CAR_Public/071019.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, October 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 207

                            Headlines


ATLAS COLD: Securities Suit Certification Hearing Set January
BEAR STEARNS: Cal. Court Okays McKesson Merger Suit Settlement
BEST BUY: Former Worker Files Suit in Pa. Over Unpaid Work Time
CBOCS DIST: Recalls Art Sets for Lead Paint Standard Breach
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Calif. Ex-Employee's Lawsuits for $5M

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Ex-General Manager's Suit for $500T
FREMONT GENERAL: Cal. Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suit
HAMILTON HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit Over Tompkins Metroplasty
HOME DEPOT: Faces Fraud Suit Over Hot Water Installation Permits
KERRY INC: September 2008 Trial Set for “Kassa” Lawsuit in Minn.

KFC CORP: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Lawsuit in N.J.
KIPP BROTHERS: Recalls Bendable Dinosaur Toys for Excessive Lead
MEDICAL SOCIETIES: Faces Lawsuit in Cal. Over ‘Egg Sharing’
NAVTEQ CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over $8.1B Sale to Nokia Corp.
NEW YORK: City Seeks Settlement Talks for 9/11 Health Litigation

OCCAM NETWORKS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
POSSIS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Still Appealing Minn. Suit's Nixing
PROCYCLE GROUP: Recalls Bicycles with Head Tube that can Detach
SOUTH & ASSOC: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Fraud, Overcharges
SOUTHLAND TITLE: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal “Email, Notary Fees”

TACO BELL: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Laws
TACO BELL: Nov. 2008 Hearing Set in Cal. ADA Violations Suit
TACO BELL: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Suit in Ill.
T-MOBILE: Cal. High Court Allows “Termination Fees” Lawsuit
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Santa Barbara Music for $1M
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Wheat Rolls Containing Undeclared Milk


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dewalt’s Appeal to Remand Order Dismissed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Corp. Has Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $8.56M Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings on Congoleum Claims Issued in July
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Coverage Case Decided Last May 18

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Records $10.54M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,415 Claims at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senior Citizen Sues 48 Firms in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laborer’s Daughter Sues 42 Firms in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 2 EU Parliament Buildings

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner’s Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bribery Ruling Upheld in D.C. Appeals Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creditors Object to Dana Corp.’s Statement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Cleanup Head Pleads Guilty to Bribes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants Will Get Appeal, Ohio Court Says

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pittsburgh Dept. Sees $1M Cost for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Motion in Sparks Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reversed in Favor of Safety National
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at U.K. Leisure Center Costs GBP66T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Seeks Disclosure on Vessel’s Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Denies $29M Compensation Award
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Teacher’s Widow Seeks Help in Payout Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Over GBP30M Paid to H&W Employees Since ‘01
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Probe in U.K. Leisure Center Urged
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Orders Joint Trial for 2 Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Still Present at Australian Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sheet Metal Worker’s Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Hazard Level Found at Calif. City Hall
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Called in to Assess Risk at School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.388B for Claims at Sept 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cayuga County Sued for Wrongful Termination
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pleural Plaque Sufferers Lose Payout Battle
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lorry Driver Finds Asbestos at Public Tip
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fly-tippers Dump Hazard Near Primary School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard in Canada Health Unit Poses Low Risk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Atlantic Express Mulls Cleanup Liabilities


                            *********


ATLAS COLD: Securities Suit Certification Hearing Set January
-------------------------------------------------------------
A certification hearing for a suit over alleged breaches of the Securities
Act against Atlas Cold Storage Holdings Inc. is set to begin Jan. 14, 2008
in Toronto.

The law firms of Groia & Company, Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP
are counsel in a class action against Atlas Cold, certain directors and
officers of Atlas Holdings, certain trustees of Atlas Cold Storage Income
Trust, Ernst & Young LLP and BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.

The claim is on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired units of
Atlas between March 1, 2002 and August 29, 2003, and held them at the close
of trading on the TSX on August 29, 2003 excluding the defendants, members
of the immediate family of each of the individual defendants, any officers
or directors of Atlas Holdings, any subsidiary or affiliate of Atlas or
Atlas Holdings, any entity in respect of which any excluded person has a
controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and
assigns of any excluded person.

The amended fresh statement of claim alleges that Atlas' net income for the
fiscal years ended 2001 and 2002 was overstated and thereby causing the
units of Atlas to trade at artificially high prices.  The amended fresh
statement of claim also alleges that some of the defendants breached section
130 of the Securities Act and that the defendants were negligent.

The Honourable Madam Justice Hoy has been assigned as the class action case
management judge.

On August 16, 17 and 18, 2006, Madam Justice Hoy heard preliminary motions.  
The plaintiffs' motion was granted.  Certain claims against the defendant,
Michael H. Wilson, were struck.  The remaining motions brought by the
defendants were dismissed.  The motion for certification is scheduled for
five days beginning on January 14, 2008 in Toronto.

For more information, contact:

          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          Web site: http://www.atlasclassaction.com/     
          Toll Free Line: 800.229.5323, ext. 8296


BEAR STEARNS: Cal. Court Okays McKesson Merger Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of the purported class
action, “In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-CV-
20743.”

Previously, The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. appealed the final order approving a
proposed settlement in the matter.

The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corp. and HBO & Co.
resulting in an entity called McKesson HBOC, Inc.

Beginning on June 29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  These actions
were subsequently consolidated, and the plaintiffs proceeded to file a
series of amended complaints.

On Feb. 15, 2002, plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated complaint,
which alleges that Bear Stearns violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading
disclosures contained in a joint proxy statement/prospectus that was issued
with respect to the McKesson/HBOC merger.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all persons who
either:

     -- acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC between
        Jan. 20, 1997 and Jan. 12, 1999; or

     -- acquired publicly traded securities of McKesson or
        McKesson HBOC between Oct. 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999,
        and who held McKesson securities on Nov. 27, 1998 and
        Jan. 22, 1999.

Named defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former directors
and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or HBOC, Bear Stearns and
Arthur Andersen LLP.  Compensatory damages in an unspecified amount are
sought.

On Jan. 6, 2003, the court granted Bear Stearns' motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claim asserted in the third amended complaint, and denied Bear
Stearns' motion to dismiss the Section 14(a) claim.

On March 7, 2003, Bear Stearns filed an answer to the third amended
complaint denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative
defenses to the claims in the complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached a settlement
with the plaintiff class, which settlement required court approval.  Bear
Stearns' engagement letter with McKesson in connection with the merger of
McKesson and HBOC provides that McKesson cannot settle any litigation
without Bear Stearns' written consent unless McKesson obtains an
unconditional written release for Bear Stearns and, under certain
circumstances, is required to provide indemnification to Bear Stearns.

By Order dated May 23, 2005, the court denied preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement between McKesson HBOC and the plaintiff class.

On July 12, 2005, the plaintiff and McKesson HBOC submitted a revised
proposed settlement, purporting to address the issues identified by the
court in its order denying preliminary approval, to which Bear Stearns
objected.

The revised proposed settlement provides, among other things, that Bear
Stearns' rights under its engagement letter are preserved for future
resolution.  McKesson HBOC's claims in connection with the letter are also
preserved.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the district court granted final approval of the revised
proposed settlement.   

Bear Stearns has appealed the final approval order to the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, seeking to reverse the final approval of the
settlement on the ground that consummation of the settlement may deprive
Bear Stearns of certain rights and remedies provided for in its engagement
letter.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the parties in the Federal Class Action entered into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement provides that,
subject to final approval by the District Court, the claims asserted on
behalf of the settlement class against Bear Stearns will be dismissed with
prejudice and that Bear Stearns denies any wrongdoing in connection with the
claims asserted against it in the Federal Class Action.

Under the stipulation of settlement, promptly following preliminary approval
of the settlement by the District Court, Bear Stearns will withdraw its
appeal of the District Court's approval of McKesson's settlement of the
Federal Class Action.

The District Court granted preliminary approval on Sept. 28, 2007, according
to The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc.'s Oct. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug.
31, 2007.

                       Settlement Terms

The defendants in the McKesson settlement have agreed to pay a total of $960
million, plus interest, to the class.  Arthur Anderson LLP has agreed to pay
a total of $72.5 million, plus interest, and the Bear Stearns settlement
creates a settlement fund of $10 million, plus interest, for a total
settlement amount of $1,042,500,000.   

The suit is "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-CV-
20743," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

A January 4, 2008 fairness hearing has been set.  

The settlement on the Net: http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com/status.html

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
        170 E. 61st Street, Second Floor
        New York, NY, 10021
        Phone: 212.688.0782
        Fax: 212.688.0783
        E-mail: info@barrack.com

             - and -

        Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
        12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150
        San Diego, CA 92130
        Phone: 858.793.0070
        Fax: 858.793.0323
        E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com

Representing the company are:

        James E. Lyons, Esq.
        Jonathan J. Lerner, Esq.
        Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
        Four Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 3800
        San Francisco, CA 94111
        Phone: (415) 984-6400


BEST BUY: Former Worker Files Suit in Pa. Over Unpaid Work Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. faces a purported class action in Pennsylvania over its
alleged failure to pay employees for thousands of hours they spent
undergoing security searches and working through breaks, The Associated
Press reports.

The suit was specifically filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, alleging
violations of Pennsylvania state labor laws.  It is seeking class-action
status to cover anyone who worked at 25 Best Buy stores in Pennsylvania
since October 2003.

Attorney Gerald Lawrence filed the purported class action on behalf of
plaintiff Jason Hall, who worked at a Best Buy store in North Wales in July
and August 2006.

In general, the suit charges that workers sometimes wait 15 minutes or more
to be searched after each shift, time that can add up to an hour or more
each week per person.

Additionally, the suit also accuses Best Buy of forcing employees to work
through meal and rest breaks without pay.

For more details, contact:

          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C.
          Four Tower Bridge, 200 Bar Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428
          Phone: 610-941-2760
          Fax: 610-862-9777
          Web Site: http://www.lowey.com


CBOCS DIST: Recalls Art Sets for Lead Paint Standard Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBOCS Distribution, Inc., of Lebanon, Tennessee, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7,800 Princess
Magnetic travel art set lap desks.

The company said the surface paint on the zipper pull of the lap desk
contains lead in excess of the federal lead paint standard.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled Travel Art Set Lap Desk is a zippered case that opens into a
lap desk with markers, crayons, and magnetic pieces. The lap desk is 10 3/4-
inches wide and is pink colored. “Made in China” and item number 266822 are
printed on a sticker located on the product’s packaging.

These recalled travel art sets were manufactured in China and are being sold
at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store locations nationwide from April 2007
through August 2007 for about $20.

Pictures of recalled travel art sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08021.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these art sets immediately, and contact
the firm or return the product to any Cracker Barrel location for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Cracker Barrel toll-free at (888) 296-
2721 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s
Web site: http://www.crackerbarrel.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Calif. Ex-Employee's Lawsuits for $5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
A $5,000,000 settlement was reached for two purported class actions against
Domino's Pizza, LLC that were coordinated in Orange County Superior Court.

The suits are related to employment practices and wage and hour complaints
brought by former employees.

On June 10, 2003, a suit, "Vega v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was filed, in Orange
County Superior Court, alleging that the company failed to provide meal and
rest breaks to the company's employees.  

On Aug. 2, 2006, "Roselio v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was filed, in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, alleging similar claims as set out in the Vega
lawsuit.  

On Feb. 14, 2007, the two actions were coordinated in Orange County Superior
Court.  No determination with respect to class certification has been made.

                           Settlement

On Sept. 11, 2007, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, subject
to the court’s approval, in which all claims in both “Vega v. Domino’s Pizza
LLC,” and “Rosello v. Domino’s Pizza LLC” will be dismissed.

As part of the conditional settlement, the company agreed to pay $5.0
million to plaintiffs and their attorneys to resolve the disputes.

Domino's Pizza, LLC -- http://www.dominos.com/-- is a pizza delivery  
company in the U.S.  The Company operates through a network of 8,366 Company-
owned and franchise stores, located in all 50 states and in more than 50
countries.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Ex-General Manager's Suit for $500T
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza LLC reached a $500,000 settlement for a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by a former
general manager.

Filed on Aug. 19, 2004 in Orange County Superior Court, the suit, "Jimenez
v. Domino's Pizza LLC," is alleging that the company misclassified the
position of general manager.  

The suit also alleges that the company did not provide meal/rest periods and
overtime pay as required by state law for hourly employees.

It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 17, 2004 and the motion for class certification was
heard on June 5, 2006.  

On Sept. 26, 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Company reached an out-of-court settlement with Jimenez
and the ten other individual plaintiffs in which all claims will be
dismissed.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $500,000 to the
plaintiffs and their attorneys to resolve the disputes, without admitting
any liability.

The suit is "Wilber Jimenez v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-
01107-JVS-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge James V. Selna with referral to Judge Rosalyn M.
Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
         Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
         Scott Cole and Associates
         World Savings Tower, 1970 Broadway, Suite 950
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Phone: 510-891-9800
         E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com
                 scole@scalaw.com

              - and -

         Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
         Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
         Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Esq.
         Michael D. Singer, Esq.
         Coheland and Khoury
         605 C. Street, Suite 200
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-595-3001
         Fax: 619-595-3000
         E-mail: kneilson@ck-lawfirm.com
                 msinger@californiaclassactions.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Timothy M. Freudenberger, Esq.
         Ursula R. Kubal, Esq.
         Jehan N. Jayakumar, Esq.
         Carlton DiSante and Freudenberger
         2600 Michelson Dr., Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Phone: 949-622-1661
         Fax: 949-622-1669

              - and -

         Jennifer White-Sperling, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis and Bockius
         300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-612-7205
         E-mail: jwhite-sperling@morganlewis.com


FREMONT GENERAL: Cal. Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted on
Aug. 17, 2007 plaintiff's motion to consolidate a lawsuit filed on behalf of
all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Fremont General
Corp. and Affiliated Cos. Investment Incentive Plan and/or the Fremont
General ESOP, between January 1, 2005 and the present and whose accounts
included investments in Fremont General common stock.

Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class members by:

     * failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans’
       assets;
     * failing to monitor fiduciaries;
     * failing to provide complete and accurate information to
       the Class; and
     * co-fiduciary liability.

The suits consolidated are:

     -- "Johannesson, et al. v. Fremont General Corp. et al. No.
        SACV07-00531 FMC" filed May 9, 2007;
     -- "McCoy v. Plan Committee et al. No. CV07-02693 FFMx,”
         filed April 24, 2007;
     -- "Anderson v. Fremont General Corp. et al., No. SACV07-
         00554 FFMx," filed May 15, 2007;
     -- "Sullivan et al. v. Fremont General Corp. et al., No.
         SACV07-0622 FMCx” filed May 30, 2007;
     -- "Salas v. Plan Administrator, et al. No. SAVV073449  
         FFMx,” filed May 25, 2007; and
     -- "Hopkins et al. v. Fremont General Corp. et al. No.
         CV07-04233 JFW (MANx)” filed June 27, 2007.

Interim Lead Plaintiffs are: Marcy Johannesson, Wendy Horvat, Robert
Anderson, Linda Sullivan, Armando Salas and James K. Hopkins.  Keller
Rohrback LLP was appointed Interim Lead Counsel.  Braund Law Group PC is
appointed Interim Liaison Counsel.

The suit is now docketed as "In re Fremont General Corp. Litigation, Master
File No. CV07-02693 FMM" filed before Judge Florence-Marie Cooper.

For more information, contact:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Cari campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          David Y. Chen, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
                  dchen@kellerrohrback.com


HAMILTON HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit Over Tompkins Metroplasty
----------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 27, 2007 settlement hearing is set in a class action that claims Dr.
Salim Daya and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation were negligent in their
care and treatment of women who underwent a surgical procedure known as a
Tompkins metroplasty between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2004.  The suit
claims that women who underwent the outdated Tompkins metroplasty procedure
in that time frame are entitled to damages.

The parties to the action participated in a mediation in Toronto on three
occasions in an attempt to resolve the action. As a result of the mediation,
the parties have entered into a proposed settlement which will only take
effect if it receives court approval. The court will consider whether to
approve the settlement at a hearing to be held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007
at the Courthouse, 361 University Avenue, Toronto, ON.

The plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate and will ask the court to approve it. If the
proposed settlement is not approved, the class action will continue.

For more information, contact:

          Harvey T. Strosberg , Q.C.
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          Phone: 519.561.6231        
                 800.229.5323 ext. 231      
          Fax: 519.561.6203        
               866.316.5308       
          E-mail: dayaclassaction@strosbergco.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Fraud Suit Over Hot Water Installation Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot USA, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
alleging it charges customers for “required” municipal permits to install
the hot water heaters it sells, but never files for the permits, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiff Richard Stanford claims Home Depot defrauds its customers,
breaches contract and engages in deceptive trade to unjustly enrich itself.

This is a class action for damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief on
behalf of a class of all California residents who paid defendant monies for
a bundles package of goods and services, including but not limited to
a "permit fee", that was supposed to include both the purchase, delivery and
installation of a hot water heater, and any and all "required" municipal
permits relating to the installation of the hot water heater in the class
members' residences, but actually did not include the municipal permit.

Allegedly, as a result of this conduct, Home Depot has been and continues to
be unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff, and others similarly
situated. Specifically, defendant has received and retained a substantial
excess profits earned from charging the class members for a service that was
never provided: the acquiring and filing of any and all "required" municipal
permits relating to the installation of a hot water heater in the class
members' residences.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section
382 and the Civil Code Sections 1781(b) and (c)(1) on behalf of all persons
in California who purchased hot water heaters from defendant for delivery
and installation and paid a municipal permit fee from Oct. 15, 2003 to the
date of trial.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant misrepresented that the class members
         were required to obtain municipal permits relating to
         the installation of the hot water heater in the class
         members' purchase for their residences;

     (b) whether defendant misrepresented that the class members
         would receive any and all "required" municipal permits
         relating to the installation of the hot water heater in
         the class members' residences when they paid a "permit
         fee";

     (c) whether defendant failed to obtain, acquire, prepare,
         file, apply for, or otherwise caused to record with the
         applicable municipal governments in California all
         "required" municipal permits relating to the
         installation of the hot water heater in class members'
         residences when they paid a "permit fee";

     (d) whether defendant's conduct was deceptive in violation
         of the Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.; and

     (e) whether defendant's conduct was unlawful, fraudulent
         and/or unfair constitution violations of the Business &
         Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

Plaintiff requests the court for the following relief:

     -- that this action be certified as a class action on
        behalf of the proposed plaintiff class and plaintiff be
        appointed as the representative of the class;

     -- injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring
        defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and awarding
        plaintiff and the class full restitution of all monies
        wrongfully acquired by the defendants by means of such
        unlawful, fraudulent and unfair conduct, plus interest
        and attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Code of
        Civil Procedure Section 1021.5;

     -- injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring
        defendants to adopt procedures to:

        (1) identify and refund all fees paid by plaintiffs for
            obtaining municipal permits that were not required
            or never actually obtained;

        (2) stop the business practice of charging an additional
            fee to obtain municipal permits that are not
            required or never actually obtained;

        (3) create a policy to timely refine all additional
            charges for municipal permits that are not acquired
            or never obtained, when they do occur;

        (4) publicize corrective notice of these wrongful
            practices and the corrective action taken to stop
            these wrongful practices to all of defendant's
            customers, at defendant's expense;

        (5) remit the charges or fees collected from plaintiffs
            to the municipal governments that are responsible
            for issuing the "required" municipal permits, and
            otherwise take all necessary steps to ensure that
            plaintiff and others similarly situated actually
            receive the "required" municipal permits relating to
            the installation of a hot water heater in the
            plaintiff's residences; and

        (6) cease from engaging, or, within a reasonable time,
            agree to cease to engage, in the illegal, unlawful,
            fraudulent and unfair methods, act, or practices as
            set forth in the complaint;

     -- damages as provided by statute;

     -- general damages according to proof;

     -- special damages according to proof;

     -- compensatory damages according to proof;

     -- consequential damages accroding to proof;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interests as provided by
        statute;

     -- attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of this action
        pursuant to statute; and

     -- such further relief as the court deems necessary, just
        and proper.

The suit is "Richard Stanford et al. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 37-
2007-00077691-CU-BC-CTL," filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          Brent Jex, Esq.
          Keegan & Baker, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 640
          San Diego, California 92122
          Phone: (858) 552-6750
          Fax: (858) 552-6749


KERRY INC: September 2008 Trial Set for “Kassa” Lawsuit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A September 2008 trial is scheduled for the purported class action, “Kassa
et al. v. Kerry Inc.,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, Sarah Light of The Albert Lea Tribune reports.

The suit was filed by 25 former Albert Lea Kerry Specialty Ingredients
workers back in Feb. 28, 2006, for alleged unpaid time on the job.  

It specifically alleges that Kerry did not pay its workers for time spent
putting on and taking off —- also known as “donning and doffing” —-
protective gear before and after shifts.

Bill Gengler of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, is one of the workers’ attorneys.  
He explains that the lawsuit began with two employees from the Albert Lea
plant and has since expanded to include employees in Minnesota, Iowa,
Wisconsin and Ohio.  Up to 800 workers could be covered the case, says Mr.
Gengler.

Though Kerry Specialty Ingredients no longer exists in Albert Lea, in 2005
it employed 85 employees.  Another company, Merricks, Inc., bought out Kerry
in July of 2006.

Under a court order, authorized notices were recently mailed to Kerry
employees who worked in production, maintenance or sanitation jobs any time
on or after Feb. 1, 2003 in:

       -- Albert Lea, Minn.;
       -- Covington, Ohio;
       -- Fredericksburg, Iowa; and
       -- Beloit, Jackson, Owen, and Vesper, Wis.

The notices require the workers to fill out and return a consent form by
Oct. 29, 2007 to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in September of 2008.

The suit is “Kassa et al. v. Kerry Inc., Case No. 0:06-cv-00904-PJS-JJG,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge
Patrick J. Schiltz with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William A. Gengler, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
         100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: wagengler@locklaw.com

              - and -

         Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
         Halunen & Associates
         220 South 6th Street Ste 2000
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: (612) 605-4098
         Fax: (612) 605-4099
         E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Robert H. Brown, Esq
         Laner, Muchin, Dombrow, Becker, Levin & Tominberg, Ltd
         515 N State St Ste 2800
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Phone: 312-494-5327
         Fax: 312-467-9479
         E-mail: rbrown@lanermuchin.com

              - and -

         Bradley J. Lindeman, Esq.
         Meagher & Geer, PLLP
         33 S 6th St Ste 4400
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-338-0661
         Fax: 612-877-3030
         E-mail: blindeman@meagher.com


KFC CORP: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Lawsuit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
KFC Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., will seek for the dismissal of a
purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleging violations under the new federal Fair and
Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

On July 11, 2007, a lawsuit styled, “Melissa Peraria v. KFC Corp., et al.,”
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

It is a proposed class action and alleges that KFC failed to protect the
private information of its customers under FACTA.

Since the complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction
involving a franchised restaurant, the Company intends to seek dismissal
from the action, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Oct. 15, 2007.

The suit is “Peraria v. KFC Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03190-RMB-AMD,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Renee Marie Bumb with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edward W. Ciolko
         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         E-mail: eciolko@sbtklaw.com

              - and -

         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         1040 Kings Highway, North Suite 601
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
         Phone: (856) 795-7250
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Todd Lawrence Schleifstein
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         Florham Park, NJ 07932-5400
         Phone: (973) 360-7918
         Fax: (973) 301-8410
         E-mail: schleifsteint@gtlaw.com


KIPP BROTHERS: Recalls Bendable Dinosaur Toys for Excessive Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kipp Brothers, of Carmel, Indiana, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 10,000 bendable dinosaur toys.

The company said the recalled toys pose a risk of lead exposure to young
children. No injuries have been reported.

The bendable dinosaur toys are about three inches long and come in brown,
green or orange/green colors. While the toys were sold in boxes of 36,
consumers may have received these products as a giveaway or promotional item
from schools, libraries, churches, community groups, etc.

These recalled bendable dinos were manufactured in China and are being sold
in The Kipp Brothers’ showroom, catalog and Web site from October 2006
through August 2007 for about $10 per box of 36.

Pictures of the recalled bendable dinos:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08020a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08020b.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled toys away from children
immediately. Consumers can return the toy to the place of receipt for a free
replacement toy.

For additional information, contact Kipp Brothers at (800) 428-1153 between
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the Web site:
http://www.kipptoys.com


MEDICAL SOCIETIES: Faces Lawsuit in Cal. Over ‘Egg Sharing’
-----------------------------------------------------------
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted
Reproductive Technology is accused of fraud, conversion and tortious
interference for distributing the ova of registered members to unknown and
unauthorized women without consent, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed by the Options National Fertility Registry as a purported
class action on Oct. 12, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  It alleged the abuse is “an industry-wide
practice...known as ‘egg sharing.’” Both defendants are headquartered in
Birmingham, Ala., and do business in California.

Plaintiffs claim the defendants cannot account for missing ova, and their
records are suspiciously inconsistent.

Plaintiffs pray for relief from each defendant as follows:

     -- for an award of special damages, including lost income
        and medical costs and other costs, according to proof;

     -- an award of general damages for pain and suffering and
        loss of reputation
   
     -- an award of punitive damages against each defendant

     -- injunctive relief banning unauthorized and unconsented-
        to egg sharing by defendants

     -- an award of reasonable attorney fees incurred in
        bringing this action and

     -- an award of costs of suit.

The suit is "Options National Fertility et al. v. The American Society for
Reproductive Medicine, et al., Case No. C07 05238," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stanley G. Hilton
          Law Offices of Stanley G. Hilton
          580 California Street, Suite 500
          Phone: (415) 439-4893 or (415) 786-4821
          Fax: (415) 439-4963
          E-mail: 4561414@gmail.com


NAVTEQ CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over $8.1B Sale to Nokia Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navteq Corp. faces a purported shareholder class action in Illinois that
seeks to block the Chicago-based digital mapmaker’s $8.1-billion sale to
Nokia Corp., Brandon Glenn of The Crain's Chicago Business reports.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by Karen Rosenberg, a
New Jersey shareholder of Navteq Corp., in Cook County Circuit Court on Oct.
9, 2007.  

It generally alleges that Navteq executives breached their fiduciary duties
by selling the company for an “unfair and grossly inadequate” price.

In addition, the suit contends that the $250 million termination fee for the
deal is “excessive” and a deterrent to other potential bidders.  Plaintiffs
claim that the deal “deprives Navteq’s shareholders of maximum value to
which they are entitled.”

Several Navteq executives were named as defendants in the case, including
chief executive Judson Green and Chairman Christopher Galvin, former chief
executive of Motorola Inc.   

The suit accuses them and other executives of putting their personal
interests ahead of the interests of Navteq shareholders.

Ms. Rosenberg is represented in the matter by two law firms, Krislov
Associates Ltd. of Chicago, and Faruqi & Faruqi LLP of New York.

According to a joint statement, it was announced that the deal was recently
approved by Navteq and Nokia’s boards of directors and is subject to Navteq
shareholders’ approval.

For more details, contact:

          Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
          20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: 312-606-0500
          Fax: 312-606-0207
          E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com/

               - and -

          Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6531
          Phone: (212) 983-9330 or (877) 247-4292
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com/


NEW YORK: City Seeks Settlement Talks for 9/11 Health Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of New York wants to see if a settlement is possible in the
purported class action, "In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site
Litigation," which is claiming that city's negligence caused Ground Zero
workers to breathe toxic air at the World Trade Center site.

The suit generally alleges that the defendants violated certain laws by not
providing adequate safety equipment to those involved in the rescue and
clean-up efforts following the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept.
11, 2001.

It alleges that that because of such violations the plaintiffs suffered
respiratory injuries brought on by toxic fumes and dust from the collapsed
towers

According to a report by The Associated Press, an attorney for the ailing
workers recently sent his clients a letter asking to authorize talks with
the city regarding the matter.

However, Mayor Michael Bloomberg was quick to point out that holding talks
doesn't mean a settlement offer will be made.  The mayor told The Associated
Press, "I can only tell you this: Every time you get sued, you always take a
look and see" whether there is a way "to come to a settlement which would be
in everybody's interest."

The mayor adds, "There's no reason to think that we can come to a settlement
or reason to think that we can't come to a settlement.  Plain and simple,
we're just going to talk and explore."

The complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1150

The suit is "In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation,  
Case No. 1:21-mc-00100-AKH-THK," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
with referral to Judge Theodore H. Katz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Marc Jay Bern, Esq.
         Paul Joseph Napoli, Esq.
         Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP
         115 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 267-3700
         Fax: (212)-513-7320 and (212) 587-0031
         E-mail: mjbern@napolibern.com
                 PNapoli@napolibern.com
         Web site: http://www.877wtchero.com/updates.jsp

              - and -

         Rita F. Aronov, Esq.
         Shestack & Young, LLP
         233 Broadway, 50th Floor
         New York, NY 10279
         Phone: (212) 766-1200
         Fax: (212) 349-4911
         E-mail: raronov@yahoo.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Kenneth A. Becker, Esq.
         Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
         Assistant Corporation Counsel
         100 Church Street--Rm. 4-214
         New York, NY 10007
         Phone: (212) 788-051

              - and -

         Judith Pearl Falk, Esq.
         Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP
         One Liberty Plaza
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 412-9554
         Fax: (212) 964-9200
         E-mail: jfalk@fzw.com


OCCAM NETWORKS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Occam Networks, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to
its Oct. 16, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On April 26, 2007 and May 16, 2007, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company and certain of its officers.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating
to the Company's financial statements and internal controls with respect
revenue recognition.

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock
during the period from May 2, 2006 and April 17, 2007, damages of an
unspecified amount.

On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated these actions into
a single action, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan) as lead
plaintiff, and approved its selection of lead counsel.  The lead plaintiff
must file a consolidated complaint no later than Nov. 16, 2007.

The suit is “Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-02750,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California under Judge Christina A. Snyder.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212.687.1980
          Fax: 212.687.7714
          E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com


POSSIS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Still Appealing Minn. Suit's Nixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against Possis Medical, Inc.,
and two of its executive officers continue to appeal the dismissal of the
matter.

The company was served with a shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota on June 3, 2005, alleging that Possis
Medical, Inc. and named individual officers violated federal securities
laws.  

The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified damages.  It was
dismissed with prejudice by order of the Court on Feb. 1, 2007.  Plaintiffs
have filed an appeal from the Court's order and the appeal is still pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 15, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended July 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Possis Medical, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L.
Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

         Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel, PC
         20 Church St., Ste. 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-241-6116
         E-mail: nkulesa@snlaw.net

              - and -

         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-946-4474
         E-mail: arado@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michelle S. Grant, Esq.
         Bryan C. Keane, Esq.
         James K. Langdon, Esq.
         Roger J. Magnuson, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2807 and 612-340-8800
         E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com
                 keane.bryan@dorsey.com
                 langdon.jim@dorsey.com
                 magnuson.roger@dorsey.com


PROCYCLE GROUP: Recalls Bicycles with Head Tube that can Detach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Procycle Group Inc., of Quebec, Canada is recalling about 45 Rocky Mountain-
Solo Bicycles.

The company said the head tube can detach from the rest of the frame, posing
a fall hazard to consumers.

Procycle Group Inc. has received two reports of head tubes detaching from
the frames, resulting in shoulder and facial injuries.

This recall involves the Rocky Mountain Bicycles brand of Solo bicycles. The
models included in this recall are: 2006 SOLO CR50, 2006 SOLO CR70, and 2007
SOLO CR LTD. The bicycles have a full carbon Columbus frame. ?Rocky
Mountain? and ?Solo? are printed on the head tube.

The recalled Rocky Mountain-Solo Bicycles were manufactured in Taiwan and
are being sold by independent bicycle dealers nationwide from August 2006
through July 2007 for between $2,000 and $5,850.

Pictures of recalled Rocky Mountain-Solo Bicycles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08506.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the bicycle immediately and return the
frame to the bicycle store where purchased to receive a free replacement
frame, a full refund, or credit.

For additional information, please contact Procycle Group Inc. at (800) 663-
2512 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm’s Web site: http://www.bikes.com


SOUTH & ASSOC: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Fraud, Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
South & Associates is facing a class-action complaint filed Oct. 16 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging it
systematically overstates attorney’s fees and borrowers’ debts, Joe Harris
of the Courthouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Randal Howland says South violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by sending letters to borrowers containing the amount owed on
their mortgage when it has no records to support such charges, the suit
states.  Mr. Howland says South also overcharges for other services, such as
certified mail, at prices well above those he incurs.

Plaintiff seeks individual and class action relief for Debt Collectors'
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692, et. seq.

This action is brought by Mr. Howland to recover for the class for
violations of the FDCPA. He contends that South violates the FDCPA by
failing to state the amount of the debt as required by 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(1), by giving a false impression of the character, amount and legal
status of the debt in violation 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A), by engaging
in unfair and unconscionable collection methods in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692f, and by using false and deceptive collection methods in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10).

Mr. Howland proposed to represent a plaintiffs' class consisting of all
persons within the State of Missouri who, during the year prior to the
filing of this lawsuit, were sent a letter by South in a form materially
identical or substantially similar to the letter sent to Mr. Howland, for
attempting to collect a debt and soliciting borrowers to pay off or
reinstate the underlying mortgage and demanding fees and costs that it had
not yet earned or expended by South and which was not returned by the postal
service as undelivered.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether South sent a letter attempting to collect a
         debt and soliciting borrowers to pay off or reinstate
         the underlying mortgage and demanding fees and costs
         that it had not yet earned or expended;

     (b) whether South acted as a debt collector when it
         solicited members of the plaintiff class to pay off or
         reinstate the underlying mortgages;

     (c) whether the practice of South lumping unaccrued with
         accrued fees and costs constitutes a "false, deceptive,
         or misleading representation or means in connection
         with the collection of a debt" in violation of the
         FDCPA;

     (d) whether this action is maintainable as a plaintiffs'
         class action;

     (e) whether the members of the plaintiffs' class are
         entitled to relief available under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.
         Section 1692k; and

     (f) whether South entitled to defenses provide under the
         FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(c).

Plaintiff prays that the court grant the following relief:

     -- enter an order certifying this action as a plaintiffs'
        class action, and appointing the plaintiff as the
        representative of the plaintiff's class;

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

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the members of
        the plaintiffs' class and against defendant award actual
        and statutory damages to each member of the plaintiffs'
        class and attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs
        as provided under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(3);

     -- enter judgment awarding class counsel reasonable
        attorneys' fees and all expenses of this action to be
        paid by defendant and to require defendant to pay the
        costs and expenses of class notice and claim
        administration; and

     -- award plaintiffs prejudgment interest, post-judgment
        interest, and any further and additional relief as to
        which they may be entitled.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan F. Andres
          David T. Butsch
          Matthew R. Fields
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 700
          Clayton, MO 63105-2015
          Phone: 314.862.6800
          Fax: 314.862.1606
          E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com or butsch@stlouislaw.com
                  or fields@stlouislaw.com


SOUTHLAND TITLE: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal “Email, Notary Fees”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southland Title Corp. and LandAmerica Financial Group are facing a class-
action complaint filed Oct. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California alleging both companies charge illegal “email fees”
of $200 and “notary fees” of up to $700 in nationwide violations of real
estate law.

This is a class action by consumers seeking relief from the predatory
practices of a title company and title insurer which violate the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) of 1974, as amended, 12 U.S.C. Section
2601, et seq. and the California Business & Professional Code Section 17200,
et seq.

The "email fees" and "notary fees" are nothing more than a means for
defendants to generate unearned fees from consumers at the time of the real
estate settlement and closing. Southland's excessive and bogus fees and
charges have thus injured all members of the proposed plaintiff classes in
precisely the same way: by increasing its own profits and denying consumers
critical information about the costs passed along to them, in a way
calculated - to quote Congress' words from 1974 - "to increase unnecessarily
the costs" of settlement services.

By hyper-inflating the charges imposed consumers, and requiring consumers to
pay junk "email fees" and "notary fees," Southland has engaged in unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent business practices, in violation of California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. (Unfair Competition
Law).

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants charged an "email fee;"

     (b) how defendants calculated the amount it charges for the
         "email fee," including what services defendants or any
         third party purportedly provided in connection with
         said fee;

     (c) whether defendants or any third party actually
         performed the services that were purportedly connected
         to the "email fee;"

     (d) whether defendants charged a "notary fee;"

     (e) how defendants calculated the amount it charges for the
         "notary fee," including what services defendants or any
         third party purportedly provided in connection with
         said fee;

     (f) whether the various state laws limit the charge for
         "notary fees;"

     (g) whether the services and costs purportedly connected to
         the "email fee" were duplicative of other services and
         costs;

     (h) whether the services and costs purportedly connected to
         the "notary fee" were duplicative of other services and
         costs;

     (i) whether the costs connected to the "email fee" were
         nominal;

     (j) whether the costs connected to the "notary fee" were
         nominal;

     (k) whether defendants violated RESPA;

     (l) whether defendants violated California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17203; and

     (m) whether plaintiffs and the other class members have
         been damaged as a result.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

     -- for an order finding and declaring this action to be a
        proper class action and certifying plaintiffs as
        representatives of the class under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- for injunctive relief ordering defendants to cease and
        desist from charging its consumers any real estate
        settlement and closing fee where no, nominal, or
        duplicative work is done in connection with said fee;

     -- for an order of restitution in an amount to be
        determined at trial to restore to all affected class
        members all money acquired by defendants or its
        successors in interest by means of its unlawful
        practices described and all interest and profit earned
        thereon;

     -- for actual damages;

     -- for treble damages under RESPA, 12 USC Section 2601, et
        seq.;

     -- for compensatory damages;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and other
        expenses incurred in prosecuting this action, pursuant
        to 12 USC Section 2607(d)(5);

     -- for pre-judgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Peter Fernandes et al. v. Southland Title Corp., Case No. CV07-
06690DSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Weiss
          Law Office of Jonathan Weiss
          10576 Troon Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436
          Phone: (310) 558-0404
          Fax: (310) 558-0100
          E-mail: jw@lojw.com

          Richard S. Gordon
          Cory L. Zajdel
          Quinn, Gordon, & Wolf, CHTD
          102 West Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: (410) 825-2300
          Fax: (410) 825-0066
          E-mail: rgordon@quinnlaw.com or czdjel@quinnlaw.com

          - and -

          Philip S. Friedman
          Law Office of Philip S. Friedman, PLLC
          2401 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 410
          Washington DC 20037
          Phone: (202) 293-4175
          Fax: (202) 318-0395
          E-mail: psf@consumerlawhelp.com


TACO BELL: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp., Yum! Brands, Inc. and other related entities face a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
California that was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked
for the defendants within the last four years.

The suit, “Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.,” was filed on Sept. 10,
2007.  It alleges numerous violations of California labor laws including
unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair
or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.

The suit is “Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-OWW-
DLB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California under Judge Oliver W. Wanger with referral to Judge Dennis L.
Beck.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Joseph Cho, Esq.
         Initiative Legal Group LLP
         1800 Century Park East, Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 556-5637
         Fax: (310) 861-9051
         E-mail: josephcho@initiativelegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Heather Mactavish Freelin, Esq.
         Irell and Manella
         840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Phone: 949-760-0991
         Fax: 949-760-5200
         E-mail: hfreelin@irell.com


TACO BELL: Nov. 2008 Hearing Set in Cal. ADA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 10, 2008 trial is slated for the matter, “Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.,” which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant in a class
action, "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among
other things, that the company discriminated against the class of people who
use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its
approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the
class.  

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural
elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use
of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities –- including
parking spaces, ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not
comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act.  

Plaintiffs have requested:

      -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

      -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

      -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.
        
Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory
damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  They contend that there may be
in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.  

For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate minimum
statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are expected to claim greater
amounts based on the number of company outlets they visited at which they
claim to have suffered discrimination.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory
injunctive relief class of all individuals with disabilities who use
wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after
Dec. 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California Restaurants.  The
class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004, the district
court ordered that the trial of this action be bifurcated so that stage one
will resolve plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and stage two will
resolve plaintiffs' claims for damages.  

Parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage of this
action.  During this stage, the company filed a motion to partially
decertify the class to exclude from the Rule 23(b)(2) class claims for
monetary damages.  

The district court denied the motion.  Plaintiffs filed their own motion for
partial summary judgment as to liability relating to a subset of the
California Restaurants.  The district court denied that motion as well.  

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in
violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating,
queue rails and door opening force.

On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part with regard to
dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in
part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and
denied the motion with regard to queue lines.

At a status conference on Sept. 27, 2007, the court set a trial date of Nov.
10, 2008 with respect to not more than 20 restaurants to determine the issue
of liability and common issues.

The suit is "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-cv-05849,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy P. Fox, Esq.
         Fox & Robertson, P.C.
         910-16th Street, Suite 610
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-595-9700
         Fax: 303-595-9705
         E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com

              - and -

         Brad Seligman, Esq.
         The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave.
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
         Fax: 510-845-3654
         E-mail: bs@impactfund.org

Representing the defendant are:

         Gregory A. Eurich, Esq.
         Jimmy Goh, Esq.
         Holland & Hart, LLP
         555 17th Street, Suite 3200
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-295-8000
         E-mail: geurich@hollandhart.com
                 jgoh@hollandhart.com

              - and -

         Gregory F. Hurley, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-708-6564
         Fax: 714 708-6501
         E-mail: sautters@gtlaw.com


TACO BELL: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., will seek for the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations under the
new federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The suit, “Doran Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.,” was filed on July 5,
2007.  It was delivered to Taco Bell’s agent for service of process in
Illinois.

It is a proposed class action and alleges that Taco Bell failed to protect
the private information of its customers under FACTA.

The complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction involving
a licensed restaurant.

Since the complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction
involving a licensed restaurant, the Company intends to seek dismissal from
the action, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 15, 2007.

The suit is “Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03620,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Mark Filip.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         Zimmerman and Associates
         100 West Monroe, Suite 1300
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 440-0020
         E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


T-MOBILE: Cal. High Court Allows “Termination Fees” Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court blocked T-Mobile's bid to have a lawsuit that
challenged the company's early termination fees and "locking" practice
dismissed, reports say.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw had ruled at the trial-
court level that the case could go ahead, and a San Francisco-based
appellate court affirmed that decision in June.  T-Mobile appealed, arguing
that its terms of service agreement required customers to go through
arbitration with a neutral mediator before going to court.  

The plaintiffs countered that their cases were not arbitrable under the
Unfair Competition Law and the state's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. T-Mobile
lost the motion to compel arbitration because the trial court felt that the
request for injunctive relief was for the benefit of the public, and also
that the clause to arbitrate the unlocking claim was unconscionable.

T-Mobile appealed to the California Supreme Court.  Last week, the state
Supreme Court agreed that the case should be heard.  Without comment, the
high court's seven justices declined to review the lower-court decisions.  
The case could ultimately revamp the relationship between mobile-phone
carriers and their customers.

The plaintiffs in the suit are T-Mobile customers Bruce Gatton and Christina
Nguyen.  They are seeking an injunction that would prevent T-Mobile from
collecting an early termination fee of about $200 from subscribers.  
Additionally, they are seeking an order that would require T-Mobile to allow
its subscribers to unlock their cell phones if they choose to take them to
another carrier.

The case is “Gatton v. T-Mobile, S154947.”


TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Santa Barbara Music for $1M
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement worth $1,164,000 was reached in the purported class
action, “Nathan East, et al., v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., et al.,
Case No. CV 04-4920 GAF (Shx),” which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The suit was brought on behalf of composers and others in connection with
music allegedly used without permission in the television program Santa
Barbara, according to a report by http://www.filmmusicmag.com.

Plaintiffs Nathan East, Stanley M. Clarke, and The Music Force LLC commenced
legal action on July 6, 2004, alleging they are owners of musical
compositions or sound recordings that were used without authorization in the
television series Santa Barbara and thereafter reproduced and distributed in
episodes internationally.

Named as defendants in the matter are:

       -- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,
    
       -- Twentieth Century Fox Film International Television,
          Inc.,     

       -- New World Television Productions, Inc., and

       -- New World Entertainment, Ltd.

Plaintiffs asserted claims for copyright infringement for themselves
individually and on behalf of classes of owners of thousands of musical
compositions and sound recordings, or portions thereof, that were embodied
in Santa Barbara.

The suit is “Nathan East, et al., v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,
et al., Case No. CV 04-4920 GAF (Shx),” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey L. Graubart, Esq.
         Law Offices of Jeffrey L. Graubart
         350 West Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200
         Pasadena, CA 91105-1855
         Phone: (626) 304-2800
         Fax: (626) 304-2807

              - and -

         Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
         Blecher & Collins, P.C.
         515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1700
         Los Angeles, California 90071
         Phone: (213) 622-4222
         Fax: (232) 689-1944
         Web site: http://www.blechercollins.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Xanath Owens
         Kirkland & Ellis LLP
         777 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
         Phone: (213) 680-8537
         Fax: (213) 680-8500
         E-mail: xowens@kirkland.com
         Web site: http://www.kirkland.com


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Wheat Rolls Containing Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of 18 oz.
Wegmans Food You Feel Good About Country Wheat Rolls with best-if-used-by
date of October 10.  This product is being recalled because the package may
actually contain potato rolls, which contain a milk allergen not declared on
the label. The bread was produced on Monday, October 1, and would have been
available in Wegmans stores between Tuesday, October 2 and Wednesday,
October 3. Product with the affected code date is no longer on store shelves.

No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall of this product is of
concern only to those individuals who have allergies to milk. Consumption
may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction in persons with allergies
to milk. Concerned customers should return the product to Wegmans for a full
refund. Customers who have consumed the product and feel they are
experiencing symptoms should contact their physician.

18 oz Wegmans Food You Feel Good About Country Wheat Rolls are sold
exclusively at Wegmans Food Markets located in New York, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland. Wegmans’ customers who have questions or
concerns about this recall should contact the consumer affairs department at
1-800-WEGMANS, ext. 4760.


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dewalt’s Appeal to Remand Order Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina dismissed Alfred Thomas Daywalt’s
appeal of the North Carolina Industrial Commission’s Sept. 19, 2006 ruling,
which remanded his asbestos case to a deputy commissioner for a full
evidentiary hearing.

The Appeals Court dismissed this appeal as interlocutory.

Judges Calbria, Martin, and Jackson entered judgment of Case No. COA06-1598
on Oct. 2, 2007. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeals on Sept. 17,
2007.

In July 2001, Mr. Daywalt filed a workers' compensation claim against his
employer Norandal USA Inc., seeking benefits for the occupational disease of
asbestosis and pleural. Norandal and CIGNA/ACE USA ESIS (CIGNA)
(collectively "defendants") denied liability.

On March 1, 2004 and March 2, 2004, Deputy Commissioner George T. Glenn II,
held a hearing on Mr. Daywalt’s claim. Later that month, Mr. Daywalt filed
a "Motion for Post-Hearing Submission of Evidence and Motion for Sanctions"
on the ground that defendants failed to disclose relevant information
provided by defendants' consulting company, S & ME.

Deputy Commissioner Glenn heard the motions on April 21, 2004. On June 21,
2004, Deputy Commissioner Glenn ordered S & ME's report to become part of
the record and struck defendants' defenses to the compensability of Mr.
Daywalt’s claim.

On March 8, 2005, Deputy Commissioner Glenn entered an Opinion and Award in
favor of Mr. Daywalt. Defendants appealed this decision to the Full
Commission. The Full Commission heard defendants' appeal in February 2006.

On Sept. 19, 2006, the Full Commission entered an "Interlocutory Order"
finding that "the Deputy Commissioner improvidently allowed the submission
of the S & ME report, which was not discoverable per N.C. Gen.Stat. s 1A-1,
Rule 26" and "improvidently sanctioned the defendants for their withholding
of non-discoverable material, and prejudiced the defendants by striking
their defenses as to the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos."

The Full Commission vacated the deputy commissioner's order and remanded the
matter. Mr. Daywalt appealed.

The Appeals Court dismissed Mr. Daywalt’s appeal.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, represented Alfred Thomas
Daywalt.

Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P., by Harmony Whalen Taylor,
represented Norandal USA and CIGNA/ACE USA/ESIS.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Corp. Has Product Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSK Auto Corp. is involved in litigation incidental to the conduct of its
business, including but not limited to asbestos and similar product
liability claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 12, 2007.

The Company, currently and from time to time, also faces slip and fall and
other general liability claims, discrimination and employment claims, vendor
disputes, and miscellaneous environmental and real estate claims.

The damages claimed in some of this litigation are substantial.

Phoenix-based CSK Auto Corp., through it unit CSK Auto Inc., is a specialty
retailer of automotive aftermarket parts and accessories. At Aug. 5, 2007,
the Company operated 1,334 stores in 22 states, with its principal
concentration of stores in the Western U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $8.56M Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp.’s current asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$8,560,000
at June 30, 2007, compared with US$13,950,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to
the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 11, 2007.

The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities, as of
March 31, 2007, amounted to US$10,372,000. (Class Action Reporter, May 25,
2007)

The Company’s asbestos reserves, at June 30, 2007, amounted to US$2,255,000,
compared with US$7,800,000 at Dec. 31, 2006.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for
residential and commercial use. Its products include resilient sheet
flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and
commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through a network of
about a dozen distributors in more than 70 North American locations, as well
as directly to large market retailers. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66
percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings on Congoleum Claims Issued in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, on July 27, 2007, issued two decisions on the
legal status of Congoleum Corp.’s settled asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007.

In 2003, the Company was one of many defendants in about 22,000 pending
lawsuits (including workers' compensation cases) involving about 106,000
individuals, alleging personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.

Claims involving about 80,000 were settled under the Claimant Agreement and
litigation related to unsettled or new claims is presently stayed by the
Bankruptcy Code.

In December 2005, the Company commenced Avoidance Actions seeking to void
the security interest granted to the Collateral Trust and such settlements.
In March 2006, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in the
Avoidance Actions seeking to avoid the Claimant Agreement settlements and
liens under various bankruptcy theories, which motion was denied in June
2006.

In April 2007, the Company filed a new motion for summary judgment in the
Avoidance Actions, seeking to avoid the security interests in insurance
allegedly securing the Claimant Agreement settlements. On June 7, 2007, the
Company filed the Omnibus Objection in the Bankruptcy Court requesting that
the Settled Claims be disallowed and expunged.

The Bankruptcy Court heard arguments on the Omnibus Objection on July 9,
2007.

One decision held that the relief requested in the Omnibus Objection should
be heard in the context of an adversary proceeding (a formal lawsuit) in
order to insure that the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over all the
affected claimants and that their due process rights are otherwise protected.

In its other decision, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the security
interests in insurance collateral that were conveyed to the settled
claimants pre-bankruptcy were ineffective and unenforceable against the
Company’s insurance policies or the proceeds of those policies because the
attempts to create security interests were outside the scope of Article 9 of
the Uniform Commercial Code; nor could such security interest be considered
to be a common law pledge.

The Bankruptcy Court therefore granted summary judgment in the Company’s
favor on Counts V and VI of the Avoidance Actions, which counts sought to
void the security interests and liens securing the pre-petition settlements
of asbestos claims.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for
residential and commercial use. Its products include resilient sheet
flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and
commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through a network of
about a dozen distributors in more than 70 North American locations, as well
as directly to large market retailers. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66
percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Coverage Case Decided Last May 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey State Court, on May 18, 2007, ruled that the defendant
insurers have no coverage obligations for the Claimant Agreement under New
Jersey law, in an asbestos-related coverage action involving Congoleum
Corp., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007.

During the period that the Company produced asbestos-containing products,
until claims for asbestos were excluded under insurance policies, the
Company purchased primary and excess insurance policies providing in excess
of US$1 billion of coverage for general and product liability claims.

Through August 2002, substantially all asbestos-related claims and defense
costs were paid through primary insurance coverage. In August 2002, the
Company received notice that its primary insurance limits had been paid in
full.

The first phase of the trial began in August 2005. Phase 1 was limited to
deciding whether the insurers are obligated to provide coverage under the
policies at issue in this litigation for the asbestos claims settled under
the terms of the global Claimant Agreement.

Three months into the trial, in October 2005, a federal appeals court ruled
that the law firm of Gilbert Heintz & Randolph, which had been acting as the
Company's insurance co-counsel in the Coverage Action, had other
representations which were in conflict with its representation of the
Company.

As a result of this ruling, with Bankruptcy Court approval, Congoleum
retained the firm of Covington & Burling to represent it as co-counsel with
Dughi & Hewit in the insurance coverage litigation and insurance settlement
matters previously handled by GHR.

In the middle of the Company presenting its case, in or about November 2005,
and in December 2005, certain insurers filed motions for summary judgment on
the grounds that the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd
Circuit reversing the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the retention of
GHR in In re Congoleum, 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005), and/or Congoleum's
filing of the Avoidance Actions in the Bankruptcy Court, entitled them to
judgment as a matter of law on the Phase 1 issues. Congoleum opposed the
motions. The motions were argued in January 2006, and in March 2006 the
State Court denied the motions for summary judgment.

Congoleum completed the presentation of its case in April 2006. Certain
insurers moved for a directed verdict in their favor during the first week
of May 2006. Hearings of arguments on the directed verdict motion took place
in June 2006. In July 2006 the State Court denied the motion for a directed
verdict. The trial resumed in September 2006.

Defendant insurers presented their case, for the most part, through
documents and deposition designations. Post trial briefs were submitted by
the parties in November 2006.

The second phase of the trial will address all coverage issues, including
but not limited to whether certain other trial listed settlements were fair,
reasonable and negotiated in good faith and covered by insurance as well as
trigger and allocation of asbestos losses to insurance policies. Any
additional discovery, and scheduling of pre-trial motions and trial dates
for Phase 2 will be addressed by the State Court at an appropriate time.

The third and final phase of the trial will address bad faith punitive
damages, if appropriate.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for
residential and commercial use. Its products include resilient sheet
flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and
commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through a network of
about a dozen distributors in more than 70 North American locations, as well
as directly to large market retailers. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66
percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Records $10.54M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$10,540,000 as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$10,300,000 as of Dec.
31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007.

The Company’s insurance for asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$9,320,000 as of the periods ended June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces Congoleum-brand
vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and it distributes fashion
jewelry through its K&M Associates supplier. The Company also makes
industrial products like adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to
protect materials during handling and for varied applications. The Company
owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,415 Claims at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant in about 1,415 pending asbestos
claims involving about 2,001 individuals as of June 30, 2007, compared with
1,332 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11,
2007.

The Company, as of March 31, 2007, faced about 1,381 pending asbestos-
related claims involving about 1,967 individuals. (Class Action Reporter,
May 25, 2007)

The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 281 new claims,
8 settlements, and 190 dismissals. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the
Company recorded 625 new claims, 30 settlements, and 966 dismissals.

The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for
asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during
the six months ended June 30, 2007 were US$500,000 (US$3.1 million during
the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006), all of which were paid by the Company’s
insurance carriers under a February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement with
the Company’s applicable primary layer insurance carriers, as were the
related defense costs.

The Company will seek reimbursement for asbestos claims under its excess
layer coverage upon exhaustion of its primary insurance coverage. The amount
of indemnity coverage limits remaining at June 30, 2007 under the Company’s
primary insurance coverage relating to policies underwritten from 1961 to
1985 (Primary Layer) was about US$1.9 million to US$3 million, depending on
the interpretation of the terms of the above-referenced coverage-in-place
agreement.

The Company is negotiating with the three insurance carriers currently
providing coverage under the Primary Layer (the "Carrier Group") to
determine the amount of coverage remaining under that coverage-in-place
agreement.

In 2006, the Company utilized an actuarial study to assist it in developing
estimates of the Company's potential liability for resolving present and
possible future asbestos claims.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the estimated range of liability for settlement of current
claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2012 was US$10.3
million to US$35.3 million.

At June 30, 2007, the Company has recorded US$10.5 million for the estimated
minimum liability. The Company also believes that, based on this minimum
liability estimate, the corresponding amount of insurance probable of
recovery is US$9.3 million at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, which has
been included in other assets.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces Congoleum-brand
vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and it distributes fashion
jewelry through its K&M Associates supplier. The Company also makes
industrial products like adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to
protect materials during handling and for varied applications. The Company
owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senior Citizen Sues 48 Firms in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Citizen Buster Flanigan, on Oct. 9, 2007, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against A.O. Smith Corp. and 47 other corporations in Jefferson
County District Court in Texas, the Southeast Texas Record reports.

Although Mr. Flanigan had a 100-plus pack-year smoking history, Trinity
Clinic physician Dr. Richard Kronenberg says Mr. Flanigan's lung cancer was
caused by asbestos exposure. Trinity Clinic was paid by Provost Umphrey
attorney Bryan Blevins to review Mr. Flanigan's medical history.

Mr. Flanigan has already sued and received a settlement for his asbestos-
related disease, but is now suing for a "different malignant asbestos-
related injury."

Mr. Flanigan's lawsuit claims the defendants knowingly and maliciously
manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing products throughout
Jefferson County.

Mr. Flanigan’s original petition says the 48 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.

After reviewing Mr. Flanigan's medical history, Dr. Kronenberg wrote, "The
records indicate Mr. Flanigan had a significant occupational exposure to
asbestos. Specifically, he worked as a longshoreman in cargo holds at
refineries and chemical plants from 1960 to 1962. From 1964 to 1967, he was
on active duty with the U. S. Navy. From 1969 to 1974, he worked aboard
tugboats and was exposed extensively to asbestos insulation.”

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. Flanigan has already sued and received a claim, the suit
says, "Plaintiff now seeks damages against defendants not released in the
previous actions pursuant to Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp."

Mr. Flanigan is suing for exemplary damages, plus 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 Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to the Case No.
A180-492.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laborer’s Daughter Sues 42 Firms in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iona J. Cole, of Wood County, W.Va., filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on
her behalf of her father, William G. Cole, against 42 companies in Kanawha
Circuit Court on Sept. 28, 2007, The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Cole died of mesothelioma on July 12, 2007. He
worked 37 years at Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., Alcan Rolled Products,
Pechiney, and Century Aluminum Co. at the Ravenswood, W.Va. facility. He was
a furnace operator and laborer.

As part of his job, Mr. Cole was exposed to various asbestos-containing
materials. Due to the asbestos fibers and dust, he developed mesothelioma.

According to the suit, after Mr. Cole contracted mesothelioma he suffered
from associated pulmonary pathologies, which caused severe and disabling
effects upon his body. He also suffered shock and nervous and emotional
disorders.

Ms. Cole claims her father incurred medical expenses for treatment,
medication and great pain, embarrassment and inconvenience.

After her father's death, Ms. Cole claims she incurred a funeral bill of
US$5,000. In the 11-count suit, she seeks compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of her father.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2089 will be assigned to a visiting
judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 2 EU Parliament Buildings
----------------------------------------------------------------
High levels of asbestos have been detected in two European Union Parliament
buildings, the legislature said on Oct. 12, 2007, International Herald
Tribune reports.

The mineral has been found in larger quantities "in a limited number of
technical facility rooms" in two parliament buildings at the legislature's
seat in Strasbourg, France, which the assembly recently bought for EUR143
million (US$203 million) instead of continuing to rent them.

A study presented to the European Parliament before it purchased the
buildings showed there was asbestos in some rooms.

However, it was later found out the levels were higher than originally
estimated, the assembly said. It said the previous owner was responsible for
removing it, but did not specify the cost.

The European Commission headquarters in Brussels was closed for 13 years
after dangerous levels of asbestos were found there in 1991.

Asbestos was banned in 1999, and EU member states had until 2005 to remove
from the market all white asbestos, otherwise known as chrysotile, which is
still in use in pipes and roofing, brake and clutch linings for heavy
vehicles and various specialist uses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner’s Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Preston Coroner’s Court inquest heard that the death of 85-year-old
pensioner Edward Robinson was related to asbestos, Lancashire Evening Post
reports.

The Coroner’s Court heard that Mr. Robinson was a Heavy Goods Vehicle driver
most of his working life and often transported asbestos.

Mr. Robinson, of Bamber Bridge, U.K., suffered chest problems and diabetes
and was taken to Chorley Hospital on May 19, 2007, where he was diagnosed
with a chest infection. He died on June 12, 2007.

Pathologist Dr. Caroline Nicholson told the hearing Mr. Robinson's work with
asbestos may have caused fibrosis in his lungs.

Mr. Robinson's wife Jean said her husband often worked with asbestos before
their marriage in 1948, and also delivered cement.

Coroner Nicola Mundy recorded a narrative verdict, saying, “Edward Robinson
died following exposure to asbestos during his employment. He developed
pneumonia and suffered a fall in hospital. This, together with diabetes,
contributed to his death.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bribery Ruling Upheld in D.C. Appeals Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, upheld the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia’s ruling, which sentenced
Jeffrey Edwards to 33 months in prison for bribery and extortion, in an
action involving the abatement of asbestos.

Circuit Judges Garland, Sentelle, and Kavanaugh entered judgment of Case No.
05-3196 on Aug. 7, 2007.

Mr. Edwards was a senior inspector in the Air Quality Division of the
District of Columbia Department of Health. His duties included reviewing
permit applications submitted by contractors who intended to demolish
structures containing asbestos.  

In 2002, the District of Columbia Department of Public Works requested bid
proposals for the demolition of six structures at a waste transfer facility.
It ultimately awarded the contract to Keystone Plus Construction. Mr.
Edwards was responsible for monitoring the project and approving Keystone's
demolition plan.

Keystone hired Carlos Elizondo, an environmental consultant, to help prepare
the plan. Mr. Elizondo's services to Keystone included meeting with Mr.
Edwards to try to convince him that the asbestos-containing materials in the
structures were nonfriable.

On Jan. 27, 2003, Mr. Elizondo drove to Mr. Edwards' office for the meeting.
According to Mr. Elizondo's trial testimony, Mr. Edwards insisted on meeting
in Elizondo's car rather than in the office. The men began discussing the
waste facility project, and Mr. Edwards said that he thought the asbestos-
containing material at the site was friable rather than nonfriable.

After the meeting, Mr. Elizondo contacted the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Elizondo had another meeting on Feb. 13,
2003, this time at Mr. Elizondo's office and within view of FBI surveillance
cameras. During the meeting, Mr. Elizondo produced US$10,000 in pre-recorded
FBI funds.

Mr. Edwards then wrote the word "approved" on Keystone's proposal to treat
the asbestos-containing materials at the waste facility as nonfriable, and
Mr. Elizondo handed him the money. Mr. Edwards also gave Mr. Elizondo a
signed asbestos permit, allowing the company to begin implementing its
nonfriable abatement plan. Mr. Edwards was arrested immediately upon leaving
Mr. Elizondo's office. After his arrest, the District permitted Keystone to
implement the same nonfriable abatement plan that Mr. Edwards had approved.

On April 10, 2003, a grand jury indicted Mr. Edwards on one count of
soliciting and accepting a bribe and one count of extortion. A jury found
Edwards guilty on both counts on May 4, 2004. The District Court sentenced
Mr. Edwards to 33 months in prison on Oct. 25, 2005.

Mr. Edwards appealed, contending that the Court erred in its application of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The Court of Appeals held that:

(1) Value of benefit to contractor to be received in return for US$10,000
bribe to Mr. Edwards was the difference between the cost to contractor of
conducting a more expensive friable abatement and the cost of conducting a
nonfriable abatement;

(2) Mr. Edwards was the final authority on friability determination of
asbestos abatement project; and

(3) District Court's factual finding that a friable asbestos abatement would
have cost at least US$100,000 more than a nonfriable abatement was not clear
error.

Finding no error, the Appeals Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment.

Ketanji B. Jackson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued the cause for
Jeffrey Edwards. With her on the briefs was A.J. Kramer, Federal Public
Defender. Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Neil H. Jaffee and Tony W.
Miles, entered appearances.

Bryan G. Seeley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for the United
States of America. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S.
Attorney, and Roy W. McLeese, III, Lisa H. Schertler, and James W. Cooper,
Assistant U.S. Attorneys.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creditors Object to Dana Corp.’s Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve creditors have objected to Dana Corp.’s Disclosure Statement. These
creditors are:

-- Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
-- Argo Partners Inc.,
-- Hain Capital Holdings LLC,
-- Hain Capital Group LLC,
-- Madison Investment Trust - Series 41,
-- Madison Niche Opportunities LLC,
-- Quatro Global Capital LLC,
-- Sailfish Capital Partners LLC,
-- BNY Capital Markets Inc.,
-- State of Michigan, Self-Insurers' Security Fund and Workers' Compensation
Agency,
-- William Controls Inc., and
-- Daveer Electrical & Mechanical Contracting Inc.  

Douglas T. Tabachnik, at Law Offices of Douglas T. Tabachnik, in Freehold,
N.J., on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, tells the Court that the Disclosure Statement contains no
detailed information about the Debtors' annual liability for asbestos
personal injury claims nor the disease categories on which the estimate is
based.

The Disclosure Statement does not also identify which emerging entities will
be responsible for the reorganized Debtors' liabilities for asbestos
personal injury claims nor provide adequate information regarding the cash
flows of these entities, Mr. Tabachnik adds.

The Debtors have repeatedly stated that they will provide additional
consideration to holders of general unsecured claims against the Debtors who
are not qualified investors eligible to purchase the New Preferred Stock,
Ira S. Dizengoff at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, in New York, on
behalf of Trade Creditors Argo Partners Inc., Hain Capital Holdings LLC,
Madison Investment Trust - Series 41, and Madison Niche Opportunities LLC,
informs the Court.  

According to Mr. Dizengoff, the Additional Distribution is necessary to
satisfy the requirements of Section 1123(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 1123(a) requires that a plan must provide the same treatment for
each claim or interest of a particular class, unless the holder of a
particular claim or interest agrees to a less favorable treatment of its
claim or interest.

However, Mr. Dizengoff asserts that neither the Disclosure Statement nor the
Plan provides for the consideration or sets forth mechanism by which the
Debtors intend to effectuate the Additional Distribution.

Neither the Disclosure Statement nor the Plan discloses the value of the
Additional Distribution, Mr. Dizengoff adds.

In order for the holders of general unsecured claims who are not qualified
investors to make an informed judgment on whether to accept or reject the
Plan, in accordance with Section 1125, the Trade Creditors ask the Court to
require the Debtors to revise the Disclosure Statement to, at a minimum,
include these information prior to the distribution of the Disclosure
Statement to creditors and other parties entitled to vote on the Plan:

(a) The amount of the Additional Distribution, including the breakdown
between the Distributable Shares of New Dana Holdco Common Stock and
Distributable Excess Minimum Cash, or a formula to determine the
distribution thereof; and

(b) The valuation of the Additional Distribution as compared to the New
Preferred Stock being purchased by the qualified investors.

The State of Michigan, Self-Insurers' Security Fund and Workers'
Compensation Agency, notes that while Dana has paid all of its workers'
compensation obligations in Michigan, the language contained in the
Disclosure Statement and Plan regarding  workers' compensation does not
adequately ensure that the entirety of Debtor's workers' compensation
obligations will be met.

William Controls, for its part, asserts that the Disclosure Statement lacks
adequate information regarding the existence of potential insurance
policies. William Controls has incurred at least US$330,000 for its
oversight and remediation of a facility located at 14100 SW 72nd Avenue,
Portland Oregon, which was previously operated by Dana. WCI has contacted
the Debtors   regarding the existence of insurance policies that may provide
recovery to WCI.

DaVeer asks the Court to deny the the Debtors' Disclosure Statement unless
it is amended to disclose the treatment of DaVeer's secured claim. DaVeer
asserts a secured claim for about US$113,000 against the Debtor for its
labor and manufacturing machinery set up on real property owned by Dana
Corp. in St.
Louis, Mo.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 57; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Cleanup Head Pleads Guilty to Bribes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Prendergast, a former West Virginia General Services Division
occupational health and safety coordinator, pleaded guilty in federal court
to taking bribes from a Maryland firm and rigging bids to allow the firm to
get state asbestos contracts, The Charleston Gazette reports.

The 45-year old Mr. Prendergast admitted to violating the federal Travel Act
and the West Virginia Bribery and Corrupt Practices Act, the U.S. Attorney’s
Office for the District of Maryland announced.

In a plea agreement dated Oct. 11, 2007, Mr. Prendergast agreed to cooperate
with the ongoing investigation. He faces up to five years in prison.

Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a
statement, “The investigation into this corruption scheme will continue. We
cannot allow public officials to award contracts to the corrupt businesses.”

Federal authorities said that from 1998 to March 2003, while Mr. Prendergast
served as coordinator, he gave a Maryland asbestos abatement firm inside
information about bids submitted by their competitors. That allowed the
Maryland firm to submit the low bid and receive the state contract. The jobs
were done at the state Capitol Complex.

Two unidentified Maryland firms were named in the information that Mr.
Prendergast pleaded guilty. Both companies were owned by the same
principals, federal records show.

By matching up information from the federal case file and state records, one
of the firms was identified as Baltimore-based Environmental and Demolition
Services Inc.

Mr. Prendergast received at least three payments as kickbacks from the
firms: US$6,000 in December 2000, US$2,500 in July 2002, and US$2,500 in
January 2003, according to federal records.

Authorities also said Mr. Prendergast negotiated with one of the firms for
the job while he still held his state job, where he held sway over what
firms received asbestos and lead abatement contracts. Federal authorities
said that violates the West Virginia Bribery and Corrupt Practices Act.

In 2001, Mr. Prendergast also schemed with officers of the company to open a
landfill in West Virginia “with the expectation that he would share jointly
in the proceeds,” according to federal records.

The Legislature’s Commission on Special Investigations, along with the
Criminal Investigation Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, headed the investigation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants Will Get Appeal, Ohio Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court, on Oct. 10, 2007, ruled that an appellate court was
wrong not to hear the case of asbestos defendants who want the cases against
them tossed out of a special asbestos court, LegalNewsline.com reports.

In a unanimous decision, the justices say a decision in the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas is an appealable decision that should be heard by the
8th District Court of Appeals. The Cuyahoga Court ruled a tort reform law
enacted in 2004 could not be applied to asbestos lawsuits filed before then.

Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote, “If the appellants in this matter are
unable to challenge the trial court's finding in an interlocutory appeal,
they will be unable to obtain the remedy set forth in the legislation upon
an appeal from a final judgment.”

With the goal of avoiding frivolous asbestos claims, the legislation
required all asbestos plaintiffs to make a preliminary filing of medical
evidence that showed he or she suffered from lung cancer or a non-malignant
physical impairment linked to asbestos exposure.

After it took effect, defendants in the thousands of cases that once clogged
Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court sought to apply the law retroactively to
plaintiffs who would have been in violation of the law.

A trial court found that it would violate the plaintiffs' rights and the
state's constitution. The defendants wished to appeal. The cases were all
put in a special docket in 1997, and three full-time judges oversee them.

Justice O'Donnell and the other justices put the 8th District's decision to
a three-part test to determine if the Cuyahoga ruling was appealable. The
first asked if the order either granted or denied relief sought in a certain
type of proceeding.

The second asked if the order determined the action with respect to the
provisional remedy and prevented a judgment in favor of the appealing party.

The third asked if the party appealing the order would not be afforded an
effective remedy by an appeal following final judgment.




ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pittsburgh Dept. Sees $1M Cost for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh’s Urban Redevelopment Authority is set to spend up to US$1
million to remove asbestos and other hazardous material from the old G.C.
Murphy store Downtown to clear the way for its conversion into shops,
apartments and a fitness center, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette reports.

The remediation work, expected to start in November 2007, is a key step in
preparation for the US$32 million redevelopment of the building by
Washington County developer Millcraft Industries.

Millcraft plans to convert the old store into 46 upper-floor apartments
priced to attract people earning US$40,000 to US$50,000, and ground-level
shops.

Based on appraisals, the developer agreed to pay the URA US$2.5 million for
six Fifth Avenue properties, including three that make up the Murphy store,
that will be used for the Market Square Place project. The URA spent US$3.83
million acquiring the parcels.

At the time of the agreement with Millcraft, the appraisals assumed there
were no cleanup costs associated with the properties, URA acting Executive
Director Don Kortlandt said.

Authority officials later learned that remediation could cost as much as
US$1 million.

Cleanup is expected to take two to four months. Once the remediation is
completed, the properties will be transferred to the developer.

Millcraft had hoped to get started on construction before the end of the
year. The timetable for the abatement seems to throw that target into doubt,
although Mr. Kortlandt said construction should begin in the 2008-1st
quarter at the latest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Motion in Sparks Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 2, California, reversed the San
Francisco Superior Court’s decision, which granted summary judgment in favor
of Keenan Properties Inc., in an asbestos-related action filed by Tommie
Sparks Sr. and his wife Helen Sparks.

Judges Kline, Lambden, and Haerle entered judgment of Case No. A115624 on
Oct. 3, 2007.

On Feb. 14, 2006, Mr. & Mrs. Sparks filed their "complaint for personal
injury and loss of consortium-asbestos" against Keenan and numerous other
defendants in the trial court.

Mr. & Mrs. Sparks sued Keenan for negligence, strict liability, false
representation, intentional tort and loss of consortium. They alleged that
transite pipe (asbestos-containing cement pipe) supplied by Keenan exposed
Mr. Sparks to asbestos and that he contracted lung cancer as a result of
that exposure. They sought and received preference in trial setting.

On July 6, 2006, Keenan moved for summary judgment or for summary
adjudication as to each of the causes of action, filing its separate
statement of undisputed material facts and supporting declaration and
exhibits.

Mr. & Mrs. Sparks opposed the summary judgment motion and filed their own
separate statement. On July 21, 2006, the trial court granted Keenan's
motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no triable issue of
material fact concerning the causes of action alleged against Keenan,
because the Sparkses had no evidence that Keenan exposed Mr. Sparks to any
asbestos-containing product.

The order granting the summary judgment motion was filed on July 21, 2006.
Judgment was entered in favor of Keenan and against the Sparkses on Aug. 21,
2006. The couple moved for a new trial on shortened time, which Keenan
opposed.

On Aug. 23, 2006, the trial court heard and denied the Sparkses new trial
motion. This timely appeal followed. On May 8, 2007, the Appeals Court
granted the Sparkses motion for calendar preference.

On appeal, the Sparkses contended that the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of Keenan, as follows:

(1) Keenan did not meet its initial burden on summary judgment where it did
not ask Mr. Sparks follow-up questions about his unloading of transite pipes
Keenan supplied to his jobsites, and

(2) The trial court erroneously engaged in interpretation of Mr. Sparks's
deposition testimony, where moving and opposition papers created an
inference supporting a different interpretation and created a triable issue
of fact.

The Appeals Court concluded that the trail court erred in granting summary
judgment on this record.

The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings. Plaintiffs are awarded their costs on this appeal.

Gloria E. Chun, Paul Hanley & Harley LLP, Berkeley, Calif., represented
Tommie Sparks and Helen Sparks.

Drew Alan Burford, Frank Dennis Pond, Pond North LLP, Los Angeles,
represented Keenan Properties Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reversed in Favor of Safety National
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 6th District, Lucas County, reversed the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas’ ruling, which denied Safety National Casualty
Corp.’s motion to refer an asbestos-related matter to arbitration and stay
the proceedings.

Judges Peter M. Handwork, Arlene Singer, and Thomas J. Osowik entered
judgment of Case No. L-06-1201 on Sept. 28, 2007.

On July 23, 2003, several insurance companies filed a complaint for
declaratory relief against Aeroquip-Vickers Inc., Eaton Corp., and
Pilkington North America Inc. (collectively referred to as "AVI/PNA"), on
insurance coverage for asbestos related liabilities.

In October 2003, AVI/PNA filed answers and counterclaims against 20
insurance companies, including Safety National. AVI/PNA filed an amended
counterclaim on Dec. 12, 2003. On Jan. 9, 2004, Safety National filed
separate answers to AVI/PNA's counterclaims.

The plaintiffs in this action are: Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.,
formerly known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.; The Travelers Indemnity
Co.; Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.; Employers Insurance of Wausau; OneBeacon
America Insurance Co., formerly known as Commercial Union Insurance Co. (on
its own behalf and as successor to Employers Liability Assurance Corp.
Ltd.); and Northern Assurance Company of America (as successor to certain
liabilities of Employers Surplus Lines Insurance Co.).

Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that prior to 1986, Libbey-Owens-Ford
Co. manufactured and sold glass products as an unincorporated business.

In 1986, the Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. transferred virtually all of its assets
and liabilities of its glass operations into LOF Glass Inc. Pilkington
Brothers PLC then acquired substantially all of the stock of LOF Glass Inc.,
and acquired the exclusive right to use the name Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.

Thus, in 1986, LOF Glass Inc. changed its name to Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.,
which was later changed to Pilkington North America Inc. The original Libbey-
Owens-Ford Co., which had contracted for insurance with the plaintiff
insurers, changed its name to Trinova Corp., and then to Aeroquip-Vickers
Inc.

On April 8, 2004, the trial court entered "Case Management Order No. 1"
("CMO No. 1"), wherein the trial court set forth a number of case management
procedures.

On March 14, 2005, the trial court entered its second "Case Management
Order" ("CMO No. 2"), which extended the time for completing Phase I
discovery until May 27, 2005; extended the time for any party to move for
summary judgment on any Phase I issue until July 11, 2005; and extended the
time for any party to amend its pleadings to add additional insurance
policies and/or join additional parties to the litigation until June 27,
2005.

On June 22, 2006, Safety National filed its notice of appeal regarding the
trial court's May 23, 2006 denial of its application.

The Appeals Court found Safety National's sole assignment of error well-
taken. The Appeals Court found that substantial justice has not been done
the party complaining and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common
Pleas denying Safety National's application for referral to arbitration and
for stay is reversed.

This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in
accordance with this decision.

John K. Nelson represented Aeroquip-Vickers Inc. and Eaton Corp. Steven R.
Smith represented Pilkington North America Inc.

William T. Maloney, William F. DeYoung, and Mark A. Stang represented Safety
National Casualty Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at U.K. Leisure Center Costs GBP66T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup at the William Thompson Centre in Burnley, Lancashire, England,
which includes the removal of asbestos and containing bats, costs GBP66,000,
Lancashire Telegraph reports.

Engineers encountered problems with brown asbestos, which cost originally
around GBP78,000 to assess and remove.

The material had been used in boarding above all the ground floor ceilings
and as fire protection to the structure's steelwork, members of the Burnley
Council's economic scrutiny committee have been told.

In-depth surveys on the asbestos could not be carried out until September
2006, when the center had been shut and staff moved out.

Only a contingency clause in the demolition contract allowed the council to
recoup some of its costs, of around GBP25,300, bringing the final extra bill
to GBP66,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Seeks Disclosure on Vessel’s Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canandian Auto Workers, Local 4285, the union representing about half of
the 30 workers aboard the MV Atlantic Freighter, seeks a full disclosure on
the asbestos in the vessel’s structure, The Canadian Press reports.

“We want a full report,” said Sue Irvine, president of the Canadian Auto
Workers, Local 4285.

The Atlantic Freighter primarily transports what are known as “drop
trailers” between North Sydney and Port aux Basques.

Sue Ivine, CAW president, said crew members were unaware of the asbestos
until warning stickers were posted around the ship recently. Many have
worked on board for years.

According to Ms. Irvine, that process, which basically encloses the
asbestos, was completed at the end of September 2007.

Tara Laing, a spokeswoman for Marine Atlantic, said, “The key thing for us
right now is that the employees are aware of the fact that all of the air
quality testing and stuff is compete and everything is fine and they have a
safe working environment.”

Ms. Irvine said she heard Marine Atlantic has a report about asbestos aboard
the boat that dates back 15 or so years.
If such a document exists, she wants to see it. And if the company knew
about the problem for so long, she does not understand why employees were
not informed and told of potential risks.

Ms. Laing did not know how long Marine Atlantic was aware of the asbestos.
She did say it is not uncommon for a ship as old as the Atlantic Freighter,
built by the Hyundai Shipbuilding Co. in 1978, to have asbestos in its
structure.

Asbestos has not been used in shipbuilding since 1980. Ms. Laing noted that
Marine Atlantic’s passenger ferries were all constructed after that and none
contain the mineral.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Denies $29M Compensation Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos lawyer Ted Gianaris’ proposed US$29 million compensation award for
his client John Larson was denied by a jury in Madison County, Ill., on Oct.
10, 2007, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

After deliberating about six hours, jurors found in favor of NL Industries
Inc., which stood accused of causing John Larson's mesothelioma.

Mr. Gianaris, of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., had asked the jury
between US$6 million and US$29 million.

The suit, filed early in 2007, alleged that William Larson, John Larson’s
father, would bring asbestos dust home on his clothes after which time it
would again become airborne.

John Larson claimed he was repeatedly exposed to asbestos dust from his
father's clothing and person.

Madison County Associate Judge Clarence Harrison presided over the five day
trial.

The defense verdict is the fourth in a row for asbestos defendants dating
back to 2005.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Teacher’s Widow Seeks Help in Payout Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Hambleton, the widow of retired physical education teacher Geoffrey
Hambleton, has asked for lawyers to help her in her payout action for the
death of her husband due to an asbestos-related illness, Liverpool Echo
reports.

Mrs. Hambleton Ann fears Mr. Hambleton may have been exposed to asbestos
while he was working as a PE teacher at Warrington technical college and
developed the disease as a result. He died from mesothelioma within three
years of being diagnosed.

Now, Mrs. Hambleton has instructed Manchester, U.K.-based solicitors Irwin
Mitchell to look into her husband’s case and wants people with any
information to come forward.

Mr. Hambleton was told he had mesothelioma in October 2003 and died in July
2006.

Mr. Hambleton had told his family that he believed he came into contact with
asbestos while he was working at the college, from 1968 to 1978, as a
lecturer in charge of PE and adult studies.

Mr. Hambleton said courses were run at the technical college for those who
wanted to work in the lagging industry, and he believed they used asbestos
lagging.

When Mr. Hambleton worked for them, it is thought he was based at their old
buildings at Palmyra Square and then moved to a different building at Long
Lane. The college is now known as Warrington Collegiate and is housed in a
new building.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Over GBP30M Paid to H&W Employees Since ‘01
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than GBP30 million has been paid to compensate Harland & Wolff PLC
employees for asbestos-related illnesses, News Letter reports.

As many as 2,693 employees have shared the GBP30,273,903 compensation since
2001. However, the compensation payout has allowed employees to receive
around GBP11,241.70 each.

Former Trade Minister Sir Reg Empey agreed in March 2002 to guarantee
compensation for ex-shipyard staff.

According to figures acquired in an Assembly question by DUP MLA Peter Weir,
as many as 515 people have died in the last 10 years as a consequence of
asbestos-related illnesses contracted through exposure to asbestos in their
workplace during the previous decade.

In his Assembly response, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment,
Nigel Dodds, said asbestos-related diseases are in the main "occupationally
acquired and include asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer." It was
revealed that the number of deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer may
equal those caused by mesothelioma, 439. In his response Minister Dodds said
Harland & Wolff was taken into public ownership in 1975.

The news comes as campaigners warn that asbestos disease-linked deaths are
at epidemic levels and could become worse in coming decades.

With 515 people dying in the last 10 years, the Justice for Asbestos
Victims' spokeswoman, Fiona Sterritt, has warned greater heartache lies
ahead for victims and their families.

JAV was established in 2002 by sufferers and the families of those who died
from the diseases. Ms. Sterritt added people like plumbers and electricians
had been badly affected.

Lobbyists have predicted about 10,000 deaths a year across the U.K. Most of
those now suffering with asbestos-related diseases were exposed to asbestos
between the 1940s and 1970s.

In the Assembly Question, Trade Minister Nigel Dodds, revealed there were 53
deaths in 2006, up on 42 in 1997. In 2004, a total of 65 people passed away.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Probe in U.K. Leisure Center Urged
----------------------------------------------------------------
A European Member of Parliament has joined calls for an inquiry to be held
in public over the asbestos scandal at the Woodhouse Close Leisure Complex
in Bishop Auckland, County Durham, U.K., The Northern Echo reports.

Center staff members were allowed to work with the toxic materials
unprotected, even though their bosses at Wear Valley District Council had
been given official warning of the danger in 2001.

Fiona Hall, the region's Liberal Democrat representative, urged councilors
to vote in favor of an open public inquiry. She said, “The health and safety
of staff and visitors should be the most important consideration for any
employer, not least a district council.

“It would seem that there have been serious failures in the way in which the
council has responded to concerns over the presence of asbestos at Woodhouse
Close Leisure Complex.”

In August 2007, the council was fined GBP18,000 for breaching health and
safety law by failing to remove asbestos found in the sports center’s boiler
room.

It is not known how many members of staff have been exposed because the
council failed to follow official procedure by monitoring who carried out
work in the room.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Orders Joint Trial for 2 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two New York Mesothelioma/asbestos legal claims involving asbestos exposure
in the workplace, filed by Levy Philips & Konigsberg LLP, have been joined
for trial based upon a recent legal court decision, according to a Levy
Philips & Konigsberg, LLP press release dated Oct. 16, 2007.

On Sept. 24, 2007, Justice Marcy S. Friedman, Supreme Court, New York
County, located in downtown New York City, announced a ruling that joins the
two mesothelioma cases, both being legal claims for mesothelioma/asbestos
exposure in the workplace, for a single trial to begin on Nov. 5, 2007.

The Court's Order joins the cases of Joel and Sharon Rosenberg v. Alpha Wire
Co., et. al, Index No. 106697/06 and Joseph and Dolores Casale, Index No.
104299/06.

Mr. Rosenberg resided in Jackson, N.J., when he developed pleural
mesothelioma due to workplace asbestos exposure. He died from this asbestos
cancer at the age of 64. Mr. Casale, who is living with pleural mesothelioma
at the age of 65, resides in Lantana, Fla.

Mesothelioma attorneys from Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP filed these legal
claims regarding asbestos/mesothelioma in the New York City Asbestos
Litigation, as each man suffered significant exposure to asbestos while
working in New York City.

Mr. Rosenberg, a life-long electrician with the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 3, started in the trade while still a
teenager in 1960. His workplace asbestos exposure occurred while working in
the electrician trade in work sites in New York.

Mesothelioma due to workplace asbestos exposure developed in Mr. Rosenberg
from a variety of worksites including the Arthur Kill Powerhouse in Staten
Island, the World Trade Center, Kennedy Airport and Rockefeller Center. The
asbestos/mesothelioma legal claim seeks money damages for his pain and
suffering resulting from his mesothelioma.

Electricians, such as Mr. Rosenberg, sustained asbestos exposure in the
workplace from a variety of sources including the cutting and splicing of
wire and cable that was insulated with asbestos, as well as the drilling of
asbestos-containing electrical control panels.

Mr. Casale was a career steam fitter (also known as pipe fitter). At the
time, steamfitters were unknowingly endangered with asbestos exposure in
their workplace due to asbestos being used in boilers and other equipment.
While still a teenager, he worked at shipyards, including the Brooklyn Navy
Yard, as a member of the Local 638 Union.

Mr. Casale continued in the same union and worked in the steam fitter trade
at job sites in New York City throughout the 1960s and 1970s. He later moved
to Florida but due to his asbestos exposure in the workplace while still in
New York, mesothelioma was diagnosed and immediately linked to his previous
occupation.

Mr. Casale's occupation caused his workplace asbestos exposure from
equipment, including pumps, valves, and boilers, as well as from gaskets and
insulation.

Justice Friedman joined these two mesothelioma/asbestos legal claims into a
single trial based upon New York Civil Practice Law and Rule (CPLR) Section
602 which permits cases to be joined for trial to "avoid unnecessary costs
or delay."

The defendants in the lawsuit argued that the cases should be tried
separately because Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Casale worked in different trades
and their claimed workplace asbestos exposure occurred at different job
sites.

However, the New York mesothelioma attorneys from Levy Philips & Konigsberg
LLP, convinced the Court that these cases should be tried together to save
costs and insure that each family received their day in court as soon as
possible.

The trial of these New York City mesothelioma/asbestos legal claims is
expected to last about six weeks, and will feature the testimony of Mr.
Casale, Mr. Rosenberg, their wives and children, along with a host of expert
witnesses, with expertise in areas such as occupational medicine, history
and public health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Still Present at Australian Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos still remains in Australian state schools despite the Government
asserting that it had finished the asbestos roof replacement program ahead
of time, Sunday Mail reports.

One Brisbane, Queensland, high school still has asbestos-backed vinyl tiles.
The school was first alerted to the asbestos danger posed by floor tiles
last February 2007 when roofs, walls and ceilings containing asbestos were
being replaced or repaired.

Sources said asbestos vinyl tiles were removed from some classrooms, but
funds did not extend to replacing larger areas of damaged tiles in hallways.

An identical situation occurred at another Brisbane high school, the source
said.

The source, who worked in the asbestos removal industry and asked not to be
identified, said the broken asbestos vinyl tiles had yet to be removed from
either school.

The source said the Government should have addressed asbestos floors before
roofs because they posed more of a danger. He said the building management
plan of one of the affected high schools "indicated that the floor coverings
are suspected of containing asbestos."

Scientific testing in five classrooms returned one positive and four
negative responses but a second opinion revealed asbestos-backed vinyl tiles
in all the rooms.

Premier Anna Bligh, on Oct. 11, 2007, said that the last of the 919 roofs in
335 schools had been replaced safely during the recent school holidays. The
roof replacement program had cost AUD95.9 million, AUD14.3 million under
budget, and had been completed seven and a half ahead of schedule.

Education Minister Rod Welford said the health and well-being of students
and staff had been a priority, with all work carried out on weekends and
school holidays. He said some asbestos floors would be replaced, but there
was not the same urgency as roofs. The Minister said 148 floor replacement
projects were completed in 81 schools in 2006-07.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sheet Metal Worker’s Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Nottingham Coroners’ Court heard that the death of sheet
metal company manager David Marks was related to asbestos, Evening Post
reports.

The inquest heard that the 60-year-old Mr. Marks was exposed to asbestos at
work and died of industrial disease.

Mr. Marks, of Carrington, Nottingham, U.K., was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in July 2007 and died at home on Oct. 5, 2006.

The Court heard that Mr. Marks was a manager for a company involved in sheet
metal fabrication.

The inquest was told Mr. Marks was exposed to asbestos during his working
life with three undisclosed employers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Hazard Level Found at Calif. City Hall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers discovered asbestos at Redlands City Hall in Redlands, Calif., while
cleaning up the offices after they were flooded, during the week from Oct.
7, 2007 to Oct. 13, 2007, by a sewer line backup, Inland News reports.

An industrial hygienist hired by the city reported on Oct. 15, 2007 that the
offices tested negative for E. coli bacteria.

On Oct. 12, 2007, however, crews found mold in some of the water-soaked
areas, and asbestos was discovered under the tile flooring in some offices.

The city sealed the affected areas and brought in ventilators to purify the
air.

The discovery of asbestos is expected to delay cleanup efforts. Redlands
officials plan to hire an asbestos remediation company, according to a city
news release.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Called in to Assess Risk at School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Experts of the Edinburgh-based Institute of Occupational Medicine have been
called in to assess the risks of airborne asbestos fibers at the Lees Brook
Community Sports College in Derby, England, U.K., Evening Telegraph reports.

The school was closed for a day after flaking asbestos was discovered in
cupboards by workmen. It is not known how long the asbestos had been flaking
or whether it had been disturbed by workmen.

The risk to pupils is unclear at the moment, although it is thought it would
be much lower than the risk to staff, who spend more time in the same
classrooms. Teaching unions have expressed concerns that their members could
have been exposed to the fibers over a long period.

Andrew Flack, city council director of children and young people's services,
confirmed that IOM had been asked to compile a risk assessment. He
said, “This will put us in position to give the best advice to staff. They
have already been briefed that the risk of developing asbestos-related
diseases is low. They are generally linked to long-term higher levels of
exposure, usually developed in people who work or have worked with asbestos
on a daily basis.”

Dave Wilkinson, Derby branch secretary of the National Association of
Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, said he had asked the council for
reassurance about the risks to teaching staff.

Nine cupboards at the school, which has more than 60 teachers, have now been
sealed up with their contents inside to prevent any risk of further
contamination.

The Health and Safety Executive has been informed about the incident and is
deciding if it needs to take further action.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.388B for Claims at Sept 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp.’s net asbestos reserves amounted to US$1.388 billion at
Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$1.375 billion at Dec. 31, 2006, according
to a Company media release dated Oct. 17, 2007.

The Company had 389 active policyholders at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
387 policyholders at Dec. 31, 2006.

Underwriting losses of US$71 million in the 2007-3rd quarter were primarily
related to a US$6 million unfavorable reestimate of asbestos reserves and a
US$63 million unfavorable reestimate of environmental reserves.

In the 2006-3rd quarter, unfavorable asbestos reserve reestimates totaled
US$86 million and unfavorable environmental reserve reestimates totaled
US$10 million.

Reserve additions for asbestos totaling US$6 million in the 2007-3rd quarter
were primarily for products-related coverage.

Incurred but not reported claims now represent 66 percent of total net
asbestos reserves, two points lower than at Dec. 31, 2006. In the 2006-3rd
quarter, the Company’s review resulted in reserve additions totaling US$86
million primarily for products-related coverage.

The Allstate Corp., which is based in Northbrook, Ill., is a personal lines
insurer. The Company sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life
insurance products in Canada and the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cayuga County Sued for Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Garropy, the whistleblower who alerted authorities about illegal
asbestos removal, filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and wrongful
termination, against Cayuga County, N.Y., The Citizen reports.

Mr. Garropy is asking for his job back and unspecified damages in the 12-
count suit. The suit contends he was exposed to asbestos while removing a
furnace from the basement of the county Board of Elections building between
February and July 2006.

According to the suit, the county then fired Mr. Garropy after he reported
the illegal asbestos removal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Suspended county carpenter John Chick has since pleaded guilty to violating
the federal Clean Air Act. His sentence is pending.

Early on in the case, Mr. Garropy claimed Mr. Chick threatened to kill him
over the scandal. Those charges against Mr. Chick were dropped as part of a
plea deal.

Mr. Garropy’s suit made no mention of the threat, but suggests Mr. Garropy
was forced to work with the asbestos despite protest. The suit contends his
civil rights were compromised and his health was jeopardized by the county's
actions.

Mr. Garropy’s wife, Bonnie, is a co-plaintiff in the action filed by Auburn
attorney Carl DePalma. The couple is asking for compensation for lost wages,
benefits, attorney fees, actual and punitive damages. The suit also requests
Mr. Garropy's job and seniority rights be reinstated.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pleural Plaque Sufferers Lose Payout Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of workers suffering from pleural plaques, an asbestos-related
disease, will not be able to claim compensation following an Oct. 17, 2007
House of Lords ruling, The Sun reports.

Unions state that the decision removes an established right to compensation
which had existed for 20 years and will lead to “massive savings” for
insurance firms. The Law Lords ruled that pleural plaques was not a disease.

Union leaders attacked the decision to end claims for pleural plaques,
usually caused by exposure to asbestos.

Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of Unite, said, “This is a harsh
decision which will affect thousands of people with pleural plaques now and
in the future.

“The judgment will disadvantage many of our members who have been exposed to
asbestos in their work by denying them the right to sue their former
employers for developing pleural plaques.”

The Law Lords ruling could save U.K. insurers up to GBP1.4 billion in
compensation claim costs, accounting firm Deloitte has estimated.

Deloitte said its calculations are based on the estimates produced by the
Faculty and Institute of Actuaries 2004 Working Party on UK Asbestos, which
estimated that the future cost to the insurance industry from U.K. asbestos
claims would be between GBP4 billion and GBP10 billion.

Within this figure, between GBP200 million and GBP1.4 billion related to
claims from people diagnosed with pleural plaques.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lorry Driver Finds Asbestos at Public Tip
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hawes, a lorry driver whose father died after exposure to asbestos,
said that he has found an open skip full of asbestos at a public tip in
Poole, U.K., Daily Echo reports.

Mr. Hawes, who lost his father to cancer caused by asbestos 18 months ago,
visited the dump in Nuffield Road, Poole. He was stunned to see a large red
skip marked "asbestos" filled almost to the top with unbagged waste, which
he claims was spreading dust across a public area.

However, Poole council has insisted it only accepts the least hazardous kind
of asbestos and its procedures are sound.

Lynne Sqibb, founder of the Hampshire Asbestos Support and Awareness Group,
which also covers Dorset, said, “When asbestos is broken down and crumbling
or damaged in any way tiny fibers can be caught by the wind. Someone
breathing those in could go on to develop mesothelioma, a form of cancer for
which there is no cure.”

However, despite these fears, the Borough of Poole, which runs the site,
said it was satisfied with the arrangement, although the skip is not
constantly manned.

Steve Chapple, waste services manager, said the center was licensed by the
Environment Agency and met all its requirements.

The Health and Safety Executive is investigating Mr. Hawes's complaint about
the Nuffield site.

The body could prosecute if it finds the council has failed in its duty of
care and people have been placed at serious risk.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fly-tippers Dump Hazard Near Primary School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fly-tippers dumped asbestos near the Boxgrove Primary School in Abbey Wood,
London, U.K., in the morning of Oct. 7, 2007, but the mess was not moved
until the afternoon of Oct. 8, 2007, News Shopper reports.

Residents were furious after the suspected asbestos was left dumped in their
street. This meant dozens of children and parents walked past it on their
way to the school.

A spokesman from Greenwich Council said the asbestos was dealt with in the
safest way and trying to move it earlier could have been dangerous.

The spokesperson said, “The actions taken by Cleansweep over the weekend
were entirely appropriate and in line with best practice established by the
Environment Agency and the council's own environmental pollution team.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard in Canada Health Unit Poses Low Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Mercer, the acting medical officer of health of Wellington-Dufferin-
Guelph Public Health in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, says that asbestos found in
the office poses an extremely low health risk, Guelph Tribune reports.

Ms. Mercer said the asbestos found is vermiculite insulation, a large
particle form of asbestos. She said the health risk comes from airborne,
minute particles of asbestos.

The office building, owned by the City of Guelph and leased to Guelph
General Hospital, was closed after a test came back indicating asbestos in
the building on Oct. 5, 2007.

Ms. Mercer said the office will be closed for weeks while the particulate is
cleaned from cracks in the walls, staircases and the ventilation system.

While vermiculite was commonly used between concrete blocks in buildings at
the time the office was built, Ms. Mercer estimated about 1968, it is not a
danger to health if it is sealed in the walls.

Ms. Mercer said the solution will be to clean up the asbestos and then
determine where it's leaking from the walls, and seal those spots up.

About 100 employees from the Guelph office are now being either relocated to
other health unit offices or working from home. Some employees, such as
health inspectors and visiting nurses, can easily work from home, Ms. Mercer
added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Atlantic Express Mulls Cleanup Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Express Transportation Corp. has become aware that certain
properties and facilities it owns or operates may be subject to
environmental remediation in the future due to the potential impact of
asbestos contaminating material and offsite issues such as leaking
underground storage tanks or previous or current industrial operations.

In addition, the Company has recently received notices of violations and
potential violations related to certain environmental matters. The Company
hired an environmental consultant, who completed Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments on approximately seven of the Company’s properties.

Based upon the reports of the environmental consultant, the Company said
that any penalty or remediation cost would not be material. In addition, the
Company has recently settled two environmental claims for immaterial
amounts.

As a result, management and counsel do not believe that the penalties, if
any, will be material.

Based in Staten Island, N.Y., Atlantic Express Transportation Corp. provides
school bus transportation in the United States, with its largest market in
New York City. It provides paratransit services for physically and mentally
challenged passengers to public transit systems, and also offers fixed route
transit, express commuter line and charter and tour bus services.


                           *********


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  * * *