CAR_Public/071102.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 218

                            Headlines

AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Motion to Dismiss Part of Labor Suit Denied
APOLLO GROUP: Summary Judgment Motions Junked; Trial to Go Ahead
APOLLO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Ariz. Securities Suit
BLASTRAC NA: Recalls Grinders with Coupler that can Break
COMCAST CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuits

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dec. 18 Hearing Set for “Alvarado” Labor Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jan. 2008 Hearing Set for “Hot Fuel” Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: “Serna” Certification Bid Briefing Under Way
C.R. BARD: Continues to Face Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Suits
CYBEX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Treadmills Due to Fire Hazard

DE BEERS: Notice of $137M Settlement to be Mailed December
ELI LILLY: Ind. Court Mulls Motion to Certify Racial Bias Case
GOODYEAR TIRE: $1B Fund Set up to Settle Ohio Retirees' Lawsuit
HOME AUTOMATION: Recalls Receivers that Could Fail in Use
IMERGENT INC: Utah Court Approves Derivative Suit Settlement

GLENCREST RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over Oil, Gas Leases
LINE SKIS: Recalls Ski Boards on Report of Screws Coming Loose
LITHIA MOTORS: Spokane Residents Commence Lawsuit Over B&O Tax
MERRILL LYNCH: Coughlin Stoia Files Investor Suit in N.Y.
MERRILL LYNCH: Tyco Research Suit Settled; Hearing Set Jan. 9

NATIONAL HOME: Settles Del. Litigation Over AG Health Merger
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Tex. Securities Fraud Suit for $3.6M
WEGLOW INT'L: Recalls Metal Jewelry Due to High Lead Content
XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. ERISA Litigation
XEROX CORP: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Apartheid Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Faces 3rd-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records US$16M Credit at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Record 672 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Has $272M Liability at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup of Hazard in Mont. Nearly Finished

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senators Set Aside $250T for Clinic
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Zealand Power Plant Closed for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal in Maine Building to Cost $50,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Co.'s Plan to Proceed, Judge Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup of Albert Potato Farm Ongoing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Set to Rule on Blue Lady Ship
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Kiln Wirer's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.061B Liability at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clarke Case Junked in Prison Staff's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Behringer Ruling Reversed by Appeals Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Court to Review Bunnell FELA Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monsanto Co. to Assume Solutia Inc. Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Enters Split Ruling in Donoughe Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Forest Reserves to Clean Up Site

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Suits Involving AcandS Inc. Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $3.785B Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Reserves $2.085B for Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Platinum's Appeal in Frankfort Case Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 42,000 Claims Remain Pending v. BorgWarner
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Faces CNA Coverage Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Payment for Property Claims Totals $40M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Unit Continue to Face Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Gets $24M for Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Continues to Face Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faced w/ Fel-Pro Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. to Settle 7,500 Claims for $2M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept. Revokes Empire Asbestos License
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sandblaster Sues 50 Companies in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supervisor Pleads Guilty to Removal Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul to Resolve Ch. 11 Objections
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Engineer Sues BAE Unit for Compensation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Local Sues 13 Companies in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Sue Over Old Warships in California
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judges to Review Ruling in W.R. Grace Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $52M Claims Reserve at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Corning Inc. Drop to 10,400

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Appeal in Favor of Maremont
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Implements No Accrual Changes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Seeks $476Mil from Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 103,902 Unresolved Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Braces for Hearings in 4Q07

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 31,059 Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Records 143,118 Abex Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Estimates $130M in Liabilities at 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Has $458M in Insurance Receivables
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minister is Sorry for Insulting Campaigner

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Agency, Contractor Face $36,000 Fine
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cook Islands' Dumping Plan Raises Concerns
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Second Suit Filed for Machinist's Disease
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cayuga County Workers Sue Election Officers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carpenter Sues Bovis Lend Lease, AXA UK


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BRAVO! BRANDS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Fla. Court
E-TRADE FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
FORMFACTOR INC: Coughlin Stoia Geller Files Securities Suit
JONES SODA: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
WSB FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Wash.
                            

                          *********

AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Motion to Dismiss Part of Labor Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Linda R. Reade denied a motion filed by
attorneys for U.S. kosher meatpacking company Agriprocessors
Inc. to have part of a labor class action filed against it
dismissed, Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier reports.

Filed in March, Agriprocessors is facing a federal lawsuit
wherein its former and current employees claim the company has
not paid them for preparation time for the last two years (Class
Action Reporter, May 14, 2007).

The lawsuit now seeks a class-action status that could most
likely include 1,500 Agriprocessors employees.

The suit alleges:

     -- Agriprocessors did not pay for the time spent in
        changing into safety gears or the time spent in cleaning
        and sanitizing packing equipments, which is vital to the
        plant's operations;

     -- employees were required to continue working, even after
        compensation stopped to finish daily production and
        clean work areas; and

     -- the company refused to compensate the workers at the
        Postville, Iowa plant despite its knowledge that time
        spent during the said activities were compensable under
        state and federal law.

The lawsuit further says workers' preparation for work could
take up to 35 minutes everyday and that the company adheres to a
common policy where the workers are only paid for hours spent in
production.

Attorneys for Agriprocessors filed a motion in July asking Judge
Reade to dismiss the second count of the class action, filed
under a state law, requires defendants to opt out of the suit.
The first portion filed under federal law requires defendants to
opt into the suit.  Attorneys said the second count is
"inherently incompatible" with the first count.

The attorneys appeared in court mid-October.  Days after, Judge
Reade issued a ruling denying the motion.  She said the two
counts were compatible with each other. Reade said all affected
workers could be represented in the suit unless they sign a
paper asking to be omitted.

The state law also allows them to obtain compensation for unpaid
non-overtime hours, which isn't available under federal law.

The case is "Salazar v. Agriprocessors Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01006-LRR," filed in Iowa Northern District Court under Judge
Linda R. Reade.

The employees listed in the suit are:

         Eduardo Salazar,          
         Walter Ortiz,
         Gregorio Lux,              
         Gustavo Cujluj,
         Santos Sis Lopez,
         Rubelino Hernandez,
         William Sir,
         Jeronimo Toj Granados,
         Marvin Yovany Lopez,
         Imelda Lozano,
         Cesar Toj Micolax,
         Claudio Ruiz,
         Carlos Ixen Choc,
         Cesar Morroquin,
         Berulo Morillo Jimenez,
         Bernardo Hernandez Lemus,
         Antiono Chavez Figueroa,
         Hugo Jovani Lopez,
         Samuel Lopez Garcia,
         Luis Lopez,
         Jose Dany Lopez,
         Sergio Gergara,
         Jose Damasio Lopez

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Brian McCafferty
          The Law Firm of Kenney, Egan, McCafferty & Young
          3031 C Walton Road, Suite 202
          Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, 19462 USA

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas M. Cunningham, Esq.
          Nyemaster, Goode, Voigts, West, Hansell and
          O'Brien, PC
          700 Walnut Street Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Phone: 515 283 3100
          Fax: 515 283 8045  
          E-mail: tmcunningham@nyemaster.com
         
               - and -

          Jeffery A. Meyer, Esq.
          Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
          135 Crossways Park Drive Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Phone: 516 681 1100
          Fax: 516 681 1101
          E-mail: jmeyer@kdsbvlaw.com


APOLLO GROUP: Summary Judgment Motions Junked; Trial to Go Ahead
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona set a Nov.
14, 2007 trial for summary judgment motions in a consolidated
securities class action filed against Apollo Group, Inc. and
certain of its officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock between Mar. 12, 2004 and Sept. 14, 2004.

On Oct. 12, 2004, a complaint captioned, "Sekuk Global
Enterprises et al. v. Apollo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV
04-2147 PHX NVW," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

Another class action complaint, "Christopher Carmona, et al. v.
Apollo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 04-2204 PHX EHC," making
similar allegations was filed on or about Oct. 18, 2004 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

A third class action complaint, "Jack B. McBride, et al. v.
Apollo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA," which
made similar allegations was filed on or about Oct. 28, 2004 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The court consolidated the three pending complaints and the
newly named lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May
16, 2005.  

Lead plaintiff purports to represent a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004 and
Sept. 14, 2004, and seeks monetary damages in unspecified
amounts.  

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, by the company for their issuance of
allegedly materially false and misleading statements in
connection with their failure to publicly disclose the contents
of the U.S. Department of Education's program review report.  

A motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint was
filed on June 15, 2005, on behalf of Apollo Group, Inc. and the
individual named defendants.

The court denied the motion to dismiss on Oct. 18, 2005 and
discovery commenced. The parties conducted discovery from
October 2005 until discovery closed on Feb. 16, 2007.  

On March 9, 2007, both parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  Opposition briefs were filed on May 11, 2007 and
reply briefs were filed on June 8, 2007.  

The court denied both summary judgment motions on Sept. 12,
2007.  The case remains set for trial on Nov. 14, 2007,
according to the company’s Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge James A. Teilborg.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311
         E-mail: robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com

              - and –

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph G. Adams, Esq.
         Snell & Wilmer LLP
         1Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
         Phone: 602-382-6207
         Fax: 602-382-6070
         E-mail: jgadams@swlaw.com

              - and -

         Maureen Beyers, Esq.
         Osborn Maledon P.A.
         2929 North Central Avenue
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
         Phone: 602-640-9305
         Fax: 602-664-2053
         E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com

    
APOLLO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Ariz. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona appointed
The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff
in the purported shareholder class action, “Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02674-RCB.”

On Nov. 2, 2006, a plaintiff filed a class action complaint
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
the Company’s stock between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 28, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to
disclose alleged deficiencies in the Company’s stock option
granting policies and practices.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and other relief.  

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to
pursue this action.  

On Sept. 11, 2007, the court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved lead
plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel,
according to the company’s Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is “Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB,” which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
under Judge Robert C. Broomfield.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              - and –

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq,
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq.
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618
         E-mail: mfarrell@jsslaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: (212) 309-6000


BLASTRAC NA: Recalls Grinders with Coupler that can Break
---------------------------------------------------------
Blastrac N.A., of Oklahoma City, Okla., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 185
concrete grinders and 45 replacement couplers.  The couplers are
Blastrac BG 250 Series Concrete Grinders with round flexible
couplers.

The company said the flexible coupler on the concrete grinder
can break during use allowing the internal parts, including the
tooling plate and grinding disc, to be forcefully ejected from
the grinder. This can pose a risk of injury from projectiles to
the user and those nearby.

Blastrac has received five reports of the concrete grinders
breaking. No injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recalled gas or electric grinders are used to grind concrete
surfaces for repair or removal. The grinders have two wheels, a
handle and are blue or green in color. They are designed for
operation by a single operator. The following concrete grinders
are included in this recall. The serial number is located on a
plate on the machine’s handle.

To see picture of recalled grinder:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08514a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08514b.jpg

To see BG-250 Machines Serial Numbers visit
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08514.html.   

The grinders are made in the U.S. and sold by independent
distributors nationwide who sell to professional users, and to
equipment rental firms that rent to professional contractors and
consumers, from November 2006 through July 2007 for between
$2,700 and $5,000. The couplers sold separately for about $95.

Renters are advised to stop using the product immediately and
return it to the rental company. Blastrac has directly contacted
owners of these products. Product owners who have not received
notice from Blastrac should contact the firm for a free repair
kit.

For additional information, please contact Blastrac at (800)
256-3440 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.blastrac.com.


COMCAST CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions seeking for the dismissal of two purported antitrust
class actions filed by Comcast Corp. subscribers have been
denied, according to the company’s Oct. 26, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The company was named as defendants in two suits originally
filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of
Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
respectively.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case is the company's
subscriber base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential
class in the Pennsylvania case is the company's subscriber base
in the “Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters,” as those terms are
defined in the complaints.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber
exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in
unlawful “horizontal market restraints” in those areas and seek
damages pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble
damages.

The company's motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the
pleadings was denied and classes of “Philadelphia Cluster” and
“Chicago Cluster” subscribers were certified.  

The company's motion to dismiss the Massachusetts case, which
was recently transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, was also denied.

Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is  
a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer
entertainment and communication products and services.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dec. 18 Hearing Set for “Alvarado” Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 18, 2007 certification hearing is set for the purported
class action, “Elizabeth Alvarado v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. C-06-04015-MJJ.”

The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, in which the
plaintiff principally alleges that Costco did not properly
compensate and record time worked by employees during routine
closing procedures, including security searches.  

Discovery is ongoing in this case.  A class certification
hearing is set for Dec. 18, 2007.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jan. 2008 Hearing Set for “Hot Fuel” Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 11, 2008 hearing is set for the purported class action,
“In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL
Docket No 1840,” which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.

Initially, numerous putative class actions were brought around
the U.S. against motor fuel retailers, including Costco
Wholesale Corp., alleging that they have been overcharging
drivers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60
degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for
heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such
expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer.  

The suits are:

      -- “Raphael Sagalyn, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);”

      -- “Phyllis Lerner, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
         Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);”

      -- “Linda A. Williams, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);”

      -- “James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);”

      -- “Betty A. Delgado, et al. v. Allsups, Convenience
         Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);”

      -- “Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);”

      -- “Mark Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);”

      -- “James Vanderbilt, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);”

      -- “Zachary Wilson, et al. v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);” and

      -- “Diane Foster, et al. v. BP North America Petroleum,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.).”

      -- “Mara Redstone, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.);”

      -- “Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et
         al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.);”

      -- “J.C. Wash, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case
         No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);”

      -- “Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
         et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);”

      -- “William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
         Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.);”

      -- “Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tx.);”

      -- “S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al. v. Hess Corporation, et
         al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.);”

      -- “Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
         Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah);” and

      -- “Mark Wyatt, et al. v. B. P. America Corp. dba Atlantic
         Richfield Company, et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
         Cal.).”

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled, “In re Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840,” to Judge
Kathryn Vratil in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

On Aug. 28, 2007, Judge Vratil held an initial scheduling
conference in this proceeding.  At that time, she ordered
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint in these actions on
Oct. 19, 2007, and set a briefing schedule on challenges to this
consolidated complaint that calls for a hearing Jan. 11, 2008.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: “Serna” Certification Bid Briefing Under Way
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is under way concerning plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification of the lawsuit, “Mimi Serna, Timothy Herrock, et
al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 2:07-CV-1491-AHM
(JWJx),“ according to the company's Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2007.

The consumer class action was filed on March 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
willful violations of the 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  

Section 1681c(g), enacted Dec. 4, 2003, provides that “no person
that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of
business shall print more than the last five digits of the card
number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the
cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.”

Plaintiffs allege that, on or after Jan. 1, 2005, Costco printed
the expiration date and/or more than the last five digits of
their credit card or debit card number on electronically printed
receipts provided at the point of sale involving transactions at
Costco’s gasoline dispensers throughout the U.S.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys’ fees.  Briefing is under way concerning plaintiffs’
motion for class certification.

The suit is “Mimi Serna v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Inc et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01491-AHM-JWJ,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California under Judge A. Howard
Matz with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Ackley, Esq.
          Herbert Hafif Law Offices
          269 West Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711-4784
          Phone: 909-624-1671

Representing the defendant is:

          Barbara L. Croutch, Esq.
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
          725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
          Phone: 213-488-7100
          Fax: 213-629-1033


C.R. BARD: Continues to Face Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. continues to face several lawsuits that were
filed or asserted against the company with respect to its Bard
Composix Kugel product intended for ventral hernia repair.

Approximately 180 federal and 60 state lawsuits involving
individual claims, as well as nine putative class actions, have
been filed or asserted against the company with respect to its
Bard Composix Kugel product intended for ventral hernia repair
(Composix Claims).

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
product beginning in December 2005.

The actions generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the product.  The putative class actions, none of
which has been certified, also seek:

      -- medical monitoring,
      -- compensatory damages,
      -- punitive damages,
      -- a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or
      -- attorneys’ fees.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix lawsuits pending in federal courts
nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island.

Approximately 50 of the state lawsuits are pending in the
Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island with the remainder
in various other jurisdictions, according to the company’s Oct.
29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- is engaged in the  
designing, manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of
medical, surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.  The
Company sells a range of products worldwide to hospitals,
individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities
and alternate site facilities.


CYBEX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Treadmills Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cybex International, Inc., of Medway, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 4,700
(33,719 units were recalled on October 8, 2003) of Cybex or
Trotter Treadmills that were previously recalled for repair.

The company said, during repairs associated with the October 8,
2003 recall, wire nuts were installed improperly, causing the
treadmills to overheat and posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Cybex International has received five reports of treadmills
overheating or catching fire resulting in damage to the
treadmill. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the treadmills "Cybex 400T," "Cybex 410T,"
"Trotter 510," "Trotter 525", "Trotter 535", and "CXT+" that
were recalled (link) on October 8, 2003 and later repaired. The
treadmills are black with gray coloring, have rectangular
uprights, and measure 69 inches long and 30 inches wide. The
brands and models are written on the display panel. The “CXT+”
model does not bear the brand Cybex or Trotter.

Picture of the recalled treadmilll:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04502.jpg

The treadmills were made in the U.S. and sold at Cybex
International and Cybex dealers nationwide from September 1993
through October 2001 for between $3,300 and $4,000.

Consumers whose treadmills were included in the 2003 recall and
were repaired should immediately unplug and stop using the
treadmills. Consumers with recalled units will be notified
directly by Cybex. Consumers should call Cybex directly to
schedule a free repair.

Consumer Contact: Call Cybex toll-free at (888) 678-3846 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.cybexintl.com/retro.


DE BEERS: Notice of $137M Settlement to be Mailed December
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler has approved the
notice and claims process for the De Beers settlement, which
means the process will finally get underway at the end of the
year.

Jewelers of America will provide more instructions and details
to its members in the coming weeks, to ensure that they are
fully prepared for the steps they need to take to obtain the
claims form and begin the filing process in late December.

“Jewelers of America welcomes the news that the De Beers
settlement process will soon get underway,” says JA President
and CEO Matthew A. Runci. JA and its counsel have had
significant involvement and input into the settlement process
and timing.

In mid-April 2008, the Court will hold a hearing to determine
whether the settlement should receive final approval. If it is
approved, U.S. consumers and “reseller” members of the trade,
who share the majority of the settlement, will have until May
19, 2008 to file their claims.

The administrators of the De Beers settlement claims process
will send mailed notices to the trade just before Christmas, and
will conduct a trade magazine ad campaign starting in January.
Publication notice to consumers about the De Beers settlement
will also start to appear in newspapers, magazines and on the
Internet just before Christmas, and continue through winter and
early spring. In addition, a public relations campaign would
start in January to reach the maximum number of consumers who
might wish to file a claim.

Because the claims process will require consumers to itemize the
amount of their purchases of diamond jewelry, it is likely that
consumers could ask retailers to research the purchase price of
any diamond or diamond jewelry they obtained at their stores
between January 1, 1994 and March 31, 2006. JA will be prepared
to offer guidance to members after the claims forms have
actually been distributed.

While the claims period for jewelers is also January 1, 1994 to
March 31, 2006, the trade’s claims form will ask jewelers to
pick any two-year period during those years, and to submit the
total costs of the diamonds and diamond jewelry they purchased
for resale during that time. The claims administrator will use
that figure to compute each jeweler’s share of the settlement.

Retailers will share proportionately with other “resellers” a
settlement portion amounting to $137 million. But the total
amount will be reduced by plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, for work
they performed on the case itself and its settlement. They can
claim up to 25% of the total settlement.

Also taken from the $137 million will be a portion of the
attorneys’ out-of-pocket expenses, settlement administration
fees and other expenses. The Court will determine the actual
amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses to which they will be
entitled at the final approval hearing. The remaining amount
will be divided among the total number of “reseller” trade
members who file.

The payouts themselves will probably not occur until late 2008
or 2009, to allow time for the claims administrators to assess
all claims and apportion the funds among the claimants,
according to court papers. Any trade claim that amounts to under
$25 will not be paid.

For more information about the De Beers Settlement or Jewelers
of America, visit http://www.jewelers.org.


ELI LILLY: Ind. Court Mulls Motion to Certify Racial Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has
yet to rule on a motion seeking to certify a class in a lawsuit
filed against Eli Lilly and Co. for alleged racial
discrimination.

In April 2006, several workers of drug Company Eli Lilly & Co.
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana for alleged racial discrimination (Class
Action Reporter, April 26, 2006).  

Three former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged the
company paid black employees less than their white counterparts,
passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them.

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003.  One of the
plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an
unrelated reason.       

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000
black employees.  It is asking unspecified damages, lost
compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future
discrimination.     

The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A.
Davis of Memphis, Tennessee, and two former sales reps, Jarmaine
Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina.

In November 2006, Joshua Rose, attorney with the Rose and Rose
law firm, was at the Hyte Community Center, in Terre Haute to
take statements as part of a race discrimination lawsuit against
Eli Lilly and Co. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).

Mr. Rose took statements from "African Americans who believe  
they suffered discrimination at Lilly.  We're collecting  
information." Statements though will not be used during trial  
without prior permission.

Company spokeswoman Carla Cox would later respond to the suit by
way of a a written statement.  Ms. Cox said, "Lilly takes any  
allegations of unfair treatment very seriously.  We are  
committed to conducting a full investigation of any allegations  
and responding with appropriate actions based upon the results  
of those efforts.  Respect and fair treatment of people are the  
cornerstones of the Lilly corporate culture.  We do not tolerate  
racial discrimination nor do we condone any behavior contrary to  
our code of ethics" (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2006).

The federal judge in the matter has yet to rule on whether the
plaintiffs will be designated as a class, according to an Oct.
31 report by The Indianapolis Star.

The suit is "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under Judge Richard L. Young, with
referral to Judge V. Sue Shields.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joshua Rose, Esq.
          Terri N. Marcus, Esq.
          David L. Rose, Esq.
          Rose & Rose, P.C.
          1320 19TH ST., N.W., Suite 601
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 331-8555
          Fax: (202) 331-0996
          E-mail: daver@roselawyers.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: $1B Fund Set up to Settle Ohio Retirees' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and the United Steelworkers have
agreed on a proposed settlement in the purported class action,
“Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Case No. 5:07-
cv-01999-JRA,” Jim Mackinnon of The Akron Beach Journal reports.

The United Steelworkers, and several retirees filed the suit on
July 3, 2007  in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2007).

The settlement, which requires court approval, will lead to the
creation of an independent health care trust for union retirees
to be known as the Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association
(VEBA).  

According to the company it expects the process to create VEBA
to be completed sometime in the first half of 2008. It will be
run by a nine-member committee made up of three union
representatives, two retiree “class representatives,” and four
public members who have expertise in benefits.  The company will
have no one on the committee.

The process includes getting preliminary court approval for the
deal, followed by a 90-day notice period, another court hearing,
final judgment, and then a 30-day appeal period.

Under the deal, the company is required to pay $1 billion into
the VEBA, which then will be responsible for paying all future
Steelworker retiree health care benefits.

Additionally, Union members will pay part of their cost-of-
living increases and profit sharing into the fund.

The suit, “Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Case
No. 5:07-cv-01999-JRA,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under Judge John R. Adams.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jori B. Naegele, Esq.
         Gary, Naegele & Theado
         446 Broadway
         Lorain, OH 44052-1797
         Phone: 440-244-4809
         Fax: 440-244-3462
         E-mail: envirolit@aol.com

              - and -

         Jeremiah A. Collins, Esq.
         Bredhoff & Kaiser
         Ste. 1000, 805 Fifteenth Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-842-2600
         Fax: 202-842-1888
         E-mail: jcollins@bredhoff.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Andrew M. Kramer, Esq.
         Jones Day
         51 Louisiana Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20001-2113
         Phone: 202-879-3939
         Fax: 202-626-1700


HOME AUTOMATION: Recalls Receivers that Could Fail in Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Home Automation Inc., New Orleans, La., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 200
64 Zone Wireless Receivers.

The company said if the receiver loses power, it could fail to
receive the signal from transmitters monitoring for intrusion
detection in a property and place the security of residents at
risk.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the 64 Zone Wireless Receivers with model
45A00-1 and revision number B1. The receiver is an accessory to
the Home Automation Inc. Home Control System and is
professionally installed. The model and revision numbers can be
found on a label on the back of the unit.

Picture of wireless receivers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08512.jpg

The receivers are made in Taiwan and sold to distributors
nationwide from July 2007 through September 2007 for between
$120 and $150.

Consumers are advised not rely on the recalled receivers to
obtain security information. Consumers should contact Home
Automation Inc. for a free replacement receiver. Consumers with
recalled receivers will be notified by the company.

For additional information, contact Home Automation Inc. at
(800) 229-7256 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.


IMERGENT INC: Utah Court Approves Derivative Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County of
Utah provided preliminary approval of a settlement agreement
between eCommerce software provider iMergent, Inc., (IIG)  and
all derivative litigation filed in various courts in Utah.

Under the terms of the settlement, iMergent is to receive a
payment of $3.3 million in insurance proceeds. The funds will be
used to pay $2.8 million for the settlement of the class action
settlement, discussed in Form 8-K filed by the company on
September 21, 2007, and $500,000 for attorney fees to derivative
counsel.

The settlement also calls for the company to adopt certain
corporate governance measures as well as present certain items
to a vote of the company's shareholders. After final approval of
the settlement and court approval of the class action
settlement, the items that require a vote of the shareholders
will be included in the next scheduled annual proxy statement.
Additionally, after final approval of the settlement and court
approval of the class action settlement, all corporate
governance items not requiring approval of the company's
shareholders, which have not already been adopted, will be
adopted by the company.

The settlement benefits all holders of iMergent Inc. common
stock as of Oct. 30, 2007 who plan to continue to hold such
stock through Dec. 10, 2007.

                      Case Background

The actions were brought on behalf of iMergent and against the
Individual Defendants for allegedly breaching their fiduciary
duties by engaging in improper business and revenue recognition
practices that substantially and falsely inflated the revenue
and net income of the Company, and for allegedly engaging in
sales of iMergent stock based upon their knowledge of material
non-public information regarding the Company, thereby unjustly
enriching the Individual Defendants. The Individual Defendants
deny these allegations.

The Actions are two substantially similar derivative actions
filed on behalf of iMergent against the Individual Defendants.

On March 29, 2007, Berlinberg filed a Verified Derivative
Complaint on behalf of iMergent in the Court, styled “Berlinberg
v. Danks, et al., Civil No. 050905862,” and Horn filed a
Verified Derivative Complaint on behalf of iMergent in the
Court, styled “Horn v. Danks, et al., Civil No. 050905863.”

These actions were subsequently consolidated as the Consolidated
State Action on June 10, 2005. On June 15, 2005, Chamkoriyski
filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint on behalf of
iMergent in the Court styled “Chamkoriyski v. Danks, et al.,
Civil No. 050401785,” which was consolidated with and into the
Consolidated State Action on July 7, 2006.

On April 4, 2005, Giordano filed a Verified Derivative Complaint
on behalf of iMergent in the Federal Court styled “Giordano v.
Danks, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00296,” which was subsequently
styled as the Consolidated Federal Action, Case No. 2:05-cv-
00279.

On June 24, 2005, plaintiffs Berlinberg and Horn filed a
Consolidated Derivative Complaint in the Consolidated State
Action and, on November 17, 2005, filed an Amended Consolidated
Derivative Complaint in the Consolidated State Action. In
addition, on June 12, 2006, Federal Plaintiff filed a Second
Consolidated Verified Complaint in the Consolidated Federal
Action. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the operative
complaints in the Actions, to which Plaintiffs have filed their
respective oppositions. All motions to dismiss are currently
pending as of the Stipulation Date. Plaintiffs in the Actions
have coordinated their litigation efforts since the fall of
2006.

Counsel in the Actions have undertaken substantial efforts to
negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution of the Actions.
Beginning on November, 2006, the Settling parties had numerous
discussions regarding a potential resolution of the Actions. On
January 31, 2007, Plaintiffs' Settlement Counsel sent to
Defendants' Counsel the Settlement Demand Letter which demanded,
inter alia, that the Individual Defendants make certain payments
to the Company and adopt certain corporate governance measures.

The Settling Parties engaged in numerous discussions regarding
the Settlement Demand Letter and a potential settlement of the
Actions. Although the Settling Parties made substantial progress
during these discussions, they continued to disagree regarding
several material settlement terms.

Accordingly, on June 27, 2007, counsel for the parties met in
New York City in order to participate in a mediation with the
Hon. Nicholas Politan (Ret.), a highly experienced mediator, in
an attempt to finally resolve the Actions. As a result of Judge
Politan's efforts, the Settling Parties were able to eventually
reach an agreement to settle the Actions.

On Sept. 21, Imergent announced a settlement.  

A fairness hearing will be held for the Action on December 10,
2007 at 9:30 a.m. Before Judge Vernice Trece at the Third
Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County, 450 South
State, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114,

The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861-
DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
under Judge Dale A. Kimball.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         C. Richard Henriksen, Jr., Esq.
         Henriksen & Henriksen
         320 S. 500 E.
         Salt Lake City, UT 84102
         Phone: (801) 521-4145
         E-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq.
         Kirby Mcinerney & Squire
         830 Third Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 317-6600
         E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jacqueline Benson, Esq.
         Gary F. Bendinger, Esq.
         Howrey, LLP
         Phone: (713) 654-7693 and (801) 533-8383
         E-mail: bendingerg@howrey.com


GLENCREST RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over Oil, Gas Leases
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Tarrant County resident has filed a lawsuit against Glencrest
Resources, LLC and Leonard Briscoe, Sr., seeking termination of
an oil and gas lease for failure to pay bonus payments.  

The suit seeks class-action status for all landowners who leased
their property to Glencrest Resources, LLC.

In early December 2006, Pamela Ellis, attended a meeting held by
Mr. Briscoe and Glencrest Resources, LLC, in which she was
provided information regarding an oil, gas and mineral lease.

During the meeting, Ms. Ellis and others were told if they
signed the lease agreement that they would receive their bonus
payments within 30 to 45 days and that a well would be drilled
and completed by April 1, 2007.

As of Wednesday, there is no indication that any of the
residents who signed a lease with Glencrest Resources, LLC, have
received their bonus payments.  The drilling of a well has not
begun.

"I believe that every homeowner and landowner is entitled to be
treated fairly and paid as promised when signing an oil and gas
lease," says attorney John David Hart of the Law Offices of John
David Hart in Fort Worth, who represents Ms. Ellis.  

"We will resolve this dispute so that Ms. Ellis and others can
lease their property to an oil and gas company that will meet
its responsibilities."

For more details, contact

          Jennifer Green
          The Law Offices of John David Hart
          Phone: 817-870-2102
          E-mail: jgreen@hartlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hartlaw.com/


LINE SKIS: Recalls Ski Boards on Report of Screws Coming Loose
--------------------------------------------------------------
Line Skis, of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,250  
2006 Line X-Fly and Line Pro Ski Boards.

The company said screws installed improperly can cause the
bindings to come loose or pull off the ski board during use,
causing the skier to lose control or fall and suffer injuries.

The firm has received one report of the screws that hold the
binding to the ski board pulling out during use. No injuries
have been reported.

The 2006 Line X-Fly and Line Pro model ski boards were sold in
90 and 99 centimeter lengths. The Pro model is a twin-tip ski
which is turned up at both ends. “Pro 90” or “Pro 98” is printed
on the tail. The X-Fly is a unidirectional ski which is turned
up on one end. “Fly 90” or “Fly 99” is printed on the tail.

Picture of the recalled board:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08042.jpg

The boards were made in Taiwan and sold at Ski, snowboard and
sporting goods stores from September 2006 through January 2007
for about $180.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled ski
boards and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund. If consumers are unable to return the ski boards to the
place of purchase, contact the firm for instructions.

For additional information, contact Line Skis at (800) 987-2576
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT, or visit http://www.lineskis.com.


LITHIA MOTORS: Spokane Residents Commence Lawsuit Over B&O Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spokane (Wash.) residents Theron and Marcia Johnson will now
attempt to ask a local judge to certify as suit filed against
autodealer Camp Automotive after the judge ruled that a business
and occupation tax charged to customers is illegal, The
Spokesman-Review reports.

The Johnsons sued Camp Automotive in 2005 after buying a car
from Camp Chevrolet.  They said the dealership added about $137
to the sales price through the B&O tax surcharge.  Also included
in the suit are Camp's parent company Lithia Motors Inc. of
Medford, Ore.

Brian Sheldon, one attorney representing the Johnsons, said
Spokane County Superior Court Judge Kathleen O'Connor ruled
earlier this month that Camp had acted illegally by adding the
B&O surcharge paid by the Johnsons. She also ruled that Camp's
former practice -- now no longer practiced by auto dealers since
the Johnson verdict was decided -- violated Washington's
Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Sheldon noted that the suit is nearly identical to the one
filed in 2004 against Appleway Volkswagen over the same
practice.  The suit is expected to result to a total of $7
million in settlement.

According to the report, Mr. Sheldon said the main difference
between the two lawsuits is that the first lawsuit established
the illegality of the B&O surcharge.

This second suit could open the door to triple damages ordered
by a court against any other dealerships that followed the same
practice, including nine Lithia Motors dealerships in
Washington, Mercedes-Benz of Spokane, and other dealerships not
yet named, Mr. Sheldon said, according to the report.


MERRILL LYNCH: Coughlin Stoia Files Investor Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has
filed an investor lawsuit against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.
(NYSE: MER) and has said that the company issued false and
misleading statements about its exposure to risky mortgage
investments.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeks class-action status. The
suit was brought on behalf of an institutional investor, Life
Enrichment Foundation.

The complaint accused Merrill of issuing materially false and
misleading statements about its financial exposure to
collateralized debt obligations containing subprime mortgage
securities.

The suit has also named Stanley O'Neal, who was ousted as
Merrill chairman and chief executive, co-presidents Ahmass
Fakahany and Gregory Fleming and chief financial officer Jeffrey
Edwards as defendants.

The suit is “Life Enrichment Foundation et al. v. Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-09633,” filed in the New
York Southern District Court under Judge Leonard B. Sand.

          Representing the plaintiff is:
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


MERRILL LYNCH: Tyco Research Suit Settled; Hearing Set Jan. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. informs that the the suit
“In re Merrill Lynch Tyco Research Securities Litigation, 03-CV-
4080 (JFK),” has been preliminarily certified as a class action
and that a settlement for $4,900,000 in cash has been proposed.

The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Tyco International Ltd. Between Jan. 22, 2002 through June 6,
2002, inclusive.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable John F. Keenan,
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 at 10:00 a.m. on January
9, 2008, to determine whether the proposed settlement of this
class action should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of
Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

Claims filing deadline is Dec. 31, 2007.  Claim form is
available at: http://www.merrilllynchtycosettlement.com.

Claims administrator:

     In re Merrill Lynch Tyco Research Securities Litigation
     c/o Valley Forge Admin. Svcs.
     One Aldwyn Center, 3rd Floor, P.O. Box 220
     Villanova, PA 19085, 1-877-965-3300
     E-mail: requests@merrilllynchtycosettlement.com

Deadline for exclusion is Dec. 3, 2007.  Requests must be
submitted to:

     Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.,
     Suite 450, the Wanamaker Building
     100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia
     Pennsylvania 19107

     with a copy to Defense Counsel:

     Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     Four Times Square, New York, New York 10036

     Kevin Clines, Esq.,
     HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
     One Battery Park Plaza, New York, New York 10004.

For further information, contact:

     Michael Miller
     Valley Forge Administrative Services
     Phone: 1-877-965-3300


NATIONAL HOME: Settles Del. Litigation Over AG Health Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
National Home Health Care Corp. settled a purported class action
in Delaware over a merger agreement between the company, AG Home
Health Acquisition Corp., and AG Home Health LLC.

On Jan. 19, 2007, Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
filed a verified class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

The suit purportedly was filed on behalf of the “public
shareholders of the Company.”  The Class Action Complaint names
as defendants the Company and the individual members of its
board of directors.

In the Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff challenges the
Merger Agreement and seeks a declaration that the defendants,
and each of them, have committed or participated in a breach of
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and care to the
Company’s minority, public stockholders by approving the merger,
and causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement.

The plaintiff in the Class Action Complaint seeks preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief preventing the consummation of
the transaction, or in the alternative, if the transaction is
consummated, rescission of the transaction.

In the Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff alleged, among
other things, that the initial Merger Consideration of $11.35-
$11.50 per Common Share was inadequate; that the break up fee in
the Merger Agreement is excessive and discourages other
potentially superior offers for the Company; that two of the
directors, the largest individual stockholders of the Company,
have executed voting agreements requiring them to vote in favor
of the transaction; and that certain terms of the transaction
provide financial benefits to management and inside directors
that create conflicts of interest.

The defendants filed answers on or about Feb. 13, 2007, denying
the material allegations of the Class Action Complaint.
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the
transaction was denied by the Court.

The parties have agreed in principle to a settlement of the
lawsuit in exchange for an additional payment of $0.10 per share
in cash to all shareholders of the Company other than the
directors and officers of the Company and their families.

The additional payment of $0.10 per share in connection with the
merger will be paid by AG Home Health Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation.   If the merger is not completed, no
payment will be made.  

On Oct. 18, 2007 counsel for the parties executed a memorandum
of understanding with respect to the settlement, according to
the company’s Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2007.

National Home Health Care Corp. -- http://www.nhhc.net-- is a  
provider of home health care and staffing services in the
Northeast region.  Home health care services include four
categories: home health nursing services, infusion therapy,
respiratory therapy and home medical equipment.  


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Tex. Securities Fraud Suit for $3.6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported securities fraud class
action filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

                         Case Background

Filed on Jan. 4, 2002, the putative class action, "Terry Walker,
et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.," alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting material facts regarding the company's financial
performance and prospects for the third and fourth quarters of
2001 (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2007).

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2001
through Oct. 8, 2001 and sought damages in unspecified amounts.
The court later consolidated similar complaints with the
"Walker" suit in October 2002.

On Nov. 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the "Walker" suit filed
an amended consolidated complaint, which added certain of the
company's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange Act
claims.

The amended complaint also added additional claims that the
company, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act as
a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with an offering in May 2001 and also added the
managing underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On Feb. 7, 2003, the company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.

In addition, the company's outside directors named in the matter
separately filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims
on statute of limitations grounds.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also filed a motion
to dismiss the matter.  The plaintiffs filed response briefs to
these motions, to which the company replied on May 21, 2003.  A
hearing was held by the court on June 26, 2003 to hear each of
these motions.

On Sept. 30, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice, dismissed without prejudice the
outside directors' and underwriters' separate motions to dismiss
and denied the company's motion to transfer venue.

In its order on the motions to dismiss, the Court granted the
lead plaintiffs leave to replead the case within certain
parameters.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs again repled their claims by
filing a third amended consolidated complaint, raising
allegations of similar violations against the same parties
generally based upon alleged facts not previously asserted.

The company, along with certain officer and director defendants
and the underwriter defendants, filed motions to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 23, 2004.  A
hearing on the motions was held on April 14, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, the court ruled on these motions, dismissing
with prejudice the claims against the outside directors as well
as the underwriter defendants, but denying the company's motion
to dismiss.

In evaluating this motion to dismiss, the court was required to
view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs
and to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to certify the
dismissal order for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied on
Nov. 14, 2005.

A hearing on class certification was held on June 22, 2006.  The
court has made no ruling on the motion for class certification.
Discovery is ongoing.

                     Settlement Terms

The company recently reported that it has reached a prospective
$3.6 million settlement to resolve the matter, according to a
report by Maria Halkias of The Dallas Morning News.

During a conference call with analysts, chairman and chief
executive Mark Speese said that the settlement is the last of
multiple lawsuits that had been pending.

He pointed out, "Any material litigation has been disclosed and
I feel pretty comfortable with how we are doing on that front.  
Obviously it is something we are very mindful of and hope to be
able to frankly improve even further as we go forward."

Payments to purchasers of its common stock from April 25, 2001,
through Oct. 8, 2001, and administrative fees are expected to be
covered by its insurance provider, the company said.

In connection with the settlement, neither Rent-A-Center nor any
officer and director defendants are admitting liability for any
securities laws violations.

The suit is "Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, et al., Case No.
5:02-cv-00003-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq.
         Nix Patterson & Roach
         205 Linda Drive
         Daingerfield, TX 75638,
         Phone: 903-645-7333
         Fax: 19036454415
         E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Thomas Emerson Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 17132279404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Marie Rodgers, Esq.
         Darryl Wade Anderson, Esq.
         Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100,
         Houston, TX 77010-3095
         Phone: 713/651-5473
         Fax: 713-651-6652 and 17136515246
         E-mail: arodgers@fulbright.com
                 danderson@fulbright.com


WEGLOW INT'L: Recalls Metal Jewelry Due to High Lead Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
WeGlow International, of Virginia Beach, Va., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 110,000 WeGlow children’s metal jewelry.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

This recall involves WeGlow children’s flashing rings. The
character-themed rings were sold in Shrek the Third and
Spiderman 3 designs. The rings have item number 920422 printed
on back of the packaging.

To see picture of recalled jewelry:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08044.jpg

The jewelry were made in China and sold exclusively at Dollar
Tree, Dollar Bill$, Dollar Express, Greenbacks and Only $1
stores nationwide from December 2005 through August 2007 for $1.

Consumers should immediately take this jewelry away from
children and return it to the store where purchased for a
refund.

For additional information, contact WeGlow toll-free at (866)
934-5692 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.weglow.com.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. ERISA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, which is
alleging that Xerox Corp. violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

On Jul. 1, 2002, a class action complaint “Patti v. Xerox Corp.
et al.,” was filed, alleging violations of ERISA.  Three
additional class actions -- Hopkins, Uebele and Saba – were
subsequently filed in the same court making substantially
similar claims.

On Oct. 16, 2002, the four actions were consolidated as “In Re
Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation.”  On Nov. 15, 2002, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed.  

A fifth class action (Wright) was filed in the District of
Columbia.  It has been transferred to Connecticut and
consolidated with the other actions.

The purported class includes all persons who invested or
maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox
401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed
class period, May 12, 1997 through Nov. 15, 2002, and allegedly
exceeds 50,000 persons.  

The defendants include the company and these individuals or
groups of individuals during the proposed class period:

      -- Plan Administrator;

      -- Board of Directors;

      -- Fiduciary Investment Review Committee;

      -- Joint Administrative Board;

      -- Finance Committee of the Board of Directors; and

      -- Treasurer.  

The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA and, as such, were obligated
to protect the Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan
participants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to do so and thereby breached their fiduciary duties.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to
provide accurate and complete material information to
participants concerning company stock, including accounting
practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value of the
stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of the
stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets in
company stock.
  
Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to invest Plan
assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries and to
disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known were
imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which
it describes as "millions of dollars."  

It also seeks other legal and equitable relief, as appropriate,
to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification
and a motion to commence discovery.  

Defendants have opposed both motions, contending that both are
premature before there is a decision on their motion to dismiss.   
In the fall of 2004, the court requested an updated briefing on
the company's motion to dismiss and update briefs were filed in
December of that year.

On March 31, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
postpone consideration of class certification pending
disposition of the company's motion to dismiss, and granted
plaintiffs motion to commence formal discovery.

On April 17, 2007, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss,
granting it in part and denying it in part, and giving the
plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

In essence, the Court stated that the class period does not
extend past the date on which the complaint was filed, Nov. 15,
2002.

The Court also required the plaintiffs to plead with greater
specificity with regard to which defendants are alleged to have
breached which duties, and granted the motion with respect to
the duty of loyalty count, agreeing with defendants that ERISA
does not require fiduciaries to avoid conflicts of interest but
rather sets a loyalty standard to which fiduciaries must adhere
when faced with a conflict of interest.

However, the Court did give the plaintiffs leave to replead the
duty of loyalty count.  

Further, the Court granted the motion as to plaintiffs’ prayer
for relief seeking to enjoin the defendants from violating
ERISA, holding that an injunction must be more specific than a
simple command that the defendants obey the law.

The Court denied the motion as to the prudence count and the
monitoring count, ruling that further fact development is needed
as to those counts, and, on the disclosure count, determined
that plaintiffs have set forth a claim, rejecting defendants’
assertion that SEC filings made by the Company in its corporate
capacity and required by the federal securities laws cannot be
the basis of a fiduciary breach under ERISA even if subsequently
included in disclosures made directly to plan participants.

Finally, the Court held that the plaintiffs are not precluded
from pursuing their claims under section 502(a)(2) merely
because any recovery will not be shared by all participants in
the plan but rather by a sub-class of participants who had
invested in Xerox stock during the class period.  

Also on April 17, 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class and said that subject needs to be addressed in a
scheduling conference that the Court will convene in the future.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint, alleging that some or all defendants breached their
ERISA fiduciary duties during 1997-2002 by:

       -- maintaining the Xerox Stock Fund as an investment
          option under the Plan;

       -- failing to monitor the conduct of Plan fiduciaries;
          and

       -- misleading Plan participants about Xerox stock as an
          investment option under the Plans.

On July 18, 2007, Defendants answered the new complaint and also
filed a partial motion to dismiss.  

On Aug. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification and on Aug. 31, 2007 filed their opposition to
defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company’s Oct. 26, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:02-
cv-01138-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut
under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
         Keller Rohrback
         3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 900
         Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2600
         Phone: 602-230-6322
         Fax: 602-248-2822
         E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com

              - and -

         Charles R. Watkins, Esq.
         Susman & Watkins
         Two First National Plaza, Suite 600,
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-346-3466
         Fax: 312-346-2829
         E-mail: chuckwatkins@ameritech.net.  

Representing the defendants are:

         William H. Boice, Esq.
         Kilpatrick Stockton
         1100 Peachtree St., Ste. 2800
         Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
         Phone: 404-815-6464
         Fax: 404-541-3134
         E-mail: bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com

              - and -

         William J. Egan, Esq.
         Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner
         City Place II, 185 Asylum Street, 10th Floor
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-275-6400
         Fax: 860-275-6410
         E-mail: wegan@brownraysman.com.


XEROX CORP: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Apartheid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York of the class action, “Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et
al.”

The suit, filed against Xerox Corp. and several other
corporations, alleges that defendants provided material
assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948
to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the
South African government and by employing forced labor, thereby
violating both international and common law.

Filed on Sept. 27, 2002, the First Amended Complaint on the
company was deemed effective as of Dec. 6, 2002.  

On March 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
that eliminated a number of corporate defendants but was
otherwise identical in all material respects to the First
Amended Complaint.  

Plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.  They also assert human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion
and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion.  The foregoing
damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and
severally.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  Oral argument of the motion was heard on Nov. 6,
2003.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Nov. 29, 2004, the
court granted the motion to dismiss.  A clerk's judgment of
dismissal was filed on Nov. 30, 2004.  On Dec. 27, 2004, the
company received a notice of appeal dated Dec. 24, 2004.

On Feb. 16, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing
the Dec. 24, 2004 appeal on the ground that the Nov. 30, 2004
judgment of dismissal was not appealable.  

On March 28, 2005, plaintiffs submitted a letter requesting
permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended and
consolidated complaint.  By Summary Order filed April 6, 2005,
the court denied the request.  

In a second Summary Order filed the same day, the court amended
its Nov. 29, 2004, Opinion and Order, which dismissed the
action, so as to render the Opinion and Order appealable and
plaintiffs filed a new appeal on May 3, 2005.  

On Aug. 19, 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On Oct. 4, 2005,
defendants-appellates filed their brief in the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Oral argument in the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals was held on Jan. 24, 2006.  

On Oct. 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the claims asserted under the Torture Victim
Protection Act, vacated the dismissal of the claims asserted
under the Alien Tort Claims Act and remanded those claims to the
district court for further proceedings.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kweku J. Hanson, Esq.
         487 Main Street
         Harford, CT 06106
         Phone: (860) 728-5454
         Fax: (860) 548-9660

         Medi Moira Mokuena
         268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House 1685, Extension 12
         Republic of South Africa

              - and -

         Paul M. Ngobeni, Esq.
         914 Main Street, Suite 206
         East Hartford, CT 06108
         Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508) 620-4798.

Representing the defendants are:

         Kristin M. Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         500 Campus Drive, Florham Park
         NJ 07932-1047
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/  

              - and -

         Kristin Michele Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr.
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         E-mail: kristin.heine@dbr.com.


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Faces 3rd-Party Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter Inc. continues to be named as defendant in numerous
multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 24, 2007.

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

The Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims.

The Company says that no claimant has demonstrated exposure to
products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number
of cases have been voluntarily dismissed.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records US$16M Credit at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc., in the 2007-3rd quarter, recorded a credit of
US$16 million (pretax and after-tax) including a mark-to-market
credit of US$23 million reflecting the decrease in Corning’s
common stock from June 30, 2007 to Sept. 30, 2007 and a US$7
million charge to adjust the estimated settlement value of
certain other components of a proposed asbestos settlement.

In the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded
an asbestos settlement credit of US$13 million.

The Company recorded an asbestos settlement credit of US$170
million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$137 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against
Corning and Pittsburgh Corning Corp. that might arise from PCC
products or operations.

The proposed settlement, if approved, will require the Company
to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity
interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V., a Belgian
corporation, and contribute 25 million shares of Corning common
stock.

The Company also agreed to make cash payments with a value of
US$131 million, in March 2003, over six years from the effective
date of the settlement and to assign insurance policy proceeds
from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance
at the time of the settlement.

As a result of the proposed asbestos settlement, any changes in
the estimated settlement value of the components of the proposed
settlement agreement will be recognized in the Company’s
quarterly results until the date of the contribution to the
settlement trust.

Beginning with the 2003-1st quarter, the Company has recorded
total net charges of US$987 million to reflect the estimated
settlement value of the Company's asbestos liability.

Based in Corning, N.Y., Corning Inc. makes specialty glass and
ceramics. Products include glass substrates for LCD televisions,
computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and filters
for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber, cable,
hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks; optical
biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and
specialty glass solutions for a number of industries including
semiconductor, aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Record 672 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corp.'s U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA
Holdings Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, are defendants in about 672
asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
24, 2007.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc., as of June 30, 2007, faced
about 674 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, 26 new cases were
filed against the Company and 28 cases were resolved.

Since many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Dallas-based Celanese Corp., with its subsidiaries, is an
integrated global hybrid chemical company. The Company’s
business involves processing chemical raw materials, like carbon
monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood
pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and
other chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Has $272M Liability at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corp.'s long-term asbestos-related liability
totaled US$272 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with US$304 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 24, 2007.

The Company recorded an asbestos-related liability of US$296
million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with
US$306 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

The Company made asbestos-related payments of US$10 million in
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$7 million
in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company made asbestos-related payments of US$6 million for
the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$5 million
for the six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 3, 2007)

The current portion of the Company's asbestos liability amounted
to US$13 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with US$16 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees allege exposure to asbestos.
Additionally, the Company has received claims for asbestos
exposure that have not been litigated. The claims and lawsuits
allege occupational illness resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products.

In most cases, the claimants do not have credible medical
evidence of physical impairment resulting from the alleged
exposures. Additionally, most claims filed against the Company
do not specify an amount of alleged damages.

In July 2007, the Company requested a third-party specialist to
review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and
determine the appropriateness of updating the Company's November
2004 asbestos study.

Based on the updated study, which was completed in the 2007-3rd
quarter, and its own review of the asbestos claim and resolution
activity, the Company decreased its asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims by US$20 million at Sept. 30,
2007.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and, it has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at Sept.
30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

In conjunction with the asbestos study completed in the 2007-3rd
quarter, the Company also analyzed its estimated insurance
recoveries and recorded a reduction in the asset for estimated
insurance recoveries.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Railroad Co., a subsidiary of
Union Pacific Corp., is the leading rail freight carrier in the
U.S. Union Pacific Railroad transports coal, chemicals,
industrial products, and other freight over a system of more
than 32,300 route miles in 23 states in the western two-thirds
of the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup of Hazard in Mont. Nearly Finished
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos cleanup season in Libby, Mont., is nearing
completion, Montana's News Station reports.

Soon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be making
decisions about what to do in 2008. The EPA is requesting
citizens to help set budget priorities.

EPA contractors will have removed asbestos from 160 homes and
properties in 2007 alone, and cleanup officials expect to reach
that same number in 2008.

In 2008, the cleanup effort will also include the nearby town of
Troy, Mont. This year, the EPA began inspecting properties in
that community.

Those inspections will continue in 2008, but actual asbestos
removal projects will begin in at least half a dozen places.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senators Set Aside $250T for Clinic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) said
that they have reserved US$250,000 in emergency funding for the
Center for Asbestos-Related Disease Clinic in Libby, Mont.,
Montana's News Station reports.

Sen. Baucus and Sen. Tester have asked members of the U.S. to
include the funding for the clinic in the Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill.

Officials with the CARD Clinic had asked for the money to
continue serving victims of asbestos poisoning in the Libby
area.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Zealand Power Plant Closed for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Energy Ltd.'s power plant in New Plymouth, New Zealand,
will be closed for at least six months as efforts get underway
to remove asbestos, NewstalkZB reports.

The mineral fiber was discovered under insulation pipe lagging
in the plant's turbine hall and boiler room and the plant was
closed. The area was previously thought to be asbestos free.

Company Chief Executive David Baldwin says the Company now has
more information on the options for remedial work, which would
see two of the generating units returned to service by May 2008.

Mr. Baldwin said, “The presence of asbestos in itself does not
represent a problem, provided it is contained. For the vast
majority of people who work or have worked at New Plymouth, any
exposure to asbestos would be very low and unlikely to cause
health problems.”

Mr. Baldwin says some staff would remain on site while the work
took place, while others would be reassigned to other projects.
The remainder would be on special paid leave.

Former employees who have questions about possible historic
exposure to asbestos are being advised to call the New Plymouth
power station.

Contact Energy is not ruling out the possibility of shutting the
plant permanently and is investigating costs and time frames.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal in Maine Building to Cost $50,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The board of directors of the Shiretown Development Corp., on
Oct. 22, 2007, learned that it will likely take an estimated
US$50,000 to remove asbestos from the former Houlton
International Corp. building in Houlton, Maine, Bangor Daily
News reports.

The SDC entered into a US$161,000 purchase-and-sale agreement
with officials from the former Houlton International facility
more than three years ago. At the time, the SDC planned to use
the massive complex garnered through the agreement to attract a
larger business to the area.

Early in October 2000, Town Manager Douglas Hazlett told the
directors that asbestos was found in 610 linear feet of wrapped
heating pipe in the building, in some bathroom floor tiles and
in the facility’s exterior siding.

During the meeting on Oct. 22, 2007, the town reviewed estimates
from County Abatement, who estimated it would cost the town an
estimated US$50,000 to have the asbestos taken out if they
wanted to demolish the structure.

However, the SDC does not have US$50,000. In fact, SDC Chairman
Paul Romanelli said, the money in the board’s account has
dwindled to US$33,500, down from US$51,000 at the start of the
year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Co.'s Plan to Proceed, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Manhattan said the now-defunct Quigley Co.'s plan to repay
creditors and asbestos claimants can move forward, dealing a
blow to a group of asbestos personal-injury claimants who called
the bankruptcy plan an attempt to avoid responding to "countless
dying cancer victims," Associated Press reports.

Judge Bernstein said that, while the plan raises questions about
the treatment of asbestos creditors, its disclosure statement
provides creditors with enough information to make an informed
decision on the plan.

Judge Bernstein's Oct. 23, 2007 ruling approving the bankruptcy
plan's disclosure statement means Quigley, which filed for
bankruptcy protection three years ago to resolve hundreds of
thousands of asbestos related personal-injury claims, can send
the plan to creditors for a vote.

Judge Bernstein said the asbestos group's complaints "require an
evidentiary hearing" when the court decides whether it should
approve the plan itself.

Quigley, a defunct company that once made heat-resistant
products containing asbestos, is trying to wrap up its Chapter
11 case with a plan that would compensate victims sickened by
its products through a trust funded by US$650 million in
contributions from drug maker Pfizer Inc.

Pfizer bought Quigley in 1968, but Quigley sold its assets in
1992 and has since focused on managing its asbestos liabilities.

The committee argued that the proposed plan treats creditors who
settled with Quigley and Pfizer before the bankruptcy filing
more favorably. Before Quigley sought Chapter 11 protection in
September 2004, Pfizer agreed to pay the settling creditors,
more than 80 percent of the personal-injury claimants, a total
of US$430 million. Pfizer paid half of the settlement in 2005
and will pay the rest when Quigley's plan is confirmed.

The committee said Quigley's plan lumps both settling and non-
settling asbestos creditors into the same class for repayment
purposes, even though the settling creditors will get money from
both Pfizer and the trust set up to compensate the personal-
injury victims.

An earlier version of Quigley's plan failed to make it through
the plan-voting process in 2006 when a judge ruled that Pfizer's
pre-bankruptcy arrangements with asbestos claimants unfairly
tainted the balloting.

Under the new plan, Pfizer agreed to kick in an extra US$100
million, in addition to the US$550 million it had already set
aside, to fund the payments to asbestos victims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup of Albert Potato Farm Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency workers and contractors are
currently removing containers of hazardous substances and
asbestos-containing materials from the abandoned Albert Farm in
Worthington, Mass, according to an EPA press release dated Oct.
25, 2007.

EPA is taking this action to remove pesticides, asbestos and
oils containing hazardous substances from the property. The
former potato farm is currently inactive.

An EPA investigation of the farm found several abandoned
buildings, one of which is structurally unsound and from which
asbestos is being released into the environment.

EPA has also identified about 25 drums and containers which have
significant traces of hazardous chemicals. There are also
several above- and below- ground storage tanks located
throughout the property.

The ground under several drums is not sealed with asphalt, and
oil and hazardous materials may have been released to the soil.
There is no fence or other access restrictions to prevent people
from entering the Site.

In August 2007, EPA began removal activities at the farm. The
work has included constructing a drum/container staging area
inside the former garage, collecting drums and containers and
consolidating them in the staging area. EPA is sampling the
drums and containers to identify appropriate disposal methods.

Workers on site are also cleaning up broken and disintegrating
asbestos-containing transite building board within the
disintegrating buildings. These materials will also be disposed
of at a licensed facility.

While EPA has removed asbestos items, crews have also performed
air monitoring to ensure that traces of asbestos are not being
released into the air which could pose a health concern for
people.

The clean-up work is expected to cost about US$120,000, and is
likely to be completed by the end of October 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Set to Rule on Blue Lady Ship
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental campaigners, on Oct. 25, 2007, said that India's
Supreme Court will decide in November 2007 the fate of Blue
Lady, a French-made cruise liner waiting to be dismantled that
activists say is lined with asbestos, Agence-France Presse
reports.

In September 2007, the court had given permission to the owners
of the Blue Lady to break up the vessel for scrap off India's
west coast based on a report by an expert panel it had
appointed.

However, activists said that decision contradicted a ruling
given a few days earlier by the top court, which said all ships
must be decontaminated before being taken apart.

Gopal Krishna, spokesman for the Indian Platform on
Shipbreaking, an umbrella group that includes Greenpeace and the
Ban Asbestos Network, said, “We are puzzled by the court's
(later) order.” The group has asked for a review of the ruling.

Originally launched in 1960 as the SS France, the ship has been
known as the SS Norway and finally the Blue Lady.

Environmentalists say the vessel contains some 1,200 tons of
cancer-causing materials like asbestos, and radioactive
elements, which endanger the health of ship-breakers who work
with little protection.

The ship was turned away by Bangladesh in February 2006 because
its contents were deemed too toxic for it to be dismantled
there, but the boat was allowed into Indian waters several
months later.

The current owner of the ship, a private Indian company called
Priya Blue Industries, wants to dismantle the Blue Lady off
India's western Alang coast, but company staff said the work has
been delayed.

A shipbreaking industry body agreed there was confusion over the
conflicting court rulings.

Praveen Nagarseth, President of Shipbreakers Association, said,
“The court also wants us to declare the quantity of toxins, but
no one has the expertise to do it.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Kiln Wirer's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old Gerald Day, a
kiln wirer from Grange Park in Northampton, England, U.K., was
linked to asbestos, Northampton Chronicle & Echo reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Day died from cancer after his work
exposed him to white asbestos.

Mr. Day began suffering flu symptoms, which eventually led to
his diagnosis with mesothelioma.

Rodney Haig, deputy coroner for Northamptonshire, recorded the
cause of Mr. Day's death as an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.061B Liability at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$1.061 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$1.079 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company
press release dated Oct. 25, 2007.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivable
amounted to US$687 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$725 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Dow Chemical Co., based in Midland, Mich., is a diversified
chemical company that offers products and services to customers
in more than 175 countries, helping them to provide everything
from fresh water, food and pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging
and personal care products. The Company has annual sales of
US$49 billion and employs 43,000 people worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clarke Case Junked in Prison Staff's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, granted Delores Thornton
and the other defendants' motion to dismiss an action, which
involves asbestos, in which Chandrica Clarke is the named
plaintiff.

U.S. District Judge Marrero entered judgment of Case No. 07 Civ
3012 on Oct. 9, 2007.

Ms. Clarke filed this action, alleging violations of her
constitutional and statutory rights during November 2006 and
December 2006 while she was incarcerated at Taconic Correctional
Facility in New York State, where Delores Thornton served as
Superintendent and the other individual defendants were
officers.

Ms. Clarke asserted four specific claims:

1) that she was deprived of outdoor activity;

2) that she was denied timely medical treatment and subjected to
"sick call" in an open corridor in violation of federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy
standards;

3) that she was made to feel unsafe by the intermingling of
general inmates with the protective custody inmates, of which
she was one; and

4) that she was exposed to asbestos and other health and safety
hazards in her cell.

Ms. Clarke alleged that this treatment as a whole violated her
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
Ms. Clarke failed (1) to exhaust all available administrative
remedies, (2) to allege sufficient personal involvement by
Defendants in causing the alleged injuries, and (3) to state
appropriate grounds for relief.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the Court dismissed Ms. Clarke's complaint and
indicated that it would set forth its ruling in a subsequent
decision and order.

The District Court ruled that Ms. Clarke failed to exhaust
administrative remedies prior to bringing her action in federal
court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Behringer Ruling Reversed by Appeals Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed a trial court's
ruling in favor of Alcoa Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Barbara and Leroy Behringer.

Justices Whittington, Bridges, and Lagarde entered judgment of
Case No. 05-06-00136-CV on Oct. 11, 2007.

This case was on appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court,
Dallas County, Tex., Trial Court Cause No. 04-00176-F.

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

At the end of the day, Mr. Alford removed his work clothes at
Alcoa, showered in the changing room, and took his work clothes
home in a bag. Every other day during the four years at issue,
Mrs. Behringer (then Mrs. Alford) would take Mr. Alford's dusty
work clothes outside, shake them off, and then bring them back
inside to wash them in the family's washing machine.

Although Mr. Alford continued to work for Alcoa after 1959, as a
result of their divorce, Mrs. Behringer no longer came in
contact with his clothing after that time. She was diagnosed
with pleural mesothelioma in November 2003.
     
In 2004, the Behringers sued Alcoa and other defendants alleging
Mrs. Behringer's mesothelioma resulted from asbestos exposure
caused by their wrongful acts. The Behringers' petition against
Alcoa alleged Alcoa failed to provide adequate safety measures
and protective gear and failed to adequately warn Mr. Alford and
Mrs. Behringer of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

By the time of trial, Alcoa was the only remaining defendant.
The jury returned a verdict against Alcoa on counts of
negligence and gross negligence. The jury awarded Mrs. Behringer
US$12 million in actual damages and US$2 million in exemplary
damages. The jury awarded Mr. Behringer US$1.5 million in actual
damages for loss of household services and loss of consortium,
and US$2 million in exemplary damages.

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

The trial court denied Alcoa's post-trial motions for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, to disregard jury findings, for new
trial, for remittitur, and/or to modify, correct, or reform the
judgment. Alcoa timely perfected appeal.
     
Mrs. Behringer died on Jan. 25, 2006.

The Appeals Court concluded that Alcoa did not owe a legal duty
to Mrs. Behringer. Accordingly, the Appeals Court reversed the
judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment that the
Behringers take nothing on their claims against Alcoa.

Marie R. Yeates represented Alcoa Inc., Individually and as
Successor-in-Interest to Reynolds Metal Co.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Court to Review Bunnell FELA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois, is set to review an
asbestos-related action filed by William Bunnell against various
defendants.

The Court will review the memoranda, determine whether or not
jurisdiction lies and removal was proper, and, if jurisdiction
does lie, track this case (thereby assigning it a firm trial
date).
                                     
Mr. Bunnell filed suit in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Ill., against Union Pacific Railroad "as successor to Chicago &
Northwestern System (CNS)," alleging personal injuries
(including mesothelioma) from asbestos exposure while working
for CNS for one year between 1948 and 1949.

Mr. Bunnell's suit was filed under the Federal Employers'
Liability Act. Union Pacific answered Mr. Bunnell's first
amended complaint in state court on Aug. 10, 2007.

Mr. Bunnell then filed a second amended complaint in state
court.

On Oct. 2, 2007, Union Pacific (UP) filed a removal notice in
this U.S. District Court, invoking subject matter jurisdiction
under the federal diversity statute.

First, the removal notice disclosed that Mr. Bunnell is an
Arizona citizen, and UP is a citizen of both Delaware and
Nebraska. As to each of the other seven named Defendants,
however, the removal notices alleged their citizenship based
"upon information and belief."

Second, Mr. Bunnell's state court complaint (the second amended
complaint) purported to be a FELA claim.

The Court directed UP's counsel to file a Jurisdictional
Memoranda properly identifying the citizenship of each named
Defendant and directed Mr. Bunnell's counsel to file a
Jurisdictional Memoranda responding to the portion of the
removal notice addressing whether this is truly a FELA action
and thus non-removable.

The Court has set the submission for the Jurisdictional
Memoranda on or before Oct. 24, 2007.

Robert B. Ramsey, Brent Coon & Associates, St. Louis,
represented Willam James Bunnell.

Allan M. Goodloe Jr., Thompson Coburn, St. Louis, represented
Union Pacific Railroad Co., Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.,
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Aqua-Chem Inc., CSR Ltd., Ingersoll-
Rand Co., Elliott Turbocharge Group Inc., and Elliott
Turbomachinery Co. Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monsanto Co. to Assume Solutia Inc. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Solutia Inc.'s fifth amended disclosure statement
submitted to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Oct. 19, 2007, and
also filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Monsanto Co. has agreed to take financial financial
responsibility for premises-based asbestos claims, in which
Solutia is a defendant.

Like a great number of other companies that used high-
temperature manufacturing processes, Pharmacia Corp. used
asbestos insulating materials in piping and other equipment at
its chemical plants.

Under the Distribution Agreement, Solutia has potential premises
asbestos exposure arising principally from four facilities:
Chocolate Bayou, Tex.; Nitro, W.Va.; Texas City, Tex.; and W.G.
Krummrich in Sauget, Ill. Asbestos claimants have also asserted
a smaller number of claims arising from other locations.

Solutia has been named as a defendant (along with Monsanto,
Pharmacia, and numerous other premises owners) in actions
brought by employees of contractors who allege that they were
exposed to asbestos at Pharmacia's facilities, at which Solutia
took over operations long after the use of asbestos was
discontinued, and the facilities of those other owners.

In the vast majority of these cases, discovery is necessary to
determine whether the claimants actually worked on-site at any
facility for which Solutia has potential liability, the extent
of that work, and the potential for exposure to friable
asbestos-containing materials.

In addition to the nearly 3,700 asbestos-related claims that
have been filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, there are more than 520
different asbestos-related lawsuits, involving an estimated
3,500 to 4,500 different plaintiffs that have been filed against
Pharmacia or Monsanto, for which Solutia may have
indemnification exposure under the Distribution Agreement.

As of Dec. 17, 2003, 12,000 plaintiffs had brought asbestos-
related lawsuits that implicated Solutia's indemnity obligations
under the Distribution Agreement, but only 3,700 Proofs of Claim
asserting Legacy Tort Claims have been filed in the Chapter 11
Cases.

Most of the proof of Claim forms that have been submitted are
brought on behalf of individual Claimants. A few Claim forms
appear to seek to include a large number of Claimants.

Thus, while 3,700 proof of Claim forms have been filed in the
Chapter 11 Cases, the actual number of Claims (measured on a
per-person basis) is likely higher, and may exceed 12,000
Claims.

Under the Monsanto Settlement Agreement and the Amended Plan,
Monsanto has agreed to take financial responsibility, as between
itself and Reorganized Solutia only, for all Legacy Tort Claims,
and its expenditures in this regard, both during the Chapter 11
Cases and following the assumed Effective Date of Dec. 31, 2007,
form a portion of the Monsanto Claim.

St. Louis-based Solutia Inc.'s chemical-based products can be
found in carpets that resist pet stains and in safety glass and
fabrics. The Company has two business segments: integrated nylon
and performance products and services. The Company's integrated
nylon segment makes fibers for carpets, space shuttle tires,
upholstery, and dental floss. Its performance products include
aviation hydraulic fluids and films such as plastic interlayer
for automotive glass.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Enters Split Ruling in Donoughe Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued split rulings in an
asbestos-related action, in which couple John E. Donoughe and
Helen M. Donoughe are the plaintiffs.

Judges Stevens, McCaffery, and Kelly, entered judgment on Case
Nos. 357 EDA 2006 and 488 EDA 2006 on Oct. 12, 2007.

Appeal from the Judgment Entered Jan, 25, 2006, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 5275
September Term, 2003.

This asbestos case was tried before the Honorable James Murray
Lynn and a jury as a reverse bifurcated trial.

In the first phase, the jury found that Mr. Donoughe was exposed
to asbestos that resulted in his development of lung cancer and
awarded him US$360,000, and Mrs. Donoughe, US$36,000, for loss
of consortium. In Phase II, the jury found Lincoln Electric Co.
and Hobart Brothers Co. liable for the injury sustained by Mr.
Donoughe.

The evidence at trial established that Mr. Donoughe worked with
the Penn Central Railroad, which later became Conrail and
Norfolk Southern, from 1974 through 2000. He worked as a welder
at the railroad shop, and about one-quarter of his time from
1974 through 1977, repaired air brakes. He stated that numerous
products in the railroad shop were labeled as containing
asbestos.

On May 6, 2005, the jury awarded Mr. Donoughe US$396,000 in
damages. On May 13, 2005, the Donoughes filed a Motion to Mold
the Verdict. On May 20, 2005, Lincoln and Hobart filed a Motion
for Post-Trial Relief.

The trial court denied the post-trial relief sought by Donoughe
and that sought by Lincoln and Hobart. The parties filed timely
cross-appeals, with Lincoln and Hobart raising their joint
issues in a single brief.

The Superior Court affirmed as to Lincoln's and Hobart's claims,
and vacated and remanded as to the Donoughes' claim.

The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded this matter
for a redetermination of an appropriate set-off with respect to
the Manville Trust settlement.

Having determined that none of Lincoln's and Hobart's claims on
appeal have any merit, the Superior Court concluded that the
trial court correctly denied their motions for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

However, having also determined that Donoughe's claim on appeal
does have merit, the Superior Court vacated the judgment of the
trial court and remanded for a redetermination of the
appropriate set-off with respect to the Manville Trust
settlement.

Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for
further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Forest Reserves to Clean Up Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Forest Products Inc. says that a reserve was
established for an affiliate's facility in Thornton, Calif., to
remove asbestos and certain lead-containing materials that
existed on the property at the time of purchase.

The reserve amount was not disclosed in the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 25, 2007.

Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Universal Forest Products Inc., a
maker of engineered wood and construction materials, sells to
the manufactured housing, do-it-yourself homeowner, and
industrial markets. Products include pressure-treated lumber and
roof trusses, dimension lumber, decking and gates, as well as
composite wood and plastic building materials. The Company
operates around 90 facilities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Suits Involving AcandS Inc. Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Travelers Companies Inc., continues to be involved in three
significant proceedings on ACandS Inc., formerly a national
distributor of installer of products containing asbestos.

The proceedings involve disputes as to whether and to what
extent any of ACandS’ potential liabilities for current or
future bodily injury asbestos claims are covered by insurance
policies issued by TPC.

On July 6, 2007, the Company announced that it entered into a
settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos-
related coverage claims relating to ACandS, including the three
proceedings.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute
US$449 million to a trust to be established pursuant to ACandS’
plan of reorganization. In exchange, the Company will be
released from any obligations it has to ACandS for asbestos-
related claims and will be protected from any such claims by
injunctions to be issued in the Company’s favor by the federal
court overseeing ACandS’ bankruptcy case.

The Company expects to seek to recover about US$84 million of
the US$449 million from reinsurers. On Aug. 27, 2007 the
bankruptcy court overseeing ACandS’ bankruptcy approved the
settlement and no appeals from that approval were taken.

ACandS filed for bankruptcy in September 2002 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

On Jan. 26, 2004, the bankruptcy court issued a decision
rejecting confirmation of ACandS’ proposed plan of
reorganization. ACandS filed a notice of appeal of the
bankruptcy court’s decision and filed objections to the
bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in
the U.S. District Court. TPC moved to dismiss the appeal and
objections and also filed an opposition to ACandS’ objections.

An arbitration was commenced in January 2001 to determine
whether and to what extent ACandS’ financial obligations for
bodily injury asbestos claims are subject to insurance policy
aggregate limits. On July 31, 2003, the arbitration panel ruled
in favor of TPC that asbestos bodily injury claims against
ACandS are subject to the aggregate limits of the policies
issued to ACandS, which have been exhausted.

In October 2003, ACandS commenced a lawsuit seeking to vacate
the arbitration award as beyond the panel’s scope of authority.
On Sept. 16, 2004, the district court entered an order denying
ACandS’ motion to vacate the arbitration award. On Jan. 19,
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the
district court’s decision and declared the arbitration award
void on procedural grounds.

On May 22, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied TPC’s petition
for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the 3rd Circuit’s
decision. As a result, the matter was remanded to the district
court and TPC asked the district court to remand the arbitration
to the panel that initially ruled in favor of TPC for further
proceedings consistent with the 3rd Circuit’s decision. ACandS
opposed that request.

In the third proceeding, a related case pending before the same
court and commenced in September 2000, ACandS sought a
declaration of the extent to which the asbestos bodily injury
claims against ACandS are subject to occurrence limits under
insurance policies issued by TPC. TPC filed a motion to dismiss
this action based upon the July 31, 2003 arbitration decision.
As a result of the Jan. 19, 2006 ruling by the 3rd Circuit and
the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, this case was
reinstated.

Under the settlement agreement, ACandS and the Company have
agreed to stay the claims against each other in the proceedings.
Once all of the contingencies of the settlement are satisfied,
these proceedings will be dismissed with prejudice.

The Travelers Companies Inc., based in St. Paul, Minn., offers
personal insurance and commercial property/casualty insurance.
The Company also offers commercial auto, property, workers'
compensation, marine, and general and financial liability
coverage to companies in North America and the U.K.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $3.785B Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies Inc.'s net asbestos reserves amounted to
US$3.785 billion at and for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2007, compared with US$4.179 billion at and for the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 25, 2007.

The Company's net asbestos reserves totaled US$3.859 billion at
June 30, 2007, compared with US$4.122 billion at June 30, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first nine months
of 2007 were US$266 million, compared with US$341 million in the
same period of 2006.

Gross paid losses in the first nine months of 2007 were lower
than in the same period of 2006 primarily due to installment
payments made during 2006 on settlements reached in prior years.
Additionally, net paid losses were lower due to increased
reinsurance billings in 2007.

About 36 percent (in the first nine months of 2007) and 54
percent (in the first nine months of 2006) of total net paid
losses related to policyholders with whom the Company has
entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company’s
liability.

The Travelers Companies Inc., based in St. Paul, Minn., offers
personal insurance and commercial property/casualty insurance.
The Company also offers commercial auto, property, workers'
compensation, marine, and general and financial liability
coverage to companies in North America and the U.K.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morton International Inc., a subsidiary of Rohm and Haas Co.,
continues to face pending lawsuits on employee exposure to
asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La., with
more lawsuits expected, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 25, 2007.

The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed
because they are barred under workers’ compensation laws.
However, cases involving asbestos-caused malignancies may not be
barred under Louisiana law.

Subsequent to the Morton acquisition, the Company commissioned
medical studies to estimate possible future claims and recorded
accruals based on the results.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs’
attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the
Company, which had asbestos on its premises. Historically, these
premises cases have been dismissed or settled for minimal
amounts because of the minimal likelihood of exposure at the
Company's facilities.

The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases
that it currently believes are probable and estimable.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related
matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol
Corp., which merged with Morton in 1982. Settlement amounts to
date have been minimal and many cases have closed with no
payment.

Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Co. operates six reportable
segments: Primary Materials, Paint and Coatings Materials,
Packaging and Building Materials, Electronic Materials Group,
Performance Materials Group, and Salt. Paint and Coatings
Materials, Packaging and Building Materials and Primary
Materials are managed under one executive as the Specialty
Materials Group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. faces occupational claims (including
asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as well as repetitive
motion), according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 25, 2007.

These claims are often not alleged to be caused by a specific
accident or event but rather are alleged to result from a
claimed exposure over time. Many such claims are being asserted
by former or retired employees, some of whom have not been
employed in the rail industry for decades.

An actuarial firm provides an estimate of the occupational
claims liability based upon the Company's history of claim
filings, severity, payments and other pertinent facts. The
liability is dependent upon management’s judgments made as to
the specific case reserves as well as judgments of the
consulting actuarial firm in the periodic studies.

Norfolk, Va.-based Norfolk Southern Corp.'s main subsidiary,
Norfolk Southern Railway Co., transports freight over a network
consisting of more than 21,000 route miles in 22 states in the
eastern U.S. and in Ontario, Canada. The Company transports coal
and general merchandise, including automotive products and
chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Reserves $2.085B for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., for the three and
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, reserved a net of US$2.085
billion for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 25, 2007.

The Company, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007,
reserved a net of US$2.145 billion for asbestos-related claims.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

The Company continues to receive asbestos and environmental
claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries
asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products
containing asbestos.

The Company wrote several different categories of insurance
contracts that may cover asbestos and environmental claims.
First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first
layer of coverage in an insured’s liability program. Second, the
Company wrote excess policies providing higher layers of
coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying
coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a
portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing
primary, excess and reinsurance coverages. Fourth, subsidiaries
of the Company participated in the London Market, writing both
direct insurance and assumed reinsurance business.

With regard to both environmental and particularly asbestos
claims, significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers
and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for
unpaid losses and related expenses.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's net
paid losses ans loss adjustment expense amounted to US$63
million. For the same period, the Company's net incurred losses
and LAE amounted to US$3 million.

For the nine month ended Sept 30, 2007, the Company's net paid
losses and LAE amounted to US$176 million. For the same period,
the Company's net incurred losses and LAE amounted to US$19
million.

Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group
Inc. is a financial holding company for a group of subsidiaries
that provide investment products and life and property and
casualty insurance to both individual and business customers in
the United States and internationally.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Platinum's Appeal in Frankfort Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal, filed by Platinum Equity LLC and Pfrank LLC on Aug.
21, 2007, over a ruling in favor of Frankfort Tower Industries
Inc. (f/k/a ROHN Industries Inc.) is pending, according to a
court document filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Indiana and with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

No decision by the Supreme Court for the State of Delaware has
been rendered.

Prior to the inception of the Debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings,
the Debtors began the process of pursuing claims for breach of
contract against Platinum.

The estate's claims against Platinum relate to a Nov. 27, 2002
Asset Purchase Agreement between Platinum and the Debtors. Under
the Asset Purchase Agreement, Platinum agreed to purchase
substantially all of the Debtors' assets and businesses and
assume certain of the Debtors' liabilities.

The Asset Purchase Agreement was subject to limited termination
rights in favor of Platinum, including the right to terminate if
Platinum had "a reasonable basis in law and in fact" to conclude
that as a result of the sale transaction it could incur
"material liability for any asbestos-related claim" arising out
of the activities of a predecessor entity to the Debtors.

On Dec. 26, 2002, Platinum purported to terminate the Asset
Purchase Agreement. The Debtors contended that the termination
was wrongful as it was without any reasonable basis in law or in
fact.

On or April 14, 2003, Rohn Industries Inc., Rohn Construction
Inc., Rohn Products Inc., Rohn de Mexico S.A. de C.V., Rohn
Servicious S.A. de C.V., Rohn Inc., and Rohn Installation
Services Inc. commenced an action against Platinum in the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County (Delaware Superior Court) seeking to recover all damages
related to Platinum's alleged wrongful termination of the Asset
Purchase Agreement.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Delaware Superior Court found that
Platinum had properly terminated the agreement because Platinum
subjectively believed in good faith that it would incur a
material asbestos-related liability.

The Debtors appealed to the Supreme Court for the State of
Delaware and, on Oct. 27, 2006, the Supreme Court for the State
of Delaware held that there was no objective basis in law or
fact for Platinum's termination of the Asset Purchase Agreement
and remanded the matter to the Delaware Superior Court to enter
judgment in favor of the Company and against Platinum and then
to make a determination as to damages.

On July 25, 2007, the Delaware Superior Court entered judgment
in the Debtors' favor in the amount of US$20,531,478.00 plus
post-judgment interest accruing thereafter until paid.

Peoria, Ill.-based Frankfort Tower Industries Inc. is a
manufacturer and installer of infrastructure products for the
communications industry, including cellular telephone, fiber-
optic network, Internet, personal communications systems,
enhanced specialized mobile radio, paging, radio and television
broadcast, wireless cable, private microwave and other
telecommunications businesses. In September 2003, the Company
and five of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Inc. and certain current and former
subsidiaries, along with other third-party companies as co-
defendants, continue to face multi-party asbestos-related
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (2nd
Judicial District) and Jasper County (1st Judicial District),
Miss.

Filed in August 2004, the lawsuits sought an unspecified amount
of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal
injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and
associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims,
the Company has been named as a defendant by 62 individual
plaintiffs. Of these claims, 60 claims or lawsuits are pending
in Mississippi state courts and two are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

At present, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos lawsuits
against the Company have been set for trial.

Dallas-based ENSCO International Inc. is an offshore drilling
contractor. The Company owns a fleet of 46 offshore rigs,
including 44 jack-ups, one barge rig, one platform rig, and one
semi submersible (capable of drilling in up to 8,500 ft. of
water). The Company conducts most of its domestic drilling
business in the Gulf of Mexico, but also operates in the North
Sea; offshore West Africa, Indonesia, and Trinidad; and in the
Asia/Pacific region.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 42,000 Claims Remain Pending v. BorgWarner
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, had about 42,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 32,000
are pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort
reform activities are underway, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 25, 2007.

The Company, as of June 30, 2007, had about 42,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 34,000
are pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort
reform activities are underway. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3,
2007.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.

The Company said it believes its involvement is limited because,
in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive
friction products that were made many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the
encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to believe
that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm.

The Company’s policy is to aggressively defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment.

The Company expects that the vast majority of the pending
asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a
defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will
result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers.

In the first nine months of 2007, of about 3,800 claims
resolved, 155 (4.1 percent) resulted in any payment being made
to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

In 2006, of about 27,000 claims resolved, 169 (0.6 percent)
resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf
of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company’s primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement.

In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the
Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This
led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance
coverage.

Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-
related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a
funding arrangement.

To date, the Company has paid US$24.6 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers’ reimbursement and has received
US$7.1 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance of
US$17.5 million is expected to be fully recovered. At Dec. 31,
2006, insurers owed US$11.7 million in association with these
claims.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$40.7 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$40.7 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company’s experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in a declaratory judgment action. At
Dec. 31, 2006, the comparable value of the insurance receivable
and accrued liability was US$39.9 million.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. makes power train
products for the world's major automakers. The Company's power
train products include four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive
transfer cases (primarily for light trucks and sport utility
vehicles), as well as automatic transmission and timing-chain
systems. The Company operates more than 50 manufacturing
facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Faces CNA Coverage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. continues to face a declaratory judgment action,
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental
Casualty Co. and related companies (CNA) against it and certain
of its other historical general liability insurers, according to
the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Oct. 25, 2007.

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The lawsuit, filed in January 2004, seeks to determine the
extent of insurance coverage available to the Company including
whether the available limits exhaust on a “per occurrence” or an
“aggregate” basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage
responsibilities should be apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding
the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of
making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs
pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold
the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable
coverage.

Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.

In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related
product claims.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. makes power train
products for the world's major automakers. The Company's power
train products include four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive
transfer cases (primarily for light trucks and sport utility
vehicles), as well as automatic transmission and timing-chain
systems. The Company operates more than 50 manufacturing
facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Payment for Property Claims Totals $40M
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corp., in 2007 to date, made total payments of about US$40
million for asbestos property damage settlements, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2007.

The current estimate of the cost of the remaining asbestos
property damage settlements that have not yet been paid, and
associated legal fees, is about US$8 million and is included in
accrued expenses and other liabilities on the condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company's plan of reorganization confirmed in 2006 resolved
the debtors' liability for all present and future asbestos
personal injury and related claims. Under the plan, the Company
created and funded a trust under Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code for the payment of all of the present and future
asbestos personal injury liabilities of the debtors.

In 2006, the Company made payments totaling US$3.95 billion to
the asbestos personal injury trust. The Company has no further
payment obligations to the trust.

A key component of the Company's plan of reorganization is the
channeling injunction which provides that all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims against the debtors must be
brought against the trust and no one may bring such a claim
against the debtors.

This channeling injunction applies to all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims for which any debtor is alleged
to be liable, including any asbestos personal injury claims
against U.S. Gypsum, L&W Supply or Beadex, as well as any
asbestos personal injury claims against the debtors relating to
A.P. Green Refractories Co., which was formerly one of the
Company's subsidiaries.

Asbestos property damage claims against the debtors were not
part of the asbestos trust or the channeling injunction. The
Company's plan of reorganization provided that all settled or
otherwise resolved asbestos property damage claims that were
timely filed in the Company's reorganization proceedings would
be paid in full.

During the Company's reorganization proceedings, the court
entered an order requiring that asbestos property damage claims
against the debtors be filed by Jan. 15, 2003. In response to
that deadline, about 1,400 asbestos property damage claims were
timely filed in the debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings and an
additional 70 claims were filed after the deadline.

During the Company's reorganization proceedings, more than 950
claims were disallowed or withdrawn, leaving about 520 claims
pending.

In 2006 and 2007, the Company reached agreements to settle all
of the remaining asbestos property damage claims filed in its
reorganization proceedings. In 2006, the Company made total
payments of about US$99 million for certain of these asbestos
property damage settlements.

Based on the its evaluation of its asbestos property damage
settlements, the Company reversed US$27 million of its reserve
for asbestos-related claims in the 2006-2nd quarter and an
additional US$17 million in the 2006-3rd quarter.

Chicago-based USG Corp.'s North American Gypsum division
manufactures SHEETROCK brand gypsum products and joint compound
and DUROCK brand cement board. The Company also manufactures
abuse-resistant wall panels (FIBEROCK), poured gypsum
underlayments (LEVELROCK), and construction plaster products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Unit Continue to Face Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corp. and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps Inc., together with
numerous other industrial companies, continue to face product
liability lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2007.

These claims stem primarily from products sold prior to 1985
that contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a
gasket, which allegedly contained asbestos. The asbestos was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT
companies were distributors for other manufacturers’ products
that may have contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury
or do not identify any Company or Goulds product as a source of
asbestos exposure. The Company and Gould resolved about 8,200
claims during 2006, 16,000 claims during 2005, and 4,200 claims
during 2004.

Nearly all of these claims were dismissed, with settlement on a
small percentage of claims. The average amount of settlement per
plaintiff has been nominal and substantially all defense and
settlement costs have been covered by insurance.

The Company is involved in two actions, Cannon Electric Inc. et
al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Co. (ACE) et al. Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, Calif. Case No. BC 290354, and Pacific
Employers Insurance Co. et al., v. ITT Industries Inc., et al.,
Supreme Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463.

The parties in both cases are seeking an appropriate allocation
of responsibility for the Company’s historic asbestos liability
exposure among its insurers. The California action is filed in
the same venue where the Company’s environmental insurance
recovery litigation had been pending since 1991. The New York
action has been stayed in favor of the California suit.

The Company and ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have successfully
resolved the matter and the Company is working with other
parties in the suit to resolve the matter as to those insurers.

In addition, Utica National and Goulds have negotiated a
coverage-in-place agreement to allocate the Goulds’ asbestos
liabilities between insurance policies issued by Utica and those
issued by others.

The terms of the settlement will provide the Company with
substantial coverage from Utica for asbestos liabilities. The
Company will continue to seek coverage from its other insurers
for these liabilities.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corp. (f/k/a ITT Industries) has
three primary segments: defense electronics (combat radios,
night-vision devices, airborne electronic-warfare systems),
fluid technology (pumps, mixers, heat exchangers, and valves for
water and wastewater systems), and motion and flow control
(connectors, boat pumps, shock absorbers, friction pads for
communication and transportation applications).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Gets $24M for Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co., in the first nine months of 2007, received
US$24 million in cash payments for asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2007.

Several of the Company's subsidiaries or former subsidiaries,
particularly DII Industries LLC and Kellogg Brown & Root LLC,
had been named as defendants in a large number of asbestos- and
silica-related lawsuits.

Effective Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and
future claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of DII
Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, and the Company's
other affected subsidiaries (which were filed on Dec. 16, 2003)
when the plan of reorganization became final and nonappealable.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the terms of its insurance settlements, the Company would
receive cash proceeds with a nominal amount of about US$1.5
billion and with a then present value of about US$1.4 billion
for the Company's asbestos- and silica-related insurance
receivables.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the remaining amounts that the Company will
receive under the terms of the settlement agreements totaled
US$238 million or US$223 million on a present value basis, to be
paid in several installments through 2010.

Of the US$223 million recorded at Sept. 30, 2007, US$90 million
was classified as current.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has not recorded any liability
associated with these indemnifications.

Houston-based Halliburton Co.'s Energy Services Group provides
production optimization, drilling evaluation, fluid services,
and oilfield drilling software and consulting. The Company works
in oilfields from the North Sea to the Middle East as well as in
newer sites in Southeast Asia and Africa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Continues to Face Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corp. faces a limited number of asbestos-related claims
as “successor” to Coltec Industries Inc. or one of its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26,
2007.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Products (EIP) segment, which at the time of the
spin-off included EnPro Industries Inc. and Coltec Industries
Inc.

At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a
significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged
asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as “successor” to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries.

The agreement between EnPro and the Company that was used to
effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Charlotte, N.J.-based Goodrich Corp.'s business is involved in
aerospace systems. The Company's largest unit, Engine Systems,
makes aerostructures, engine and fuel controls, fuel systems,
pumps, and turbine components. Airframe Systems makes aircraft
wheels, brakes, landing gear, and flight control and actuation
systems; it also provides aircraft maintenance, repair, and
overhaul services. Electronic Systems makes interior products,
de-icing and specialty systems, monitoring systems, lighting
products, avionics systems, telemetry systems, sensors, and
reconnaissance systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faced w/ Fel-Pro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. continues to face asbestos-related claims
concerning its Fel-Pro subsidiary, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 26, 2007.

Before Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in its
own name as one of a large number of defendants in multiple
lawsuits brought by claimants alleging injury from exposure to
asbestos due to its ownership of certain assets involved in
gasket making.

As of its Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, the Company was a
defendant in about 61,500 pre-petition pending claims. Over
40,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court,
where, prior to the Restructuring Proceedings, they were
pending. Notices of complaints continue to be received post-
petition and are in violation of the automatic stay.

Before the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company’s Fel-Pro
subsidiary also was named as a defendant in a number of product
liability cases involving asbestos, primarily involving gasket
or packing products.

Fel-Pro was a defendant with respect to nearly 2,000 pending
claims as of the Petition Date. Fel-Pro had been named in a
further 32,000 claims that had been dismissed without prejudice
prior to the Petition Date.

All claims alleging exposure to products of the Company and of
Fel-Pro have been stayed as a result of the Restructuring
Proceedings.

Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for
cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. Products include
chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold
under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat.
The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the
Americas and Europe. Major customers have included global
automakers like General Motors, Ford, BMW, and Volkswagen.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. to Settle 7,500 Claims for $2M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp. has agreed to pay a total of US$2 million to 7,500
personal injury claimants to resolve their lawsuits stemming
from asbestos-laden gaskets produced by the Company, The
Associated Press reports.

A court hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for Nov.
15, 2007.

In papers filed on Oct. 26, 2007 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in Manhattan, the Company called the settlement a “reasonable
and expedient way” to resolve the claims without litigation.

The Company, which sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
March 2006, is trying to exit bankruptcy protection under a
reorganization plan that calls for unsecured creditors to
recover between 72 percent and 86 percent on their claims.

The Company has said asbestos-related personal-injury claims,
which totaled 150,000 as of June 30, 2007, will pass through its
bankruptcy unchanged.

However, the Company said many of the claimants have not become
sick. According to court papers, about seven percent of the
asbestos claims filed against the Company allege mesothelioma or
cancer.

The Company said it has pursued settlements to avoid further
litigation costs. The latest settlement, which will cost a
maximum US$2 million if all claimants can submit the required
proof to support their claims, will resolve about seven percent
of the mesothelioma claims and four percent of the cancer claims
filed against the Company.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Corp.'s core products include axles and
driveshafts, as well as sealing, thermal, and structural
products. Customers include OEMs like Ford, Chrysler, General
Motors, and Toyota. The Company also supplies companies that
make commercial and off-highway vehicles like PACCAR and
Navistar.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept. Revokes Empire Asbestos License
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Commissioner M. Patricia Smith, on Oct. 29, 2007, said
that the New York State Labor Department has revoked the
asbestos removal license of Reginald Robinson, president of
Rochester, N.Y.-based Empire Asbestos Removal Inc., according to
a New York State Department of Labor press release dated Oct.
29, 2007.

The Labor Department took the action following a hearing by the
Asbestos Control Bureau in its Division of Safety and Health
that examined the Company’s actions in six separate asbestos
abatement projects.

The Asbestos Control Bureau found that Mr. Robinson and Empire
had not complied with Article 30 of the Labor Law, which governs
asbestos-handling licensing, and Code Rule 56, which governs
hazards to safety and health from asbestos removal.

Commissioner Smith said, “The safety and health of New York’s
residents and workers is paramount. We will not continue to
license contractors who do not follow the law and abide by the
safety rules that protect the public.”

From June 16, 2005 through Feb. 21, 2006, the Asbestos Control
Bureau issued 70 Notices of Violation and Orders to Comply to
Empire Asbestos Removal on six separate asbestos abatement
projects.

Evidence produced at the hearing included: site photographs,
investigators testimony, laboratory sample analysis reports and
testimony from Mr. Robinson, which all established the existence
and the seriousness of the violations.

Because of the number and the severity of the offenses, the
Labor Department requested a civil penalty of US$5,000 for each
of the Company’s 68 violations of Code Rule 56. Empire Asbestos
Removal must pay the Department of Labor US$340,000 immediately.

The order also revokes the asbestos license issued to Empire
Asbestos Removal Inc. and the supervisor certificate issued to
Reginald Robinson (# 91-05207).

The safety violations included: lack of proper waste
containment; inappropriate decontamination that spread asbestos
outside of the abatement area; poorly set up abatement areas and
badly maintained air filtration.

The Company was fined for asbestos removal projects that were
located at: St. Felix Church, Clifton Springs; Fairbanks Road
Elementary School, Churchville; Rochester Bureau of Water and
Lighting, Rochester; Jasco Building, Rochester and Pittsford
Place Mall, Pittsford.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sandblaster Sues 50 Companies in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandblaster Fidel Perez, through Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan
Blevins, on Oct. 24, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against the A.O. Smith Corp. and 49 other companies in Jefferson
County District Court in Texas, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

In the suit, Mr. Perez alleges that A.O. Smith and the 49 other
companies knowingly and maliciously manufactured and distributed
asbestos-containing products throughout Jefferson County.

The suit alleges the 50 defendants in the lawsuit were negligent
for failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products
before flooding the market with dangerous goods and for failing
to warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Medical documents provided by Trinity Clinic and attached to the
suit indicate Mr. Perez was exposed to asbestos while working as
a sandblaster and painter for multiple construction companies
from 1963 to 2001.

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

The Trinity Clinic documents conclude Mr. Perez was diagnosed
with asbestosis and asbestos-related colon cancer. The documents
also say Mr. Perez was only a "modest" smoker and quit in 1973.

Some of the defendants listed in the suit include Lockheed
Martin Corp., Viacom Inc., and 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. Perez 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. Perez sues 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
Case No. A180-596.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supervisor Pleads Guilty to Removal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Langill of Woburn, Mass., pleaded guilty to violating the
Clean Air Act in connection with asbestos abatement at the U.S.
Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, according to a U.S.
Department of Justice press release dated Oct. 26, 2007.

The announcement was made by Ronald J. Tenpas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and
Natural Resources Division and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney
for the District of Maryland.

Mr. Tenpas said, “Robert Langill violated federal standards when
he directed his employees to improperly remove materials
containing asbestos causing the hazardous fibers to be dispersed
into the air. Exposure to asbestos is hazardous and known to
cause cancer. [This] guilty plea should serve as a strong
reminder that those who choose to ignore asbestos abatement
regulations will be prosecuted.”

According to the plea agreement, from 2001 to 2004, Mr. Langill
was employed with a Maryland asbestos abatement company as an
asbestos abatement project supervisor. In 2003, the company
entered into an agreement with the U.S. Navy to remove asbestos-
containing material from several buildings undergoing renovation
or demolition at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md.

From October 2003 to Jan. 8, 2004, Mr. Langill directed the
removal of transite panels containing asbestos from Buildings
692, 213 and 425 in a manner which violated federal asbestos
abatement work practice standards, in that workers were directed
to remove the panels by smashing them with hammers and crowbars
and allowing the transite to fall to the ground and break,
thereby rendering the asbestos friable and causing a release of
asbestos fibers into the environment.

The transite panels from Building 692 had not been adequately
wet and no notification of the abatement activity had been given
to the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE), the state
authority delegated to receive such notification, prior to the
commencement of the abatement activity. In addition, unlabelled,
improperly sealed bags of the broken asbestos-containing
transite panels from Building 692 were stored on the grounds of
the naval facility overnight in a truck owned by the company.

Mr. Rosenstein said, “Robert Langill intentionally violated
federal work practice standards established to protect people
and the environment from harmful exposure to asbestos. We will
continue to prosecute individuals who violate the very laws that
they are entrusted to comply with.”

Mr. Langill faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and
a fine of US$250,000, or twice the pecuniary gain derived from
the crime, or twice the pecuniary loss caused to the victim of
the crime.

U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte has scheduled sentencing
for Jan. 10, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

The case was investigated by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency -- Criminal Investigation Division and the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service.

The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Noreen McCarthy of the
Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section and Gina L.
Simms, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul to Resolve Ch. 11 Objections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., on Oct. 26, 2007, said that it has reached
deals expected to resolve objections to its Chapter 11 plan,
meaning the Company could emerge from bankruptcy by the end of
2007 and keep favorable terms of a US$3.5 billion exit-finance
package, The Associated Press reports.

James Conlan, attorney for the Company, said "agreements in
principle" have been reached with insurers that were the only
remaining holdouts on a reorganization plan that resolves
billions of dollars in asbestos liabilities.

Mr. Conlan told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald that
court papers are expected to be filed by Oct. 29, 2007
documenting arrangements under which the insurers will drop
their objections.

Mr. Conlan added that final details need to be worked out, but
the fundamental issues dividing the Company and the insurers
have been resolved.

Judge Fitzgerald presided over confirmation hearings in June
2007 and has indicated she would rule in the Company's favor on
many of the arguments raised by insurers. The issues include
whether the Company is entitled to assign rights under its
insurance policies to a trust that will be set up to pay claims
for asbestos-related illnesses under the Chapter 11 plan.

However, Judge Fitzgerald is the first of two judges who must
sign off on the Company's Chapter 11 proposal before the end of
the year, if the Company is to meet the deadline on its exit
financing. The possibility of appeals could delay confirmation,
unless objections are withdrawn before the judge signs off.

Agreements with insurance companies capped weeks of bargaining
that resolved a raft of objections to the Company's Chapter 11
plan, including one from bottler PepsiAmericas Inc., which also
may face suit for asbestos claims.

Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for
cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. Products include
chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold
under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat.
The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the
Americas and Europe. Major customers have included global
automakers like General Motors, Ford, BMW, and Volkswagen.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Engineer Sues BAE Unit for Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Hughes, a 71-year-old former engineer, has launched a
legal claim for compensation against English Electric Co., which
is now owned by BAE SYSTEMS plc, The Citizen reports.

Mr. Hughes worked at English Electric Co., Clayton-le-Moors,
U.K., from 1952 to 1964.

Mr. Hughes is hoping former colleagues will be able to give
evidence in his compensation claim. He was diagnosed in 2006
with mesothelioma.

At the age of 16, Mr. Hughes joined the company as a millwright,
and believes the main source of his asbestos exposure was when
he was involved in installing a vast network of pipe-work during
1956 and 1957. The steel pipes were installed with asbestos
lagging and he recalls using asbestos string as a jointing
material around the pipes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Local Sues 13 Companies in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luwanna Sue Lariscy, on Oct. 15, 2007, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit on another woman's behalf in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Lariscy filed the suit on behalf of Olive Mae Murphy.
According to the suit, Ms. Murphy was exposed to asbestos
repeatedly while cleaning the "asbestos-laden" clothes of her
husband, Orla Doak.

Mr. Doak worked at UB West Virginia Inc., formerly known as
Union Boiler Co. and Vimasco Corp., from 1949 to 1962 and 1966
to 1979.

According to the suit, Mr. Doak's clothes were contaminated with
asbestos dust, manufactured, distributed, supplied, installed
and created by the use of machinery intended to grind asbestos-
containing friction products.

Ms. Murphy contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to the
asbestos. She ultimately died from her illness.

In the seven-count suit, Ms. Lariscy seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for Ms. Murphy's estate.

Attorney Brian Alan Prim is representing Ms. Lariscy.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2195 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Sue Over Old Warships in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several environmental groups, on Oct. 29, 2007, filed suit in
the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Calif., against the U.S.
Federal Government over toxic pollution caused by a fleet of old
warships floating near San Francisco Bay, The Charlotte Observer
reports.

The groups accuse the U.S. Maritime Administration of violating
state and federal environmental regulations as dozens of
decaying ships linger well past a congressional deadline
ordering their removal.

The suit asks the court to order the federal agency to prepare
an official review of the environmental impact caused by the
ships and to remove hazardous waste including paint, discarded
oil and asbestos.

According to the complaint filed by the Natural Resources
Defense Council, Arc Ecology, and San Francisco Baykeeper,
“These vessels have long since ceased being useful for
transportation and are now just floating junkyards.”

More than 70 ships comprise the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet, some
dating to World War II. The old ships were once kept afloat in
case of war, but many have fallen into disrepair, overtaken by
rust and rot.

The head of the Maritime Administration said in a statement that
the agency was engaged in "ongoing and extensive efforts to
ensure the safety of these vessels."

A congressional order set a 2006 deadline to scrap more than 50
ships, but a regulatory quagmire has kept the fleet anchored in
place in the shallow inland waters east of San Francisco Bay.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judges to Review Ruling in W.R. Grace Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, on Oct.
29, 2007, announced that a 15-judge panel will review a smaller
panel's decision that reversed a number of pretrial rulings in
the U.S. Government's asbestos case against W.R. Grace & Co.,
Associated Press reports.

A date has not been set.

In September 2007, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit
reversed or revised six decisions handed down in 2006 by U.S.
District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula, Mont.

The decisions included Judge Molloy's ruling that federal
prosecutors could not allege that the Company and former top
officials conspired to "knowingly endanger" miners and residents
of Libby, Mont., by exposing them to asbestos.

A 2005 indictment charged the Company and several of its former
managers with conspiring to conceal health risks posed years ago
by the Company's Libby vermiculite mine, closed since 1990.

Hundreds of people in Libby have fallen sick, some fatally, from
exposure to asbestos in vermiculite.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $52M Claims Reserve at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp.’s subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company LLC, had
reserved about US$52 million in total for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$48
million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 26, 2007.

Generation had reserved about US$51 million for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 3, 2007)

In the 2005-2nd quarter, Generation engaged independent
actuaries to determine if a reasonable estimate of future losses
could be calculated associated with asbestos-related personal
injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by
Generation or were previously owned by other Company
subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison Co. and PECO Energy Co.

Generation recorded an undiscounted US$43 million pre-tax charge
for its estimated portion of all estimated future asbestos-
related personal injury claims estimated to be presented through
2030.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, about US$14 million of this amount relates
to 159 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2030
based on actuarial assumptions and analysis.

Chicago-based Exelon Corp. is a utility services holding company
engaged, through its subsidiaries, in the generation, energy
delivery and other businesses. Subsidiaries include Exelon
Generation Company LLC, Commonwealth Edison Co., and PECO Energy
Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Corning Inc. Drop to 10,400
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc. is named in about 10,400 cases (about 42,000
claims) alleging injuries from asbestos, according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2007.

The Company faced about 11,500 cases, with about 45,000 claims,
alleging injuries from asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3,
2007)

The Company and PPG Industries Inc. each own 50 percent of the
capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corp. Over a period of more
than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been
named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. As a result of PCC’s bankruptcy filing, the
Company recorded an after-tax charge of US$36 million in 2001 to
fully impair its investment in PCC and discontinued recognition
of equity earnings.

At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, about 12,400
claims were pending against the Company in state court lawsuits
alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to
PCC’s asbestos products and typically requesting monetary
damages in excess of US$1 million per claim.

In the bankruptcy court in April 2000, PCC obtained a
preliminary injunction against the prosecution of asbestos
actions arising from PCC’s products against its two shareholders
to afford the parties a period of time in which to negotiate a
plan of reorganization for PCC (the PCC Plan).

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with certain
of its insurance carriers and representatives of current and
future asbestos claimants on the terms of a settlement
arrangement applicable to claims arising from PCC’s products.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against it
and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations.

The proposed settlement, if the PCC Plan is approved and becomes
effective, would require the Company to relinquish its equity
interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in Pittsburgh
Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, and contribute
25 million shares of Corning common stock.

The Company would also pay a total of US$140 million in six
annual installments (present value US$131 million at March
2003), beginning one year after the PCC Plan becomes effective,
with 5.5 percent interest from June 2004, and assign certain
insurance policy proceeds from its primary insurance and a
portion of its excess insurance at the time of settlement.

The PCC Plan received a favorable vote from creditors in March
2004. Hearings to consider objections to the PCC Plan were held
in the Bankruptcy Court in May 2004. In February 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court requested that the PCC Plan proponents delete
references to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and resubmit
the PCC Plan. The final round of oral argument was held on July
21, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the PCC Plan. Several parties, including
Corning, filed motions for reconsideration. These motions were
argued on March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved
decision.

Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Inc. makes fiber-optic cable. Once
known mainly for its kitchenware and lab products, the Company
is now a leading provider of optical fiber and cable products
and communications network equipment. The Company’s display
technologies unit produces glass substrates for flat-panel
displays. Other major business segments include environmental
technologies (ceramics for catalytic converters), and life
sciences (laboratory equipment).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Appeal in Favor of Maremont
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 3rd District, Paulding County,
dismissed Connie Polanco's appeal of the ruling of the Paulding
County Common Pleas Court, which granted summary judgment in
favor of Maremont Corp., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed
for decedent Ynacio Polanco.

Judges Willamowski, Shaw, and Preston entered judgment of Case
No. 11-07-03 on Oct. 15, 2007.

On April 14, 2003, Mrs. Polanco filed a complaint against
Maremont and 36 other defendants. In her complaint, she alleged
that Mr. Polanco died on April 14, 2002 from mesothelioma.

Maremont is a brake manufacturer and employed Mr. Polanco
between 1966 and 1979. Mrs. Polanco alleged that as part of his
employment at Maremont, Mr. Polanco was exposed to raw asbestos,
which eventually caused his death.

On Aug. 18, 2006, Maremont filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that Mrs. Polanco could not prove an employer
intentional tort against it. Mrs. /Polanco filed a memorandum in
opposition, and Maremont filed a reply brief.

On Jan. 9, 2007, the trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of Maremont. The court found that the only cause of action
available against Maremont was intentional tort since Mr.
Polanco had participated in the workers' compensation fund.

The court also found that Mrs. Polanco had failed to present the
type of evidence required, and therefore, she was unable to show
that Maremont had actual knowledge that there was a substantial
certainty that Mr. Polanco was subject to harm as a result of
his exposure to the asbestos then existing in its facility.

Mrs. Polanco appealed the trial court's judgment.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Maremont
and found that all other defendants had been dismissed. There
were 16 defendants who have not been dismissed from this case.

Apparently, Mrs. Polanco's counsel attempted to orally dismiss
three of the non-dismissed defendants by way of representations
made during arguments to the court on Maremont's motion for
summary judgment.

Since there were multiple parties remaining in the litigation
and the Court's judgment entry of Jan. 9, 2007 did not include a
Civ.R. 54(B) certification, the Appeals Court does not have
jurisdiction to determine the merits of this appeal and
dismissed it.

Richard E. Reverman and Kelly W. Thye, Cincinnati, represented
Connie Polanco, on her Own Behalf and as a Personal
Representative on Behalf of the Estate of Ynacio Polanco.

Randall L. Solomon and Edward D. Papp, Cleveland, represented
Asbestos Corp. Ltd., et al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Implements No Accrual Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Union Carbide Corp.'s review of 2007 activity, the
Corporation determined that no adjustment to the accrual was
required at September 30, 2007. The asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims was US$1.2 billion at September
30, 2007.

Approximately 28 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 72 percent related to future
claims.

The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during
the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products
and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in
the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on UCC’s premises, and UCC’s responsibility for asbestos
suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure,
or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation’s products.

Influenced by the bankruptcy filings of numerous defendants in
asbestos-related litigation and the prospects of various forms
of state and national legislative reform, the rate at which
plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits against various
companies, including the Corporation and Amchem, increased in
2001, 2002 and the first half of 2003. Since then, the rate of
filing has significantly abated. The Corporation expects more
asbestos-related suits to be filed against it and Amchem in the
future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as
appropriate, both pending and future claims.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Corporation (ARPC) in January 2003, the Corporation increased
its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to US$2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate.

In November 2004, the Corporation requested ARPC to review the
Corporation’s historical asbestos claim and resolution activity
and determine the appropriateness of updating its January 2003
study. In January 2005, ARPC provided the Corporation with a
report summarizing the results of its study. At December 31,
2004, the recorded asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was US$1.6 billion. Based on the low end of the
range in the January 2005 study, the recorded asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims at December 31, 2004
would be sufficient to resolve asbestos-related claims against
UCC and Amchem into 2019.

As in its January 2003 study, ARPC did provide estimates for a
longer period of time in its January 2005 study, but also
reaffirmed its prior advice that forecasts for shorter periods
of time are more accurate than those for longer periods of time.

In November 2005, the Corporation requested ARPC to review the
Corporation’s 2005 asbestos claim and resolution activity and
determine the appropriateness of updating its January 2005
study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed
data through October 31, 2005. In January 2006, ARPC stated that
an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate
of future events than the estimate reflected in its study of the
previous year and, therefore, the estimate in that study
remained applicable. Based on the Corporation’s own review of
the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC’s response,
the Corporation determined that no change to the accrual was
required. At December 31, 2005, the recorded asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims was US$1.5 billion.

In November 2006, the Corporation requested ARPC to review the
Corporation’s historical asbestos claim and resolution activity
and determine the appropriateness of updating its January 2005
study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed
data through October 31, 2006 and concluded that the experience
from 2004 through 2006 was sufficient for the purpose of
forecasting future filings and values of asbestos claims filed
against UCC and Amchem, and could be used in place of previous
assumptions to update its January 2005 study. The resulting
study, completed by ARPC in December 2006, stated that the
undiscounted cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-
related claims against UCC and Amchem, excluding future defense
and processing costs, through 2021 was estimated to be between
approximately US$1.2 billion and US$1.5 billion.

Based on ARPC’s December 2006 study and the Corporation’s own
review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, the
Corporation decreased its asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims to US$1.2 billion at December 31, 2006 which
covers the 15-year period ending in 2021 (excluding future
defense and processing costs). The reduction was US$177 million
and was shown as “Asbestos-related credit” in the consolidated
statements of income for 2006. At December 31, 2006,
approximately 25 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 75 percent related to future
claims.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary
of The Dow Chemical Company. It manufactures chemicals such as
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely
used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene. It also
produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make
polyester fibers and antifreeze, respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Seeks $476Mil from Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp.'s receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$476 million at
September 30, 2007 and US$495 million at December 31, 2006.

At September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, all of the
receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that
are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable
for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to
US$1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product
liability coverage. The insurance receivable related to the
asbestos liability was determined after a thorough review of
applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement,
to which the Corporation and many of its liability insurers are
signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with
due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions
and policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and
historical payment experience of various insurance carriers.

In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive
insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm
its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to
facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance
proceeds. This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place with the Corporation regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an
orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and
to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.
Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of the third
quarter of 2007, the Corporation had reached settlements with
several of the carriers involved in this litigation.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related
to its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for
defense costs submitted to insurance carriers for reimbursement
as follows: US$29 million as of Sept. 30, 2007 and US$34 million
as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Receivables for resolution costs totaled US$254 million as of
Sept. 30, 2007 and US$266 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was
US$16 million in the third quarter of 2007 ($1 million in the
third quarter of 2006) and US$58 million for the first nine
months of 2007 ($29 million for the first nine months of 2006),
and was reflected in “Cost of sales.”

Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary
of The Dow Chemical Company. It manufactures chemicals such as
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely
used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene. It also
produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make
polyester fibers and antifreeze, respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 103,902 Unresolved Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp. recorded 103,902 unresolved claims at Sept.
30, 2007, of which 7,696 were newly filed claims.

Since the start of 2007, 15,681 claims have been settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Of the 103,902 claims, a total
of 35,114 represented claimants with claims against both UCC and
Amchem while 68,788 represented individual claimants at Sept.
30, 2007.

According further to the Company's latest quarterly report filed
on Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
the plaintiffs’ lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or even
thousands of claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not
expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or any other particular
defendant, even when specific damages are alleged with respect
to a specific disease or injury. In fact, there are no personal
injury cases in which only the Corporation and/or Amchem are the
sole named defendants.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary
of The Dow Chemical Company. It manufactures chemicals such as
ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely
used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene. It also
produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make
polyester fibers and antifreeze, respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Braces for Hearings in 4Q07  
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, was one of many
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving
approximately 114,000 open claims served on PPG.  

For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos. Most of PPG’s potential exposure relates to
allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products
manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
(“PC”). PPG and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders
of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

In addition, and in response to additional motions to lift the
stay filed on behalf of other premises claimants, the Bankruptcy
Court issued a series of orders in late December 2006 lifting
the stay, effective Jan. 31, 2007, with respect to an additional
496 premises claims. PPG is in the process of gathering
preliminary information about these claims. Other premises
claims that have not been resolved remain subject to the stay.
Asbestos claims other than premises claims remain subject to the
stay although the claimants who were party to the action
resulting in a jury verdict against PPG in January 2000 have
moved to lift the stay with respect to their claims.

That motion is scheduled to be argued before the Bankruptcy
Court in the fourth quarter of 2007, along with two other
motions that have been filed to lift the stay. The first is a
motion, filed in September 2007, to lift the stay with respect
to certain claims allegedly arising from exposure to asbestos-
containing products distributed or sold by PPG. The second is a
motion, filed in October 2007, by 16 individuals with alleged
premises claims against PPG.  

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the PPG
Settlement Arrangement until the Effective Date. PPG and certain
of its insurers (along with PC) would then make payments to the
Trust, which would provide the sole source of payment for all
present and future asbestos bodily injury claims against PPG,
its subsidiaries or PC alleged to be caused by the manufacture,
distribution or sale of asbestos products by these companies.
PPG would convey the following assets to the Trust.

First, PPG would convey the stock it owns in PC and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe. Second, PPG would transfer 1,388,889 shares of
PPG’s common stock. Third, PPG would make aggregate cash
payments to the Trust of approximately US$998 million, payable
according to a fixed payment schedule over 21 years, beginning
on June 30, 2003, or, if later, the Effective Date. PPG would
have the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay these cash
payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per
annum as of the prepayment date. Under the payment schedule, the
amount due June 30, 2003 was US$75 million.

In addition to the conveyance of these assets, PPG would pay
US$30 million in legal fees and expenses on behalf of the Trust
to recover proceeds from certain historical insurance assets,
including policies issued by certain insurance carriers that are
not participating in the settlement, the rights to which would
be assigned to the Trust by PPG.

PPG’s participating historical insurance carriers would make
cash payments to the Trust of approximately US$1.7 billion
between the Effective Date and 2023. These payments could also
be prepaid to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5%
per annum as of the prepayment date. In addition, as referenced
above, PPG would assign to the Trust its rights, insofar as they
relate to the asbestos claims to be resolved by the Trust, to
the proceeds of policies issued by certain insurance carriers
that are not participating in the PPG Settlement Arrangement and
from the estates of insolvent insurers and state insurance
guaranty funds.

PPG would grant asbestos releases to all participating insurers,
subject to a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers
for the continuing coverage of premises claims (discussed
above). PPG would grant certain participating insurers full
policy releases on primary policies and full product liability
releases on excess coverage policies. PPG would also grant
certain other participating excess insurers credit against their
product liability coverage limits.  

The fair value of the equity forward instrument was US$24
million and US$14 million as of September 30, 2007 and December
31, 2006, respectively, and was included as an other current
asset in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.
Payments under the fixed payment schedule require annual
payments that are due each June.

The current portion of the asbestos settlement liability
included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of September 30, 2007, consists of all such payments
required through June 2008, the fair value of PPG’s common stock
and legal fees and expenses. The amount due June 30, 2009, of
US$38 million and the net present value of the remaining
payments is included in the long-term asbestos settlement
liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet. For 2007, accretion expense associated with the asbestos
liability will range from US$5 million to US$6 million per
quarter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 31,059 Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., at Sept. 30, 2007, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 31,059 plaintiffs, which is a net
decrease of 361 claims from those previously reported.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 24,122
of those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense
verdicts, 4 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (3 of which were
satisfied and 1 of which is subject to appeal), 1 was resolved
by agreement for an immaterial amount and 502 were decided in
favor of the Company following summary judgment motions.

The claimants allege that exposure to asbestos contained in
welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse
pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other lung
cancers.

Cleveland-based Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. manufactures arc-
weld and cutting products, as well as welding supplies that
include arc-welding power sources, automated wire-feeding
systems, and consumable electrodes for arc welding. The Company
also makes coated manual electrodes, solid electrodes produced
in coil form, and cored electrodes produced in solid form.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Records 143,118 Abex Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd. reports that based on information
provided by representatives of Federal-Mogul and recent claims
experience, from Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2007, a total
of 143,118 Pneumo Abex Corp. claims were filed, of which 111,589
claims have been resolved leaving 31,529 Abex Claims pending at
September 30, 2007, that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul
Corp.

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

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

On October 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that
Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to
Cooper. As of the date of this filing, Federal-Mogul had not
rejected the 1998 Agreement, which includes the indemnification
to Cooper. If Federal-Mogul rejects the 1998 Agreement, Cooper
will be relieved of its future obligations under the 1998
Agreement, including specific indemnities relating to payment of
taxes and certain obligations regarding insurance for its former
Automotive Products businesses.

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

During the three months ended September 30, 2007, 397 claims
were filed and 505 claims were resolved.

Since August 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for
resolved Abex Claims was US$2,181 before insurance. A total of
US$124.0 million was spent on defense costs for the period
August 28, 1998 through September 30, 2007.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50% to
80% of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims.
However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage
(approximately 30%) due to exhaustion of primary layers of
coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Estimates $130M in Liabilities at 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co., at Sept. 30, 2007, estimated US$130 million in
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities compared with US$181
million at Dec. 31, 2006. Insurance receivables of which totaled
US$332 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$380 million at Dec. 31,
2006.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 12,600 individual
claimants, a decrease from the approximately 28,800 individual
claimants with actions pending at September 30, 2006.

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

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

Many of the resolved lawsuits and claims involved unimpaired
claimants who were recruited by plaintiffs’ lawyers through mass
chest x-ray screenings. The Company experienced a significant
decline in the number of claims filed in 2006 and through the
third quarter of 2007 from prior years by apparently unimpaired
claimants.

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

The Company expects the filing of claims by unimpaired claimants
in the future to continue at much lower levels than in the past.
The Company believes that due to this change in the type and
volume of incoming claims, it is likely that going forward the
number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma and other malignancies, while remaining relatively
constant, will represent a greater percentage of total claims
than in the past.

The Company said that it has demonstrated in past trial
proceedings that its respiratory protection products are
effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the
intended circumstances. Consequently the Company said that
claimants are unable to establish that their medical condition,
even if significant, is attributable to the Company’s
respiratory protection products.

Nonetheless, the Company’s litigation experience indicates that
claims by persons alleging serious injuries are costlier to  
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
anticipates an increase in the average cost of resolving pending
and future claims on a per-claim basis than it experienced in
prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by
the unimpaired.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. researches, manufactures and
markets products for the health care, safety, electronics,
telecommunications and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Has $458M in Insurance Receivables
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. recorded US$458 million in asbestos insurance
receivables at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$444 million
recorded at Sept. 30, 2006.

Under its noncurrent liabilities, the Company also recorded
US$560 million as asbestos litigation reserve at Sept. 30, 2007
compared with US$585 million estimated at Sept. 30, 2006.

The year ended September 30, 2007 includes after-tax income of
US$35 million from the increase of Ashland's asbestos insurance
receivable. The prior periods primarily include after-tax
operating results of APAC (excluding previously allocated
corporate costs - see note (d) below) as a result of APAC's sale
to Oldcastle Materials, Inc. in August 2006 for approximately
US$1.3 billion.

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc., a diversified, global
chemical company, provides quality products, services and
solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company
operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials,
Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minister is Sorry for Insulting Campaigner  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has apologized to anti-
asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton for accusing him of conducting
a political stunt.

Mr. Banton is campaigning for Government subsidies for a drug
used to treat asbestos-related disease mesothelioma.

Several days ago, Mr. Banton led a group to Mr. Abbott's Manly
electorate office trying to present a petition to Mr. Abbott
calling for subsidies on a drug that treats the condition.

Mr. Abbott had later called the delegation's trip a "stunt.”

According to ABC News, Mr. Abbott apologized to Mr. Banton for
“impugning Bernie's character or motives.”

Mr. Abbott then added, "Certainly I think that Bernie has been a
fine advocate for people who have been cut down by asbestos-
related diseases."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Agency, Contractor Face $36,000 Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Department of Transportation and a demolition
contractor face a US$36,000 federal penalty to settle alleged
violations of federal standards on asbestos removal.

The Environmental Protection Agency says the alleged violations
by ADOT and BCS Enterprises of Gilbert result from demolition of
a structure in Florence Junction in Pinal County.

During the April 2006 demolition of the property, BCS
Enterprises and ADOT allegedly violated federal law by:

-- Failing to remove the asbestos shingles before demolition;

-- Failing to maintain and provide proper waste shipment
records; and

-- Failing to properly notify the EPA and the local air
pollution control agency of the demolition and asbestos removal
operations.

According to the EPA, this is agency's fourth asbestos
enforcement action against ADOT in the past five years and
continuation of what the EPA calls a "potentially hazardous
pattern of noncompliance."

The EPA considers asbestos fibers released to the air a
hazardous air pollutant, with lung disease and cancer among
potential health effects from inhalation of asbestos fibers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cook Islands' Dumping Plan Raises Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minister Tangata Vavia's confirmation that Cabinet had approved
the disposal of asbestos sheeting at sea has raised concerns,
Solomon Times Online reports.

Cook Islands Minister for Cook Islands Investment Corporation
(CIIC), Hon. Tangata Vavia, had confirmed Cabinet's decision
earlier this week, according to the Cook Islands Herald.

The asbestos is to be disposed at sea in the MV Miss Mataroa,
the ship doomed to be scuttled at sea within the Cook Islands
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

According to the report, most of the asbestos is wrapped in
black polythene, but some are open to the elements with no
covering. The concern is that this could add up to an
environmental disaster about to happen.

In a visit by an expert from a United Nations agency regarding
the safe disposal of asbestos several months ago, the plan, as
told to the expert, was for the asbestos to be wrapped and then
buried in a suitable water tight site. However, at present, the
plan is for the asbestos to be disposed of into the ocean with
no concrete encasing that would prevent it from crumbling and
eventually floating to the sea surface.

Concerns have also been raised as to whether fish exporters
realize that asbestos could be floating around in the country's
fishing zone and whether overseas fish buyers would approve and
continue to import.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Second Suit Filed for Machinist's Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
A second suit has been filed in the case of William Holmes, who
had received a settlement for an asbestos-related disease when
he was alive; however, now it's Holmes' benefactor suing and for
a different disease.  

According further to The Southeast Texas Record, Provost Umphrey
attorney Bryan Blevins filed the suit on behalf of plaintiff Joy
Holmes on Oct. 26 in Jefferson County District Court.

The suit, tagged Case No. E180-656, has been assigned to Judge
Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court.

Holmes, who worked as machinist and insulator, alleges that the
A.O. Smith Corp. and 33 other companies knowingly and
maliciously manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing
products throughout Jefferson County.

The suit alleges negligence for failing to adequately test their
asbestos-laced products and for failing to warn the consumer of
the dangers.

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

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

Although Holmes 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."

According to The Southeast Texas Record, in the precedent-
setting Pustejovsky opinion in 2000, the Texas Supreme Court
held that a victim of asbestos may later have a second lawsuit
for an asbestos-related cancer if he develops the cancer at a
future date. The opinion overrules a long history of Texas cases
holding that a person may only bring one lawsuit for an
asbestos-related injury, even if he develops a second,
catastrophic asbestos-related cancer at a much later date.

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

The plaintiff 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.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cayuga County Workers Sue Election Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 16 Cayuga County workers filed a lawsuit against
their employer last Tuesday, staff writer Shane Liebler of The
Citizen reports.

The suit asserts all 16 employees were unknowingly exposed to
cancer-causing asbestos between February and August 2006. The
summons accuses the county of negligence in allowing operations
to continue in the Board of Elections building despite the
illegal removal of asbestos in February 2006.

Plaintiffs include Republican Election Commissioner Cherl Heary
as well as deputy commissioners Thomas Prystal and Deborah
Calarco.

The Citizen reports that suspended county carpenter John Chick
pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act earlier this year
for his role in illegally removing asbestos from the building's
basement during a boiler replacement project. His sentence is
pending in federal court.

The suit contends the employees were denied their civil rights
and a safe place to work. In addition, the suit blames the
county for injuries and loss of the quality of life for the
plaintiffs, who seek actual and punitive damages as well as
attorney fees and other costs.

The action comes on the heals of a lawsuit seeking damages for
six county jail inmates who were forced to work on the boiler
removal project. That suit, filed last week, alleges that two
African-American plaintiffs were forced to do the dirtiest and
most dangerous work.

DePalma said he plans to file another lawsuit before week's end
on behalf of members of the public who may have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the Board of Elections in 2006. A class-
action suit cannot be filed because of the different levels of
potential exposure.

Anthony Garropy, the whistleblower who alerted authorities about
illegal asbestos removal, filed a lawsuit against the county
Oct. 16. He is asking for damages as well as his job back.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carpenter Sues Bovis Lend Lease, AXA UK      
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Eastbourne carpenter who is battling lung conditions linked
to asbestos has launched a legal battle for compensation of up
to GBP200,000, according to an Eastbourne Herald report.

Alfred Brett has developed asbestosis, pleural thickening, and
pleural plaques – scarring on his lungs - according to a writ
issued at London's High Court.

Mr. Brett, of Burton Road, is claiming damages from Bovis Lend
Lease Holdings, of Harrow, and AXA UK Plc, of London.

Mr. Brett allegedly developed the conditions after being exposed
to asbestos when he worked for Bovis Lend Lease Holdings between
1974 and 1982 on building sites.

It says that he inhaled dust at the sites where he worked
involved refurbishment projects, where asbestos radiator covers,
insulated pipe work, ceiling tiles, and ductwork were stripped
out. Mr. Brett says he was never given any protective clothing
or breathing apparatus.

The writ says he is now significantly disabled and his life
expectancy has been reduced from 10 years to three years.

Mr. Brett is initially seeking provisional damages on the basis
that his condition may deteriorate and he may develop lung
cancer or malignant mesothelioma and he may then need to seek a
higher award.
         
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BRAVO! BRANDS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Fla. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 2007, a class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against Bravo! Brands, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: BRVO).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from November 20, 2005 through May 15, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  Lead
plaintiff filing deadline is Monday, December 17, 2007.


E-TRADE FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of E-TRADE
Financial Corporation (Nasdaq:ETFC) between December 14, 2006
and September 25, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges E-TRADE and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, prospects and
financial condition caused E-TRADE's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

E-TRADE, through its subsidiaries, offers financial services to
retail and institutional customers worldwide, including retail
investments and trading, checking, money market and savings
accounts, mortgage and home equity products, real estate loans,
and various consumer loans. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose that:

      (1) the Company was experiencing increased delinquencies
          in its mortgage and home equity portfolios;

(2) the Company had failed to adequately reserve for loan     
    losses and would be forced to take $95 million in     
    charge-offs and provision expenses of $245 million in  
    the second half of 2007;

(3) the Company had failed to timely record impairments on
    certain securities and, consequently, such portfolios  
    were materially overvalued; and

(4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements   
    about its 2007 financial and operational results were
    lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On September 17, 2007, E-TRADE shocked investors when it
announced that the Company was exiting the wholesale mortgage
business, restructuring its institutional brokerage business,
and revising its previously issued 2007 financial guidance, and
that it expected, among other things, "severance, restructuring
and other exit charges" of $32 million as a result of its
decision to exit and restructure the businesses.

Additionally, the Company stated that it was revising its
earnings guidance for 2007, to an earnings-per-share (EPS) range
of $1.05 to $1.15 for the year, significantly lower than the
Company's previously issued EPS guidance in the range of $1.53
to $1.67. As a result of this news, over the next six trading
days E-TRADE shares fell $2.32 per share, or more than 16.3
percent, to close on September 25, 2007, at $11.89 per share on
heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 3, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


FORMFACTOR INC: Coughlin Stoia Geller Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of FormFactor, Inc. (NASDAQ:FORM) common stock during
the period between April 26, 2006 and October 24, 2007.

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

FormFactor engages in the design, development, manufacture, sale
and support of semiconductor wafer probe cards worldwide. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company’s business and financial results. As a result of
defendants’ false statements, FormFactor stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $49.45 per share on August 30, 2006. Then on October 24,
2007, after the market closed, the Company announced that
adjustments to inventory valuations may be required with respect
to periods prior to the third quarter of 2007.

On this news, FormFactor’s stock declined $7.70 per share to
close at $35.54 per share, a one-day decline of nearly 20% on
volume of 8.3 million shares. According to the complaint, the
true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were:

     (a) the Company failed to properly account for its obsolete
         inventory; and

     (b) the Company was experiencing production constraints
         related to its new Harmony product which would
         significantly increase its costs and expenses in order
         to accelerate its production capabilities.

Furthermore, the production constraints would significantly
raise the risk that customers with older generation products
would seek alternative sources, such as the Company’s
competitors, or seek to renegotiate their contracts with
FormFactor placing serious pressure on the Company’s future
revenue. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of FormFactor common stock during the Class Period.

The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/formfactor/


JONES SODA: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
securities of Jones Soda Company (NASDAQ: JSDA), between
November 1, 2006, and August 2, 2007, inclusive and alleges
violations of the federal securities laws by Jones Soda and
certain of its executives.

As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued numerous, positive financial statements,
annual and quarterly financial reports filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, press releases and other public
statements that described the Company's financial performance
that were materially false and misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the true financial
position and growth prospects of the Company and misled the
market concerning distribution and manufacturing of the
Company's canned carbonated soda products.

The Complaint further alleges that on August 2, 2007, after the
close of trading, the Company reported significantly lower-than-
expected canned soda sales and difficulty getting the new canned
soda product onto retailers' shelves. It is also alleged that,
despite earlier promises to have the new canned product onto
retailer shelves in advance of the Memorial Day holiday, the
Company acknowledged that it lacked the requisite sales and
distribution resources to execute the launch and failed to
obtain shelf-space at the national chains.

As a result of the Company's August 2, 2007 disclosure, it is
alleged that Jones Soda's stock price plummeted from a closing
price of $15.30 per share on August 2, 2007 to close at $11.35
per share on August 3, 2007, a single day decline of $3.95 or
approximately 26%.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
the Company's CEO Peter M. van Stolk sold 140,000 shares of
Jones Soda stock on March 14, 2007 at artificially inflated
prices, for proceeds of approximately $2.5 million.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the
court no later than Monday, November 5, 2007 to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the Class. You need not seek to become a lead
plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP on the Net:
http://www.kaplanfox.com.


WSB FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington in Tacoma on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of WSB Financial, Inc. after the company initial public offering
seeking to pursue remedies under the 1933 Act.

The class action is on behalf of all persons who purchased WSB
shares, issued pursuant to the December 2006 Registration
Statement and Prospectus, excluding Defendants, from December
14, 2006 to October 23, 2007.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is no later than 60 days from
October 30, 2007.

WSB is the holding company for Westsound Bank, a Bremerton,
Wash.-based financial institution that serves the Puget Sound
area. The complaint charges WSB, certain of its officers and
directors, and the Company's underwriter with violations of the
Act. According to the complaint, the company's registration
statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the company had
been violating certain banking laws and regulations relating to
the origination, administration and monitoring of construction
and mortgage loans. Due to the company's misleading statements
the WSB stock was traded as high as $21 per share during the
class period.

Beginning in September of 2007 a series of announcements and
investigations into the company's lending practices caused the
WSB stock to plummet. In late September the company announced
that due to the reduced demand of mortgage loans in the market
33 jobs would be eliminated in the mortgage division of the
company and, that WSB's executive vice president of sales and
lending at Westsound Bank was terminated. As a result stock
price fell from $15.30 to $12.40. In a final blow, the company
announced that state and federal regulators were looking into
possible fraud and misconduct in its real estate lending
practices. Within two days of this announcement the company's
stock dropped nearly 60 percent, from $11.20 on October 24, 2007
to $4.73 on October 25, 2007.

For more information, contact:

     Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     Phone: 510-725-3000
     E-mail: wsb@hbsslaw.com
     Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


                           *********


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  * * *