CAR_Public/071109.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 223

                            Headlines

A&M COOKIE: Recalls Cookie with Undeclared Milk Content
AMERICAN HERITAGE: Faces Col. Suit Over Illegal “Recording Fees”
AT&T CORP: Judge Walker Orders Preservation of Spying Evidence
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Ill. Over Backdated Interest Rate Hikes
BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Baby Seats Posing Safety Risks

CACI INT'L: D.C. Court Allows Suit Over Alleged Iraqi Abuses
CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Soups that May Contain Plastic Pieces
CANADA: Disabled Veterans Seek High Court Ruling in CA$5B Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Wolf Popper Files ERISA Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders’ Lawsuit

CNA FINANCIAL: Settles “Himmelman” Labor Case in N.J. Court
FISHER-PRICE INC: Recalls Toy Boats on Paint's High Lead Content
HAWAII: Court Asked for Homeless Kids' Equal Access to Education
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for $445M Settlement
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses Document Preparation Fees Suit

JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Several Market Timing Complaints
JO-ANN STORES: Recalls Additional Gardening Tools for Kids
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Class Claim in Derivative Suit
KLA-TENCOR: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in Calif.
LAWYERS TITLE: Dec. Certification Hearing Set on Rates Suit

LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Title Insurance Rates
OKI DATA: Recalls Printers Due to Internal Electrical Defect
SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Duck Toys on Paint's Lead Level
SONUS NETWORKS: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $40M
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Preliminarily Settles N.Y. GTA Lawsuit

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Court Upholds $34M Award to Students
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Remaining Ovcon 35 Lawsuit for $9M


* Lawyer in Breast Implant Case Ordered to Return $41.5M in Fees


                       Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. U.S. Steel Remain at 300 at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. TRW Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Transocean Units Pending in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.6M Accrued Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco Has $13.1M Rise in Expenses at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Olin & Subsidiaries Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Pursues Case v. Equitas in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $23.9M for Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $34M A&E Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $3.6Mil Settlement Awarded to Calif. Local

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Commences at Inactive Vt. Mine Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $235.9M Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Has 25,780 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $13.7M Trust Balance at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $720M Recoverable for T&N

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex and Wagner Retain $213.6M Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reversed in Norfolk Southern's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Graham Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Faces 117,200 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge's Cleanup Liabilities Total $2.6M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Begins Cleanup of Factory Site in Conn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. Eastman Chem.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suit in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Drop to 8,200 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Has $181M Accrual at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Pending v. Crown Cork in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Carries $1.337Bil Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P. Green Ind. Plan Affirmed Last Sept. 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Engaged in Keasbey Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Deals with Burn & Roe Coverage Disputes

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Still Involved in Texas Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Involved in Grace Action in Mont.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4 Parties Ordered to Follow Removal Rules
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants’ Plan Filed in Grace’s Proceeding
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Lawyers Unable to Find Witness in Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Contractor to Pay GBP36T for Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Local Wins $5.6M in Mesothelioma Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SUNY Workers Penalized for Removal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Miner to Counter Law Lords’ Legal Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Bares Reports on Wear Valley Scandal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Worker Sues 63 Companies for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Locals Sentenced to 18 Months in Jail
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim Fails to Get Support from Co-workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Firms Fined GBP5,000 for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Lawyer Justifies Compensation Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 15.5M Tons of Hazard Still Found in Poland
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Contractor to be Fined for Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipworker Anxious over Asbestos Warnings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Asbestos Levels Found in Mining Area
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Lyman Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Seeks 7% Discount on Future Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Estimation Hearings to Begin Jan. 2
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Responds to Anderson Post-Trial Brief
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Deal to Resolve Claims in Okla.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BRAVO BRANDS: David Chase Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida
COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Kaplan Fox Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hagens Berman Files Wash. Securities Suit


                          *********


A&M COOKIE: Recalls Cookie with Undeclared Milk Content
-------------------------------------------------------
A&M Cookie Company Canada is voluntarily recalling the
President's Choice Chocolate Chunk Brownie Cookies (UPC
041360008305), 12 oz., bearing the code date 03 22 08 N,
distributed by Sunfresh LLC.

The packages subject to recall contain an undeclared allergen,
milk present as a sub ingredient of a natural flavor. Persons
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk
of possible allergic reactions if they consume these cookies.

Shipping Case: Shipped in President's Choice Chocolate Chunk
Brownie Cookies (UPC 1 00 41360 00830 2)

No other Presidents Choice cookies sold in the USA are affected,
and  the Presidents Choice Chocolate Chunk Brownie Cookies  sold
in Canada are not affected.

No illnesses or allergenic reactions have been reported. This
product was distributed in Michigan, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana
through Jewel Stores and Wisconsin and Minnesota through
Roundy's stores.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk
containing cookie product was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation
indicates that the problem was caused by mislabeling.

Consumers who have purchased the above President's Choice
Chocolate Chunk Brownie Cookies bearing the code date 03 22 08 N
should return the product back to the store of purchase for a
full refund. Media or others with questions about the recall
should contact Ray Hehman of Marketing Partners Communications,
Inc at mkptnr@aol.com or 415 421-4141.


AMERICAN HERITAGE: Faces Col. Suit Over Illegal “Recording Fees”
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Title Agency, Inc. (d/b/a First American Heritage Title
Company) is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, over alleged
defrauding of homebuyers by charging them several illegal
"recording fees."

Named plaintiff Jimmy Tuti brings this action on behalf of
Colorado consumers who used defendant for closing and settlement
services in relation to their real property transactions.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether First American has fiduciary duties to
         plaintiffs;

     (b) whether First American's conduct constituted a breach
         of its fiduciary duties;

     (c) whether plaintiff and the class were damaged by First
         American's breach of its fiduciary duties;

     (d) whether First American entered into valid contracts
         with plaintiff and the class;

     (e) whether First American breach these contracts;

     (f) whether plaintiff and the class were damaged by First  
         American's breach of its contracts;

     (g) whether First American was unjustly enriched by the
         receipt and retention of the unwarranted and excessive
         fees;

     (h) whether First American's conduct constitutes a
         violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act;

     (i) whether First American participates in and pursues the
         common course of conduct and deceptive scheme  
         complained of herein;

     (j) whether First American's wrongful conduct resulted in
         economic damages to plaintiff and members of the class;

     (k) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         punitive damages and, if so, the amount of such
         damages; and

     (l) the nature of additional releif to which plaintiff and
         members of the class are entitled.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment and provide
relief as follows:

     -- certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- finding defendant liable to plaintiff and the class for
        actual damages sustained and/or statutory damages as
        allowed by law, and awarding such prejudgment interest
        as may be allowed by law;

    -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiff   
       and members of the class, upon any benefits improperly
       received by defendant as a result of its wrongful
       conduct;

    -- declaratory relief as requested or as otherwise
       appropriate;

    -- permanently enjoining and restraining defendant and its
       agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting
       on its behalf from continuing the conduct complained of;
       and

    -- awarding plaintiff and the class such other and further
       relief, including any attorneys' fees, costs and
       equitable relief to which they may be entitled or which
       the court may deem necessary, proper and just.

The suit is "Jimmy Tuti et al. v. American Heritage Title
Agency, Inc., Case No. 07CV10598," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey A. Berens
          Law Office of Jeffrey A. Berens, LLC
          8691 East 26th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80238-2549
          Phone: (303) 378-8332
          Fax: (303) 395-0393


AT&T CORP: Judge Walker Orders Preservation of Spying Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker granted a preservation motion
requested by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a class
action filed over alleged widespread spying by the government
into American citizens, according to Kansas City infoZine.

Judge Walker ordered telecommunications companies to preserve
any evidence of collaborating with the government in
wiretapping.  He ordered a halt to any routine destruction of
documents or to arrange for the preservation of accurate copies.

He ordered each party to provide the court with confirmation
that the court's order has been carried out by Dec. 14.  The
court order did not require the government or the carriers to
reveal whether or not they had any relevant evidence.

                     Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Corp. and its holding company, AT&T  
Inc., are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a
massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks
the domestic and foreign communications and communication
records of millions of Americans.    

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that     
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:    

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution     
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by     
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or     
        using plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence    
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by     
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of     
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;    

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control     
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101     
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act     
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and     
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using     
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of    
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized     
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'     
        communications;    

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored     
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)     
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of     
        plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended     
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18     
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records     
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental     
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal     
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,     
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.    

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.    

Since the filing of this complaint, additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.     

The lawsuits have been consolidated under the jurisdiction of a
single court, namely the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California.   

The government has filed motions to dismiss two lawsuits.

The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications
Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R.   
Walker.  Representing the plaintiffs are:           

          Cindy Ann Cohn
          Electronic Frontier Foundation
          454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
          Phone: 415-436-9333 x 108
          Fax: (415) 436-9993
          E-mail: cindy@eff.org

          -- and --    

         Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com          

Representing the defendants are:

         Bruce A. Ericson, Esq.
         Jacob R. Sorensen, Esq.
         Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
         50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880
         San Francisco, CA 94120-7880
         Phone: (415) 983-1000
         Fax: (415) 983-1200
         E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com
                 jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Ill. Over Backdated Interest Rate Hikes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of America, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois accusing it of
retroactively increasing interest rates on credit-card accounts
without notifying consumers, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The case arises out of the bank's allege practice of reviewing
its credit card accounts at the end of each account's billing
cycle, targeting selected cardholders for interest rate
increases as a result of that review, and then retroactively
imposing the selective rate increases on the cardholders'
outstanding balances for the billing cycle that has already
passed.

Named plaintiff Laura M. Swanson claims BofA and FIA Card
Services, N.A. review cardholders' accounts at the end of
billing periods and backdate the rate increases without notice,
and without giving them the chance to pay off the balance to
avoid the penalties.

This is a class action on behalf of all consumers with billing
addresses in the State of Illinois who have or had credit card
accounts with defendants and whose interest rates on their
outstanding balances were retroactively increased by the bank.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the bank retroactively increased the interest     
         rates for plaintiffs;

     (b) whether the bank imposed the rate increases without
         advance notice to plaintiff and the class members;

     (c) whether the manner in which the bank imposed the              
         retroactive interest rate increases on plaintiff and      
         the class members denied them the opportunity to avoid
         the increases;

     (d) whether the bank's retroactive interest rate increases   
         and the resulting additional "interest" charges imposed
         on plaintiff and the class members constitute an
         illegal penalty;

     (e) whether the bank's retroactive interest rate increases
         and its imposition of the resultant additional
         "interest" charges are unfair or deceptive in violation
         of the Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business
         Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.; and

     (f) whether the bank is liable for punitive damages for its
         actions.

Ms. Swanson prays that the court:

     -- certify the class, appoint Ms. Swanson as clas
        representative and appoint her attorneys as class
        counsel; and

     -- enter judgment in favor of Ms. Swanson and the class,
        and against the bank, for restitution, costs, interest,
        declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and all other
        relief deemed just.

The suit is "Laura M. Swanson et al. v. Bank of America, N.A. et
al., Case No.: 07CH32248," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Lawrence Walner
          Michael S. Hilicki
          Lawrence Walner & Associates, Ltd.
          150 North Wacker DRive, Suite 2150
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: (312) 201-1616
          Fax: (312) 201-1538

          - and -

          Barry L. Kramer
          Law Offices of BArry L. Kramer
          11111 Santa MOnica Blvd., Suite 1860
          Los Angeles, California 90025-3352
          Phone: (310) 235-9980
          Fax: (310) 235-9982


BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Baby Seats Posing Safety Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bumbo International, of South Africa, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1
million bumbo “Baby Sitter” seats.

The company said if the seat is placed on a table, countertop,
chair, or other elevated surface, young children can arch their
backs, flip out of the Bumbo seat, and fall onto the floor,
posing a risk of serious head injuries.

CPSC has received 28 reports of young children falling out of
the Bumbo Baby Sitter seat, including three skull fractures,
which occurred when children fell out of chairs that had been
placed on tables.

The bottom of the children’s seat is round and flat with a
diameter of about 15 inches. It is constructed of a single piece
of molded foam and comes in yellow, blue, purple, pink, aqua,
and lime green. The seat has leg holes and seat back that wraps
completely around the child. On the front of the seat in raised
lettering is the word “Bumbo” with the image of an elephant on
top. The bottom of the seat has the following words:
“Manufactured by Bumbo South Africa Material: Polyurethane World
Patent No. PCT: ZA/1999/00030.”

The back of the seat contains the following “WARNING” – “Never
use on a raised surface. Never use as a car seat or bath seat.
Designed for floor level use only. Never leave your baby
unattended as the seat is not designed to be totally restrictive
and may not prevent release of your baby in the event of
vigorous movement.”

The bumbo seats were made in South Africa and sold by Target,
Wal-Mart, Sears, Toys R Us, Babies R Us, USA Babies and various
other toy and children’s stores nationwide, and various online
sellers, from August 2003 through October 2007 for about $40.

Consumers are advised never to use the infant seat on a table,
countertop, chair, or other elevated surface. Consumers can
contact Bumbo to obtain new warning label stickers and
instructions, free of charge. The new warning label will state:
“WARNING – Prevent Falls; Never use on any elevated surface.”
Consumers should use the Bumbo seat at ground level, but should
never leave a child unattended.

Contact Bumbo International at (877) 932-8626 between 8 a.m. and
5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.bumbosafety.com.


CACI INT'L: D.C. Court Allows Suit Over Alleged Iraqi Abuses
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia allowed a
suit to proceed against private defense firm CACI International
Inc. over alleged abuses of its interrogators at the notorious
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Lara Jakes Jordan of the Associated
Press reports.

Judge James Robertson has dismissed a similar civil suit against
a second contracting company, Titan Corp.  He found Titan not
directly to be blamed for abuses as its interpreters generally
were supervised and under control of military officials.  In the
case of CACI, Judge Robertson said: "a reasonable trier of fact
could conclude that CACI retained significant authority to
manage its employees."  He therefore allowed the suit to
proceed.

According to him, "CACI interrogators were subject to a dual
chain of command, with significant independent authority
retained by CACI supervisors."  "When the facts are construed in
this manner, no federal interest requires that CACI be relieved
of state law liability."

The class action was brought on behalf of 212 Iraqis who said
they or their late husbands were abused by U.S. personnel at Abu
Ghraib.  The cases were identified in court papers as Ilham
Nassir Ibrahhim and Saleh.

Class Action Reporter previously reported that a suit “Saleh, et
al. v. Titan Corp., et al, Case No. 05 CV 1165 (D.D.C.)," is
pending against CACI in the U.S. District Court of Columbia,
accusing it of conspiring to increase demand for interrogation
services in Iraq.

Plaintiffs filed the 26-count class-action complaint on June 9,
2004, originally on behalf of seven named plaintiffs and a class
of similarly situated plaintiffs, against a number of corporate
defendants and individual corporate employees.

The complaint, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, named as defendants:

     * CACI International Inc.,
     * CACI, Inc.-Federal, and
     * CACI N.V.
     * Stephen A. Stefanowicz employee of CACI Premier
       Technology, Inc.

Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that defendants formed a
conspiracy to increase demand for interrogation services in Iraq
and violated U.S. domestic and international law.

They are seeking, inter alia, declaratory relief, a permanent
injunction against contracting with the government, compensatory
damages, treble damages and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint several times
and the action was ultimately transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

In March 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint:

     * adding several new counts;
     * adding CACI Premier Technology, Inc. as a Defendant;
     * dropping CACI, N.V. as a Defendant; and
     * adding two former CACI Premier Technology employees,
       Timothy Dugan and Daniel Johnson, as Defendants.

On June 29, 2006, the Court entered an Order granting the
Defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to numerous claims,
and granting the motions of the three individual defendants to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  

The court then invited the corporate defendants to file summary
judgment motions.  Finally, the Court consolidated the Saleh
with the matter, “Ibrahim, et al. v. Titan Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:04-CV-01248-JR (D.D.C. 2004),” for discovery purposes
only.

The suit is “Al Rawi et al v. Titan Corp. et al., Case No.  
1:05-cv-01165-JR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Susan L. Burke, Esq.
         BURKE O'NEIL LLC
         4112 Station Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19127
         Phone: (215) 487-6590
         Fax: (215) 482-0874
         E-mail: sburke@burkepyle.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph William Koegel, Jr., Esq.
         STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P.
         1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 429-6408
         Fax: (202) 429-3902
         E-mail: wkoegel@steptoe.com

         Ari Shlomo Zymelman, Esq.
         WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
         725 12th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 434-5000
         Fax: 202-434-5423
         E-mail: azymelman@wc.com

              - and -

         Henry Eric Hockeimer, Jr., Esq.
         Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
         1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
         Phone: (215) 864-8204
         Fax: (215) 864-9078
         E-mail: hockeimerh@ballardspahr.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Soups that May Contain Plastic Pieces
------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company is voluntarily recalling a limited
quantity of 18.8 ounce cans of "Campbell's Chunky" Baked Potato
with Cheddar & Bacon Bits because they may contain pieces of
hard plastic that present a choking hazard and may cause injury
if swallowed.

Three consumers have reported minor injuries in and around the
mouth.

No other "Campbell's" soup products are affected by this recall.

72,300 units of the recalled soups were shipped to customers in
the following 24 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Wyoming.

The affected product is labeled as "Campbell's Chunky" Baked
Potato with Cheddar & Bacon Bits and has the following
individual code on the bottom of the can:

JUL 08 2009
CT DT                BZ            07097
                                   XXXX (equals military time)

Consumers who have purchased the "Campbell's Chunky" Baked
Potato with Cheddar & Bacon Bits with the can code JUL 08 2009
07097 should not eat this product. Consumers are encouraged to
return the product to the store where they purchased it for an
exchange or full refund. Consumers also can contact Campbell at
888-453-3868.


CANADA: Disabled Veterans Seek High Court Ruling in CA$5B Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing thousands of disabled veterans in a CA$5.2
billion class action brought against the federal government in
1999, announced that they are seeking leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

This announcement comes further to a decision rendered July 4,
2007 by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal
decision ruled in favor of the federal government on an appeal
following a 2005 decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice John
H. Brockenshire.

That 2005 decision quantified the damages owing by the federal
government (CA$5.2 billion) to thousands of disabled veterans
who, since their class action was certified in 1999, have been
seeking redress from the federal government for years of failure
to properly administer their funds. These were veterans who were
injured in the service of their country and were deemed, by the
government, incapable of managing their money as a result of
their disability. Veterans in the Class include those from the
First World War onwards.

In announcing that they are seeking leave to appeal, the lawyers
outlined their arguments for how the lawsuit meets the test for
a hearing before the country's highest court. These include:

    --  This is a national class action brought on behalf of a
        class of 10,000 disabled veterans and their dependants.
        The class consists of living and deceased veterans who
        were deemed incapable, as result of individual
        determinations of incapacity, to manage their own
        affairs.

        Class members reside, or have resided in every province.  
        The issues of law raised in this case concern the
        application and interpretation of Federal statutes and
        important principles of the law of equity to Federal
        institutions and governments.

    --  The July 4, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeal sought
        to be appealed cannot be reconciled with the 2002
        decision of the Court of Appeal (which ruled in the
        veterans' favor) which made final and binding
        determinations concerning the nature of the Crown's
        fiduciary duties to class members. Those determinations
        including the 4 declarations contained in the original
        judgment were not disturbed by the earlier decision of
        this court. The panel of the Court of Appeal of the 2007
        decision simply ignored the former decision and its
        implications.

    --  The July 4, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeal
        effectively imposed limitations on the extent of the
        fiduciary duties assumed by the Crown towards Class
        members. By contrast, the earlier decision of a
        different panel of the 2002 Court of Appeal decision    
       held that the Crown owed each disabled veteran in the
       class a fiduciary duty and that, in discharging such
       duty, it must act for the benefit of the veteran in
       managing his funds because the veteran is incapable of  
       doing so himself.

    -- The July 4, 2007 analysis with respect to whether or not         
       the lawsuit should be allowed to continue was
       fundamentally flawed. While the Crown argued that the
       5.1(4) of the Veterans Affairs Act was intended to
       eliminate the claim, it was for the Court to determine
       whether it was a complete bar to the action.

       That question was never raised by the Crown at the
       Supreme Court of Canada. The question was the Crown's to
       ask -- not the plaintiff's. The Crown sought a
       determination at the Supreme Court that the action was
       barred. The Plaintiff sought a determination that S.
       5.1(4) was of no force and effect. The Plaintiff lost.

       The Crown did not win. The Supreme Court made the
       determination that the Bill of Rights was not operable.
       That is all that was decided. The Crown failed to ask the
       right question of the Supreme Court on its own assumption
       that S. 5.1(4) barred the action in its entirety. The
       Crown was mistaken. The serious error in the July 4, 2007
       decision is to visit the Crown's error upon the Class in
       an equitable breach of fiduciary duty claim. This is
       unjust and clearly wrong.
    
"We are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
on the basis that the Government of Canada, over a period of
nearly 90 years, failed to exercise its fiduciary
responsibility. By 1986, the Auditor General of Canada
recognized that the CA$83 million which had accumulated in the
Consolidated Revenue Fund represented a liability because the
government was not investing the funds as is legally required.
This negligence was unjust and illegal, and the government --
since the first Supreme Court of Canada hearing in this case in
2003 - does not dispute this fact," said the legal team.

"In return for their tremendous acts of sacrifice, their federal
government put the veterans' monies in the consolidated revenue
fund - the government's bank account. This money lowered the
cost of the government's borrowing and it had full access to the
veterans' funds. This lawsuit seeks to return to the veterans
what was taken from them, as a means of compensating them for
their losses," the lawyers noted.

The members of the legal team are David Greenaway and Ray
Colautti, Partners at the Windsor Ontario firm of Raphael
Partners LLP and London, Ontario lawyer Peter Sengbusch.

Addressing another central aspect of the case the lawyers said:
"Certainly on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, the Government of Canada passed legislation in 1990
that discriminated against these veterans on the basis of their
disabilities. We will argue that the Ontario Court of Appeal
ruling (July 2007) which dismissed the Charter argument,
deprived these disabled veterans of the opportunity to argue
that they are protected by the fundamental law of this country.
They fought for our rights and freedoms, and have been denied an
opportunity to challenge a law that fundamentally discriminated
against them."

                      About the Lawsuit

In 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal
government can pass a law limiting its own liability, and ruled
against the veterans who argued that passage of the 1990
legislation removed their right to property and thus contravened
the Canadian Bill of Rights. Despite the government's victory,
the lawsuit continued on the basis that Justice Brockenshire
ruled the veterans could pursue damages in the case based on the
government's failure to act as a proper trustee. While it does
not contest that it failed to act as a trustee, the federal
government appealed that decision by Justice Brockenshire, and
thus the damages awarded.

Eleanor McMahon, Public Relations Raphael Partners LLP, (519)
966-1300 Ext. 560 or Cell: (647) 201-2820 (For information or
copies of the veterans' lawyers memorandum of argument go to
http://www.veteransinterest.org)


CITIGROUP INC: Wolf Popper Files ERISA Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Citigroup 401(k) Plan and the Citibuilder
401(k) Plan for Puerto Rico, for violations of the federal
pension law in connection with the loss of value in Citigroup
stock acquired and held by present and former employees of
Citigroup through the Plans.

The goal of this litigation is to recover damages sustained by
the participants and beneficiaries of the Plans. The complaint
can be viewed on Wolf Popper's website or obtained from the
Court.

According to Marian Rosner, who represents the Plaintiff,
"Citigroup's employees have their retirement plans in turmoil as
Citigroup continued to acquire huge amounts of company stock for
the plans even as it gambled with high-risk business practices.
The employees now pay the price as the company struggles to come
to grips with its exposure to the subprime market and the
enormous undisclosed contingent liabilities with respect to off-
balance sheet transactions."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Citigroup and
the various defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to
the Plans' participants by:

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
         assets;

     (2) failing to provide participants with complete, accurate
         and material information concerning Citigroup's
         business and financial condition necessary for
         participants to make informed decisions concerning the
         prudence of directing the Plans to invest in Citigroup
         stock; and

     (3) failing to appoint and monitor the performance of the
         other fiduciaries.

Citigroup's exposure to the subprime market and its contingent
liabilities with respect to various off- balance sheet
transaction has led to the resignation of Citigroup's CEO and
caused the Plans to suffer well over $1 billion in market
losses.

The plaintiff is Stephen Gray.  Defendants are:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Charles Prince,
     -- The Plans Administrative Committee of Citigroup Inc.,
     -- The 401 (k) Investment Committee and John Does

The suit is “Gray v. Citigroup Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-
09790,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Sidney H. Stein.

For more information, contact:

          James Kelly-Kowlowitz
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel.: 212.759-4600
          Toll Free: 877.370.7703
          Fax: 212.486.2093
          Toll Free Fax: 877.370.7704
          Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders’ Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, “Shaffer v. Continental
Casualty Co., et al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK,” which names CNA
Financial Corp. (CNAF), the parent of Continental Casualty Co.
(CCC), as a defendant, have reached a tentative settlement in
the matter.

The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, is a class action on behalf of
certain California long term health care policyholders, alleging
that CCC and CNAF knowingly used unrealistic actuarial
assumptions in pricing these policies, which according to
plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate premium increases.

The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of various California
statutes.

CCC and CNAF have denied the material allegations of the amended
complaint and intend to vigorously contest the claims.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a
class action.  CCC and CNAF have appealed the grant of class
certification to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Ninth
Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an interlocutory basis.

In April 2007, the Court denied CCC’s and CNAF’s motions for
summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to
plaintiffs’ claim under the California Legal Remedies Act, which
was dismissed.  The claim under CLRA involved a provision for
claims of awards for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages.

In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the
denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim.  In July 2007,
the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On October 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached
agreement on terms, subject to entering into a binding
settlement agreement.

Under such terms, the case would be settled on a nationwide
basis for the policy forms potentially affected by the
allegations of the complaint.

Furthermore, CCC would provide certain enhanced benefits to
eligible class members including certain non-forfeiture
benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and free health
screenings.

The agreement is subject to notice to the class, as well as
Court approval, and had no material adverse effect on the
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations of the
Company.

The suit is “Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Philip
S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
         Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP
         2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
         Santa Monica, CA 90405
         Phone: 310-396-9600
         E-mail: wkreger@maklawyers.com

              - and -

         Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
         Neblett Beard and Arsenault
         2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190
         Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
         Phone: 318-487-9874

Representing the defendants are:

         Brent R. Austin, Esq.
         Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon
         225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
         Chicago, IL 60606-1229
         Phone: 312-201-2848
         E-mail: austin@wildmanharrold.com

              - and -

         Stan Karas, Esq.
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
         865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-443-3000
         E-mail: stankaras@quinnemanuel.com

    
CNA FINANCIAL: Settles “Himmelman” Labor Case in N.J. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, “W. Curtis Himmelman, et
al. v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No. 06-166,” including CNA
Financial Corp. have reached an agreement to fully and finally
resolve the case.

The case is a purported class action and representative action   
brought on behalf of present and former CNA environmental claims   
analysts and workers' compensation claims analysts asserting   
they worked hours for which they should have been compensated at   
a rate of one and one-half times their base hourly wage.  

The complaint was filed on Jan. 12, 2006.  The claims were
originally brought under both federal and New Jersey state wage
and hour laws on the basis that the relevant jobs are not exempt
from overtime pay because the duties performed are not exempt
duties.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s New Jersey
state law claims.

Under federal law, plaintiff seeks to represent others similarly
situated who opt in to the action and who also allege they are
owed overtime pay for hours worked over eight hours per day
and/or forty hours per workweek for the period Jan. 5, 2003 to
the entry of judgment.

Plaintiff seeks “overtime compensation,” “compensatory, punitive
and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and
attorneys’ fees” without specifying any particular amounts (as
well as an injunction).

The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint and
intends to vigorously contest the claims on numerous substantive
and procedural grounds.

The parties reached agreement to fully and finally resolve this
matter, according to the company’s Oct. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Himmelman v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00166-GEB-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm, LLC
         457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
         Phone: (856) 663-8200
         E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Sevfarth Shaw, LLP
          1270 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 2500
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 218-5523
          E-mail: clowe@ny.seyfarth.com


FISHER-PRICE INC: Recalls Toy Boats on Paint's High Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, N.Y., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
38,000 Go Diego Go Animal Rescue Boats.

The company said surface paints on the toys contain excessive
levels of lead, which violates the federal standard prohibiting
lead paint on children’s toys.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

The toy is an orange and yellow boat that squirts water. Cartoon
character Diego is in the driver’s seat. “Fisher Price,” product
number K3413, and a date code between 137-7HF and 223-7HF are
marked on the toys.

Picture of the recalled boats:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08048.jpg

The boats were made in China and sold at retail stores
nationwide from June 2007 through October 2007 for about $15.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and contact Fisher-Price in order to receive a
free replacement toy. Consumers need to return the recalled toys
to Fisher-Price.

For additional information, contact Fisher-Price at (888) 299-
0579 anytime, or visit http://www.service.mattel.com.


HAWAII: Court Asked for Homeless Kids' Equal Access to Education
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Equal Justice (LEJ) and the ACLU of Hawaii are
filing –- to advance a class action --  a motion for preliminary
injunction in federal court seeking an order that would
immediately halt State officials from enforcing laws and
policies that block access by homeless children to public
education in violation of federal law.

ACLU said that as it meet with homeless families and social
service providers across the state, the number of children who
have been or are being denied access to basic public education
continues to grow. The State's blatant violations of federal law
have harmed children statewide and must be immediately
corrected," said William Durham of LEJ. "Congress has given the
State funds to fulfill an important national mandate. There is
no excuse for the State's negligence – every day that goes by
results in more children being denied an education."

The latest round of legal actions includes requests to bar the
State from carrying out specific practices that violate federal
law such as denying homeless children entrance to school because
they lack certain documentation, which has led to children
missing school for days and weeks at a time. The State has also
failed to provide transportation, which forces families of
extremely limited means to fend for themselves and results in
children being consistently tardy or absent from school.

The initial legal complaint, filed October 2, 2007, on behalf of
several homeless parents and their children, charged the State
with a systemic failure to provide homeless children with equal
access to a free and appropriate public education in violation
of the McKinney-Vento Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.

Lawyers want State officials responsible for overseeing the
education and welfare of homeless children and their families to
remove obstacles to the enrollment and attendance of homeless
children at public school, to provide transportation to and from
school, to coordinate with other government agencies to serve
homeless children, and to ensure that homeless children have the
same access to public education as all other children. In a
companion motion, the lawyers have also asked the Court to order
that the Plaintiffs represent all homeless students and their
parents statewide.

Plaintiff Olive Kaleauti said, "All I want to do is help my sons
get a good education. I feel like no matter how hard I try to do
this, the schools keep putting up barriers that prevent my
children from going to school. My children and others like them
are being punished for being homeless – but it's not their
fault."

ACLU Legal Director Lois Perrin added, "Over one year ago the
U.S. Department of Education notified the State that they were
failing to comply with federal law, yet the State has done
nothing to correct those deficiencies. While the State drags its
feet, homeless children are denied an education. A preliminary
injunction is necessary to avoid the immediate, profound and
lasting harms on the lives of homeless children caused by the
State's non-compliance."

Any homeless child or parent who has been denied access to
school or transportation to public school and wants to tell his
or her story confidentially or publicly should contact LEJ at
(808) 779-1744 or the ACLU of Hawaii at (808) 522-5905.

LEJ and the ACLU are working with Paul Alston, Roman Amaguin,
Steve Tannenbaum and Shellie Park-Hoapili of Alston Hunt Floyd &
Ing.

The lawsuit names as defendants:

     -- Judy Tonda, Department of Education Homeless
        Coordinator;

     -- Patricia Hamamoto, DOE Superintendent;

     -- Robert McClelland, DOE Systems Accountability Office
        Director;

     -- Board of Education members:

       * Karen Knudsen,
       * John Penebacker,
       * Herbert Watanabe,
       * Breene Harimoto,
       * Dr. Eileen Clarke,
     * Dr. Lei Ahu Isa,
     *Kim Coco Iwamoto,
     * Mary Cochran,
     * Maggie Cox,
     * Cec Heftel,
     * Denise Matsumoto,
     * Donna Ikeda, and
     * Garrett Toguchi; and

     -- Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health Director.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for $445M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has
set a hearing for February 7, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. for the multi-
million dollar settlement of the suits:

     -- "In re HealthSouth Stockholder Litigation, Master File
         No. CV-03-BE-1501-S,”

     -- “In re HealthSouth Bondholder Litigation, No. 03-BE-
         1502-S;” and

     --  “Securities and Exchange Commission v. HealthSouth
          Corporation and Richard M. Scrushy, Civil Action No.
          CV-03-J-0615-S.”

At the hearing, the Court will determine if the Plans of
Allocation and the attorneys' fee and expense requests are fair
and reasonable.

The hearing will be held at the United States Courthouse for the
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, 140 Hugo L.
Black United States Courthouse, 1729 Fifth Avenue, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.  

The stockholders and bondholders classes includes all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock or options of
HealthSouth Corp. including HealthSouth securities received in
exchange for the stock or options of certain other companies
acquired by HealthSouth between April 24, 1997 and March 18,
2003 (stockholder class) and all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired HealthSouth bonds, notes or other debt
instruments during the period between March 31, 1998 and March
18, 2003 (bondholder class).

Deadline to file for objections and exclusion is on December 15,
2007. Deadline to file claims is on Feb. 28, 2008.

             The Shareholders, Noteholders Class Actions

On June 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama consolidated a number of separate securities
lawsuits filed against the company.

The consolidated securities action included two prior
consolidated cases:

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, CV-98-J-
         2634-S," and

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation,
        Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S,"

     -- as well as six other lawsuits filed in 2003.

Including the cases previously consolidated, the consolidated
securities action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.  The
court divided the consolidated securities action into two
subclasses:

     (1) complaints based on purchases of the company's common
         stock were grouped under the caption, "In re
         HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," (Stockholder Securities
         Action), which was further divided into complaints
         based on:

         (a) purchases of the company's common stock in the open
             market (grouped under the caption, "In re
             HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation,
             Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," and

         (b) claims based on the receipt of the company's common
             stock in mergers (grouped under the caption,
             "HealthSouth Merger Cases, Consolidated Case No.
             CV-98-2777-S)."

         Although the plaintiffs in the HealthSouth Merger Cases
         have separate counsel and have filed separate claims,
         the HealthSouth Merger Cases are otherwise consolidated
         with the Stockholder Securities Action for all
         purposes.

     (2) complaints based on purchases of the company's debt
         securities were grouped under the caption, "In re
         HealthSouth Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1502-S," (Bondholder Securities
         Action).

On Jan. 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The complaint names the company as a defendant, as well as more
than 30 of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, the underwriters of its debt securities, and its
former auditor.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that the company misrepresented or failed to disclose
         certain material facts concerning its business and
         financial condition and the impact of the Balanced
         Budget Act of 1997 on its operations in order to
         artificially inflate the price of the company's common
         stock;

    (ii) that from Jan. 14, 2002 through Aug. 27, 2002, the
         company misrepresented or failed to disclose certain
         material facts concerning its business and financial
         condition and the impact of the changes in Medicare
         reimbursement for outpatient therapy services on the
         company's operations in order to artificially inflate
         the price of its common stock, and that some of the
         individual defendants sold shares of such stock during
         the purported class period; and

   (iii) that Richard M. Scrushy instructed certain former
         senior officers and accounting personnel to materially
         inflate the company's earnings to match Wall Street
         analysts' expectations, and that senior officers of
         HealthSouth and other members of a self-described
         "family" held meetings to discuss the means by which
         the company's earnings could be inflated and that some
         of the individual defendants sold shares of the common
         stock during the purported class period.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, and
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934
Act.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company reached a global, preliminary
settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the Stockholder
Securities Action, the Bondholder Securities Action, and the
derivative litigation, as well as with the company's insurance
carriers, to settle claims filed in those actions against the
company and many of its former directors and officers.

In September, a partial settlement has been reached between
HealthSouth Corporation and certain individuals, the Stockholder
Class and the Bondholder Class in a litigation, which alleged
that the Defendants violated federal securities laws (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability relating to any
claims asserted by the Stockholder Class and the Bondholder
Class, but they have agreed to a settlement in the amount of
$445 million in cash, HealthSouth common stock and warrants.

In January, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama granted final approval to the $445 million partial
settlement of the class action "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002
Securities Litigation, Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S"
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 15, 2007).

                       Settlement Terms

Under the settlement agreements, federal securities and fraud
claims brought in the class action against HealthSouth and
certain of its former directors and officers will be settled for
consideration consisting of HealthSouth common stock and
warrants valued at $215 million and cash payments by
HealthSouth's insurance carriers of $230 million, or aggregate
consideration of $445 million.

In addition, the federal securities class action plaintiffs will
receive 25% of any net recoveries from future judgments obtained
by or on behalf of HealthSouth with respect to certain claims
against Richard Scrushy, the company's former chief executive
officer, Ernst & Young, the company's former auditors, and UBS,
the company's former primary investment bank, each of which
remains a defendant in the derivative actions as well as the
federal securities class actions.

The settlement agreement also requires HealthSouth to indemnify
the settling insurance carriers for any amounts that they are
legally obligated to pay to any non-settling defendants.

The settlement does not contain any admission of wrongdoing by
HealthSouth or any other settling defendant.

Securities to be issued by HealthSouth in connection with the
settlement will consist of an aggregate of 25,118,656 shares of
its common stock and eleven-year warrants to purchase an
aggregate of 40,756,326 additional shares of HealthSouth common
stock at an exercise price of $8.28 per share, in each case, as
the same will be adjusted by the proposed 1-for-5 reverse stock
split of HealthSouth's common stock, which, subject to
stockholder approval, is expected to become effective before the
end of October.

             Settlement Excludes Ernst & Young, UBS

The settlement does not include Ernst & Young, UBS, Mr. Scrushy
or any former HealthSouth officer who entered a guilty plea or
was convicted of a crime in connection with the company's former
financial reporting activities.

                         The SEC Lawsuit

Another lawsuit against HealthSouth was filed in the same Court
by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
name of that lawsuit is Securities and Exchange Commission v.
HealthSouth Corporation and Richard M. Scrushy, Civil Action No.
CV-03-J-0615-S.

To settle the SEC claim, HealthSouth paid $100 million to be
distributed among certain investors.  The SEC Settlement has
already been approved by the Court.

On February 7, 2008, the Court will consider a proposed Plan of
Allocation for distributing the class actions settlement funds
and awarding attorneys’ fees. Once the Court has granted final
approval, eligible investors who file valid Claim Forms will
receive a share of the settlement benefits according to the Plan
of Allocation.

Francis E. McGovern is the court appointed Distribution Fund
Administrator.  A court appointed third-party Claims
Administrator, Rust Consulting will process claims, answer
questions, and issue payment and other benefits.

The suit is "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master Consolidation File No. 2:03-cv-03-BE-1500-S," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.HLSSettlement.com,or call  
1-888-952-9108

For more information, contact:

          HealthSouth Settlement Claims Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 1906 Faribault, MN 55021-7161

Representing HealthSouth are:

          John Whittington, Esq.
          HealthSouth Corporation
          One HealthSouth Parkway
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          E-mail: rbemporad@ldbs.com

          - and -

          Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP
          Julia Boaz Cooper
          One Federal Plaza
          1819 Fifth Ave. North
          Birmingham, AL 35203

Lead counsel for stockholder lead plaintiffs and class:

          Keith F. Park, Esq.
          Joy Ann Bull, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          140 Broadway, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10005

Lead Counsel for Bondholder Lead Plaintiff and Class:

         John P. Coffey, Esq.
         Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
         New York, NY 10019

         Robert T. Cunningham, Jr., Esq.
         Cunningham, Bounds, Crowder
         Brown & Breedlove, LLC
         1601 Dauphin Street, P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660

Counsel for Merger Subclasses:

          Andrew M. Schatz, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT  06103


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses Document Preparation Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court has dismissed the
purported class action, “Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corp.,” which
was filed against an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial
Corp.
     
The suit was filed in April 2003.  It alleged that Irwin
Mortgage charged a document preparation fee in violation of
Indiana law for services performed by clerical personnel in
completing legal documents related to mortgage loans.

On June 18, 2004, the court certified a plaintiff class and held
oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment on April 30,
2007.

On May 2, 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion in
another case, “Charter One Mortgage Corporation v. Condra,”
which held that the preparation of mortgage documents by non-
attorneys does not necessarily constitute the practice of law
and that a lender’s charging a fee for the preparation does not
convert it into the unauthorized practice of law.

Citing the Charter One decision, on Aug. 27, 2007, the Silke
trial court ruled in favor of Irwin Mortgage on its Motion for
Summary Judgment against plaintiff class members, thus
concluding this litigation.

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com--
provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The
Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to
consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing
servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major
lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and
home equity lending.  


JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Several Market Timing Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group Inc. continues to face coordinated
proceedings, which includes some class actions on appeal, with
regards to the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General (NYAG) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Following the market timing investigations, Janus and certain
affiliates were named as defendants in a consolidated lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland (Case Number MDL
No. 1586, 04-MD-15863).  

Five amended complaints were filed in these coordinated
proceedings, including:

       -- claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
          asserting claims on behalf of the investor class
          (Marini, et al. v. Janus Investment Fund, et al., U.S.
          District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-
          00497);  

       -- derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
          ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds (Steinberg et
          al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC et al., U.S.
          District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-
          00518);

       -- claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k)
          plan (Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., 401(k)
          Advisory Committee, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. JFM-05-2711);

       -- claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus on a
          derivative basis against Janus’ Board of Directors
          (Chasen v. Whiston, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. 04-MD-00855); and

       -- claims by a putative class of Janus shareholders
          asserting claims on behalf of the shareholders
          (Wiggins, et al. v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al.,
          U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No.
          04-CV-00818).

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court entered orders
dismissing most of the claims asserted against the Company and
its affiliates by fund investors in the Marini and Steinberg
cases described above, except certain claims under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Section 36(b)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940.  

The U.S. District Court also entered an order dismissing all
claims in the Wiggins lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have appealed that
dismissal.  

In August 2006, the U.S. District Court in the Wangberger 401(k)
plan class action dismissed the action with prejudice, and the
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.  

Finally, the U.S. District Court also dismissed the Chasen
lawsuit against Janus’ Board of Directors without leave to
amend, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to make a pre-suit
demand on the Board of Directors as required by applicable state
law.  The time to appeal this dismissal has expired.  

As a result of the above events, the Company and Janus Capital
Management LLC are the remaining defendants, in some capacity,
in one or more of the actions described in the preceding
paragraph, according to the company’s Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Janus Capital Group Inc. -- http://ir.janus.com/-- is a  
provider of investment advisory services.  Janus provides
investment advisory services through its primary subsidiaries,
Janus Capital Management LLC (JCM) and Enhanced Investment
Technologies, LLC (INTECH).  The Company derives substantially
all of its revenue and net income from its Investment Management
segment, which provides investment management and administrative
services to mutual funds, separate accounts and institutional
clients in both domestic and international markets. The Company
also owns a printing and fulfillment business (the Printing and
Fulfillment segment).


JO-ANN STORES: Recalls Additional Gardening Tools for Kids
----------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Stores Inc., of Hudson, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
97,000 children's toy gardening tools in addition to 16,000 toy
rakes recalled on September 26, 2007 and 6,000 toy watering cans
recalled on August 28, 2007.

The company said surface paint on the handle of the toy
gardening tools can contain excessive levels of lead paint,
violating the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

This recall involves the Robbie Ducky children’s leaf rake, hoe,
broom and spade. “Robbie Ducky Garden Collection” is printed on
a tag attached to the handle. The rake has a yellow handle with
the head of a tortoise and green prongs. The hoe has an orange
handle with a caterpillar and a blue blade. The broom has a
purple handle with a duck and an orange brush. The spade has a
yellow handle with the head of a frog and a red blade. The tools
measure between 27 and 29 inches long.

Picture of the recalled gardening tools:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08049.jpg

The gardening tools were made in China and sold at Jo-Ann Fabric
and Craft Stores nationwide from January 2007 through September
2007 for about $7.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and return them to any Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft
Store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Jo-Ann Stores toll-free at
(888) 739-4120 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, email the firm at guest.services@jo-annstores.com, or
visit http://www.joann.com.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Class Claim in Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a class action
claim filed in a derivative lawsuit that remains pending in the
Delaware Chancery Court.

As part of the derivative lawsuit, which was filed on July 21,
2006, a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder
recently asserted a separate putative class action claim against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers alleging that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

The Company has moved to dismiss this claim, according to the
company’s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

KLA-Tencor Corp. -- http://www.kla-tencor.com-- is a supplier  
of process control and yield management solutions, for the
semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.


KLA-TENCOR: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. faces a purported class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara,
according to the company’s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

A plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed a putative class action
complaint on Sept. 4, 2007 against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons
who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002 and
Sept. 27, 2006, alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary
duty and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions
in the Company’s SEC filings concerning the Company’s past stock
option grants, and seeks unspecified damages based upon
purported dilution of the Company’s stock, injunctive relief,
and rescission.

The named defendants, in addition to the Company, are Edward W.
Barnholt, H. Raymond Bingham, Robert T. Bond, Richard J. Elkus,
Jr., Stephen P. Kaufman, Kenneth Levy, Michael E. Marks, Dean O.
Morton, Kenneth L. Schroeder, Jon D. Tompkins, and Richard P.
Wallace.

KLA-Tencor Corp. -- http://www.kla-tencor.com-- is a supplier  
of process control and yield management solutions, for the
semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.


LAWYERS TITLE: Dec. Certification Hearing Set on Rates Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A tentative December 2007 hearing was set for a purported class
action alleging that Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, overcharges
clients for owner's title insurance policy rates.

On Jan. 25, 2002, Miles R. Henderson and Patricia A. Henderson
filed a putative class action against Lawyers Title in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  

Lawyers Title removed the case to the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on March 6, 2002, and the plaintiffs
amended the complaint on March 8, 2002.  On June 28, 2002, the
District Court remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas
for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the defendants had a practice
of charging original rates for owners title insurance policies
when lower, reissue rates should have been charged.  

The company initially responded by demanding that the actions be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
Court ruled that arbitration was not required for either suit.  

On remand to the trial court, Plaintiffs in the Henderson Suit
are now seeking to have the case certified as a class action on
behalf of all sellers and buyers of residential property in Ohio
who paid the higher original rate from 1992 to the present.

A mediation was scheduled for November 2007.   The court is in
the process of setting a class certification hearing date, which
is expected to occur in December 2007.  

The suit demands an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
attorneys’ fees and costs.  

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The Company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Title Insurance Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of
LandAmerica Financial Group, faces a purported class action in
Ohio that accuses it of overcharging clients for owner's title
insurance policy rates, according to the company’s Oct. 31, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

A similar putative class action suit was filed against
Commonwealth, by Rodney P. Simon and Tracy L. Simon in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio on March 5, 2003.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the defendants had a practice
of charging original rates for owners title insurance policies
when lower, reissue rates should have been charged.  

The company initially responded by demanding that the actions be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
Court ruled that arbitration was not required for either suit.  

Plaintiffs in the Simon Suit are seeking to have the case
certified as a class action on behalf of all sellers of
residential property in Ohio, who paid the original rate from
1993 to the present, as requested in the original complaint,
although no hearing date on the class certification has been
scheduled.  

The suit demands an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
attorneys’ fees and costs.  

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The Company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


OKI DATA: Recalls Printers Due to Internal Electrical Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Oki Data Americas, of Mount Laurel, N.J., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
400 C9600 Series Digital Color Printers because of an internal
electrical problem that could result in electrical shock to
consumers.

No incidents/injuries of electrical shock have been reported so
far.

The digital color printers are beige colored and measure 27
inches wide, 25 inches deep and 20 inches high. “Oki Printing
Solutions” and model “C9600” are printed on the front of the
unit. The following serial numbers are included in the recall.
The serial number is located on the back left side of the
printer.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08052a.jpg

Serial Numbers
AA56002655A0 through AA56002804A0
AA58001468A0 through AA58001617A0
AA58002702A0 through AA58002801A0

The printers were made in Japan and distributed through
authorized OKI Printing Solutions Dealers and Solution Providers
nationwide from August 2005 through September 2007 for about
$3,500.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
printer. Do not touch the printer or attempt to turn it off.
Unplug the printer immediately by pulling the plug from the wall
socket. Unplug the printer before locating the serial number on
the back of the unit. Contact the firm for a free inspection and
repair.

For additional information, contact Oki Data Americas toll-free
at (877) 654-6364 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET, or visit
http://www.okidata.com.


SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Duck Toys on Paint's Lead Level
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
3,500 of duck family collectible wind-up toy.

The company said surface paints on the ducks contain excessive
levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled Duck Family consists of a large wind-up duck,
which pulls three little ducks. They are made of tin and are
primarily yellow in color.

The toys were made in China and sold by specialty toy stores and
gift shops nationwide from January 2007 through August 2007 for
about $8.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy away
from children and contact Schylling to receive a refund or free
replacement toy.

For additional information, contact Schylling at (800)
767-8697 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.schylling.com.


SONUS NETWORKS: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $40M
---------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc., on Nov. 7, 2007, reached an agreement to
settle a litigation against the Company and certain of its
former and current officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's 2004
restatement.

Pursuant to the settlement, which is subject to court approval,
the Company has agreed to pay $40 million to the shareholder
classes in the case. The Company has recorded a $40 million
charge and related liability in the third quarter of fiscal 2007
for the full amount of the settlement.

The Company has approximately $15.3 million in insurance
coverage that could be used to help offset the costs of this
litigation as well as other litigation pending against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. Due to ongoing discussions with its insurer about the
extent of the insurance coverage available for, and current
uncertainties about the outcome of, the other pending
litigation, the Company has not yet determined how much, if any,
of this insurance coverage will be allocated to the 2004
restatement settlement.

In the event that the Company ultimately determines that some or
all of the $15.3 million of available insurance will be utilized
towards this settlement, the Company would record a gain in that
subsequent reporting period for the amount of the insurance
proceeds allocated to the settlement.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Preliminarily Settles N.Y. GTA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. settled all consumer class
actions pending in the United States against the Company and its
subsidiary Rockstar Games, relating to a third-party program
called the "Hot Coffee Modification" that could be used by
consumers to alter the content of the Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas video game.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to
claim benefits if they swear that they:

     (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before
         July 20, 2005;

     (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to
         modify and alter the game's content using the third-
         party Hot Coffee modification;

     (c) would not have bought the game had they known that
         consumers could modify and alter the game's content
         using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and

     (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game
         could be modified and altered, if they thought this
         possible.

Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for
benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an
edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment
of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of
purchase.

In July 2005, the company received four purported class actions.  
Two of the four complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, one was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one
was filed in the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois.  

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the Company’s Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas game, assert that the company engaged in
consumer deception, false advertising and breached an implied
warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a
result of the company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content, which
resulted in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the
Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rather than an Adults
Only 18+ (AO) rating.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various
violations of law and litigation costs.  In January 2006, the
City of Los Angeles filed a complaint against the company in the
Superior Court of the State of California alleging violations of
California law on substantially the same basis.

The state court actions were removed to federal court (a motion
to remand filed by the City of Los Angeles is pending) and the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all the
cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, which consolidated them under the caption, “In re
Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II),
06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD).”

                     Settlement Terms

The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will
depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits.
Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on
settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the
defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million,
in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members
and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel. The Company previously
established a reserve sufficient to substantially cover the
expected cost of the settlement and related expenses. The full
settlement terms will be described in the parties' Settlement
Agreement, which the plaintiffs are expected to file with the
Court in mid-November when they seek preliminary approval for
the settlement.

"If the case had continued, we believe the court would have
agreed that Take-Two was not liable for consumers acting
independently to modify their games with third-party hardware
and software to access normally inaccessible content," said Ben
Feder, Chief Executive Officer of Take-Two. "Nonetheless, we
believe it is in the best interest of the Company to avoid
protracted and costly litigation to prove our case and to
finally put this matter behind us."

If the proposed settlement receives preliminary and final
approval from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, all claims in these lawsuits will be
dismissed without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by
Take-Two or Rockstar.

The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0790
         Fax: (212) 883-7579
         E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
  
             - and -

         Andrew Palmer Bell, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735
         E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven L. Caponi, Esq.
         Blank Rome LLP
         1201 North Market Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302)-425-6408
         Fax: (302)-425-6464
         E-mail: caponi@blankrome.com

              - and -

         Dan Chammas, Esq.
         McDermott Will & Emery
         2049 Century Park E., 34th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
         Phone: (310) 277-4110


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Court Upholds $34M Award to Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
The First District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that awarded
$33.8 million to thousands of students whom University of
California hit with unexpected fee increases in 2003, Audrey Kuo
of The UCLA Daily Bruin reports.

In a court opinion released on March 2006, San Francisco
Superior Court Judge James Warren ordered the university to pay  
$33.8 million to rectify the damages incurred after thousands of  
professional students faced unexpected fee increases (Class
Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The lead plaintiff is Mohammad Kashmiri, who graduated from
Berkeley’s law school in 2004.

The lawsuit stipulated the university breached its contract with
more than 50,000 professional students -- around 9,000 of whom
saw their fees more than double.  Judge Warren said in the court
opinion that in: "university-wide publications" such as student
catalogues, the university made a promise to professional
students that fees would remain constant, and they did not
follow through.

The university was allegedly responsible for unfair fee
increases against three different subclasses of professional
students at UCLA and UC Berkeley during different academic
periods of the 2002-2003 university year according to the suit.

The biggest chunk of money, $28 million of the $33.8 million  
awarded, went to 9,163 professional school students -- business,  
law, medical, etc. -- with the other $5.3 million targeted for  
other students (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).  With a
10 percent rate of interest, the amount owed is now over $39
million, according to Andrew Freeman, a lawyer for the
professional students.  He is now representing a second group of
UC students who he said faced similar problems with the
university raising fees, according to the report.

Judge Warren specifically ruled that bills sent to students  
before fees rose were binding contracts, and terms outlined in  
each university fee schedule released from 1996 to 2003 were not  
"vague or indefinite."  The judge cited that the key statement  
accompanying prior fee schedules read "Increases in the fee  
apply to new students only. The fee will remain the same for  
each student for the duration of his or her enrollment in the  
professional degree program."

The recent appellate court decision stated that “implied
contracts were formed between the university and respondents.”
The decision also ruled that the university “breached its
contracts ... by raising the educational fees for these terms
after the students had received bills specifying the exact
amount to be paid.”

The appellate court also upheld an injunction banning further
fee increases.

The university has until Dec. 12 to determine whether it will
choose to appeal the decision.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Remaining Ovcon 35 Lawsuit for $9M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited has reached a tentative settlement to
conclude the one remaining antitrust lawsuit involving one of
the Company's combined hormonal contraceptives, Ovcon 35.

Under the proposed settlement, all claims will be dismissed and
the class action, which was brought by direct purchaser
plaintiffs, will be terminated in exchange for a cash payment of
$9.0 million. The settlement remains subject to the negotiation
of definitive documentation and the necessary approvals of the
parties and the court.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Warner Chilcott Ltd. --
http://www.warnerchilcott.com/-- is the holding company for a  
host of pharmaceutical makers.  Women's health care products,
including hormone therapies (femhrt and Estrace Cream) and
contraceptives (Estrostep, Loestrin, and OvCon), are the
company's largest segment.  Other products include dermatology
treatments for acne (Doryx) and psoriasis (Dovonex and
Taclonex).  US subsidiary Warner Chilcott, Inc. makes
prescription drugs for dermatology and women's health; other
subsidiaries provide services in data management systems,
pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, and chemical
development.


* Lawyer in Breast Implant Case Ordered to Return $41.5M in Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer who won a $2 billion settlement in a breast implant
class action is being sued by clients claiming he got a large
amount of the money as legal fees, it emerged in a report by
Nate Raymond of The American Lawyer.

The case was sent to arbitrators and the arbitrators found that
John O'Quinn of Houston collected $263 million of that money as
legal fees.  In September the arbitrators told Mr. O'Quinn to
return $41.5 million.  The amount included the interest on the
original fee of $35.7 million that he got.  As of September,
interest continues to accrue on the money.

Acting for the clients are lawyers Joseph Jamail and Ronald
Krist, both of Houston.  The lawyers have a history of court
cases between them, it emerged in the report. One was in 1998
when Mr. O'Quinn got involved in a scandal that arose out of Mr.
Jamail's case against the Texas attorney general.  Mr. Jamil
accused the attorney general of demanding kickbacks from lawyers
who wanted to play a role in the state's tobacco litigation.  

In 2001, Messers. Jamail and Krist were set to represent Kendall
Montgomery, a former associate of Mr. O'Quinn's, who claimed
that Mr. O'Quinn's firm owed him $105 million in fees from
tobacco and other litigation.  The dispute settled immediately.

In August, Mr. O'Quinn filed a malpractice suit against Mr.
Krist on behalf of a person who hired Mr. Krist as lawyer in an
injury suit against BP PLC.  Mr. Krist was accused of conflict
of interest for turning around and defending BP in other suits.

In the breast implant case, Mr. O'Quinn is represented by Billy
Shepherd of Cruse, Scott, Henderson & Allen in Houston.  Mr.
Shepherd is planning to appeal the arbitrator's ruling.  He
noted that the judgment is technically against three legal
entities connected to Mr. O'Quinn, not Mr. O'Quinn as an
individual, according to the report.

Mr. Jamail and other lawyers in the arbitration were awarded
$10.24 million in fees and $500,000 for expenses.  The case cost
$2 million to prosecute, says Mr. Krist, according to the
report. After the recovery is split, each firm will get more
than $2.1 million.


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. U.S. Steel Remain at 300 at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, faced about 300
active asbestos-related cases involving about 3,050 plaintiffs,
including cases involving the businesses acquired from Lone Star
Technologies Inc., according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
30, 2007.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company faced about 300 active
asbestos-related cases with about 3,050 plaintiffs. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a defendant in about 300
active cases involving about 3,700 plaintiffs. Many of these
cases involve multiple defendants (typically from 50 to more
than 100).

Almost 2,750, or about 90 percent, of these claims are pending
in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.

During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company paid about US$1 million
in settlements. These settlements, along with review of case
docket information for certain states, and voluntary and
involuntary dismissals, resulted in the disposition of about 200
claims. New case filings added about 150 claims.

During 2006, the Company paid about US$8 million in settlements.
These settlements, along with review of case docket information
for certain states, and voluntary and involuntary dismissals,
resulted in the disposition of about 5,150 claims. New case
filings added about 450 claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is a
defendant in cases in which a total of about 165 plaintiffs
allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corp. produces and sells
steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular, in North
America and Central Europe. Operations in North America also
include iron ore mining and processing to supply steel producing
units; real estate management and development; and
transportation services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. TRW Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. subsidiaries continue to
face asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain
components sold by the Company's subsidiaries. The Company said
it believes that most of the claimants were assembly workers at
the major U.S. automobile manufacturers.

Most of these claims name, as defendants, numerous manufacturers
and suppliers of various products allegedly with asbestos. The
Company said it believes that, to the extent any of the products
sold by its subsidiaries and at issue in these cases contained
asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated.

Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a supplier
of automotive systems, modules and components to global
automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related
aftermarkets. The Company conducts substantially all of its
operations through subsidiaries. These operations primarily
encompass the design, manufacture and sale of active and passive
safety related products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Transocean Units Pending in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Transocean Inc. subsidiaries, along with unaffiliated
defendants, still face several asbestos-related complaints that
have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31,
2007.

These complaints involve over 700 persons that allege personal
injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their
employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries to whom the Company may owe indemnity. Further, the
complaints name other unaffiliated defendant companies,
including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related
products containing asbestos.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used those asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and
claims authorized under the Jones Act. The plaintiffs seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company has not yet been able to conduct extensive discovery
or determine the number of plaintiffs that were employed by its
subsidiaries or otherwise have any connection with its drilling
operations.

Houston-based Transocean Inc. is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company also provides additional services, including integrated
services. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company owned, had partial
ownership interests in or operated 82 mobile offshore drilling
units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.6M Accrued Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability
amounted to US$22,682,000 at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$20,828,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press
release filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on Oct. 30, 2007.

Mr. Lawrence I. Sills, the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, said, “Annually we have an actuarial
valuation performed on our asbestos liability. The September
2007 adjustment reflects an unfavorable pre-tax increase to the
reserve of US$2.8 million bringing the total reserve to US$23.8
million. This essentially reversed a favorable reduction to the
reserve from the comparable period a year ago.”

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products Inc. makes
engine management and air-conditioning replacement parts for the
automotive aftermarket. The Company's engine management products
include ignition and electrical parts, emission and engine
controls, voltage regulators, sensors, ignition wires, and
distributor caps and rotors. The Company's temperature control
offerings include air-conditioning compressors, accumulators,
fan clutches, heater cores and valves, evaporators, and hoses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco Has $13.1M Rise in Expenses at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeco Corp., in the first nine months of 2007, recorded US$13.1
million as increase in asbestos loss and allocated loss
adjustment expenses, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
30, 2007.

In the first nine months of 2007, the Company reduced its
estimates for prior-years’ loss and LAE reserves by US$70.7
million.

In the first nine months of 2006, the Company reduced its
estimates for prior-years’ loss and LAE reserves by US$99.2
million. This total decrease included US$25 million increase in
asbestos loss and allocated LAE reserves related to large loss
activity.

Seattle-based Safeco Corp. sells property and casualty insurance
to drivers, homeowners and small- and mid-sized businesses. The
Company also sells Surety bonds to contractors and businesses.
The Company generates virtually all of its premiums from these
activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Olin & Subsidiaries Face Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corp. and its subsidiaries, including Pioneer Companies
Inc., face various legal actions, including proceedings based on
alleged exposures to asbestos, incidental to its past and
current business activities, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 31, 2007.

The Company acquired Pioneer on Aug. 31, 2007.

Clayton, Mo.-based Olin Corp. is a manufacturer concentrated in
two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester.
Chlor Alkali Products produces chlorine and caustic soda, sodium
hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and
potassium hydroxide. Winchester produces and distributes
sporting ammunition, reloading components, small caliber
military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Pursues Case v. Equitas in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc. continues to pursue an asbestos-
related action in New York against Equitas, a reinsurer
participating in excess of loss reinsurance agreements, over
unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company has
previously presented to Equitas (Equitas Arbitration).

On Nov. 22, 2006, the Company filed the demand for arbitration
against Equitas.

The recovery demands are for the 2005 settlement of two class
action lawsuits involving large asbestos claims (together, the
“2005 Settled Claims”), which 2005 Settled Claims are being paid
through 2007.

Equitas has not indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries
on related pro rata reinsurance agreements for such 2005 Settled
Claims or with respect to excess of loss or pro rata reinsurance
for a claim settled in 2004 Settled Claim.

The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from
Equitas for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the 2005 Settled
Claims is about US$2.7 million.

The Company filed its demand for arbitration against Equitas in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the excess of loss
reinsurance agreements.

New York-based The Navigators Group Inc.'s various subsidiaries
write marine, liability, and other lines of business. Navigators
Insurance and Navigators Corporate Underwriters write ocean and
marine insurance including hull, energy, and cargo insurance, as
well as property insurance for onshore energy concerns.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $23.9M for Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc. reserved a gross of US$23,911,000 for
asbestos exposures in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with US$37,171,000 in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007.

The Company reserved a net of US$17,435,000 for asbestos
exposures in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$21,381,000 in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company reserved a gross of US$29,879,000 for asbestos
exposures for the six months ended June 30, 2007. The Company
reserved a net of US$20,405,000 for asbestos exposures for the
six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10,
2007)

The Company's exposure to asbestos liability principally stems
from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis
during the mid-1980s.

In general, the Company's participation on such risks is in the
excess layers, which requires the underlying coverage to be
exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in the Company's
layer.

In many instances the Company is one of many insurers who
participate in the defense and ultimate settlement of these
claims, and the Company is generally a minor participant in the
overall insurance coverage and settlement.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec.
31, 2006 are for:

(i) The 2005-4th quarter settlements of two large claims
aggregating about US$28 million for excess insurance policy
limits exposed to class action suits against two insureds
involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos
products, each settlement is being paid over a two year period
that started in 2006;

(ii) The 2004 settlement of a large claim approximating $25
million exposed to a class action suit which settlement is being
paid over a seven-year period that started in June 2005;

(iii) Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing
or distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
products that contained asbestos; and

(iv) Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
over time.

Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves
are included in its marine loss reserves.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the ceded asbestos paid and unpaid
recoverables were US$15.9 million compared with US$23.5 million
at Dec. 31, 2006.

During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company increased its provision
for uncollectible reinsurance recoverables for asbestos losses
by US$1.6 million.

New York-based The Navigators Group Inc.'s various subsidiaries
write marine, liability, and other lines of business. Navigators
Insurance and Navigators Corporate Underwriters write ocean and
marine insurance including hull, energy, and cargo insurance, as
well as property insurance for onshore energy concerns.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $34M A&E Reserve at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corp.'s underwriting loss for both the quarter and nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2007 included US$34 million of loss
reserve development on asbestos and environmental exposures
compared with US$16.7 million in both periods of 2006.

For both periods of 2007, the increase in loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental exposures was offset in part by
favorable development of loss reserves in other discontinued
lines of business.

The increase in asbestos and environmental reserves in all
periods was a result of the completion of the Company's annual
review of these exposures during the third quarters of 2007 and
2006.

The Other segment produced an underwriting loss of US$17.5
million for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$15.8 million
for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with an
underwriting loss of US$16.9 million for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006 and US$22.9 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006.

Glen Allen, Va.-based Markel Corp. markets and underwrites
specialty insurance products and programs to various niche
markets. The Company operates in three segments of the specialty
insurance marketplace: the Excess and Surplus Lines, the
Specialty Admitted and the London markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $3.6Mil Settlement Awarded to Calif. Local
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd P.C. is announcing a US$3.6 million
settlement in an asbestos exposure lawsuit filed on behalf of
Martin Lujan, an 81-year-old man who worked in the San Francisco
area, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated Nov. 5,
2007.

The settlement was reached a day before the jury would have
determined the fate of the defendants, all asbestos joint
compound companies.

Attorneys John Langdoc and Eric Brown from Baron & Budd
represented Mr. Lujan. The final settlement was reached after
two weeks of trial in Judge Thomas Mellon's courtroom in San
Francisco.

The defendants in this trial were: Bondex, Kaiser-Gypsum Co.,
Hamilton Materials Inc., and Kelly Moore Paint Company Inc.

Russell W. Budd, managing partner of Baron & Budd, said, “Eric,
John and our entire trial team worked incredibly hard to find
and interview witnesses; obtain access to internal corporate
files which showed these companies knew their products could
cause cancer and chose to keep selling them; and trace Mr.
Lujan's career working in the construction of over 100 buildings
around these products. In the end the investigation uncovered
that Mr. Lujan had been exposed to asbestos, a known carcinogen,
in the form of joint compound, for over 15 years while working
in the construction industry.”

In addition to uncovering that Mr. Lujan had been exposed to
asbestos from these companies' joint compounds, the Baron & Budd
trial team also presented evidence that the companies were told
by the U.S. government that working for only four days around
joint compounds would result in an unreasonable risk of cancer
to workers, and that it has been known for decades that there is
no safe level of exposure to asbestos.

Just months before he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, Mr.
Lujan's doctors noted that he was in excellent health. When his
doctors informed him that his mesothelioma was caused by
asbestos, he initially had no idea that his work as a carpenter
and construction worker had exposed him to dangerous materials.

Mr. Langdoc said, “Mr. Lujan's family is appreciative of all the
hard work put in by the Baron & Budd team to uncover what
products were responsible for Mr. Lujan's asbestos cancer.”

The effects of asbestos exposure, including the onset of
diseases like mesothelioma and other asbestos cancers, can take
decades to surface. Nearly 40 years passed before Mr. Lujan
began exhibiting symptoms of mesothelioma. He is currently
fighting the cancer from his home in the San Francisco area.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Commences at Inactive Vt. Mine Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal and State cleanup workers began work to reduce asbestos
contamination of water at the inactive 2,500 acre Vermont
Asbestos Group mine site, located off of Mines Road in the towns
of Eden and Lowell, Vt., according to a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency press release dated Nov. 1, 2007.

The work is being coordinated between EPA, along with two State
of Vermont agencies, the Agency of Natural Resources and the
Department of Environmental Conservation. The work is expected
to be underway until Thanksgiving and may require additional
work in the spring.

Robert W. Varney, EPA New England regional administrator, said,
“Our efforts will take a significant step toward stemming the
flow of contaminated mining waste into area watersheds. The work
will reduce the mine's adverse ecological impacts and the
public's potential exposure to health hazards.”

To reduce the off-site migration of asbestos fibers via surface
water flow, EPA is undertaking several measures, including:
rerouting surface water flow to avoid the tailings piles,
channeling contaminated flow to on-site surface water retention
areas to allow for deposition of fibers, and reinforcing and/or
constructing berms to reduce the off-site movement of tailings.

The State of Vermont and EPA are in discussions with the Vermont
Asbestos Group Inc. (VAG), the current property owner, regarding
performance of any required maintenance of the measures put in
place by EPA to ensure their continued effectiveness and
integrity.

The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) began
investigating the site in 2004, and the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) has conducted biological and
chemical assessments of 11 locations within the two affected
watersheds as well as additional sediment and water sampling
downstream from previous study locations.

As part of an effort to establish a national protocol for
conducting environmental sampling at mine sites, last summer DEC
assisted the U.S. Geological Survey in collecting tailing and
water samples.

George Crombie, Agency of Natural Resources Secretary, said, “I
want to commend the EPA and Robert Varney, the regional EPA
director. This will bring more than US$2 million to Vermont to
mitigate offsite migration of asbestos fibers into the wetlands
of the state.”

VAG was vital to Vermont's economy and was one of the largest
asbestos mines in the country. Between the early 1900s and 1993
when production operations ceased, asbestos ore was mined out of
three VAG mine locations: Eden Quarry, C-Area, and Lowell
Quarry.

The Eden Quarry is at an elevation of about 2,300 feet and has a
waste pile estimated at 12 million tons. The pile is being
heavily eroded by the beginnings of Hutchins Brook which is
carrying substantial quantities of mine tailings into the
Lamoille watershed.

There is also evidence of unauthorized recreational use in and
around the pile. The Lowell Quarry created a waste pile which is
estimated to be between 30 and 60 million tons covering 80
acres. This waste pile and the one from C-Area are eroding and
have heavily impacted Corez Pond, Burgess Brook, and associated
wetlands within the Mississquoi watershed.

At least eight wetlands have been significantly damaged by
mining waste leaving the site. Wetland functions including water  
storage (flood and stormwater), surface and groundwater
protection, erosion control, fisheries habitat, wildlife and
migratory bird habitat have been severely impacted.

An approximately 25-acre wetland about one mile downstream from
the Eden Quarry waste pile is in danger of reaching its storage
capacity. Should that occur, the Dark Branch could be impacted
resulting in yet another water body being adversely effected.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $235.9M Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$235.9 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$233.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

The Company's asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$232.5
million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10,
2007)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$22 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$36.4
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$30 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
10, 2007)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$30.4 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$87.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$37.6 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 10, 2007)

Net asbestos-related costs amounted to US$2.3 million in the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$2.2 million
in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Net asbestos-related costs amounted to US$6.6 million in the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$6.7 million
in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Inc.'s paper technologies
division supplies water-treatment and functional performance
chemicals and services to the pulp and paper industry. The
Company's Aqualon subsidiary makes thickeners for water-based
products like latex paints, printing inks, and oral hygiene
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Has 25,780 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about 25,780
unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 920 were
premises claims and the rest were products claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company recorded about 26,000
unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 950 were
premises claims and the rest were product claims. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

The Company is a defendant in numerous asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits and claims which typically arise from alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and
tank products which were sold by one of the Company’s former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market (products claims).

The Company is also a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to
asbestos at facilities formerly or presently owned or operated
by the Company (premises claims).

As of Sept. 30, 2007, there were also about 1,920 unpaid claims
that have been settled or are subject to the terms of a
settlement agreement.

Between Jan. 1, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007, the Company received
about 967 new claims. During that same period, the Company spent
about US$18.9 million to resolve and defend asbestos matters,
including US$12.1 million directly related to settlement
payments and about US$6.8 million for defense costs.

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Inc.'s paper technologies
division supplies water-treatment and functional performance
chemicals and services to the pulp and paper industry. The
Company's Aqualon subsidiary makes thickeners for water-based
products like latex paints, printing inks, and oral hygiene
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $13.7M Trust Balance at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded a balance of
US$13.7 million for a Second Trust, which was established under
an agreement with the Company, various insurance companies
operating in the London insurance market, and one insurance
company located in the United States, as parties.

The Company’s primary and first level excess insurance policies
that provided coverage for asbestos-related matters exhausted
their products limits at or before the end of July 2003. On Nov.
27, 2002, the Company initiated litigation against the solvent
excess insurance carriers that provided insurance coverage for
asbestos-related liabilities in a matter captioned Hercules Inc.
v. OneBeacon, et al., Civil Action No. 02C-11-237 (SCD),
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Beginning in August 2004 and continuing through October 2004,
the Company entered into settlements with all of the insurers
named in that lawsuit. As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed in
early November 2004.

The Company entered into several settlements with its insurers
in 2004. The first settlement involved insurance policies issued
by certain underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, and reinsured by
Equitas Ltd. and related entities (Equitas) (the First
Settlement Agreement).

As part of that settlement, Equitas placed US$67 million into a
trust (Equitas Trust) set up to reimburse the Company for a
portion of the costs it incurred to defend and resolve certain
asbestos claims.

On Jan. 4, 2007, the Company received as a lump sum distribution
about US$41.3 million, an amount representing a complete
liquidation of the remaining balance of the Equitas Trust,
including accrued interest, and the Equitas Trust has been
terminated.

Effective Oct. 8, 2004, the Company entered into a comprehensive
confidential settlement agreement with respect to certain
insurance policies issued by various insurance companies
operating in the London insurance market, and by one insurance
company located in the United States (Second Settlement
Agreement).

Under the terms of the Second Settlement Agreement, the
participating insurers agreed to place a total of about US$102.2
million into a trust (Second Trust), with such amount to be paid
over a four-year period commencing in January 2005 and ending in
2008.

Any funds remaining in the Second Trust subsequent to Dec. 31,
2008 may be used by the Company to defend and resolve both
asbestos-related claims and non-asbestos related claims.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, about US$85.1 million of the US$102.2
million had been placed into the Second Trust.

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Inc.'s paper technologies
division supplies water-treatment and functional performance
chemicals and services to the pulp and paper industry. The
Company's Aqualon subsidiary makes thickeners for water-based
products like latex paints, printing inks, and oral hygiene
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $720M Recoverable for T&N
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded an asbestos-
related recoverable of US$720 million for its U.K. subsidiary,
T&N Ltd., and two U.S. subsidiaries, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 26, 2007.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company recorded an asbestos-related
recoverable of US$714 million for the T&N Companies. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

The Company’s U.K. subsidiary, T&N Ltd., and two U.S.
subsidiaries (T&N Companies) are among many defendants named in
numerous court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.

T&N Ltd. and certain of its French subsidiaries are also subject
to asbestos-disease litigation, to a lesser extent, in the U.K.
and France. As of the Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, T&N Ltd. was a
defendant in about 115,000 pending personal injury claims. The
two U.S. subsidiaries were defendants in about 199,000 pending
personal injury claims.

The Company, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, increased its
estimate of asbestos-related liability for the T&N Companies by
US$751 million and recorded a related insurance recoverable
asset of US$577 million.

The liability (about US$1.2 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007)
represented the Company’s estimate before the Restructuring
Proceedings for claims currently pending and those which were
reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012.

T&N Ltd. (f/k/a T&N plc), during the year ended Dec. 31, 1996,
purchased for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a
GBP500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should
the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30,
1996, where the exposure occurred prior to that date, exceed
GBP690 million.

The Company, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, concluded that
the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would
exceed the trigger point and recorded an insurance recoverable
asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million.

One of the three reinsurers, European International Reinsurance
Company Ltd. (EIR), in December 2001, filed suit in a London,
England court to challenge the validity of its insurance
contract with the T&N Companies.

As a result of this lawsuit, a claim was made against the broker
(Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for breach of
its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in October 2003.
The parties were able to reach a settlement prior to the
conclusion of the trial. As a result of this settlement, the
Company recorded a US$38.9 million asbestos charge during 2003.

Under the terms of the settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5
percent of its one-third share of the reinsurance policy. By
separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an
additional 17.25 percent of the EIR share of the reinsurance
policy.

T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums paid
under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N Ltd. for
which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or
Sedgwick.

The settlement agreements referenced above were placed in escrow
pending approval by the Bankruptcy Court and the Administrators
of T&N Ltd. of those portions of the above-described settlement
agreements that affect the Debtors. A motion seeking the
Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the settlement was filed on March
1, 2004.

Subsequent to this motion, the other two reinsurers, Munchener
Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG (Munich Re) and Centre
Reinsurance International Co. (CRIC), a subsidiary of the Zurich
Financial Services Group, notified the Company of their belief
that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick may breach one or
more provisions of the reinsurance agreement.

The parties were unable to resolve the issues raised by the two
reinsurers and this prompted the U.K. Administrators to file an
action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the
settlements with EIR and Sedgwick do not breach provisions of
the reinsurance agreement. A hearing was conducted during July
2005 and judgment was handed down on Dec. 21, 2005.

The High Court held that the settlements did not breach the
reinsurance agreement. Munich Re and CRIC have not appealed the
judgment. As a result, the motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court’s
approval was renoticed and the Bankruptcy Court approved the
settlement in November 2006.

The U.S. claims costs applied against this policy are converted
at a fixed exchange rate of US$1.69/GBP. As such, if the market
exchange rate is greater or less than US$1.69/GBP, the Company
will effectively have a premium or discount on claims paid.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the US$720 million insurance recoverable
asset includes an exchange rate premium of about US$105 million.

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: Abex and Wagner Retain $213.6M Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp.’s asbestos-related liability for its Abex
and Wagner businesses, as of Sept. 30, 2007 and June 30, 2007,
amounted to US$213.6 million, of which US$129.5 million related
to Abex and US$84.1 million related to Wagner, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2007.

Two of the Company’s businesses formerly owned by Cooper
Industries LLC, historically known as Abex and Wagner, are
involved as defendants in numerous court actions in the U.S.
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products. These claims mainly involve vehicle safety
and protection products.

As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Abex faced about
66,000 pending claims and Wagner about 33,000 pending claims.
The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging
exposure to Abex products arises from a contractual liability
entered into in 1994 by the predecessor to the Company whose
stock the Company purchased in 1998.

Under that contract and prior to the Restructuring Proceedings,
the Company, through the relevant subsidiary, was liable for
certain indemnity and defense payments incurred on behalf of an
entity known as Pneumo Abex Corp., the successor in interest to
Abex Corp. Effective as of the Petition Date, the Company has
ceased making such payments and is currently considering whether
to accept or reject the 1994 contractual liability.

As of the Petition Date, pending asbestos litigation of Abex (as
to the Company only) and Wagner is stayed, and no party may take
action to pursue or collect on such asbestos claims absent
specific authorization of the Bankruptcy Court.

Abex maintained product liability insurance coverage for most of
the time that it manufactured products that contained asbestos.
This coverage is shared with other third-party companies. The
Abex insurance recoverable was US$111.9 million as of Sept. 30,
2007.

Wagner also maintained product liability insurance coverage for
some of the time that it manufactured products that contained
asbestos. This coverage is shared with other third-party
companies.

One of the companies, Dresser Industries Inc., initiated an
adversary action in federal court against the Debtors and a
number of insurance carriers in the Company’s Restructuring
Proceedings (Adversary Proceeding). In its complaint, Dresser
alleged that it has rights under certain primary and excess
general liability insurance policies that may be shared with one
of the Debtors, Federal-Mogul Products (FMP) as the successor to
Wagner Electric Corp.

Dresser sought a declaration of the parties’ respective rights
and obligations under the policies and a partition of the
competing rights of Dresser and FMP under the policies. FMP
answered Dresser’s complaint and filed cross-claims against all
of the defendant-insurers seeking a declaration of FMP’s rights
to the policies.

The subsidiary of the Company that may be liable for asbestos
claims against Wagner has the benefit of that insurance, subject
to the rights of other potential insureds under the policies.
Primary layer liability insurance coverage for asbestos claims
against Wagner is the subject of an agreement with Wagner’s
solvent primary carriers. The agreement provides for partial
reimbursement of indemnity and defense costs for Wagner asbestos
claims until exhaustion of aggregate limits.

Wagner also has substantial excess layer liability insurance
coverage which, barring unforeseen insolvencies of excess
carriers or other adverse events, should provide coverage for
asbestos claims against Wagner. The Wagner insurance recoverable
was US$47.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2007.

On Nov. 4, 2004, FMP, Dresser and Cooper Industries LLC and
certain of the insurers (Parties) entered into a partitioning
agreement, by which the Parties agreed as to the manner in which
the limits of liability, self-insured retentions, deductibles
and any other self-insurance features, and the erosion thereof,
are to be partitioned among FMP, Dresser and Cooper.

On Sept. 19, 2006, FMP filed a complaint in the Superior Court
of New Jersey (New Jersey Complaint) against all of the
defendant insurers in the Adversary Proceeding. On March 28,
2007, the federal court in the Adversary Proceeding entered an
order abstaining from the Adversary Proceeding.

The New Jersey Complaint generally tracks the cross-claims
previously asserted by FMP against the defendant insurers in the
Adversary Proceeding, and seeks a declaration as to FMP’s
coverage rights under the policies as well as damages for breach
of contract and bad faith.  Several defendant insurers have
stated that they believe that the New York Supreme Court rather
than the New Jersey Superior Court is the more appropriate forum
for the litigation.

On or about May 8, 2007, those insurers sued FMP, the Company
and certain other parties in New York Supreme Court, seeking a
declaration that they do not have any obligation to cover Wagner
asbestos claims (New York Complaint). FMP and the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the New York Complaint in deference to the
prior-filed New Jersey Complaint, and oral argument on that
motion has been scheduled for Oct. 29, 2007.

The defendant insurers in the New Jersey proceeding filed a
motion to dismiss the New Jersey Complaint in deference to the
New York Complaint, and oral argument on that motion is
scheduled for Dec. 14, 2007.

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: Ruling Reversed in Norfolk Southern's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed a ruling of the Cuyahoga
County Court of Appeals to favor Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,
in asbestos-related actions filed by Homer Bogle, Charles
Weldon, William Monroe, the administrator of the estate of Worth
Oliver Bryant, and Eric Wiles, individually and in his capacity
as executor of the estate of Larry Wiles.

Judges O'Donnell, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, Lanzinger, Cupp,
Moyer, and Pfeifer entered judgment of Case No. 2006-1025 on
Oct. 10, 2007. Judges Moyer and Pfeifer dissented.

The case was styled Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Appellant v.
Bogle, et al., Appellees.

This case began when Mr. Bogle, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Monroe, and Mr.
Wiles filed separate suits against Norfolk, alleging asbestos-
related injuries under the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act
(LBIA) and seeking relief under the Federal Employees' Liability
Act (FELA).

After the claimants filed suit, the General Assembly enacted
H.B. 292, which required claimants with cases pending at the
time of enactment to comply with its provisions requiring a
medical report as described in the statute. The claimants,
however, failed to comply with these requirements within the
prescribed 120-day time period.

In response to their failure, Norfolk filed this action seeking
a declaration that R.C. 2307.92 applied to these claimants and
that its requirements do not violate the Supremacy Clause of the
U.S. Constitution.

The trial court concluded that the requirements violated the
Supremacy Clause because substantive rights created by federal
statute, in this case the FELA and LBIA, "cannot be lessened or
destroyed by a rule of practice."

Norfolk appealed that determination to the Cuyahoga County Court
of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's
judgment. The appellate court held that the application of the
statute to asbestos claims arising under the FELA and the LBIA
infringes on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and
thus is preempted by federal law.

The case is now before this court upon the Supreme Court's
acceptance of Norfolk's discretionary appeal.

The prima facie filing requirements of R.C. 2307.92 are
procedural in nature, and their application to claims brought in
state court pursuant to the FELA and the LBIA did not violate
the Supremacy Clause because the provisions did not impose an
unnecessary burden on a federally created right.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court erred in
finding preemption, and therefore, reversed the judgment of the
Court of Appeals.

The cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Colleen A. Mountcastle,
and Holly M. Olarczuk-Smith, represented Norfolk Southern
Railway Co.

Squire Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. and Charles F. Clarke urging
reversal for amicus curiae, Association of American Railroads.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Graham Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corp. continues to face certain lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in products
made by the Company, according to the Company’s quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
31, 2007.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits. The claims are similar to previous asbestos
suits that named the Company as defendant, which either were
dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs’ places of work or were settled for
minimal amounts below the expected defense costs.

Neither the outcome of these lawsuits nor the potential for
liability can be determined at this time.

Batavia, N.Y.-based Graham Corp. makes vacuum systems, pumps,
compressors, and heat exchangers designed to create vacuums,
condense steam, or produce heat. The Company sells its equipment
to manufacturers in the petroleum, plastics, chemicals, food
processing, and other industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Faces 117,200 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., at Sept. 30, 2007, recorded
about 117,200 asbestos claims pending against it, according to
the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

At June 30, 2007, the Company recorded about 117,500 asbestos-
related claims pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
3, 2007)

During the 2007-3rd quarter, about 500 new claims were filed
against the Company and about 800 were settled or dismissed. The
amount expended on asbestos defense and claim resolution by the
Company and its insurance carriers during the 2007-3rd quarter
amounted to US$15 million and US$$15 million in the first nine
months of 2007.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by
the Company or present in certain of its facilities.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive
damages and other relief. Typically, these lawsuits have been
brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 48,700 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering
into a settlement. The sum of the Company’s accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments to date, including legal
costs, totaled about US$288 million through Sept. 30, 2007 and
US$272 million through Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company had recorded liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$125
million for both periods ending Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims was US$73 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$63 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s liability with respect to asserted claims and
related defense costs was US$52 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and
US$62 million at Dec. 31, 2006. At Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006, the Company estimates that it is reasonably possible that
its gross liabilities could exceed its recorded reserve by US$20
million to US$30 million, about 50 percent of which would be
recoverable by the Company’s accessible policy limits.

The Company had recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims
of US$67 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$66
million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company expects that about 50
percent of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable up
to its accessible policy limits through the period covered by
the estimated liability.

The receivable recorded consists of an amount the Company
expects to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with
certain primary carriers as well as an amount the Company said
it believes is probable of recovery from certain of its excess
coverage insurance carriers. Of this amount, US$7 million (at
Sept. 30, 2007) and US$9 million (at Dec. 31, 2006) was included
in Current Assets as part of Accounts and notes receivable.

The Company said it believes that at Sept. 30, 2007, it had at
least US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level
policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for
asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available
primary insurance policies. Some of these excess policies
provide for payment of defense costs in addition to indemnity
limits. A portion of the availability of the excess level
policies is included in the US$67 million insurance receivable
recorded at Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company also had about US$19 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis and defense costs available with the Company’s
primary insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements
at Sept. 30, 2007.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
operates about 60 plants worldwide, and has nearly 1,800 retail
tire and auto centers. The Company sells tires for the
replacement market as well as to the world's automakers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge's Cleanup Liabilities Total $2.6M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners L.P., has recorded US$2.6 million in
current liabilities to address asbestos and environmental
remediation as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$4.1 million,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

Th Company's current asbestos and environmental remediation
liability amounted to US$2.8 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

The Company has recorded US$3 million in long-term liabilities
to address asbestos and environmental remediation as of Sept.
30, 2007, compared with US$3.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos and environmental remediation
liability amounted to US$3.7 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

The liability is primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, and outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. (f/k/a Lakehead Pipe
Line Partners) owns the 1,900-mile U.S. Portion of the world's
longest liquid petroleum pipeline. Other midstream assets
include 4,900 miles of crude oil gathering and transportation
lines and 23.4 million barrels of crude oil storage and
terminaling capacity, and 11,000 miles of natural gas gathering
and transportation pipelines. Enbridge Energy Management L.L.C.
owns an 18 percent stake in the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Begins Cleanup of Factory Site in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will begin the cleanup
of an abandoned and inactive 76,000 sq. foot multi-section
building commonly known as the "Factory H Site," according to an
EPA press release dated Nov. 6, 2007.

The building was once part of the former International Silver
Company's 7.2 acre Meriden, Conn. facility, located at 77 Cooper
Street. The site is currently owned by the City of Meriden.

Testing conducted at the Factory H building has revealed the
presence of friable asbestos and asbestos containing-materials.
Because the presence of asbestos at the site could pose a threat
to public health, it requires removal and proper disposal.

During the cleanup work, EPA will take appropriate health and
safety precautions, including performing air monitoring and
utilizing dust suppression measures to ensure that cleanup
activities do not negatively impact air quality in the
surrounding area.

On site, workers will be wearing personal protective gear,
including impermeable white suits and respirators. This level of
protection is required by federal laws.

The planned removal action at the site will be completed in four
stages. First, the site will be secured to prevent unauthorized
access. Second, the site will be evaluated to determine the
structural integrity of the floors and all unsafe areas will be
stabilized.

Next, EPA contractors will conduct removal of the friable
asbestos and asbestos containing-materials. Finally, the
hazardous materials will be disposed at EPA-approved disposal
facilities.

The work is beginning this week and is expected to take about
six months to complete.

More information:
EPA information on asbestos at http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. Eastman Chem.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Co., together with numerous other defendants,
continues to face lawsuits in various state courts in which
plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos at
the Company's manufacturing sites, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 31, 2007.

More recently, certain plaintiffs have claimed exposure to an
asbestos-containing plastic, which the Company manufactured in
limited amounts between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s.

To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related lawsuits and, over the past several years,
has substantially reduced its number of pending asbestos-related
claims.

The Company has also confirmed insurance coverage that applies
to a portion of certain of the Company’s defense costs and
payments of settlements or judgments in connection with
asbestos-related lawsuits.

Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Co. has developed into a
major producer of chemicals, fibers, and plastics. The Company's
products go into items like food and medical packaging, films,
and toothbrushes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suit in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. continues to face an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30,
2007.

The suit alleges that the defendants manufactured, distributed
or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the
Company's case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized
aboard the Company's offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The Company expects to receive complete
defense and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Co.
under the terms of the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement
with them.

The Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure, if
any, to these lawsuits at this time.

Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. is a contract
offshore oil and gas driller capable of descending to depths of
7,500 feet. The Company has 30 semi-submersibles, 13 jack-up
rigs (mobile drilling platforms), and one drillship. The Company
contracts with major oil and gas companies, including Anadarko
Petroleum and PETROBRAS. Subsidiary Diamond Offshore Team
Solutions provides project management and other drilling-related
services. Loews Corp. owns about 51 percent of the company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Drop to 8,200 at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. recorded 8,200 claimants with asbestos
cases against it in the the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with 8,600 claimants in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded 8,500 asbestos claimants for the six months
ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

The Company recorded 700 claims closed in the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 15,800 claims in the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company recorded 300 claims opened in the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 2,200 claims in the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 300
claimants associated with claims closed and 200 claimants
associated with claims opened. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10,
2007)

The significant decline in the number of claimants during 2006
primarily reflects disposition of a large number of unwarranted
filings in Mississippi made immediately prior to the institution
of tort reform legislation in that state effective Jan. 1, 2003.

The aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was
US$70.7 million as of Sept. 30, 2007 and US$72.4 million as of
Dec. 31, 2006.

The related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as
well as claims for past payments was US$37.7 million at Sept.
30, 2007 and US$40.9 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The asbestos liability included in the above amounts was US$54
million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$54.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability as
well as claims for past payments was US$35.8 million at Sept.
30, 2007 and US$38.1 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

West Paterson, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemicals and materials company. Its products serve a   
diverse range of end markets including aerospace, adhesives,
automotive and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates,
inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Has $181M Accrual at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings Inc.'s accrual for pending and future asbestos-
related claims amounted to US$181 million as of Sept. 30, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007.

The Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related
claims, as of June 30, 2007, amounted to US$188 million. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

The Company's subsidiary Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc. is one
of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos.

These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S.
company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company
sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, Crown Cork received
about 3,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 3,000 claims
for a total of US$9 million, and had about 79,000 claims
outstanding at the end of the period.

The accrual balance of US$181 million includes US$113 million
for unasserted claims and US$5 million for committed settlements
that will be paid over time.

Historically (1977-2006), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964. However, because of Crown Cork’s settlement experience to
date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification
of the subsidiary’s insulation products as the cause of injury
by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual and range of potential
liability any amounts for settlements by persons alleging first
exposure to asbestos after 1964.

Underlying the accrual and the range of potential liability are
assumptions that claims for exposure to asbestos that occurred
after the sale of the U.S. company’s insulation business in 1964
would not be entitled to settlement payouts and that the
Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas and
Pennsylvania asbestos legislation described above are expected
to have a highly favorable impact on Crown Cork’s ability to
settle or defend against asbestos-related claims in those
states, and other states where Pennsylvania law may apply.

The Company’s accrual of US$181 million includes estimates for
probable costs for claims through the year 2016. The upper end
of the Company’s estimated range of possible asbestos-related
costs of US$230 million includes claims beyond that date.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate
merger to companies involved with asbestos.

The legislation limits the successor’s liability for asbestos to
the acquired company’s asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown
Cork has already paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the acquired company’s adjusted asset value.

On Feb. 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the
June 11, 2002 order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
in which the Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on a motion
by Crown Cork for summary judgment regarding 376 pending
asbestos-related cases against Crown Cork in Philadelphia and
remanded the cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
(Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp., et. al., No. 117 EM 2002).

The Court ruled that the new statute, as applied, violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution because it retroactively extinguished
the plaintiffs’ pre-existing and accrued causes of action.

In November 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation amending the 2001 successor liability statute
providing that the 2001 statute applies only to asbestos-related
claims with respect to which the two-year statute of limitations
for asbestos-related claims had not yet commenced at the time
the statute was enacted on Dec. 17, 2001.

On July 28, 2005, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted
Crown Cork’s global motion for summary judgment to dismiss all
pending asbestos-related cases filed in the court after Dec. 17,
2003 (In re: Asbestos-Litigation October term 1986, No. 001).

Additional cases have been dismissed subsequent to July 28, 2005
by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

These decisions remain subject to potential appeal by the
plaintiffs and, in some cases, appeals to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania have been filed by the plaintiffs in connection
with these decisions.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings Inc. is a worldwide producer
of consumer packaging. Metal food and beverage cans and related
packaging are the Company's primary source of income. The
Company's product portfolio also includes aerosol cans and a
wide variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Pending v. Crown Cork in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits are still pending against Crown
Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., in
various Texas courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies
that had been involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and
pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total
gross value of the predecessor’s assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor’s
assets.

On Oct. 31, 2003, Crown Cork received a favorable ruling on its
motion for summary judgment in two asbestos-related cases
pending against it in the district court of Harris County, Tex.
(in Re Asbestos Litigation No. 90-23333, District Court, Harris
County, Tex.), which were appealed.

On May 4, 2006, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals upheld the
favorable ruling in one of the two cases (Barbara Robinson v.
Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, 14th Court
of Appeals, Tex.). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed
by the plaintiff.

In addition, a favorable ruling for summary judgment in an
asbestos case pending against Crown Cork in the district court
of Travis County, Tex. (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as
Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown
Cork & Seal Company Inc. District Court Travis County, 98th
Judicial District Cause No. GN-203572) has been appealed.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings Inc. is a worldwide producer
of consumer packaging. Metal food and beverage cans and related
packaging are the Company's primary source of income. The
Company's product portfolio also includes aerosol cans and a
wide variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Carries $1.337Bil Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, carried about
US$1.337 billion of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves,
net of reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 30, 2007.

The Company carried about US$1.366 billion of claim and claim
adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance recoverables,
for reported and unreported asbestos-related claims as of June
30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company carried about US$1.452 billion
of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-
related claims.

The Company's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have
exposure to asbestos-related claims. Estimation of asbestos-
related claim and claim adjustment expense reserves involves
limitations like inconsistency of court decisions, specific
policy provisions, allocation of liability among insurers and
insureds, and additional factors like missing policies and proof
of coverage.

The Company recorded US$6 million, for the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007, and US$2 million, for the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2006, of unfavorable asbestos-related net claim and
claim adjustment expense reserve development.

The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance
recoveries, of US$121 million for the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2007 and US$76 million for the nine months ended September
30, 2006.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the Company paid US$31 million to the Owens
Corning Fibreboard Trust. Such payment was made under the
Company’s 1993 settlement with Fibreboard.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. is the umbrella organization
for a wide range of insurance providers, including Continental
Casualty and Continental Assurance. The Company primarily
provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as
workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and
other products for businesses and institutions. Holding company
Loews owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P. Green Ind. Plan Affirmed Last Sept. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. said that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued
an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007 recommending confirmation of the
plan of reorganization of A.P. Green Industries, A.P. Green
Services, and Bigelow – Liptak Corp.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved
asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow – Liptak Corp.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization.

The settlement resolves the Company's liabilities for all
pending and future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, Bigelow – Liptak Corp. and related
subsidiaries, including alleged “non-products” exposures.

The settlement received initial bankruptcy court approval on
Aug. 18, 2003. The debtor’s plan of reorganization includes an
injunction to protect the Company from any future claims.

Two parties have appealed the bankruptcy court's Sept. 24, 2007
ruling.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. is the umbrella organization
for a wide range of insurance providers, including Continental
Casualty and Continental Assurance. The Company primarily
provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as
workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and
other products for businesses and institutions. Holding company
Loews owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Engaged in Keasbey Coverage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. continues to be involved in insurance
coverage litigation in New York State Court, filed in 2003, with
a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos
bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey Co.

The suit is styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of
Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County).

Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, was a seller and
installer of asbestos-containing insulation products in New York
and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury
claims against Keasbey.

However, under New York court rules, asbestos claims are not
cognizable unless they meet certain minimum medical impairment
standards. Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a
small portion of those claims have met medical impairment
criteria under New York court rules and as to the remaining
claims, Keasbey’s involvement at a number of work sites is a
highly contested issue.

The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1972-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies’ aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.

Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits, an allegation the Company contests in the lawsuit.

In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions. On May 8, 2007, the Court in the first phase of the
trial held that all of the Company's primary policy products
aggregates were exhausted and that past products liability
claims could not be recharacterized as operations claims.

The Court also found that while operations claims would not be
subject to products aggregates, those claims could be made only
against the policies in effect when the claimants were exposed
to asbestos from Keasbey operations. These holdings limit the
Company's exposure to those instances where Keasbey used
asbestos in operations between 1970 and 1987.

Keasbey largely ceased using asbestos in its operations in the
early 1970s.

The Company has noticed an appeal to the Appellate Division to
challenge certain aspects of the Court’s ruling. Keasbey’s other
two insurers, Wausau and One Beacon, have filed cross appeals,
and the parties are in the process of filing briefs.

Numerous legal issues remain to be resolved on appeal with
respect to coverage that are critical to the final result.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. is the umbrella organization
for a wide range of insurance providers, including Continental
Casualty and Continental Assurance. The Company primarily
provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as
workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and
other products for businesses and institutions. Holding company
Loews owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Deals with Burn & Roe Coverage Disputes
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. continues to engage in insurance coverage
disputes related to asbestos bodily injury claims against a
bankrupt insured company, Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc.

These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation (stayed
in view of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re:
Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects.

At the time of its bankruptcy filing on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns &
Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a result of
construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved.

The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970. On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns
& Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of Reorganization (Plan).

In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with
Burns & Roe, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
appointed by the Bankruptcy Court and the Future Claims
Representative (the “Addendum”), which provides that claims
allegedly covered by CNA policies will be adjudicated in the
tort system, with any coverage disputes related to those claims
to be decided in coverage litigation.

On Sept. 14, 2007, Burns & Roe moved the bankruptcy court for
approval of the Addendum under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The hearing
on that motion was set for Oct. 18, 2007. If approved, Burns &
Roe has agreed to include the Addendum in the proposed plan,
which will be the subject of a later confirmation hearing.

With respect to both confirmation of the Plan and coverage
issues, numerous factual and legal issues remain to be resolved
that are critical to the final result.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. is the umbrella organization
for a wide range of insurance providers, including Continental
Casualty and Continental Assurance. The Company primarily
provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as
workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and
other products for businesses and institutions. Holding company
Loews owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Still Involved in Texas Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Companies of CNA Financial Corp. continue to face lawsuits filed
in Texas, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against
two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos [E.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp.,
(Nueces County, Tex.)].

During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed as time-
barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. In other suits,
the carriers argued that they did not owe any duty to the
plaintiffs or the general public to advise the world generally
or the plaintiffs particularly of the effects of asbestos and
that Texas statutes precluded liability for those claims, and
two Texas courts dismissed these suits.

Certain of the Texas courts’ rulings were appealed, but
plaintiffs later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas
court denied similar motions seeking dismissal at the pleading
stage, allowing limited discovery to proceed.

After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the
insurers transferred those cases to a state multi-district
litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos
cases, and the cases remain in that court.

In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate court in
Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district
litigation court to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional and
substantive grounds.

The Texas Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief
supporting the insurers’ position. After a long period of no
activity, the court recently asked the plaintiffs to file a
response to the petition for mandamus.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. is the umbrella organization
for a wide range of insurance providers, including Continental
Casualty and Continental Assurance. The Company primarily
provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as
workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and
other products for businesses and institutions. Holding company
Loews owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Involved in Grace Action in Mont.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. continues to face a direct action filed in
Montana by eight individual plaintiffs (employees of W.R. Grace
& Co.) and their spouses.

Filed on March 22, 2002, the case was also filed against
Maryland Casualty and the State of Montana.

The suit is styled Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al.
1st Judicial District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect W.R. Grace employees from the dangers of
asbestos at a W.R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby,
Mont.

The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of W.R.
Grace’s pending bankruptcy.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. is the umbrella organization
for a wide range of insurance providers, including Continental
Casualty and Continental Assurance. The Company primarily
provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as
workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and
other products for businesses and institutions. Holding company
Loews owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4 Parties Ordered to Follow Removal Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recent inspections of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
at the John W. McCormack building in downtown Boston identified
noncompliance issues with Clean Air Act regulations regarding
the proper handling and disposal of asbestos materials in
demolition and renovation operations, according to an EPA press
release dated Nov. 7, 2007.

EPA issued an Immediate Compliance Order and Reporting
Requirement to several key parties working on the renovation,
including U.S. General Services Administration (building owner)
Suffolk Construction Company Inc., Fleet Industrial Services
LLC, and ATC Environmental Inc.

The substantial amount of asbestos located throughout the
building is not unusual due to its age, but it requires that
care be taken during renovation to comply with federal
regulations under the Clean Air Act.

Before demolition and construction activities can begin,
involved parties must thoroughly inspect for the presence of
asbestos and remove materials that could pose a threat to human
health.

For the prevention of airborne fibers and dust during
renovations, materials containing asbestos must be wet down
until they are collected and properly disposed of. This order
cites the parties for failing to comply with regulations
pertaining to removal, wetting and containment.

The federal demolition and renovation standards are crucial to
ensuring the health and safety of the work crews on these sites
as well as members of the general public. EPA’s inspections were
conducted in close coordination with state partners at the
Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety.

Each recipient of the order is obligated under the reporting
requirement, to provide EPA with information about recent or
planned actions to address the conditions of noncompliance at
the site, to ensure the safety of the work crews and the general
public.

The building has been vacated for these renovations and is
scheduled to reopen in 2009 for various federal occupants,
including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s New England
Office, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Bankruptcy
Courts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants’ Plan Filed in Grace’s Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. disclosed that a proposed Plan of
Reorganization was filed the evening of Nov. 5, 2007 jointly by
the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and
David T. Austern, according to a Company press release dated
Nov. 6, 2007.

Mr. Austern is the Court appointed representative of Future
Personal Injury Claimants in the Company’s Chapter 11
proceeding.

The Company, the Official Committee of General Unsecured
Creditors and the Official Committee of Equity Holders filed, as
co-proponents, a proposed Plan of Reorganization in January
2005.

Both plans can be obtained through the Delaware Bankruptcy Court
at www.deb.uscourts.gov.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the
manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide-range of industrial applications; specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction; and sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging. With annual sales of more than US$2.8
billion, the Company has about 6,500 employees and operations in
over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Lawyers Unable to Find Witness in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the CSX Transportation Corp. say they have been
unable to find a crucial witness in a case, Ray A. Harron, a
doctor whom they accuse of fabricating scores of medical
evaluations, The New York Times reports.

Dr. Harron, a semi-retired radiologist from Bridgeport, W.Va.,
has evaluated X-rays and written medical reports for more than
88,000 people who are seeking compensation for asbestos-related
lung injuries.

Dr. Harron, who charged US$125 for each asbestos report,
probably earned millions of dollars for his work, which in the
past he has defended as proper.

Lawyers for CSX, a Jacksonville, Fla.-based railroad company,
said in court papers dated Oct. 24, 2007 that they had been
unable to find Dr. Harron since July 2007, when CSX added him as
a defendant to an existing lawsuit and sought to serve legal
papers on him.

The amended complaint of CSX, filed in U.S. District Court in
Wheeling, W.Va., accused Dr. Harron of working with a Pittsburgh
law firm, Peirce, Raimond & Coulter, to fraudulently manufacture
claims that CSX caused asbestosis for scores of current and
former employees.

Robert Peirce, Jr., a lawyer with Peirce, Raymond & Coulter who
is among the defendants in the CSX lawsuit, denied the
accusations in the complaints.

In the recent filing, lawyers for CSX said the company feared
that Dr. Harron “may have fled the jurisdiction of the United
States, without intention to return, in an attempt to avoid any
possible civil and/or criminal matters.”

The motion also said that CSX believed that the 75-year old Dr.
Harron had dual citizenship in Ireland, Jamaica and “other
Caribbean nations.”

Lawrence S. Goldman, a lawyer in New York who represents Dr.
Harron, said that CSX’s assertions were false.

Dr. Harron’s new role as a defendant brings him further into the
spotlight of asbestos and silica litigation amid growing
scrutiny by Congressional investigators and federal prosecutors
in New York.

A second lawyer for Dr. Harron, Joseph Ronald Barroso, of Corpus
Christi, Tex., said that Dr. Harron was in the United States and
that he had been periodically undergoing treatment for cancer at
M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Contractor to Pay GBP36T for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive has prosecuted Galamast, a Kent,
England-based contractor, for breaching asbestos regulations on
a project at a Littlewoods store, Builder & Engineer online
reports.

Magistrates ordered Galamast to pay GBP36,140 after the
incident.

The Company was carrying out a stripout of an old Littlewood's
store in the Harpur Centre, Bedford, in March 2006 when verbal
instructions were misunderstood, leading to its employees, sub
contractors and health and safety inspectors for the client
exposed to asbestos.

The work was being carried out on behalf of Primark who took
over several Littlewood's stores during 2005-2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Local Wins $5.6M in Mesothelioma Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda O’ Donnell’s mesothelioma case settled for a total of
US$5.6 million after law firm of Clapper, Patti, Schweizer &
Mason successfully represented the 66-year-old Oregon resident,
according to a PR Web press release dated Nov. 6, 2007.

In 2006, Mrs. O'Donnell was diagnosed with peritoneal
mesothelioma. She owned two small ceramics teaching and
manufacturing businesses, first in Southern California and later
in Portland, Ore., from 1973 to 1993.

Mrs. O’ Donnell hired Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason, a
Sausalito, Calif., law firm, to investigate her potential
exposures to asbestos. They determined that many of the dry
talcs Mrs. O'Donnell used as an ingredient of her ceramics were
contaminated with asbestos.

The contaminated talcs were mined by various companies in Death
Valley, Calif., where asbestos was a common contaminant in the
commercially mined talc deposits.

Mrs. O'Donnell and her husband, Reginald O'Donnell, filed suit
against several manufacturers and suppliers of the talcs in San
Francisco Superior Court (Case No. CGC-07-274117). The case
settled with the last remaining defendant on Oct. 10, 2007, just
before the start of trial. The case settled for a total of
US$5.6 million dollars.

Expert witnesses retained by Clapper, Patti, Schweizer and Mason
testified in deposition that the Death Valley talcs used by Mrs.
O'Donnell invariably contained a small percentage of tremolite
asbestos, a form of asbestos known to be particularly
carcinogenic.

Documents obtained from the talc mining companies showed that
they were aware of their asbestos problem in the early 1970s,
and that they regularly tested their talc to monitor its
asbestos content. Countless Americans were exposed to tremolite
asbestos while pursuing ceramics as a hobby during the 1970s and
1980s.

The talcs were mixed with dry clay and water to form "ceramic
slip," a liquid clay mixture that was poured into molds to dry.
The talc used in the slip usually came in 50 pound sacks, which
were dumped into a hopper for mixing, creating clouds of dust
and intense asbestos exposures.

After the dried ceramic figures were removed from molds, they
were sanded to prepare them for glazing and firing, resulting in
additional exposure to asbestos dust.

Mrs. O'Donnell engaged in these activities on a daily basis
throughout her ceramics career.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SUNY Workers Penalized for Removal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to New York State records, asbestos-removal
contractors at State University of New York at New Paltz, N.Y.,
have been cited 17 times in the past three and a half years, the
Times Herald-Record reports.

"These are minor violations," Eric Gullickson, spokesman for
SUNY New Paltz, said of 2004 work that garnered the college
eight violations.

"If the Department of Labor thought there was a health and
safety violation, they would have taken immediate action and
shut the job down," Mr. Gullickson said. "These are technical
violations."

On March 22, 2004, hot water-heater pipes froze and burst in the
breezeway between the SUNY New Paltz Lecture Center and the
Humanities Building next door, according to Mr. Gullickson.

The college did not have the license required to do asbestos-
removal work. The college employees had failed to don proper
coveralls or gloves or cover their heads or feet. They did not
put the broken tiles in six-millimeter thick plastic bags as
required, an inspector said.

The college was not fined in this or the other cases, according
to the records. But it has since obtained its own proper
asbestos-removal license and trained staff to do the work as
required, Mr. Gullickson said.

Back in October 2007, students at the college said they were
worried about exposure from asbestos that is part of roof work
underway at the Crispell Hall dormitory. Similar jobs are
planned in the coming weeks at Bevier and LeFevre dorms.

Some students still worry about exposure to hazardous PCBs from
a 1991 accident that contaminated more than a half-dozen
buildings on campus. The cleanup cost more than US$50 million.

Peter Russo is a senior safety and health inspector for the
state's Asbestos Control Bureau. He said a fellow inspector
visited the Crispell work site in October 2007 and found no
violations.

The state has gone so far as to rescind asbestos-removal
contractors' licenses. Inspectors have a tough job, Mr. Russo
said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Miner to Counter Law Lords’ Legal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fowkes, a 63-year old ex-miner, has vowed to fight the
House of Lords’ legal ruling which removes his right to claim
compensation for an asbestos-related illness,
thisisderbyshire.co.uk reports.

Mr. Fowkes has scarring on his lungs from a condition known as
pleural plaques, which is linked to asbestos exposure. He was
employed on the railways during his working life, had hoped to
win compensation from his former employers, the National Coal
Board and British Railways.

In October 2007, a ruling in the House of Lords took away a
legal right, which had existed for 20 years, allowing people to
claim payouts for pleural plaques. The Law Lords came to the
decision after concluding that pleural plaques was not a
disease.

Mr. Fowkes is now asking the former Foreign Secretary and MP for
Derby South, Margaret Beckett, to back his campaign to overturn
the decision.

Mr. Fowkes, who claims that he was exposed to asbestos while
working in the mines and on the railways, said that Parliament
could overturn the Lords' decision if public feeling was strong
enough.

Mr. Fowkes believes that his campaign will only be a success if
other people with asbestos-related illnesses follow his example.

In the past, people with pleural plaques received payments of up
to GBP15,000. In almost every case, pleural plaques is caused by
workers being exposed to asbestos. It is associated with an
increased risk of developing fatal conditions like mesothelioma
or asbestosis.

Solicitor Chris Stansfield, of Nelsons, is representing Mr.
Fowkes, along with nine other people from Derby who suffer from
the condition. He has written to all his clients, urging them to
lobby their MPs and believes that there is still a chance to win
the right to claim compensation.

In 2006, MPs overturned a Law Lords' ruling that compensation
should be withdrawn from people suffering from the lung disease
mesothelioma, which is also linked to asbestos.

There are an estimated 100,000 people in the U.K. living with
pleural plaques.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Bares Reports on Wear Valley Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Echo says that the worker who uncovered an asbestos
scandal at a North-East leisure center blew the whistle on his
bosses because he did not believe they were taking the matter
seriously.

Wear Valley District Council was fined GBP18,000 in August 2007
after it emerged that inspection reports for a sports center in
Bishop Auckland in 2001 were ignored.

Fears have been raised about the health of workers based at
Woodhouse Close Leisure Complex, who were exposed to the
dangerous asbestos for more than five years.

The document reveals:

-- Council staff felt their bosses failed to treat their
complaints seriously when the asbestos report was found in
January 2006;

-- Asbestos warning stickers were placed over the affected
equipment only the day before Health and Safety Executive
inspectors arrived;

-- The 2001 report was shown to senior managers but "shelved" at
council headquarters.

The case was brought to the HSE's attention by maintenance
worker Jim Dawson, who discovered the 2001 asbestos report in
January last year.

Mr. Dawson complained to management that he and his colleagues
had not been told about the danger, but later reported the case
to the HSE because he was not satisfied with the council's
response.

Mr. Dawson found the 2001 report, which was compiled by Consett-
based company MIS, while staff at Woodhouse Close were preparing
for an inspection by Quest, a Government-approved sports and
leisure assessment service.

Mr. Dawson reported the council to the HSE on Jan. 16, 2007 and
the HSE visited the site two days later.

The report reveals that the council contracted MIS to carry out
a new assessment on Jan. 17, 2007, the day before inspectors
arrived, and asbestos warning stickers were put up in the plant
room at that stage.

Robert Batie, a maintenance worker at Woodhouse Close until
2003, said, “If the HSE hadn't been told about this, the council
would have just carried on without doing anything about it.

“If the report hadn't been found, I would have known nothing
about this, and if the HSE had not been contacted, nobody would
have been any the wiser.”

When the case went to court in August 2007, the council's
solicitor told magistrates that all senior managers in charge in
2001 had since left their posts.

The authority's new chief executive, Michael Laing, and the
leader of the council, Councilor Neil Stonehouse, later issued
an apology to the staff.

In October 2007, councilors at Wear Valley agreed to hold an
inquiry in public to establish why the 2001 report was ignored.

Crucial information, including the names of the officers
involved, are missing from the report obtained by The Northern
Echo.

Legislation states that the exemption can be utilized if the
information could later be used to launch criminal proceedings.

The inquiry is expected to begin in the new year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Worker Sues 63 Companies for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Idalski of Florida, who for almost four decades claims to
have been exposed to asbestos through various jobs, filed a
lawsuit against 63 corporations after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, according to a LegalView press release dated Nov.
4, 2007.

Mr. Idalski claims the defendants are responsible for his recent
mesothelioma diagnosis caused through exposure to asbestos
during a nearly 40-year period.

Mr. Idalski worked as a foreman, welder, maintenance worker and
porter from 1944 to 1983, during which time he believes his
exposure and inhalation of asbestos fibers occurred.

The suit, which will be tried in Madison County Circuit Court in
Florida under case number 07-L-000920, claims that several of
the companies the man was employed by, including Chrysler, Ford
Motor Co. and General Electric, knew and could have prevented
the exposure, which has over the years developed into a deadly
form of mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Locals Sentenced to 18 Months in Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district judge in Utica, N.Y., on Nov. 2, 2007, sentenced
two Massachusetts men to 18 months in prison for illegally
removing asbestos from a furniture store in Broadalbin, N.Y.,
The Business Review reports.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, John Russo and John
Brewer had previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate
the Clean Air Act's asbestos regulations.

In 2005, the two men were hired by Mario Rolla, also of
Massachusetts, to remove asbestos from the Mohawk Furniture Co.,
a property that Mr. Rolla owned.

A Justice Department announcement about the sentencing said Mr.
Russo and Mr. Brewer "scattered substantial amounts of asbestos"
throughout the facility, later discovered by agents with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The men received US$40,000 cash from Mr. Rolla for the asbestos
work at the Broadalbin business and at a manufacturing plant in
Massachusetts.

Mr. Rolla has since paid US$2.5 million to properly clean the
asbestos contamination at the two sites, according to Justice
Department officials.

The 77-year old Mr. Rolla was not sent to prison because of his
age and for his help in prosecuting Mr. Russo, officials said.

Still, U.S. District Judge David Hurd fined Mr. Rolla US$40,000
and sentenced him to five years of probation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim Fails to Get Support from Co-workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Fletcher, a lawyer investigating the death of a man who
suffered from an asbestos-related condition, claims she has hit
"a wall of silence" among the worker's former colleagues,
icBerkshire.co.uk reports.

Boyes Turner, a firm of solicitors whose group specializes in
asbestos litigation, is acting on behalf of three former
employees of what was Crane Packing, a former subsidiary of the
company now known as John Crane Inc.

One of them died in 2006 after suffering mesothelioma and
another has been diagnosed as suffering from asbestosis.

However, a spokesman for John Crane said, “We have absolutely no
reason to believe that John Crane employees have been exposed to
harmful substances while at work.”

Mrs. Fletcher, a partner with Boyes Turner, said they had come
up against "an impenetrable wall of silence" when trying to
obtain witness statements.

Mrs. Fletcher said that if witnesses could be found claims could
be brought against John Crane.

John Kemp, head of research and development at John Crane
Packing, worked for the Company between 1953 and 1987. He died
on Aug. 13, 2007 after suffering malignant mesothelioma.

An inquest into Mr. Kemp's death has been postponed because the
coroner has not been able to find the witnesses needed, said
Mrs. Fletcher. The law firm represents his widow, Rosemary. The
other two clients did not wish to be named.

In 1917, Crane Packing was founded in America with facilities
throughout the U.S., Canada and England. Before World War Two,
Crane Packing sold its English operations to Tube Investments,
(TI Group PLC).

In 1987, Crane Packing was purchased by TI Group PLC, so U.S.
and U.K. companies were reunited to become John Crane.

In 2000, Smiths Industries and Tube Investments merged. John
Crane is now a subsidiary of Smiths Group PLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Firms Fined GBP5,000 for Exposing Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three firms in Aberdeen, Scotland, were fined a total of
GBP5,000 for causing workers to be exposed to potentially life-
threatening asbestos.

North Offshore Ltd., Jenkins and Marr, and Universal Sodexho
Scotland Ltd. admitted their part in the mistake which happened
during renovations of a sports club in the city.

Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard Universal Sodexho ran Woodbank
Leisure and Conference Centre on behalf of Shell UK. Jenkins and
Marr were planning supervisors, and North Offshore were the
contractors who carried out the work.

The court heard a pre-tender report was done by another firm in
2004 which had highlighted the potential asbestos problem.

Jenkins and Marr e-mailed an initial report to North Offshore
which did not contain this information.

When Jenkins and Marr was told of the asbestos, it then e-mailed
the report with the correct information to North Offshore. The
court heard North Offshore did not open the second e-mail and
then carried on with the work.

North Offshore, of 12-16 Albyn Place, Aberdeen, did some work to
a floor which disturbed a ceiling underneath. The ceiling
contained asbestos fibers and dust.

Defense agent Neil Smith said when North Offshore received the
second e-mail from Jenkins and Marr with the subject
"amendment," it had made a simple error and assumed it was a
copy of the first e-mail.

Solicitor John Hardie said Jenkins and Marr, of 3 Bon Accord
Crescent, Aberdeen, now sent reports by registered post as well
as by e-mail to ensure this incident would not happen again.

Defense agent David Burnside said as far as Universal Sodexho
was aware, all the companies dealing with the project had up-to-
date information about the asbestos.

North Offshore and Jenkins and Marr were fined GBP2,000 each and
Universal Sodexho, of 27 Morningside Lane, Aberdeen, was fined
GBP1,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Lawyer Justifies Compensation Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation expert Tim Humpage of Ipswich, England, on Oct. 30,
2007, denied the growing number of people launching legal
battles for asbestos-related disease cases are part of the
compensation culture, the Evening Star reports.

Mr. Humpage said those suing former bosses in asbestos cases
should not be compared to the millions taking advantage of the
blame and claim culture.

It comes as experts predict a massive rise in the number of
asbestos cases being brought over the next 15 years, peaking in
2010.

Mr. Humpage, a partner at Gotelee and Goldsmith, said he has
dealt with around 20 cases in the last 10 years. The firm
provides free consultations for people who think they may have
an asbestos-related disease.

Most are electricians and carpenters who came into contact with
asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s. Many worked at Ipswich and
Sizewell power stations, or elsewhere in the construction
industry.

Laws were already in place then putting a duty of care with
employers.

In October 2007, the House of Lords ruled that people with
pleural plaques, scarring on the lung caused by asbestos
exposure, can no longer claim compensation after objections from
the insurance industry.

It meant Mr. Humpage, who specializes in industrial disease
cases, had to drop two clients' cases. His advice to people
diagnosed with asbestosis or mesothelioma is to get legal advice
as soon as possible, while they are still well enough to give
statements and help trace witnesses, so the case is not left in
the hands of the family if they die part way through.

The Evening Star said in July 2007 that 148 people died of
asbestos-related diseases from 2001 to 2005 in Suffolk.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 15.5M Tons of Hazard Still Found in Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to estimates made by waste utilization companies,
about 15.5 million tons of asbestos-containing products are
still all over Poland.

The Environmental Protection Bank said that only 140 loans for
the sum of PLN19 million were taken out for removing asbestos in
2004-2007, for which amount as little as 2.75 of asbestos waste
were utilized.

Experts point out that Poles still know little about the
harmfulness of asbestos.

The head of the ecological projects department of the
Environmental Protection Bank Anna Zyla stressed that loans are
provided not only for the neutralization of products containing
asbestos, but also for the purchase and installment of roofing
and elevation materials

According to the national plan of asbestos removal, all roofs,
waterworks, etc., containing asbestos are to be removed and
utilized till 2032.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Contractor to be Fined for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Brooks, Esperance Shire executive manager of building
services, said that action will be taken against a contractor
who removed asbestos without following proper safety procedures,
The Esperance Express reports.

The contractors, who did not want to be named, said they had not
watered down the asbestos because if they did, they would not
have been able to remove it from the roof of Dempster Sports.

Mr. Brooks’ announcement came after Esperance Shire manager of
building services David Giles had previously told a complainant
that nothing would be done because it would be a waste of the
council’s time.

The Worksafe WA code of conduct for asbestos removals recommends
that asbestos be wetted down when it is being shifted to prevent
dust from rising.

Employment Esperance manager Dianne Witt said she first noticed
asbestos being removed from the roof of Dempster Sports and then
being placed on the gravel car park behind Dempster Street when
she arrived at work.

This prompted Mrs. Witt to call Worksafe WA, where an operator
informed her there was nothing Worksafe could do directly and
that she was better off calling the Esperance Shire.

Mrs. Witt said that after Mr. Giles had inspected the site he
told her that the council wouldn’t be taking any action against
the contractors.

However when the Esperance Express contacted the Shire, Mr.
Brooks said the shire would be investigating the matter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipworker Anxious over Asbestos Warnings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phonse Griffiths, a Marine Atlantic worker, says he is not
confident that the Company has done all it can to protect
workers from asbestos, CBC News reports.

Mr. Griffiths, a maintenance worker aboard the container ship
Atlantic Freighter, said he was alarmed when the Company posted
signs around the vessel a month ago, warning workers of
asbestos.

Mr. Griffiths, a 28-year veteran of Marine Atlantic, said, “I
requested a transfer to another vessel and that request was
denied by Marine Atlantic.” He worked at the Atlantic Freighter
for six years.

Mr. Griffiths said he wants to know how long Marine Atlantic,
which operates ferries running between Nova Scotia and southern
Newfoundland, has known about the asbestos.

Mr. Griffiths, who lives in Ship Harbour, Placentia Bay, said he
is worried about exposure levels to materials that he did not
know involved asbestos.

A Marine Atlantic official said air quality tests have been done
and that the Company can assure the crew that they are working
in a safe environment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Asbestos Levels Found in Mining Area
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a report of the International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health dated Nov. 7, 2007, half
of a group of homes in Thetford Mines, Quebec, had levels of
asbestos high enough that, if the same concentrations were
detected in U.S. schools, students wouldn't be allowed inside
the buildings.

The testing was conducted by a Montreal-based activist group,
the Asbestos Victims Association of Quebec. The group took air
samples from 26 homes in 2003 and 2004, and submitted them for
evaluation at an accredited U.S. laboratory.

The Quebec community is the center of Canada's asbestos mining
industry, and the study concluded that the cancer-causing
mineral is drifting into homes from the large piles of mine
waste that dot the area.

Most of the houses with high readings were either downwind of a
mine-tailing pile or close to one. The testing also found
elevated asbestos readings on a windowsill and in soil around
homes.

Thetford Mines has a population of about 26,000, so the testing
represented a relatively small percentage of homes in the
community, located in south-central Quebec.

William Charney, an industrial hygienist in Vermont said, “The
mining towns are completely contaminated because they have
mountains of pilings that are totally and constantly off-gassing
asbestos dust.” He said he believes residents face "a huge
public health crisis" from asbestos exposures.

The Quebec Ministry of Environment referred questions to the
Institut national de sante publique du Quebec. A 2004 report the
public health agency commissioned concluded that ambient
asbestos levels in mining areas were "generally very low," based
on industry testing.

However, Mr. Charney said measurements should be done by an
independent third party not related to the mining industry or
the Quebec government, which promotes asbestos use.

Quebec has some of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the
world, according to the Institut national. Among men, it is 30
percent higher than the Canadian average and, among women, 90
percent higher.

The World Health Organization says there is no known safe
exposure level to the material. Several dozen countries have
completely banned its use; others tightly regulate it.

The dangers of asbestos have led to strict limits on workplace
exposures, but legal standards for homes don't exist, so the
study used the U.S. figure for school asbestos remediation. The
most contaminated house had a level nine times the school safety
limit, and 13 of the 26 houses were over the limit.

Mr. Charney said that, based on the study results, Thetford
Mines "without any question" should also be considered for a
cleanup.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Lyman Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division,
issued split rulings in an asbestos-related action filed by
Robert F. Lyman and his wife Samantha Lyman against five
defendants, of which Union Carbide Corp., Montello Inc., and
Honeywell International Inc. are the remaining defendants.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong entered judgment of
Case No. C 07-4240 SBA (Docket Nos. 36, 41, 43, 47) on Oct. 10,
2007.

On Dec. 29, 2006, the Lymans filed suit in the Superior Court of
San Francisco for personal injury and loss of consortium against
five defendants. The three remaining and current defendants are
Union Carbide, Montello, and Honeywell International.

The Lymans alleged that Mr. Lyman is dying from lung cancer
caused by exposure to asbestos products manufactured by the
defendants.

On Aug. 17, 2007, Union Carbide and Montello removed the action
from state court. Honeywell did not join in or consent to the
removal at that time. Accordingly, the Lymans filed a motion to
remand because not all defendants consented to removal. On Aug.
30, 2007, Honeywell consented to removal. The Lymans then
withdrew their motion to remand.

On Aug. 20, 2007, Union Carbide filed notice of a tag-along
action with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and
with the MDL court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The present dispute between the parties is whether this action
should be stayed pending a decision by the MDP Judicial Panel to
transfer this action or, conversely, whether this action should
be expedited for trial.

Before the Court are Union Carbide and Montello’s motion to stay
these proceedings pending transfer to MDL 875 [Docket Nos. 36,
41], Union Carbide's motion for leave to file an amended notice
of removal [Docket No. 43], and the Lymans’ motions to withdraw
their motion to remand and to expedite the trial setting [Docket
No. 47].

The District Court found this matter appropriate for resolution
without a hearing.

Accordingly, Union Carbide and Montello’s motion to stay these
proceedings pending transfer to MDL 875 [Docket Nos. 36, 41] is
granted and the action is stayed. The District Court further
ordered that Union Carbide's motion for leave to file an amended
notice of removal [Docket No. 43] is granted.

Finally, the Lymans’ motions to withdraw their motion to remand
are granted [Docket No. 47] and their motion to expedite the
trial setting [Docket No. 47] is denied.

David R. Donadio, John B. Goldstein, Lloyd F. Leroy, Mary
Elizabeth Pougiales, Brayton Purcell LLP, Novato, Calif.,
represented Robert F. Lyman and Samantha Lyman.

Catherine Morris Krow, Nathan Craig Dullum, Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Molly Jeannette Mrowka, Dillingham & Murphy,
Christopher M. Jhang, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco,
represented Union Carbide Corp., Montello Inc., and Honeywell
International Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Seeks 7% Discount on Future Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
For ASARCO LLC to obtain confirmation of a plan of
reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court must determine or estimate
the amount of the unsecured claims, including future asbestos,
environmental, rejection damages, toxic tort, and other
unsecured liabilities that will mature in the future.

Tony M. Davis, Esq., at Baker Botts, L.L.P., in Houston, says
that, in many instances, these liabilities will not mature for
years or perhaps decades after the Debtors' bankruptcy filings
and the effective date of any plan of reorganization.

By this motion, the Debtors ask the Court to establish a seven
percent discount rate to be applied to all Unsecured Future
Claims to calculate the net present value as of the Petition
Date.

The Unsecured Future Claims subject to the Discount Rate Motion
are limited to claims that are unsecured, non-priority,
similarly situated, and that accrue or mature in the future.

Mr. Davis notes that Section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code
requires discounting Unsecured Future Claims to present value.
Section 502(b) provides that the court "shall determine the
amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as
the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such
claim in such amount . . ."

Section 101(5), Mr. Davis further notes, operates to accelerate
all unmatured claims against a debtor. Thus, creditors whose
claims will not mature for many years are able to file a proof
of claim that seeks payment of all amounts owed to them as of
the Petition Date, even if those amounts are unmatured, he
contends.

Mr. Davis adds that courts have recognized the need to discount
Unsecured Future Claims to present value in a variety of
bankruptcy related contexts like the discount rate used in
future asbestos-related personal injury claims in In re
Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 348 B.R. 111, 133(D. Del. 2006).

To further the goal of equality of treatment, Mr. Davis asserts,
a uniform discount rate must be used to calculate NPV of all
future unsecured claims. The appropriate discount rate, he
elaborates, is not determined on a case-by-case or claim-by-
claim basis; instead, the same discount rate should be applied
to the entire class of general unsecured claims.

The Unsecured Future Claims subject to the Debtors' request does
not include personal injury claims or personal injury asbestos
"demands" that may be channeled to an asbestos trust under
Section 524(g). Mr. Davis contends that future asbestos
liabilities are of a completely different character. They are
"similarly situated" and they do not constitute "claims" at all.
Instead, Mr. Davis says they are described as "demands" by
Section 524(g), which provides special guidelines for how these
demands must be treated in a plan of reorganization.

The seven percent discount rate, according to Mr. Davis, is
between the extremes of a "risk free investor" rate and a
"speculative investor" rate.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 58; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Estimation Hearings to Begin Jan. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard S. Schmidt will conduct the estimation hearing of
ASARCO LLC's derivative asbestos liabilities beginning Jan. 2,
2008, through Jan. 4, 2008 in Corpus Christi, Tex., and
continuing on Jan. 8, 2008 through Jan. 11, 2008, if necessary.

A final pre-hearing conference will be held on Dec. 21, 2007.

Judge Schmidt also sets these deadlines for the discovery and
trial process of the asbestos estimation proceedings:

Nov. 5, 2007 -- Deadline for plaintiffs to provide deposition
dates for identified fact witnesses

-- Deadline for designation of documents from which hearing
exhibits will be selected

-- Service of non-asbestos damages expert reports

-- Disclosure of identity and areas of testimony of non-
asbestos-damages rebuttal experts

Nov. 19, 2007 -- Exchange of proposed fact stipulations and
designation of deposition

Nov. 26, 2007 -- Conference regarding fact stipulations

Dec. 3, 2007 -- Service of rebuttal non-asbestos-damages expert
testimony

-- Plaintiffs' pre-hearing order proposal

Dec. 4, 2007 to Dec. 14, 2007 -- Deposition of non-asbestos-
damages expert

Dec. 14, 2007 -- Designation of all parties of hearing exhibits
and deposition counter-designations

Dec. 18, 2007 -- Filing of proposed pre-hearing order signed by
counsel for each of the Parties, witness lists, copies of all
exhibits to be offered and all schedules and summaries to be
used at the hearing, pre-hearing briefs, and proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 58; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Responds to Anderson Post-Trial Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. notes that the Canadian Claimants represented
by Anderson Memorial Hospital do not dispute that the
application of Canada's ultimate and normal limitations periods
to their asbestos property damage claims is a question of law.  

The Canadian Claimants, however, attempt to manufacture an issue
of fact by urging the Court to apply a legal standard
established in the case of Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No.
36 v. Bird Construction Co. Ltd., which has never been adopted
by any Canadian court, the Debtors contend.

Unable to avoid an installation trigger under Canadian law, the
Debtors point out, the Canadian Claimants desperately seek to
invoke a concept of fraudulent concealment to resurrect their
time-barred claims.

The Canadian Claimants, however, failed to recognize that the
doctrine of fraudulent concealment is unavailable to them as a
matter of Canadian law, Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski
Stang Zeihl & Jones, LLP, in New York, argues.  

The Debtors' Canadian expert, Graeme Mew, opined that to
establish fraudulent concealment in Canada, the Canadian
Claimants must prove a special or fiduciary relationship between
the parties. The Canadian Claimants have not, and cannot, come
forth with any evidence of a special relationship with the
Debtors sufficient to invoke Canadian principles of fraudulent
concealment, Mr. Cairns asserts. Thus, Mr. Cairns maintains,
fraudulent concealment plays no role in the analysis of the
Canadian PD Claims and the Debtors are entitled to have the
time-barred Claims expunged.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products and services to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and
specialty materials for a wide range of industrial applications;
specialty chemicals, additives and materials for commercial and
residential construction; and can sealants and coatings for food
packaging. With annual sales of more than US$2.8 billion, the
Company has about 6,500 employees and operations in over 40
countries.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 143; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Deal to Resolve Claims in Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bankruptcy Court approves the settlement agreement between
W.R. Grace & Co. and the state of Oklahoma resolving the state's
time-barred asbestos property damage claims.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products and services to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and
specialty materials for a wide range of industrial applications;
specialty chemicals, additives and materials for commercial and
residential construction; and can sealants and coatings for food
packaging. With annual sales of more than US$2.8 billion, the
Company has about 6,500 employees and operations in over 40
countries.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 143; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BRAVO BRANDS: David Chase Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of David R. Chase, P.A. filed a class action on
October 16, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Bravo! Brands, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: BRVO) between November 20,
2005 and May 15, 2007.

The complaint alleges that Bravo CEO Roy G. Warren and Chief
Accounting Officer Tommy E. Kee violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. During the Class Period, Bravo concealed that its
sole distributor, Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc. ("CCE"), had
drastically cut its demand for Bravo's milk-drinks. (Bravo sold
its products under the brand names Slammers and Bravo.) Bravo
also failed to timely disclose that it had defaulted on interest
payments to senior note holders.

Bravo falsely told investors on April 3, 2007, that it had
expanded its drink products by introducing the first milk-based
sports drink. Only one month later, Bravo announced that it
would substantially reduce its workforce, that it would not roll
out brands into new channels of distribution, and that its sales
with CCE had declined substantially in April and May 2007. On
May 15, 2007, the last day of the Class Period, Bravo announced
that it had recognized a $17.6 million non-cash impairment
charge during the quarter ended March 31, 2007. On September 21,
2007, Bravo filed for bankruptcy.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 17,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          David R. Chase, Esq.
          Law Office of David R. Chase, P.A.
          1700 East Las Olas Boulevard, Penthouse 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 888-337-8625 (Toll Free) or 954-920-7779


COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Kaplan Fox Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Countrywide Capital V ("CCV") (NYSE: CFC-PB),
and Countrywide Financial Corporation and certain of
Countrywide's officers and directors that alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the preferred stock CCV
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its November
1, 2006 initial public offering, through August 9, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that on November 1, 2006, CCV completed
its IPO of 52,000,000 preferred shares at $25.00 per share for
estimated proceeds of $1.3 billion to CCV pursuant to the
Registration Statement. The Complaint further alleges that at
the time of the Offering:

     (i) Countrywide told investors that its lending practices
         were materially different from other mortgage banks
         because, through its experience in the mortgage lending
         business, the Company knew how to originate,
         underwrite, manage, and service loans and adequately
         evaluate credit risks;

    (ii) that Countrywide represented that its loan origination
         standards and procedures were "designed to produce high
         quality loans" and that it was different from and could
         do better than other mortgage companies; and

   (iii) that only a small percentage of the loans it originated
         -- approximately 10% -- were subprime loans and that
         Countrywide principally produced "prime" loans in
         accord with industry standards.

However, as alleged in the Complaint, these representations were
materially false as it has now been revealed that that the
percentage of subprime loans was, in reality, materially higher
than represented by Countrywide.

The Complaint further alleges that on July 24, 2007, Countrywide
disclosed that it would record an impairment charge of $417
million and stated that the impairment charges were attributable
to accelerated increases in "delinquency levels and increases in
the estimates of future defaults and loss severities on the
underlying loans." In addition, it is alleged that the announced
provision for losses on loans held for investment was $293
million "driven primarily by a loan loss provision of $181
million on prime home equity" loans. On July 24, 2007, CCV
shares declined from a closing price of $24.46 per share on July
23, 2007, to close at $23.52 per share, a decline of $0.94 per
share or approximately 4%.

It is further alleged that on August 9, 2007, Countrywide filed
its quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2007 on Form
10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that
stated, in part, that "[t]he secondary mortgage markets are also
currently experiencing unprecedented disruptions resulting from
reduced investor demand for mortgage loans and mortgage-backed
securities and increased investor yield requirements for those
loans and securities... our capacity to retain mortgage loans
and mortgage backed securities is not unlimited. As a result, a
prolonged period of secondary market illiquidity may reduce our
loan production volumes and could have an adverse impact on our
future earnings and financial condition." On August 9, 2007, CCV
shares declined from a closing price on August 8, 2007 of $21.22
per share to close at $20.70 per share, a decline of $0.52 per
share of approximately 2%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Donald R. Hall
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York  10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, California 94111
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Washington Mutual, Inc. common
stock during the period between October 18, 2006 to November 1,
2007.

The complaint charges WaMu and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. WaMu is a financial services company and the largest
savings and loan bank in the United States.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. WaMu's loan portfolio
contained more than $57 billion in adjustable-rate mortgages or
Option-ARM loans. The complaint further alleges that the Company
failed to disclose:

     (i) that it had far greater exposure to anticipated losses
         and defaults in its home loan portfolio, particularly
         with Option-ARMs, than it had previously disclosed;

    (ii) that defendants' Class Period statements about the
         Company undertaking significant preparations and
         implementing defensive measures to weather the
         increasingly difficult credit and housing markets were
         patently false;

   (iii) that defendants had engaged in a conspiracy and scheme
         to inflate the appraisal value of homes with the intent
         to artificially increase the estimated loan-to-value
         ratio of its Option-ARM portfolio; and

    (iv) that due to the Company's improper appraisal practices,
         the mortgages it had issued were much riskier than
         represented.

According to the complaint, on October 17, 2007, after the
market closed, WaMu stunned investors by disclosing that it had
suffered a 72% drop in third quarter of 2007 net income and
would have to set aside up to $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter
of 2007 to cover its loan losses. On this news, WaMu's stock
dropped from $33.07 per share to as low as $30 per share,
closing at $30.52 per share on October 18, 2007 on volume of
more than 36 million shares. Then, on November 1, 2007, New
York's Attorney General issued a press release announcing that a
lawsuit was filed against First American Corporation and
eAppraiseIT, alleging that they conspired with Washington Mutual
to inflate Real Estate appraisals. Following this disclosure,
WaMu's stock dropped to as low as $23.59 per share before
closing at $23.81 per share, on volume of 31 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 4,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

The Company offers consumer banking, mortgage lending,
commercial banking, and consumer finance throughout the United
States.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter
          Ximena Skovron
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hagens Berman Files Wash. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington in Seattle, on behalf of purchasers of Washington
Mutual, Inc. common stock during the period between April 18,
2006 and Nov. 1, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Seattle-based WaMu and certain officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by artificially inflating the Company's mortgage
underwriting and origination volume, and under-reporting its
true costs and failing to take adequate reserves for mortgages.

The complaint also charges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants engaged in a conspiracy and illegal course of conduct
designed to, and which did, inflate property appraisals and
propped up the Company's results by manipulating Washington
Mutual's accounting for revenues and income.

On Oct. 17, 2007, Washington Mutual stunned investors by
disclosing that it had suffered a 72% drop in net income during
the third quarter of 2007 and would have to set aside up to $1.3
billion in the fourth quarter of 2007 to cover its loan losses.
These write downs were caused, at least in part, by the
impairment of loan assets that were based on the inflated
appraisals fraudulently orchestrated by the defendants, the
complaints allege.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Attorney General of the State of New York
filed a lawsuit against First American Corporation and
eAppraiseIT, alleging their complicity in a scheme to provide
inflated appraisals to Washington Mutual.

Between Oct. 17 and the present, Washington Mutual stock price
has plummeted from $33.07 to $20.04 per share, or nearly 40%.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of WaMu common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          E-mail: wamu@hbsslaw.com
          Website: 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  * * *