, the Company accounted for JPY735 million
(US$6,229,000) of the special contribution as a lump sum expense, which is
imposed based on the New Asbestos Law for the next four years commencing the
year ending March 31, 2008.

Osaka, Japan-based Kubota Corp. manufactures farm equipment, and produces
pipes, principally ductile iron pipes, and related equipment for water supply
and other utilities. In addition, the Company manufactures and sells other
items; engines, construction machinery, industrial castings, industrial
machinery, environmental control plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Records 161 Pending Claims at Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc., as of Aug. 31, 2007, faces 161 pending asbestos cases filed
against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 27, 2007.

The Company, for the three months ended Feb. 28, 2007, recorded 161 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building
materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. Most of the cases have
been filed in Madison County, Ill., and San Francisco.

Since 1998, more than 200 of these asbestos suits have been resolved with the
majority being dismissed.

For the nine months ended Aug. 31, 2007, the Company noted 51 claims filed, 36
claims dismissed, and eight claims settled. The aggregate settlement costs
amounted to US$46,000 and the average settlement costs amounted to US$8,000.

For the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, the Company noted 62 claims filed, 55 claims
dismissed, and five claims settled.  The aggregate settlement costs amounted
to US$67,000 and the average settlement costs amounted to US$14,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first nine months
of fiscal 2007 were US$500,000. Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos
cases for fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2005 were US$500,000 for each period.

The Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of
pending claims or unasserted claims. Thus, no estimate of future liability has
been accrued for those contingencies.

Rancho Cordova, Calif.-based GenCorp Inc.’s main subsidiary, Aerojet-General,
manufactures missile propulsion technologies for defense and space systems.
Aerojet's defense-related products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing
propulsion systems for missiles and for interceptors used for missile defense
systems, as well as armament systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipbuilder’s Kin Gets GBP100T Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Frank Ede, a hull shipbuilder, has been awarded over GBP100,000
in compensation, after Mr. Ede died from mesothelioma, Legal & Medical reports.

Mr. Ede died in July 2005 at the age of 75. He was exposed to asbestos while
working as a burner, and then a plater, for the Drypool Group between 1943 and
1976.

Mr. Ede was never warned about the danger asbestos could pose to his health
and worked with it every day, even occasionally having “snowball fights” with
it on his lunch breaks.

Representing Mr. Ede’s family, Nicola Harrison said, “In the past, employers
failed to take the necessary safeguards to protect their workers from the
effects of asbestos dust, and now people like Frank and his family are paying
the price.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Govt. to Check 19,000 Housing Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Department of Housing and Works will conduct asbestos
inspections of 19,000 public housing dwellings that were built before 1990, WA
News reports.

The announcement followed a report by Western Australia’ auditor-general Colin
Murphy, in which the report criticized the failure of a number of State
Government agencies to establish a register of buildings that contain asbestos.

Housing and Works Minister Michelle Roberts said the State’s Asbestos Steering
Committee would check that all State Government agencies completed asbestos
registers and management plans for their buildings within one year.

The WA Police, the Fire and Emergency Service Association and the WA Planning
Commission were named in the report as having failed to establish an asbestos
register.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Conduct Sampling at California Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting soil and air sampling
work at a portion of the Atlas and Coalinga Asbestos Mines Superfund Sites in
Coalinga, Calif., during the weeks of Oct. 9, 2007 and Nov. 5, 2007, according
to an EPA press release dated Sept. 27, 2007.

As part of the Superfund process, the EPA conducted a five-year review in 2006
of the Coalinga Asbestos Mine site cleanup. The review noted that the cleanup
standard for asbestos in soil had changed, and recommended the EPA sample soil
and air to determine that the cleanup continues to protect human health and
the environment.

Keith Takata, the EPA Superfund Director for the Pacific Southwest region,
said, “We are sampling to ensure that the site cleanup the EPA did in the
early 1990s continues to protect the community. The information gathered will
determine if additional work is necessary.”

Starting Oct. 9, 2007, the EPA will collect soil samples in Coalinga along
West Elm Avenue south of Pacific Street and north and south of the underground
waste management unit, which was built during the original cleanup to store
asbestos contaminated material. The agency will also take samples in four
separate areas of city property for background comparison.

In November 2007, some areas where soil samples were collected will be raked
to produce small, localized dust clouds. Technicians will wear personal air
samplers to measure any asbestos released into the breathing zone from the
disturbed soil. Soil and air sampling should not affect anyone at surrounding
homes or businesses.

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

In the 1990s, the EPA cleaned up a 107-acre parcel adjacent to West Elm Avenue
south of Highway 33 in Coalinga where asbestos from the Atlas and Coalinga
asbestos mines was processed and shipped.

About 20,000 cubic yards of asbestos, chromium, and nickel-contaminated soil
and building debris was excavated from the surface of the site and
consolidated into an on-site underground waste management unit. The waste
management unit is fenced and posted, and is maintained by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control.

The EPA will report the sampling results in 2008. The agency will evaluate the
results and inform the community of any future activities that may be
necessary at the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chem. Unit Settles Coverage Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
SB Decking Inc., an inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corp., and
Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, on Sept. 25, 2007, entered into an
asbestos-related claim Handling and Funding Agreement, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Sept. 29, 2007.

The parties have a dispute on certain coverage issues over policies issued by
Wausau as applied to numerous asbestos bodily injury claims brought against
the Company's subsidiary.

They have entered into an agreement in which, effective as of July 1, 2007,
Wausau will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on
behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for
a minimum of five years.

Either party can terminate the Agreement at any time after its third
anniversary by giving at least two years' written notice. The Agreement
remains in effect unless and until such notice is given.

The Agreement is without prejudice as to the subsidiary's ability to pursue,
upon termination of the Agreement, a claim against Wausau for coverage for
asbestos bodily injury claims brought after the termination of the Agreement.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indiana Labor Dept. Probes Exposure Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Department of Labor is probing allegations that workers were
exposed to asbestos during the renovation of the Central High School in
Muncie, Ind., in 2007, The Star Press reports.

DOL spokesman Sean Keefer said the DOL is conducting a "health-related
investigation centered around work practices and procedures of contractors at
Central High School."

According to a DOL notice of alleged safety or health hazards, an asbestos
complaint was filed with the agency on May 14, 2007.

The notice complains that:

-- Employees of contractors were not provided results of air sampling for
asbestos.

-- Employees of contractors were not allowed to observe air monitoring for
asbestos.

-- Air sample results provided by the school's representative were falsified.
For example, results were provided for April 16, 2007 and April 17, 2007, but
no samples were collected on either of those days.

Construction has been halted in at least one of four south science rooms.
Spare rooms are being used until construction on those rooms is finished.

Central Principal Dick Daniel said, “It's a safety issue. They (workers) are
saying there is one area where more (asbestos) abatement needs to happen
before they continue working.”

On June 18, 2007, DOL sent Dan Justice, the school system's supervisor of
custodial/maintenance services, a request for documents, including exposure
monitoring results for asbestos, training records for asbestos and the AHERA
map. AHERA is the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act.

Bill Reiter, director of facilities and operations for the school system, said
that the labor department is not accusing the school system of any violations.
He said that testing showed no asbestos in the air at Central High School.

That testing was done by a different firm than the one that did the air
monitoring during construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement of Norwalk Station to Cost $658T
----------------------------------------------------------------
A report says that the asbestos abatement estimate for Norwalk, Conn.’s former
police station in Mathews Park amounted to US$658,000, The Advocate reports.

Released last August 2007, the report came as city officials called for the
building to be razed and the site turned into park land and open space.

Mayor Richard Moccia said private parties have been interested in developing
that portion of the park, though he was committed to "maintaining the
integrity of the park and not turning into a commercial development."

Alan Lo, the city's buildings and facilities manager, said he was not
surprised by the report's findings, which he said are not unusual for the
building's age and type. The old station was built in 1960. The new police
headquarters in South Norwalk opened in 2005.

The most significant amount of asbestos at the old station was found in
waterproofing material used on interior brick walls and ceiling plaster, Mr.
Lo said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling v. Hamilton Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, upheld the Feb. 16, 2005 order of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the
ruling was against Hamilton Materials Inc., a manufacturer of asbestos-based
construction products, in an action filed against chemical companies selling
asbestos.

The suit is styled Hamilton Materials Inc.,
Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. Dow Chemical Corp.; KCAC Inc.,
Harcros Chemicals Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Harrisons
and Crosfield (Pacific Inc.); Benson Chemical Corp.; John L. Myers,
individually, Defendants-Appellees, Union Carbide Corp.,
Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.

Judges Jerome Farris, Ronald M. Gould, and Kevin Thomas Duffy entered decision
of Case No. 05-55976 on July 23, 2007.

Hamilton Materials sued chemical companies selling asbestos, alleging that the
companies misrepresented health hazards associated with an allegedly safer
type of asbestos.

The District Court converted companies' motions to dismiss to motions for
summary judgment and granted motions in part and denied in part.

Hamilton Materials appealed the District Court's order, finding that Hamilton
knew, or should have known, about its potential claims against Appellees long
before the applicable statutes of limitations ran.

The district court properly decided this issue under a summary judgment
motion. The decision of the district court was affirmed in its entirety.

The Appeals Court held that Hamilton Materials was on inquiry notice of its
fraud claims, triggering running of limitations period.

Law Offices of Todd C. Ringstad, Todd C. Ringstad, represented Hamilton
Materials Inc.

Lanier Law Firm, P.C., W. Mark Lanier, Kevin P. Parker, Eugene R. Egdorf,
represented Hamilton Materials Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Remand Motion in Action v. GE, Viad Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut, denied a motion to remand to state
court, filed by Edward Machnik and his wife Elizabeth, in an asbestos case
brought against General Electric Co., Viad Corp., and several other defendants.

U.S. District Judge Christopher F. Droney entered decision of Civil Action No.
3:07cv357 (CFD) on Sept. 17, 2007.

The Machniks bought this action in Connecticut Superior Court on Feb. 7, 2007.

Mr. Machnik was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in December 2006. He
served as a machinist's mate in the U.S. Navy from 1949 to 1952, where he
worked in the engine room and boiler room of the U.S.S.Vogelgesang.

Mr. Machnik’s complaint alleged that he developed mesothelioma because he was
exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the defendants during
his Navy service.

Mr. Machnik claimed that the defendants violated their duty under Connecticut
law to warn him of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Viad filed a notice of removal, which GE joined, on March 7, 2007.

Mr. Machnik sought to remand the case back to state court.

The Court found that GE met its burden to justify federal officer removal of
this suit from the Connecticut Superior was denied, and the case will remain
in federal court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Michigan Worker Sues 92 Firms in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Stebner of Michigan, on Sept. 27, 2007, sued 92 defendant corporations
in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Stebner alleges he was exposed to asbestos while working from 1943 to 1987
as a fireman and water tender, electrician, maintenance man, utility man, and
engineer at various locations in Michigan.

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

According to the complaint, Mr. Stebner was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
Sept. 7, 2007.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Stebner claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to
preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has been
prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.

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

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

Mr. Stebner seeks at least US$550,000 in damages for negligence, willful and
wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other
allegations.

Tim Thompson of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Stebner.

Case No. 07 L 849 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Gov’t. Proceeds with Town’s Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Australia Government continues with its efforts to close the town
of Wittenoom, which is contaminated with asbestos, Media Newswire reports.

Jon Ford, Regional Development Minister, said that since the Western
Australian Government had announced its intentions to proceed to close the
town in 2006, many essential services to the area including electricity and
municipal services have been withdrawn, and water was now restricted to five
specific permanent residences.

Mr. Ford said, “Recent research undertaken by GHD and Parsons Brinckerhoff
into asbestos contamination in Wittenoom, which was independently reviewed by
the Department of Health, has clearly identified unacceptable health risks
from exposure to asbestos, and residents and tourists are urged to avoid the
area.”

The Minister said the Department of Local Government and Regional Development
had been actively encouraging Wittenoom landowners to voluntarily sell their
property to the State Government.

Mr. Ford said, “Asbestos contamination in Wittenoom remains at high levels and
the Carpenter Government is strongly committed to progressing initiatives
which limit resident and tourist activity in the town.”

Landowners have until Dec. 31, 2007 to accept the Government’s Shared Equity
offer.

Further information on Wittenoom, including the Government’s policy, health
risks and alternate destinations is available at http://www.wa.gov.au/wittenoom


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Court Issues GBP19,600 Fine to Seacroft
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yarmouth magistrates issued to the Seacroft Holiday Park a total
asbestos-related penalty of GBP19,610, which includes GBP860 costs, EDP24 reports.

Seacroft Holiday Park is located in Beach Road, Hemsby, in the English county
of Norfolk.

The Stalham, U.K.-based firm, represented by Keith Richardson and health and
safety manager John Foreman, admitted 11 charges under the Health and Safety
at Work Act, including the main two of failing to ensure the health, safety
and welfare of employees and the same for non-employees.

A jagged sheet of asbestos was left in the lobby of the Park potentially
exposing guests and staff to asbestos. The discovery of the hazard was made by
an environmental health officer who started out on a routine inspection of the
Park.

The health officer became alarmed when he saw the badly broken insulation
board and asbestos debris littering the floor of a boiler room from where it
had apparently been taken.

Isha Prince, prosecuting for Yarmouth Borough Council, told the bench, “The
lobby where the asbestos sheet was propped up is on the direct route guests
would take from the chalets.”

Ms. Prince said as the inspector continued his tour on October 11, 2006, he
also found severely damaged asbestos boarding in the swimming pool plant
storage room and asbestos that had not been covered to stop dust escaping in
the ceiling of the laundry.

Ms. Prince said the park had already received a caution in 2004 for not
dealing with asbestos properly and that was why the council was prosecuting.

Ms. Prince said asbestos was responsible for 3,500 deaths a year in the U.K.
and it was the biggest work-related cause of death, some of the asbestos
discovered at Seacroft was of the most dangerous blue and brown type.

Robert Barley, defending, said it was inevitable there would be asbestos on
the premises as some of the chalets dated back to the 1930s.

Mr. Barley said following the incident in 2004 when the park was cautioned for
stripping tiles and exposing asbestos it had made considerable strides in
tackling the issue, commissioning a detailed asbestos survey report from East
Coast Insulations and investing in training for senior staff.

Mr. Barley said the lobby was out of bounds to the public at the time the
board was placed there because of building work in the bar.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Gov’t. Orders Cleanup of Balfour Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Massachusetts has ordered the owners of the former Balfour
factory building on East Street in North Attleboro, Mass., to hire a licensed
asbestos removal firm to decontaminate the site, The Sun Chronicle reports.

The town assessor's Web site lists the owners as North Attleboro Commerce
Center LLC.

Signs went up around the former factory building on Sept. 26, 2007, warning
people to stay away because of asbestos hazards. The warning also states
violations were found at the site.

"Not properly licensed as an asbestos contractor," the notice states as the
violation. The owners also must submit a cleanup plan to the state for approval.

State officials said they were limited in what they could say because the
matter is still under investigation.

Linnea Walsh, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Labor, said, “We're
looking into all of the issues. All of this is being investigated as quickly
as possible.”

The department's Division of Occupational Safety conducted an inspection of
the site, along with the Department of Environmental Protection.

Ms. Walsh said a cease-and-desist order has been issued for all work at the site.

DEP spokeswoman Theresa Barao said materials taken from the site are being tested.

Town Health Agent Bob Davis said he was called to the site while the
inspections were under way. He said asbestos had apparently crumbled onto the
floor from pipes in the building.

In 2005, the town gave approval to a plan by developers Fred Bottomley and
Allen Riley to tear down the building and construct condominiums.

At the time of the September 2005 approval, the developers said a section of
the site had been cleared of contamination, a second area was being cleared,
and work had not yet started on a third area.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TCEQ Finds Asbestos Pipe in Texas Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found pieces of asbestos-wrapped
pipe in a landfill located at Adams Hill and Hunt Lane, WOAI.com reports.

The TCEQ disposed of the pieces they found.

The landfill belongs to the San Antonio Water System.

A source says the dumping was a common practice and there is even more
underground.

A SAWS Spokesperson says there's no way to tell how the asbestos pipes got there.

The TCEQ has requested that SAWS remove the asbestos and wants proof that it
has been removed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shiretown Group Finds Hazard in Maine Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shiretown Development Corp. has discovered asbestos in the former Houlton
International Corp. building, which Shiretown Development has been trying to
market, Bangor Daily News reports.

The building is located in Houlton, Maine.

Shiretown Development entered into a US$161,000 purchase-and-sale agreement
with officials from the former Houlton International facility more than three
years ago.

At the time, they planned to use the massive complex garnered through the
agreement to attract a larger business to the area.

Town Manager Douglas Hazlett told the directors on Sept. 24, 2007 that
asbestos was found in a stretch of heating pipe in the building and in its
siding, and a "trace" was found in the old boiler room at the complex.

"We need the asbestos information and the cost of the abatement before we can
move forward," said Director Sue Tortello.

Director Paul Cleary was frustrated with the situation, maintaining once again
that he sat on the board when they entered into the purchase-and-sale
agreement to secure the facility.

"I remember we were told there was no trace of asbestos," he said, a statement
that Director Gerald Adams also has stood by.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nexus Housing Rules Out Threat at Worcester
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nexus Housing, part of the West Mercia Housing group, says that asbestos found
in the homes of its residents in Worcester, England, U.K., poses no threat to
them, Worcester News reports.

Nexus is undertaking work on 50 of its buildings in Saddlers Walk and
Goldsmith's Road, Blackpole, to remove asbestos. The Company said the asbestos
poses no threat unless it is disturbed and not properly dealt with.

Paul Baker, West Mercia Housing group maintenance manager, said, “As part of
the works, we carried out an asbestos survey of each property, which in some
cases has confirmed the presence of asbestos containing materials.

“The presence of asbestos within certain materials is not uncommon in
properties built during the 1970s when asbestos was used extensively within
the building environment.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Ore. Firms to Pay $37T for CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Oregon Companies involved in property rehabilitation and redevelopment
have agreed to pay penalties totaling US$37,000 to settle with the U.S.
Environmental and Protection Agency for asbestos violations under the Clean
Air Act, according to an EPA press release dated Oct. 1, 2007.

These two companies are Cook Development Corp. (CDC) and Birch Creek
Construction Inc. (BCC).

CDC and BCC have settled with the EPA for alleged violations of the asbestos
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (asbestos NESHAP),
under the CAA, during their extensive renovation of the Commodore Apartments
located on Court Street in The Dalles, Ore., in May 2001.

CDC paid US$30,000 in penalties earlier in 2007 and BCC recently agreed to pay
an additional US$7,500 in penalties.

In May 2006, the Department of Justice filed a complaint on behalf of EPA in
the U.S. District Court in Oregon alleging that the developer CDC and
contractor BCC violated the asbestos NESHAP regulations when they gutted the
interior of a mixed-use four story building when:

-- They failed to provide written notification in advance of beginning the
asbestos removal in May 2001;

-- They did not adequately wet regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM)
during the stripping operation or seal it in leak-tight containers;

-- They did not have at least one trained supervisor on site and dumped the
waste material without labeling it at an area landfill; and

-- They failed to keep records of the wastes removed from the building site,
as required by the regulations.

Socorro Rodriguez, EPA’s Director of Oregon Operations, said, “We hope that
building owners, developers and contractors learn from this situation. When
you are tearing down or renovating a structure that has asbestos, it is
important to notify the proper authorities and follow the asbestos regulations.”

In Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality administers the asbestos
NESHAP program and notices are sent to their office.

Federal regulations require a thorough inspection of a facility for the
presence of asbestos prior to any demolition or renovation activity, as well
as advance notice to EPA or the state or local agency that administers the
asbestos NESHAP program.

If a threshold amount of asbestos is found, certified asbestos abatement
contractors are required to dispose of the material following specific work
practices designed to protect public health.

These requirements include using water to wet the asbestos during removal,
carefully handling, bagging and labeling of wastes, and their proper disposal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 44 Corporations Filed in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clothilde DeJean, through her attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey, on
Sept. 28, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against A.O. Smith Corp. and
43 other corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

The suit claims the companies knowingly and maliciously manufactured and
distributed asbestos-containing products throughout the county.

At the request of Mr. Blevins, the Texas Occupational Medicine Institute
reviewed Mrs. DeJean's medical records and concluded that her "heavy smoking
history" combined with asbestos exposure "synergistically" caused her cancer.

The 77-year-old Mrs. DeJean was allegedly exposed to asbestos while laundering
her husband's clothing. She has already sued and received a claim for her
asbestos injury, but is suing again for a "different malignant
asbestos-related injury."

The plaintiff's original petition says the 44 defendants entangled in Mrs.
DeJean’s husband’s lawsuit were negligent for failing to adequately test their
asbestos-laced products before flooding the market with dangerous goods and
warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Some of the defendants listed in the suit include aerospace giant Lockheed
Martin Corp., Viacom Inc., and iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc.

According to the medical documents attached to the suit, Mrs. DeJean's husband
was an operator at the Texaco refinery for many years. She was indirectly
exposed to asbestos while laundering her husband's clothing and rags from 1945
to 1980.

The documents also note Mrs. DeJean was exposed to asbestos while working as a
custodian at a Mid County school, "which later underwent asbestos abatement."

Mrs. DeJean, who suffered from diabetes, hyperlipidemia and heart disease, had
a "heavy smoking history, the medical documents stated.

The suit stated, “Tobacco is a human carcinogen that significantly increases
the risk of lung cancer. Asbestos is also a well-recognized human carcinogen,
which acts synergistically with tobacco in increasing the risk for lung
cancer. In this case, Ms. DeJean has radiographic evidence of asbestos
exposure in the form of asbestos-related pleural disease and pulmonary
asbestosis.”

Although Mrs. DeJean has sued and already received for her asbestos-related
injury, the suit says, "Plaintiff now suffers from a different malignant
asbestos-related injury… and seeks damages against defendants not released in
the previous actions pursuant to Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp."

In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M
Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to
"provide respiratory protection."

Mrs. DeJean is suing for physical pain and suffering in the past and future,
mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity,
disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and
future, and past and future medical expenses.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, has been assigned to Case No.
E180-428.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suffolk Van Owner Penalized for Fly-Tipping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Karl Klein of Beccles, Suffolk, England, on Sept. 28, 2007, was issued a
GBP1,000 fine and was ordered to pay GBP1,000 costs after pleading guilty to
being the owner of a van used to dump waste, including asbestos, The
Environment Times reports.

Norwich magistrates were told that two men were seen unloading the waste from
the van into a skip outside Crowes Complete Print in Hurricane Way, Airport
Industrial Estate, Norwich. When challenged by a member of the staff, one of
the men said he had permission from someone at the yard to dump waste in the skip.

The member of staff did not believe him and took the number of the van and the
event was reported to the Environment Agency. The waste included pieces of
corrugated roof sheets, wood, guttering and sections of drainpipes.

An investigating officer traced the van to Mr. Klein and wrote a letter
inviting him for an interview with a list of possible dates. Five days later,
Mr. Klein phoned the Agency leaving a message to say he had lent the van to
someone else that day.

Two weeks later, Mr. Klein called again and claimed to have sold the van a
couple of weeks before the offence was committed. Despite being invited for a
second time to the Agency offices for an interview on a day to suit him, he
failed to make arrangements.

Crowes Complete Print incurred the total cost for the legal disposal of the
waste even though it was not theirs.

Magistrates heard that Mr. Klein had at first told investigating officers he
had lent the van to a friend, then that he had sold it and did not attend an
interview or provide a written statement.

After the hearing Agency officer Brian Hudson said, “Some of the waste
appeared to be asbestos cement sheeting which could have been hazardous to
handle. No precautions were taken to make sure it was handled safely. Other
people using the skip, or handling the waste when it was eventually emptied,
were potentially put at risk.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Star Lane Officials Assure Safety of Locals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents in Star Lane, Great Wakering, U.K., have been assured they are not
at risk from asbestos during the demolition of former brickworks at a nearby
site, Southend Standard reports.

There were growing concerns about the amount of dust, particularly after
people heard asbestos had been found at the site.

One resident was also concerned the contractor might not be removing it using
the correct procedures.

However, Rochford district councilor Trevor Goodwin, who had reported the
worries to the Health and Safety Executive, said, “People contacted me worried
about dust in the air and that it was asbestos. The Health and Safety
Executive has since told me that as long as the cement is dampened down, it is
quite safe and the dust people are noticing is brick dust.”

John Stevenson, a spokesman for the executive, said, “Where asbestos is
involved, people are right to be wary. An asbestos type 3 survey was carried
out on the building prior to demolition.”

Work on the building is being carried out by Squibb and Davies Demolition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Asks for 8th Extension to File Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC, for an eighth time, is requesting for an extension of its
exclusive right to file a reorganization plan, Bloomberg News reports.

This time, the Company wants to prohibit everyone else from filing a competing
plan at least until Feb. 11, 2008.

The Company filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 in August 2005 to deal
with asbestos claims.

The Company said its papers filed in bankruptcy court in Corpus Christi, Tex.,
that third parties interested in sponsoring a reorganization plan will be
looking at financial information and inspecting the mines and other facilities
in October 2007.

The Company says that no one can bring the Company out of bankruptcy before
completion of the process of estimating environmental claims. Nine trials are
set for October 2007 and in November 2007.

In a Sept. 2, 2007 court filing, the Company asked permission to settle claims
resulting from removing lead and arsenic from backyards in El Paso, Tex.

While the Company owed the federal government almost US$20 million for cleanup
costs in El Paso, the settlement calls for giving the government an approved
unsecured claim of US$13.3 million. Texas environmental regulators are to have
a US$419,000 approved claim, if the bankruptcy court approves.

Tucson, Ariz.-based ASARCO LLC, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, operates mining
and copper smelting activities. Each year, the Company produces around 600
million pounds of copper, 300 million pounds of zinc, and 20 million ounces of
silver. The Company’s mines are primarily in the southwestern U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int’l. Has $53M Liabilities at Aug. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$53 million as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with US$58,575,000 as of Aug. 31,
2006, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 3, 2007.

The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities, as of May 31, 2007,
amounted to US$53 million, compared with US$58,925,000 as of May 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2007)

The Company’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$278,445,000 as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with US$346,268,000 as of Aug.
31, 2006.

As of May 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$301,268,000, compared with US$362,360,000 as of May 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2007)

As a result of working capital timing differences and higher cash outlays for
asbestos, Company businesses had negative cash flow from operations of US$3
million in the fiscal 2008-1st quarter.

Year-ago cash flow from operations was US$23.1 million. The Company drew down
US$22.8 million of its US$354.3 million asbestos reserve to cover pre-tax
payments for indemnity and defense costs during the quarter, compared with
US$16.4 million a year ago.

Chief Executive Officer and President Frank C. Sullivan said, “Higher asbestos
cash costs in the quarter resulted from steps taken to lower the future costs
of handling and defending our claims.”

Mr. Sullivan said, “Additionally, we closed a high number of asbestos claims
this quarter. With the number of closed claims exceeding new claims filed, our
overall active case load has been leveling off over the past few quarters.”

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc. owns subsidiaries that produces
specialty coatings and sealants serving both industrial and consumer markets.
The Company’s industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion
control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. Industrial brands
include Stonhard, Tremco, illbruck, Carboline, Day-Glo, Euco and Dryvit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widower Sues Amoco, 58 Corporations in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elroyce Johnson, representing the estate of his wife Maxine Johnson, filed an
asbestos-related wrongful death suit against Amoco Oil Co. and 58 other
companies on Oct. 1, 2007 in the Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the plaintiff's original petition, Mrs. Johnson was married to
Mr. Johnson from 1961 until her death in 2005. He worked at various chemical
plants, refineries and utility companies in Jefferson County and surrounding
counties as a plumber, pipe fitter and carpenter, before retiring in 1994.

The suit states, “During his career, Mr. Johnson was exposed to
asbestos-containing products and exposed Mrs. Johnson to asbestos fibers on
his clothes when he came home from work. Mrs. Johnson contracted lung cancer
as a direct and proximate result of Mr. Johnson's on the job exposure to
asbestos-containing products at…various facilities.”

The suit goes on to allege Mrs. Johnson’s “occupational disease” proved fatal.
She died of lung cancer on Oct. 1, 2005.

The suit states, “Plaintiffs assert a claim based on strict products liability
against the…Defendants and would show that their asbestos-containing products
were unreasonably dangerous and defective.”

The suit states, “Defendants were negligent in failing to warn the Plaintiff
or her husband of the severe risk to health posed by asbestos exposure and
inhalation and were negligent in failing to protect and properly instruct the
Plaintiff so as to prevent their exposure to the defective and unreasonably
dangerous asbestos products being handled by themselves and others on the
different premises.”

The suit further alleges that the defendants fraudulently and maliciously
conspired among themselves to conceal "damaging" asbestos research.

The plaintiffs are suing for wrongful death damages and exemplary damages. The
plaintiffs are requesting a trial by jury and are represented by Reaud, Morgan
& Quinn attorney Glen Morgan.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th Judicial District, will preside over Case No.
D180-439.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plant Worker’s Widow Sues 42 Firms in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Jones’ widow Barbara Jones, through Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan
Blevins, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against A.O. Smith Corp. and 41
other corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., on Oct. 2, 2007,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.

A plant operator for most of his life, Mr. Jones sued and received a claim for
his asbestos-related disease. Now deceased, Mrs. Jones is suing for a
"different malignant asbestos-related injury." Mr. Jones had an "extensive"
cigarette smoking history.

The suit claims that the companies knowingly and maliciously manufactured and
distributed asbestos-containing products throughout Jefferson County.

Mr. Jones’ original petition says the 42 defendants entangled in his lawsuit
were negligent for failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products
before flooding the market with dangerous goods and warn the consumer of the
dangers of asbestos exposure.

Some of the defendants listed in the suit include aerospace giant Lockheed
Martin Corp., Viacom Inc., and iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc.

In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M
Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to
“provide respiratory protection.”

Although Mr. Jones sued and received a claim while he was alive, the suit
says, "Plaintiff now seeks damages against defendants not released in the
previous actions pursuant to Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp."

The suit says, “The court must apply a separate accrual rule in these cases
because a single action rule would forbid a second suit and in doing so force
the asbestos plaintiff to file premature litigation on speculative claims,
which the court in Pustejovsky notes is neither efficient or desirable.”

Medical documents attached to the suit indicated Mr. Jones was "a heavy
smoker." He died between 2005 and 2007.

Mrs. Jones is suing for physical pain and suffering in the past and future,
mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity,
disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and
future, and past and future medical expenses.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, has been assigned to Case No. B180-451.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: University of Missouri Cleanup Nearly Done
----------------------------------------------------------------
Campus Facility workers have nearly completed outdoor asbestos removal at the
University of Missouri in Columbia, Mo., KBIA reports.

For over a month, large plastic pods have invaded Rollins Street on the MU
campus. Those containment facilities structures, or pods, protect students and
faculty from asbestos exposure.

The University’ Environmental Health and Safety department is digging
underground to remove asbestos from electrical wires. Workers cleaned off the
asbestos while keeping it contained within the facility.

Assistant Director of Campus Facilities Phil Shocklee says the pods will
disappear as it gets cooler.

Although outdoor asbestos removal ends in October 2007, Campus Facilities will
continue asbestos removal inside MU buildings over the course of the school year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADEQ to Launch Route 66 Asbestos Initiative
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Director Steve Owens, on Oct. 2,
2007, announced that the ADEQ is launching the Route 66 Asbestos Initiative to
help communities along old Route 66 in northern Arizona deal with asbestos
problems, Tri-State Online reports.

Mr. Owens said asbestos problems in Winslow, Holbrook and elsewhere in rural
Arizona show the need for a targeted effort by ADEQ to work with communities
to address potential asbestos problems and ensure that asbestos-containing
material is handled and disposed of properly.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Councilors to Settle Sports Center Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wear Valley councilors are to confirm plans for an inquiry into the asbestos
scandal at the Woodhouse Close Leisure Complex in Bishop Auckland, County
Durham, England, The Northern Echo reports.

Swimming pool staff members were allowed to work unprotected for five years
with asbestos after their bosses ignored an official warning from asbestos
inspectors.

Members of Parliament and Members of European Parliament from across the
region have joined calls for a full investigation to be held in public to
establish exactly what happened and who was responsible.

The complex’s owner, Wear Valley District Council, was fined GBP18,000 after
an investigation by the Government's Health and Safety Executive. The HSE is
expected to approve plans to set up a team of officers to lead an inquiry.

Helen Goodman, Labor MP for Bishop Auckland, said, “This is a very serious
matter and I am extremely concerned, particularly if employees or the public
have been put at risk in any way.”

Richard Bishop, the HSE inspector who brought the case to court, described the
health and safety breaches, which concerned the sports center’s boiler room,
as the worst he had seen.

In an official statement, leader of the council, Councilor Neil Stonehouse,
and chief executive Michael Laing, later apologized to the staff affected.

In papers prepared for a meeting, Mr. Laing writes, “The overall objective of
this report is not only to satisfy our legal duties, it is to exceed those
duties and give councilors, customers and staff the re-assurance that they are
safe and that we take health and safety seriously.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Council Approves $9,800 Removal Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kershaw Town Council, on Oct. 1, 2007, approved contractor Maintenance
Insulation’s US$9,800 bid to remove asbestos and lead paint from addresses to
be demolished as part of a new Town Hall project in Kershaw, S.C., The
Lancaster News reports.

The Lancaster, S.C.-based Maintenance Insulation found asbestos under linoleum
and paint containing lead during an inspection of the town’s 109 Hampton St.
building, the police department and administrative buildings.

Removal of asbestos and lead paint is required by state law before demolition
is permitted.

A US$900 fee for inspection and up to US$1,500 for collecting and testing
samples will be added to the base removal cost.

The discovery of asbestos came as a surprise to council, with Councilman Wade
Hunter noting that a contractor recently indicated there was not any asbestos
in the buildings.

Town Administrator Tony Starnes said Billy Catoe Bulldozing has agreed to
start demolition two weeks later than originally planned to provide enough
time for the asbestos and lead paint removal, which should take up to two
weeks to complete.

However, a snag with getting the asbestos out according to S.C. Department of
Health and Environmental Control regulations is that the contractor’s machine
is not able to remove the asbestos in a back area of the police building while
the building is still standing.

Mr. Starnes said the contractor said DHEC has allowed asbestos removal after
demolition in the past, as long as the removed asbestos is placed in a
separate area at a landfill.

The town will seek DHEC approval to first demolish and remove asbestos from
that area.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in A.P.I. Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota issued split rulings in an asbestos-related
insurance action involving St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. and A.P.I. Inc.

The suit was styled St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Plaintiff, v.
A.P.I. Inc., defendant, counter-claimant, third party plaintiff and judgment
creditor, Respondent, v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., as successor to General
Accident Insurance Co., third party defendant and judgment debtor, Appellant,
and The Home Insurance Co., et al., Third Party Defendants.

Chief Judge Toussaint, Judge Kalitowski, and Judge Minge entered decision of
Case No. A06-1229 on Sept. 11, 2007.

From the 1940s until the 1970s, A.P.I. Inc. (f/k/a Asbestos Products Inc.) of
Roseville, Minn., sold, distributed, and installed insulation materials, some
of which contained asbestos, and worked as a contractor on large commercial
products.

In 1982, A.P.I. began being sued in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits.
From 1983, A.P.I. tendered these suits to insurers for defense and
indemnification. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. and other insurers
defended and indemnified A.P.I. A.P.I. began tendering asbestos-related bodily
injury claims to General Accident Insurance Co., the predecessor to OneBeacon,
in 1987.

In April 1987, A.P.I. sent letters to General Accident, notifying it of three
policy numbers and A.P.I.'s position that it expected General Accident to
defend and indemnify under those policies. In March 1999, A.P.I. ceased
tendering ongoing claims to General Accident.

Insurance defense of A.P.I.'s asbestos claim litigation by other insurers was
contested after the 2001 US$8 million jury verdict against A.P.I. in Akin v.
American Standard Inc.

The following year, St. Paul Fire and Marine brought a declaratory judgment
action against its insured, A.P.I., seeking a declaration that it had no
continuing obligation to defend A.P.I. in asbestos-related bodily injury and
property damage actions.

On April 29, 2003, A.P.I. brought this third-party action against several
insurers, including OneBeacon, seeking a declaration of the insurers' duty to
defend and to pay all sums A.P.I. had become or would become obligated to pay
as damages.

In April or May 2005, A.P.I. obtained two certificates of insurance that were
in the possession of one of its brokers. By September 2005, all of the
insurers except OneBeacon had settled with A.P.I., and the court had ruled on
the issues of allocation of coverage among insurers and the applicability of
the statute of limitations.

In November 2005, OneBeacon admitted that the two certificates were evidence
of insurance from 1958 to 1964. On Dec. 7, 2005, an advisory jury returned a
verdict for A.P.I. On Jan. 19, 2006, the court entered judgment for A.P.I.
under the special verdict.

Both parties filed post-trial motions, which were heard on Feb. 8, 2006. The
court denied both parties' post-trial motions, but awarded A.P.I. attorney fees.

OneBeacon filed a notice of appeal, and A.P.I. filed a notice of review. This
court granted leave for Complex Insurance to submit a brief, which was
followed by A.P.I.'s motion to strike the brief.

Because the Appeals Court concluded that the jury instruction misstated the
law on breach of fiduciary duty and bad faith in this breach of contract
action, the Appeals Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial
on A.P.I.'s breach of contract and independent tort claims and resulting damages.

The Appeals Court did not reach the issue of the propriety of the district
court's ruling on the statute of limitations because the record is not fully
developed on the issues of accrual and concealment of the causes of action.

The Appeals Court affirmed the district court's decision to allocate coverage
but remanded for a determination of the total period of allocation.

The Appeals Court denied A.P.I.'s motion to strike the amicus brief.

John H. Faricy, Jr., Craig M. Roen, Mark A. Gwin, Rebecca L. Kassekert, Faricy
& Roen, P.A., David F. Herr, Margo S. Brownell, Jason A. Lien, Maslon Edelman
Borman & Brand LLP, Minnesapolis, represented A.P.I. Inc.

Eric J. Magnuson, Briggs & Morgan P.A., Eric J. Strobel, Thomas P. Kane,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Minneapolis, represented OneBeacon Insurance Co.

James T. Martin, Gislason, Martin, Varpness & Janes, PA, Edina, Minn.,
represented amicus curiae Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. from
May 10, 2006 through August 15, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Impac 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 under-reserving for loan losses as
         conditions in the mortgage industry deteriorated;

      2. that the Company was experiencing an increasing level
         of loan delinquencies and defaults, which would require
         the Company to repurchase an increased number of loans
         going forward;

      3. that the Company had failed to write-down the value of
         certain loans in its portfolio as they declined in
         value;

      4. that the Company was experiencing increasing
         difficulties in selling its loans, and would be forced
         to discount prices;

      5. that the Company's underwriting guidelines were not
         adequately restrictive for borrowers in its loan
         markets;

      6. that the Company was paying an increasing number of
         margin calls, and would be forced to satisfy additional
         significant margin calls going forward;

      7. that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would
         be forced to exit the Alt-A lending business and to
         liquidate its real estate owned portfolio;

      8. that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls;

     9. that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times; and (10)
         that the Company's statements about its financial well-
         being and future business prospects were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On June 26, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it was
not paying a dividend for the second quarter of 2007 because the Company was
experiencing higher than expected loss levels as a result of its decision to
accelerate the liquidation of its real estate owned portfolio. On this news,
Impac's shares fell $1.27 per share, or over 21.6 percent, to close on July
27, 2007 at $4.59 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on August 7, 2007, the Company announced that it planned to exit the
Alt-A loan market and that the Company was being forced to pay an increased
number of margin calls. On this news, Impac's shares fell an additional $0.48
per share, or 28.2 percent, to close on August 7, 2007 at $1.22 per share.

Finally, on August 14, 2007, the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the second quarter of 2007. The Company reported a net loss of
$152.5 million, or $2.05 per share, as compared to net earnings of $26.4
million, or $0.30 per share for the second quarter of 2006. The Company
revealed that the loss was primarily the result of a $163 million increase in
its provision for loan losses, higher delinquencies and severities.

The Company also stated that the underlying reason for the deterioration of
its financial results was based on the relatively poor performance of the
loans that it originated in 2006. On this news, the Company's shares fell an
additional $0.45 per share, or 27.2 percent, to close on August 14, 2007 at
$1.20 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 16, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Impac is an acquirer, originator, seller and investor of non-conforming Alt-A
residential, commercial, and multi-family mortgages.

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


JONES SODA: Bruce G. Murphy Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bruce G. Murphy filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Jones Soda Company (Nasdaq: JSDA) between Nov.
1, 2006, and Aug. 2., the Vero Beach Press-Journal reports.

Mr. Murphy claims that Peter M. von Stolk, the company’s founder, president
and Chief Executive Officer issued numerous statements that lead the market to
believe major retailers had stocked the company’s sodas on their shelves for
sale, or would be stocked on 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,” a release from the law firm
stated.

Officials with the company were not immediately available, the report said.

Jones Soda Co. engages in the development, production, marketing and
distribution of beverages primarily in the United States and Canada. Its
products include Jones Pure Cane Soda, Jones Organics, and Jones Energy, among
others.

To contact Mr. Murphy:

          Bruce G. Murphy
          Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy
          265 Llwyds Lane
          Vero Beach, FL 32963-3252
          Phone: 828-737-0500
          E-mail: bgm@brucemurphy.biz


                            *********


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  * * *