CAR_Public/071116.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 228

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Nev. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement
BASIC RESEARCH: Sued in Calif. Over “Akavar” Diet Supplement
BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs with Bolts that can Come Loose
BEAR STEARNS: Objects to Navigator Capital's Remand Request

BIG 5: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Store Managers' Litigation
BRUSH WELLMAN: Suit Over Beryllium Hazard Allowed to Proceed
CAREMARK INC: Granted Summary Judgment in “Morrell” ERISA Suit
COAST FINANCIAL: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Dec. 3
COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls DVD/CD/MP3 Players that can Overheat

COMCAST INC: Accused of Blocking Customers' Internet Services
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Yet to be Determined in Uninsured's Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nixing of Ill. “Rix” Uninsured Suit Appealed
COMMUNITY HEALTH: “Chronister” Uninsured's Suit in Discovery
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Cal. Suit Claims “Bait and Switch” Scheme

COVAD COMMS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Blackberry Merger
COVAD COMMS: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Former Counsel
DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Under Appeal
DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits

DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008
GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Theft of Job Applicants' Personal Info
MULTIPLEX GROUP: ASIC Told to Hand over Investigation Documents
NEBRASKA: Black Workers Pay More for Health Insurance, Suit Says
SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Witch Creek Wildfire

SOLUTIA INC: “Reiff” ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Case Dismissal
TIGER BRANDS: Could Face South African Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing
WAL-MART STORES: “Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Additional Award


                       Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Removal Expense for Cleco Unit at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,993 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $637M Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cos. Faces 102,663 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has N.J. Coverage Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $30.8M Charge at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.34B for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces More Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Litigation Ongoing v. SCC Affiliates
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp.'s Liability Remains at $18.7M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Has 177 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Suit v. 2 Reynolds Units Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Awaits Ruling in Cooper Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Pepco in Md.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Tech. Faces 26 Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Cleared in Miss. Cases, 5 Ill. Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Suits in Miss. Ongoing v. GlobalSantaFe
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Record 1,303 Suits at Oct. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Has Pending Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Faces 25,000 Claims in Six States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Has Unresolved Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Garcia Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Expenses Total $11.5Mil at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Still Has 106,500 Open Cases at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Settlement Commitments Total $64M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $393M Reserve for Future Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $516.7M at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Losses & ALAE Total $320.7M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelly-Moore Coverage Action Ongoing v. Crum

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. ConEd, Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $19Mil Costs for N.Y. Incident
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City IMS Has Claims from Old Ventures
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Cites $2.6M Removal Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int’l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Rise to 260
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety in Dispute w/ Century Indemnity
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Continues to Face Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $7M for Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Houston Wire

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Looming After ASARCO Mediation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Mt. McKinley, Everest Proceeds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling v. Ford, Merck
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jambon Action v. Northrop Grumman Remanded
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Able UK Holdings to Pay GBP22T for Breaches

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liverpool Pays Over GBP250,000 in 18 Months
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Aftermath of London Fire
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Farmer Sues 98 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Reconsider Dana Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Covers Asbestos at Ill. Dairy Farm Site

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Suits Filed v. Cayuga County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Files Class Action Lawsuit v. County


                New Securities Fraud Cases

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
FUWEI FILMS: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
WSB FINANCIAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
WYETH INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


                          *********


AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. faces several
purported class actions alleging improper sales practices,
according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Companies in the life insurance and annuity business have faced
litigation, including class actions, alleging improper product
design, improper sales practices and similar claims.

The company is currently a defendant in several purported class
actions alleging improper sales practices.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking returns of
premiums and other compensatory and punitive damages.


Des Moines, Iowa-based American Equity Investment Life Holding
Co. -- http://www.american-equity.com-- develops, markets,  
issues and administers annuities and life insurance.


BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Nev. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave final
approval to a settlement of a consolidated federal securities
class action filed in 2004 against Bally Technologies, Inc.,
f/k/a Alliance Gaming Corp., and certain current and former
officers.

In June and July 2004, putative class actions were filed against
the Company and its officers, Robert Miodunski, Robert Saxton,
Mark Lerner and Steven Des Champs, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

The nearly identical complaints alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, stemming from
revised earnings guidance, declines in the stock price and sales
of stock by insiders.  The complaints sought damages in
unspecified amounts.

The Federal District Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed
motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead counsel
and a lead plaintiff, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint, all as is customary in such cases.  

The Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.  

Thereafter, activity in the case was stopped and the parties
participated in a mediation process during which the parties
agreed on the terms of a settlement.

The parties negotiated and executed settlement documents
settling the consolidated class action.

Under the settlement, an aggregate of $16.0 million in cash,
plus certain interest, was paid to settle the securities class
action as well as a derivative litigation.  

The Company accrued $1.25 million related to the settlement
during the year ended June 30, 2006, which was paid in late
February 2007.

In addition to certain governance actions the Company agreed to
undertake in connection with the settlement, the Company's
directors and officers insurer contributed approximately $14.75
million to the settlement.

The court approved the settlement on Aug. 9, 2007, ending the
case, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “In Re: Alliance Gaming Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-821,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Kent J. Dawson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Beckley Singleton, Chtd.
         530 Las Vegas Boulevard South
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Phone: 702.385.3373
         Fax: 702.385.9447
         E-mail: info@beckleylaw.com

              - and -

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619.231.1058
         Fax: 619.231.7423


BASIC RESEARCH: Sued in Calif. Over “Akavar” Diet Supplement
------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Research LLC and Dynakor Pharmacal are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, Central Division alleging it defrauded
consumers by pushing "Akavar" diet supplement as a "foolproof"
way to lose weight without dieting or exercise, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Defendants Dennis Gay, Mitchell K. Friedlander and Daniel B.
Mowrey Ph.D are violating a permanent FTC injunction by running
the scam, and fraudulently represent Mowrey as a medical doctor,
which he is not, the complaint states.

The company's affiliate, Western Holdings LLC, of Cheyenne,
Wyo., is also a defendant.  

Named plaintiffs Pamela Miller, Randy Howard and Donna Patterson
bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased, not for resale or
assignment, an Akavar 20/50 Fast Acting Caloric Restricting
Compound.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of fraudulent,
         deceptive and misleading conduct toward the public
         through their marketing, advertising, promotion and
         sale of Akavar;

     (b) whether defendants misrepresented the efficacy of
         Akavar to consumers' financial detriment;

     (c) whether the acts and omissions of defendants violated
         the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt organizations Act,
         18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq.;

     (d) whether the acts and omissions of defendants violated
         Section 76-10-1603(3) and (4) of UPUAA, Utah Code Ann.
         Section 76-10(3) and (4);

     (e) whether defendants should be enjoined from the  
         continued unlawful marketing, advertising, promotion,
         distribution and sale of Akavar;

     (f) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by their acts
         and omissions, at the expense of plaintiffs and the
         class;

     (g) whether defendants made material misrepresentations of
         fact, or omitted to state material facts to plaintiffs
         and the class regarding the marketing, promotion and
         advertising of Akavar, which material
         misrepresentations or omissions operated as fraud and
         deceit upon plaintiffs and the class;

     (h) whether plaintiffs and the class have sustained damages
         and loss as a result of defendants' actions; and

     (i) whether the actions of defendants were willful and
         malicious, or manifested knowing and reckless
         indifference and disregard toward the rights of
         plaintiffs and the class;

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

      -- an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the  
         Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying plaintiffs
         as the representatives of the class, and designating
         their counsel as counsel for the class;

      -- on the first cause of action, against defendants
         jointly and severally in an amount equal to treble the
         amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of
         the class as proven at trial plus interest and
         attorneys' fees and expenses;

      -- on the second cause of action, against defendants
         jointly and severally in an amount equal to treble the
         amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of
         the class as proven at trial plus interest and
         attorneys' fees and expenses;

      -- on the third cause of action, against defendants
         jointly and severally in an amount to two times the
         amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of
         the class as proven at trial plus interest and
         attorneys' fees and expenses;

      -- on the fourth cause of action, against defendants
         jointly and severally in an amount equal to two times
         the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and
         members of the class as proven at trial plus interest
         and attorneys' fees and expenses;

      -- on the fifth cause of action, against defendants
         jointly and severally, in an amount equal to the actual
         damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class
         as proven at trial plus interest, as well as punitive
         damages in an amount sufficient to punish defendants
         and deter similar future conduct;

      -- on the sixth cause of action, against defendants
         jointly and severally, in an amount equal to the actual
         damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class       
         as proven at trial plus interest, together with all
         allowable penalties and damage multipliers available
         under the UCSPA and other state consumer protection
         laws, and attorneys' fees and expenses;

      -- on the seventh cause of action, against defendants
         jointly and severally, for disgorgement of defendants'
         unjust enrichment and/or imposition of a constructive
         trust upon defendants' ill-gotten monies, freezing
         defendants' assets, and requiring defendants to pay
         restitution to plaintiffs and the class and to restore
         all funds acquired by means of any act or practice
         declared by the court to be unlawful, deceptive,
         fraudulent or unfair, and/or violation of laws,
         statutes or regulations;

      -- on all causes of action, such other civil penalties and
         punitive damages to the fullest extent permitted by
         applicable law;

      -- an order requiring defendants to immediately cease
         their wrongful conduct as set forth, as well as
         enjoining defendants from continuing to falsely market
         and advertise, conceal material information and conduct
         business via the unlawful and unfair business acts and
         practices complained of; an order requiring defendants
         to engage in a corrective notice campaign; and an order
         requiring defendants to refund to plaintiffs and all
         members of the class the funds paid to defendants for
         their fraudulent, defective product;

      -- for the reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of
         prosecuting this action;

      -- for statutory pre-judgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Pamela Miller et al. v. Basic Research LLC et al.
Case No. 2:07-CV-00871-TS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, Central Division.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jan Graham
          150 South 600 East, Suite 5B
          Ambassador Plaza
          Salt Lake City, UT 84102
          Phone: (801) 596-9199
          Fax: (801) 596-9299
          E-mail: jan@grahamlawoffices.com


BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs with Bolts that can Come Loose
---------------------------------------------------------
Bassettbaby, of Bassett, Va., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,900 
Wendy Bellissimo Collection Convertible Cribs.

The company said the bolts connecting the top corners of the
crib can come loose, creating a gap and posing a serious
entrapment and strangulation hazard.

Bassettbaby has 85 reports of bolts loosening, including one
report of a 13 month-old child's hand becoming entrapped
between the railings.

This recall involves Wendy Bellissimo Collection convertible
cribs, model numbers 5945-0521 and 5545-0521, sold in honey
and cherry finishes. The full size cribs have a sleigh design
and one of the following purchase order numbers at the bottom
rail of the headboard: 272903, 272904, 273904, 276728, 276729,
291081, 323975, 324472, 320318, 323976, 332883 365620, 368466 in
honey, and 338535, 338537 and 332884 in cherry. All other Wendy
Bellissimo Collection cribs are not involved in this recall.

The cribs were made by Goodbaby Child Products Company Ltd., of
China.  They were sold at Babies R Us stores nationwide from
July 2005 through October 2007 for about $500.

Consumers are advised to should stop using these cribs
immediately and contact Bassettbaby for a free repair kit.

For additional information, contact Bassettbaby at
(888) 897-4689 between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET daily, or visit
http://www.bassettbaby.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Objects to Navigator Capital's Remand Request
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bear Stearns Asset Management, Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.,
The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,
Ralph Cioffi, Raymond McGarrigal, and Matthew Tannin, and Bear
Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P., as
nominal defendant, insist that a class action complaint filed by
Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., is precisely the sort of
litigation that belongs in federal court.

Representing the Bear Stearns Entities, Peter K. Vigeland, Esq.,
at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, in New York,
points out that Navigator's Complaint:

  (a) seeks to define the rights of citizens from more than
      20 states and alleges fraud in connection with the trading
      of hundreds of millions of dollars in securities;

  (b) involves purchases and sales of securities on national
      markets as well as transactions with national and
      international financial institution; and

  (c) involves not only traditional equities, but an array of
      novel and complex financial products, most notably,
      tranches of mortgage-backed securities, including many
      hedging products and indices that are still evolving as
      ways to manage the risks of structured finance securities.

Mr. Vigeland asserts that decisions made in the Navigator
Litigation about liability and disclosure requirements may have
substantial effects on the market for all of the products and on
decisions that fund managers will make about whether to employ
them at all.  In addition, the sums at issue in the Complaint
are of far more than local concern.

The U.S. Congress, when it enacted the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standard Acts of 1998 and the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005, recognized that cases like that asserted by Navigator
belong in federal court.

                     Case Background

Navigator Capital Partners, L.P. on behalf of itself and a class
consisting of all investors who held interests in Bear Stearns
High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P. at any time during
the period August 1, 2006, through July 18, 2007, filed a class
and derivative action against Bear Stearns entities.

Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P., was
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware on August 26,
2003.  It commenced operations on October 1, 2003, and offered
to sell Interests by way of offering document entitled
"Confidential Private Placement Memorandum," dated August 31,
2004.  Additional Interests were offered by way of a
Confidential Private Placement Memorandum issued in August 2006.

The primary objective of the Partnership was "to seek high
current income and capital appreciation relative to LIBOR
primarily through leveraged investments in investment-grade
structured finance securities with an emphasis on triple-A and
double-A rated structured finance securities," Vincent R.
Cappucci, Esq., at Entistle & Cappucci, LLP, in New York,
relates.

Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc., the general partner,
invested the Partnership's funds into collateralized debt
obligations backed by sub-prime mortgages.  During the United
States' recent housing boom, which occurred from late 2001 until
mid-2006, CDOs backed by sub-prime loans became very common
investments and generated high rates of return.  However,
beginning at least as early as August 1, 2006, as home prices
leveled off and decline in parts of the country, more borrowers
have fallen behind on their mortgage payments.  This event has
led to a decrease in the value of CDOs backed by those mortgage
loans.

Despite the deteriorating market conditions, Ralph Cioffi,
Raymond McGarrigal and Matthew Tanin, managing directors of
BSAM, continued to invest the Partnership's money in risky sub-
prime mortgage-backed securities, while at the same time failing
to implement hedging and other strategies to minimize risk
effectively, Mr. Cappucci alleges.

The Partnership invested substantially all of its assets through
the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master
Fund, Ltd., through a "master-feeder" arrangement.  The Master
Fund was formed under Cayman Islands law and commenced
operations on September 12, 2003.  As of December 31, 2006, the
Partnership's beneficial ownership of the Master Fund's assets
was 28.58%.

In a report to investors for the month ended February 28, 2007,
BSAM stated that the Partnership had returned an estimated
0.08%.  For March 2007, the Fund returned an estimated 3.71%.  
As of April 30, 2007, the Fund returned an estimated 6.24%.

However, on July 18, 2007, Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., parent
of BSAM, informed investors that there was very little value
left for the investors in the High-Grade Fund as of June 30,
2007, and that the High-Grade Fund will seek an orderly wind-
down of the Funds over time.

In this regard, Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., on behalf of
itself and a class consisting of all investors who held
Interests in the Partnership at any time during the period
August 1, 2006, through July 18, 2007, filed a class and
derivative action against:

     * the Partnership,
     * the Management,
     * Bear Stearns Companies,
     * Bear, Stearns Securities Corporation and
     * Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

in the U.S. Supreme Court in the state of New York, county of
New York.

Mr. Cappucci says Navigator invested more than $700,000 in the
Partnership from August 25, 2004, through April 13, 2005.  From
January 1, 2007, through April 1, 2007, Navigator contributed
$14,250,000 to the Partnership and withdrew $9,200,289.

Navigator asserts a class and derivative claim for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Management under Delaware law.  Mr.
Cappucci notes that under Delaware law, the Management owed to
Navigator and the Class the highest obligation to due care, good
faith, candor, loyalty and fair dealing.  But notwithstanding
the Management's obligation to adequately assess, monitor and
hedge the credit risks of investment held by the Partnership,
and their admitted ability to do so, they Management failed to
do so, in breach of their fiduciary duties under Delaware law.

In addition, the Management systematically and continuously
failed to disclose to investors that they:

  (a) were not sufficiently monitoring and adequately assessing
      the credit risk inherent in the Partnership's investments;

  (b) were not determining the frequency and severity of
      defaults of the assets of each of the structured finance
      securities invested in by the Partnership;

  (c) were not developing and implementing credit enhancement
      mechanisms, which could cause cash flow to be diverted
      away from the Partnership's riskier investments under
      certain market conditions; and

  (d) were not otherwise adequately engaging in hedging
      techniques to maximize risk.

Had the Management disclosed these facts, Mr. Cappucci says the
investors would have taken steps to avoid the massive losses
they suffered, like withdraw their funds from the Partnership,
remove BSAM as General Partner, institute their own hedges and
bring a lawsuit before the value of their investments plummeted.

The Class has suffered damages caused by the Management's
breaches of fiduciary duties and thus the Management are liable
to pay the Class damages in an amount to be proven at trial, Mr.
Cappucci asserts.   

Navigator also asserts a class and derivative claim for aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Bear Stearns
Companies, Bear Stearns Securities and BS&Co. under Delaware
law.   Mr. Cappucci asserts that these companies knowingly
participated in the Management's breaches of fiduciary
duties.   

Mr. Cappucci relates that the Partnership's daily mark-to-market
was done in-house by Bear Stearns Companies' repo desk and the
portfolio management team, which admittedly kept in touch with
any price movements that could foretell problems in any one of
the Fund's investments.   Bear Stearns Companies' risk
management department monitored the Fund's positions and things
like as minimum rating requirements, overall and net leverage
and any portfolio concentrations, and BSC's global credit
department would meet with the portfolio management team to
discuss their positions, risk management and hedging techniques.

Mr. Cappucci further asserts that Bear Stearns Securities
knowingly participated in the Management's breach of fiduciary
duties in its role as custodian and prime broker to the
Partnership and the High-Grade Fund.

Moreover, the Class asserts a derivative claim for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Management under Delaware law

Navigator asks the New York Supreme Court to:

  (a) declare that its action is a proper derivative and class
      action;

  (b) declare that it be the representative of the Class

  (c) declare that Management and each of them have violated
      their fiduciary duties to the Partnership and to the
      Investors;

  (d) declare that Bear Stearns Companies, Bear Stearns
      Securities and BS&Co. aided and abetted the Management's
      breaches of fiduciary duties;

  (e) direct Defendants, joint and severally, to accoun to the
      Investors for all damages suffered or to be suffered by
      them or by the Partnership as a result of the Defendants'
      actions;

  (f) award it, the Class and the Partnership damages in an
      amount to be proven at trial, including judgment interest;
      and

  (g) award it the costs and disbursements of the action, as
      well as reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

(Bear Stearns Funds Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 10; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000.


BIG 5: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Store Managers' Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. settled a purported class action
filed in California Superior Court in the County of Orange over
alleged violations of California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code.

The complaint, “Jack Lima v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06CC00243,” was served on the company on Dec. 1, 2006.

It was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the
company's California store managers.  The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the company improperly classified store
managers as exempt employees not entitled to overtime pay for
work in excess of forty hours per week and failed to provide
store managers with paid meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, back pay for
overtime allegedly not paid, pre-judgment interest, statutory
penalties including an additional thirty days' wages for each
employee whose employment terminated in the four years preceding
the filing of the complaint, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs and injunctive relief to require the company to treat
store managers as non-exempt.

Subsequent to the third quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007, the
Company and the plaintiff reached a confidential agreement
providing for the full and complete settlement and release of
all of the plaintiff’s individual claims and a dismissal of all
claims purportedly brought on behalf of the class members in
exchange for the Company’s payment of non-material amounts to
the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343
stores in 10 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec.
31, 2006.  


BRUSH WELLMAN: Suit Over Beryllium Hazard Allowed to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
A court has allowed a third-party complaint to proceed against
Brush Wellman, Inc., in relation to the hazards of beryllium-
containing products.

“Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. d/b/a Small Tube
Products Corp., Inc., et al., Case No. 000525” is a purported
class action that Brush Wellman, Inc. faces in relation to
beryllium.  It was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on Sept. 7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4,
2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are:

      -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., d/b/a Small Tube
         Products Corp., Inc.;

      -- Admiral Metals Inc.;

      -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and

      -- Cabot Corp.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.  Plaintiff
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost
of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint
against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006.  
Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.

The company moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec.
22, 2006.  On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended
third-party complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26,
2007.

However, the Court denied the motion on Sept. 28, 2007,
according to Brush Engineered Materials Inc.'s Nov. 2, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- is  
the parent of Brush Wellman, Inc.  Brush Engineered through its
wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered
materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data
storage, aerospace and defense, automotive electronics,
industrial components, and appliance markets.


CAREMARK INC: Granted Summary Judgment in “Morrell” ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled in favor of Caremark in
a class action accusing the company of breach of fiduciary
duties under 29 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

In July 2004, Caremark Rx and Caremark were served with a
putative private class action filed by Robert Moeckel,
purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits
Plan.   

The suit alleged defendants each acting as a fiduciary breached
certain purported fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  It sought unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.  

The plaintiff was a participant in and beneficiary of the John
Morrell Employee Benefits Plan (JM Plan), a prescription drug
plan funded by contributions by the plan sponsors as well as co-
insurance, deductibles, copayments, and other contributions made
by the plaintiff and other plan participants and beneficiaries.

John Morrell Plan’s prescription drug benefits were administered
by defendant Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM).  
According to the plaintiff, Caremark’s provision of PBM services
pursuant to its contracts with Morrell & Co. rendered Caremark a
fiduciary under ERISA.

More specifically, Moeckel claims that Caremark exercised
discretion or control over the pricing of prescription drugs
through its control over the terms of its contracts with its
network of retail pharmacies (which control the reimbursement
rates for retail drugs) and with drug manufacturers (which
control the actual cost of drugs dispensed through Caremark’s
mail order pharmacies).

The plaintiff alleges that Caremark manipulated the terms of its
undisclosed contracts by creating hidden “pricing spreads” that
yielded significant revenue to Caremark that it failed to pass
through to the plans. By failing to disclose to the plans the
discounted price it paid for drugs purchased by the plans’
participants and beneficiaries at retail pharmacies, Caremark
allegedly was able to conceal from the plans the fact that
Caremark secretly exercised its discretion to create a “spread”
between the discounted price that Caremark paid retail
pharmacies and the discounted price that Caremark contracted to
be reimbursed by the plans, a “spread” it retained.

Similarly, by buying drugs from drug manufacturers to stock mail
order pharmacies, through which Caremark sold prescriptions to
participants and beneficiaries, Caremark allegedly arranged
significant discounts on those drugs but created a “spread”
(which it retained) between the prices that Caremark agreed to
pay the manufacturers and the prices that Caremark contracted to
be reimbursed by the plans.  

Mr. Moeckel also contends that Caremark contracted with drug
manufacturers in ways that enriched Caremark to the detriment of
the plans. Plaintiff alleges that Caremark was delegated
discretionary control and authority to decide which
manufacturers’ drugs would be included in its formularies,
including which would be included in its standardized formulary,
which drugs on the formularies would be “preferred,” and which
relative cost indicators would be placed next to each included
drug.

The plaintiff also alleges that Caremark was delegated
discretionary authority and control to create “formulary
compliance programs,” or drug-switching programs, which enabled
Caremark to switch plan participants and beneficiaries from
higher-cost therapeutically equivalent drugs to lower-cost
therapeutically equivalent drugs. The plaintiff alleges that
Caremark used the market power it gained from this level of
control to enrich itself at the expense of the plans, by
negotiating with manufacturers to favor more expensive
therapeutically equivalent drugs, which increased the plans’
costs, in exchange for monies which Caremark retains and did not
pass on to the plans.

Having negotiated with a plan or a plan’s sponsor to share some
of the rebates or other compensation, the plaintiff alleges that
Caremark also engaged in self-dealing by characterizing (and
sometimes intentionally mischaracterizing) payments, credits, or
other compensation in ways to maximize its own profit at the
expense of the plans.  

Mr. Moeckel also alleges that Caremark generated and retained
interest on the “float” prior to disbursement of any rebates to
the plans.  In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Caremark
violated its fiduciary duties by secretly and subversively
conspiring with drug manufacturers to inflate the average
wholesale price of prescription drugs, thereby evading the “best
pricing” statute, the Omnibus Budge and Reconciliation Act.

In granting the company summary judgment, Judge Trauger ruled
that Caremark’s actions fell “outside ERISA’s regulatory
framework.” Further, she pointed out that those actions “relate
to the basic administration of Caremark’s own business, which is
non-fiduciary in nature.”

The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00633," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Rebecca Cothran Blair and John A. Day of Branham & Day,  
         P.C., 5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300, Brentwood, TN  
         37027, Phone: (615) 742-4880, E-mail:  
         rblair@branhamday.com and jday@branhamday.com; and  

     (2) Mike Miller of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, 1129  
         Fifth Avenue South, P.O. Box 1897, Fargo, ND 58107-
         1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166, E-mail:  
         mmiller@solberglaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Paul Savage Davidson, Joseph A. Woodruff and Jennifer  
         L. Weaver of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville  
         City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100, Nashville,  
         TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380, Fax: (615) 244-6380 E-
         mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com,  
         joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com and  
         jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com; and  

    (ii) Frank E. Pasquesi of Ungaretti & Harris, 3500 Three  
         First National Plaza, Chicago, IL 60602-4283, Phone:  
         (312) 977-4400.


COAST FINANCIAL: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Dec. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining defendants in a consolidated securities suit
pending against Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida has until Dec.
3 to respond to an Amended Complaint.

Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., and certain of its present and
former officers face a consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

Initially, defendants were named in three purported class action
complaints, the first of which was filed with the Court on March
20, 2007.

On June 22, 2007, the Court entered an order pursuant to which
the Court:

       -- consolidated the Securities Actions, with the matter
          proceeding under the docket for “Grand Lodge of
          Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al., Case No.
          8:07-cv-429-T-26-EAJ,” and

       -- appointed Troy Ratcliff and Daniel Altenburg as lead
          plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the Private
          Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Subsequently, on or about August 24, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.

The Amended Complaint added as defendants

       -- the current members of the Holding Company's Board of
          Directors,

       -- one former member of the Holding Company's Board of
          Directors,

       -- the underwriters of the Holding Company's Oct. 5, 2005
          public offering of common stock, and
        
       -- the Holding Company's external auditors.

The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of the Holding Company's common stock between Jan.
21, 2005 and Jan. 22, 2007.  

In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Holding
Company's SEC filings and public statements contained
misstatements and omissions regarding its residential
construction-to-permanent lending operations and, more
specifically, regarding CCI and its affiliates and that the
Holding Company's financial statements violated GAAP.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there
under.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice with the
Court voluntarily dismissing their claims against Anne V. Lee
and Justin D. Locke without prejudice.

The remaining defendants are due to respond to the Amended
Complaint on or before Dec. 3, 2007, according to the company's
Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is “Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Coast
Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00479,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under Judge Richard A. Lazzara.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619.231.1058
          Fax: 619.231.7423

          Saxena White PA
          2424 North Federal Highway. Suite 307
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 800.361.5096
          Fax: 888.782.3081
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road.
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Phone: 561.391.4900
          Fax: 561.368.9274
          E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com


COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls DVD/CD/MP3 Players that can Overheat
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coby Electronics Corp., of Maspeth, N.Y., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
12,000 portable DVD/CD/MP3 Players.

The company said the portable DVD/CD/MP3 players can overheat,
posing a fire hazard.  Coby Electronics Corp. has received three
reports of the units overheating, one of which involved minor
property damage from a fire. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves two different portable DVD/CD/MP3
players:

5" TFT Portable DVD/CD/MP3 Player with TV Tuner and Digital
AM/FM Tuner

      Model no. TF-DVD170

      Product is spherical in shape with a 5" TV screen in
      front.  The name "COBY" is written above the screen. The
      model number can be found on the bottom of the unit.

     (2) 5.6" TFT Portable DVD/CD/MP3 Player and NTSC TV Tuner

      Model no. TF-DVD176

      Product is spherical in shape with a 5.6" TV screen in
      front. The name "COBY" is written above the screen. The
      model number can be found on the bottom of the unit.

The DVD/CD/MP3 players were made in China and sold at discount,
electronics, music, toy, and office supply stores, as well as
distributors of electronics products, nationwide from May 2006
through October 2007 for between $140 and $170.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the portable
DVD/CD/MP3 players and contact the firm for information on
returning the units and receiving a full refund.

For additional information, contact Coby Electronics
Corp. toll-free at (877) 231-9240 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.cobyusa.com


COMCAST INC: Accused of Blocking Customers' Internet Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 1 in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Alameda, accusing it of defrauding consumers by advertising its
Internet services as "lightning fast" and "mind-blowing" speed,
but intentionally slowing to crawl or blocking altogether some
Internet applications, including file sharing and Lotus Notes,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff John Hart brings this suit as a class action on
behalf of all persons in California who purchased the Service
between Nov. 13, 2003, and the present and used or attempted to
use peer-to-peer or Online file sharing applications and/or
lotus notes.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants advertise and market the Service by
         promoting the speed at which its customers may download
         and upload data from the internet;

     (b) whether defendants promise that customers of the
         Service will be provided with unfettered access to the
         internet;

     (c) whether defendants block the Blocked Applications;

     (d) whether defendants impede the Blocked Applications;

     (e) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the
         Blocked Applications constitutes a breach of the
         contract;

     (f) whether there is an enforceable written contract
         between defendants and the class;


     (g) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the
         Blocked Applications results in aggregate loss by the
         class in excess of $5000;

     (h) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the
         Blocked Applications constitutes a violation of CFAA;

     (i) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the
         Blocked Applications while permitting unfettered use of
         other applications constitutes a violation of Federal
         Communications Commission Policy Statement, FCC 05151;

     (j) whether defendants' marketing and advertising is likely
         to deceive the class; and

     (k) whether members are entitled to compensatory,
         injunctive and other equitable relief.

Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:

     -- that the court declare this a class action;

     -- that the court preliminarily and permanently enjoin
        defendants from conducting their business through the
        unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or
        practices, untrue and misleading advertising and other
        violations of law described in the complaint;

     -- that the court order defendants to conduct a corrective
        advertising and information campaign advising consumers
        that the Service does not have the characteristics,  
        uses, benefits, and quality defendants have claimed;

     -- that the court order defendants to implement whatever
        measures are necessary to remedy the unlawful, unfair or
        fraudulent business acts or practices, untrue and
        misleading advertising and other violations of law
        described in the complaint;

     -- that the court order defendants to notify each and every
        member of the class of the pendency of the claims in the
        action in order to give such individuals and businesses
        an opportunity to obtain restitution from defendants;

     -- that the court order defendants to pay restitution to
        restore to all affected persons all funds acquired by
        means of any act or practice, untrue or misleading
        advertising or a violation of the CLRA, CFAA and/or FCC
        Policy 05-151, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest thereon;

     -- that the court order defendants to disgorge all monies
        wrongfully obtained and all revenues and profits derived
        by defendants as a result of their acts or practices as
        alleged in the complaint;

     -- that the court award damages calculated as purchase
        price of the products at issue, plus any out-of-pocket
        costs associated with the replacement of such products,
        plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest theron;

     -- that the court impose statutory, punitive and/or
        exemplary damages for defendants' acts constituting
        oppression, fraud or malice in an amount sufficient to
        punish and deter others from similar wrongdoing;

     -- that the court grant plaintiff his reasonable attorneys'
        fees and costs of suit pursuant to Code of Civil
        Procedure Section 1021.5, Civil Code Section 1780(d),
        the common fund doctrine and/or any other applicable
        legal theory; and

     -- that the court grant such other and further relief as
        may be just and proper.

The suit is "Jon Hart et al. v. Comcast of Alameda, Inc. et al.,
Case No. PG 07355993," filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Alameda.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mark N. Todzo
          Eric S. Somers
          Howard J. Hirsch
          Lexington Law Group, LLP
          1627 Irivng Street
          San Francisco, CA 94122
          Phone: (415) 759-4111
          Fax: (415) 759-4112


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Yet to be Determined in Uninsured's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, Eufaula Division  
has yet to rule on class determination issues in a purported
class action filed against Community Health Systems, Inc.

The suit was filed by Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols against
Eufaula Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc.,
South Baldwin Regional Medical Center and Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corp.

The class action, previously, captioned, “Arleana Lawrence and
Robert Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community
Health Systems, Inc.,” was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and as the representatives of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview
Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals.

Plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company use
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

They seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other
allowable damages and injunctive relief.

In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of
the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management
company subsidiary as a defendant.  

In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another
plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, a hospital in
Foley, Alabama, South Baldwin Regional Medical Center.

Discovery has been concluded on the class determination issues
and a hearing was held on June 13, 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through    
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nixing of Ill. “Rix” Uninsured Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Sheri Rix v.
Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems,
Inc.,” which names Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of
its subsidiaries as defendants, are appealing the dismissal of
the case by the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Illinois.

This class action, served against the company on March 3, 2005,
was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the
representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who
were treated at the company's Heartland Regional Medical Center.

Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

Plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of
overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  It also seeks
compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

The Circuit Court Judge recently granted company's motion to
dismiss this case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her
case.

The plaintiff elected to appeal the Circuit Court’s decision in
lieu of amending her case.  The parties are briefing their
positions, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through    
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.

    
COMMUNITY HEALTH: “Chronister” Uninsured's Suit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the purported class action,
"Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company,
LLC d/b/aGateway Regional Medical Center," which was filed in
the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois and names
Community Health Systems, Inc. as a defendant.

The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8,
2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured
patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges
statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which
the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to
uninsured patients.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company’s motion to dismiss has been granted in part and
denied in part and discovery has commenced.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc., -- http://www.chs.net-- through  
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Cal. Suit Claims “Bait and Switch” Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and affiliates, including Full
Spectrum Lending, are facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
alleging they defrauded customers with false promises of low
mortgage rates.

Named plaintiffs David E. Dorpat and Mary Ann Dorpat bring this
action on behalf of all persons in the United States who, at any
time between Jan. 1, 2003 and the present, obtained at least one
residential mortgage loan from Countrywide and were subject to
any of the unlawful lending practices described, including
unfair, misleading and/or deceptive solicitation practices,
excessive fees, unfair, abusive or undisclosed loan terms and
deceptive steering.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Countrywide's took "adverse action" against
         plaintiffs and the class and, if so, whether
         Countrywide provide notices of adverse action, as
         required by the ECOA;

     (b) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in a "bait
         and switch" scheme, in which class members have been
         lured in with promises of a particular set of loan
         terms, and are then given different and far less
         beneficial terms;

     (c) whether documents, contracts, and practices relating to
         the transactions between members of the class and
         Countrywide were unfair, misleading, unconscionable,
         deceptive, untrue, misleading, or omitted material
         facts and disclosures;

     (d) whether Countrywide misrepresented, concealed, and/or
         failed to disclose loan terms;

     (e) whether Countrywide misled the plaintiffs and the class
         in connection with marketing, solicitation, sale,
         operation, and administration of the mortgage loans;

     (f) whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         the imposition of a constructive trust or other
         equitable or injunctive relief as a result of, among
         other things, Countrywide's unjust enrichment;

     (g) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in unfair
         and unlawful business practices, and whether the
         alleged conduct violated the California Business and
         Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal
         Remedies Act;

     (h) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         injunctive relief, and if, so, the nature of such
         relief;

     (i) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         damages and the appropriate measure of such damages;
         and

     (j) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         punitive damages.

Plaintiffs request judgment and relief as follows:

     -- certification of this case as a class action pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
        declaring plaintiffs as representatives of the class, as
        well as appointing plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for
        the class;

     -- that the court decalre, adjudge and decree that
        Countrywide has committed the violations of federal and
        state law alleged;

     -- that Countrywide be enjoined from continuing the illegal
        course of conduct alleged;

     -- that the court award damages, as set forth, to
        plaintiffs and the class, in an amount to be determined
        at trial;

     -- that the court order disgorgement of Countrywide's ill-
        gotten gains and award plaintiffs and the class full
        restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by
        Countrywide;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class be granted such other,
        further and different relief that is necessary to remedy
        the continuing harm caused by and prevent the recurrence
        of Countrywide's unlawful conduct described;

     -- that the court award plaintiffs their attorneys' fees,
        costs and prejudgment interest and such other relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "David E. Dorpat et al. v. Countrywide Financial
Corp. et al. Case No. CV07-07438AHM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Kim
          Lisa J. Yang
          George Busu
          Kim Ruger & Kim, LLP
          1055 West SEventh Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 955-9500

          Joseph H. Meltzer
          Edward W. Ciolko
          Joseph A. Weeden
          Schiffrin Barroway Topz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706
          Fax: (610) 667-7056

          - and -

          Guri Ademi
          Shpetim Ademi
          David J. Syrios
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001


COVAD COMMS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Blackberry Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covad Communications Group, Inc. faces a purported class action
in California over a merger agreement among the company,
Blackberry Holding Corp. and Blackberry Merger Corp., according
to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the company and the members of its Board of
Directors were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit brought by William Forte in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara.

Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty by defendants in
connection with the transaction contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 28, 2007, by and among the
company, Blackberry Holding Corp. and Blackberry Merger Corp.

Plaintiff seeks certain equitable relief, including an
injunction to prevent or unwind the transaction, attorney’s fees
and other fees.

Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/--  
provides voice and data communications products and services to
consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately
235 major metropolitan areas in 44 states.  Its products and
services include high-speed, or broadband, data communications,
Internet access connectivity, voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP) telephony and a variety of related services.  It
primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also
referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services.


COVAD COMMS: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Former Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action filed
against Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s current and former
directors by the company's former general counsel.  The suit is  
pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New
Castle County.

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the
company's general counsel and secretary.  Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current
and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary
duties to the company by engaging in or approving actions that
constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations
to the company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his
duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower
and because of racial or national origin discrimination.  

Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna
filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against
the company's current and former directors.   

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two
additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this
action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company
from the individual defendants for their purported breach of
fiduciary duty.   

Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of
directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the
company's proxy statements were misleading.  

On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr.
Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives.  

On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to our
proxy statements.  The court also determined that Mr. Khanna
could no longer serve as a plaintiff in this matter.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the company entered into a settlement in the
Khanna lawsuit.  

If the settlement is approved by the court, the company will
receive approximately $5,000 from certain of the company’s
current and former directors and a former investor, consisting
primarily of Covad stock, net of plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee and
certain costs.  

The settlement, if approved, will also result in the dismissal
of the lawsuit with prejudice.  The settlement expressly states
that each defendant, including the company , denies liability.

Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement proceeds
will be paid to the company pursuant to the terms of the
settlement.  

The company has determined that the proposed settlement is in
the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.  

The Stipulation of Settlement and related paperwork is on file
with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for
New Castle County.

The settlement is subject to and conditioned upon the court’s
final approval after public notice of the proposed settlement
and expiration of the time for appeal from any orders approving
the settlement.

Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/--  
provides voice and data communications products and services to
consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately
235 major metropolitan areas in 44 states.  Its products and
services include high-speed, or broadband, data communications,
Internet access connectivity, voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP) telephony and a variety of related services.  It
primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also
referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
with regards to the decertification of a purported class action
that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc. of misrepresenting its
Cavitron ultrasonic scalers.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S. filed a class action in San Francisco County, California.  
The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of
the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who
have purchased it for use in oral surgery.

The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006
with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business
practices claims.  

The class is defined as California dental professionals who
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and
this motion was granted.  Plaintiffs have appealed the
decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc. continues to face a purported class
action alleging that the company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic
scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty.  The
company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the
product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water.

On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS
filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for
Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on
behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R.
Barclay Surrick.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Alan Klein, Esq.
        Duane Morris LLP
        30 South 17th St.
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
        Phone: 215-979-1000
        Fax: 215-979-1020
        E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com

Representing the defendants is:

        Richard G. Placey
        Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
        123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19109
        Phone: 215-772-7424
        Fax: 215-772-7620
        E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com


DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. still faces several lawsuits that
accuse it of engaging in a conspiracy to violate antitrust laws
in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or products containing
Trubyte teeth.

Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on
allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case,
on behalf of dental laboratories, and denture patients in
seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products
containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the United States District Court
in Wilmington, Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages
in an unspecified amount.  

The Court has granted the Company’s Motion on the lack of
standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue
damage claims.

The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to
the Third Circuit and the Court largely upheld the decision of
the District Court in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ damages claims
against DENTSPLY, with the exception of allowing the Plaintiffs
to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price
maintenance between the Company and its tooth dealers.

The Plaintiffs’ petition to the United States Supreme Court
asking it to review this decision of the Third Circuit was
denied. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended
complaint asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the
dealers among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the
antitrust laws.

Dentsply and the dealers have filed Motions to dismiss
plaintiffs’ claims, except for the resale price maintenance
claims.  

Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a
dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions
seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the
Company’s tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of
the antitrust law.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digimarc Corp. is expecting the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon to issue in 2008 a ruling on an appeal
against the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against the company.

Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004.

These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all
purposes.  The amended complaint, which sought unspecified
damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws
relating to the company's restatement of its financial
statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and
alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial
statements and issued misleading public statements about the
company's operations and prospects.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the Company’s motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the
Company’s favor.  

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The appeal was stayed pending the recent U.S.
Supreme Court’s determination in another case of issues relating
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and briefing is
scheduled to be completed by the end of the year.

The Company anticipates oral argument and a decision in 2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-01455-BR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown.
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gary M. Berne, Esq.
         Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter
         PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
         Portland, OR 97204
         Phone: (503) 227-1600
         Fax: (503) 227-6840
         E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com

              - and -

         Gary I. Grenley, Esq.
         Paul H. Trinchero, Esq.
         Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC
         1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
         Portland, OR 97204
         Phone: (503) 241-0570
         Fax: (503) 241-0914
         E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com
                 ptrinchero@grebb.com


GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Theft of Job Applicants' Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gap Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 13 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging it allowed 800,000 job-seekers' confidential
information, including Social Security numbers, to be stolen
from a third-party vendor that manages job applications, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Joel Ruiz claims the information, which was not
encrypted, exposed all 800,000 to identity theft. An
unidentified thief stole two laptop computers with the
information on Sept. 28, the complaint states.

Mr. Ruiz claims Gap's negligence exposed online and telephone
job applicants in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico to
ID theft.

He further claims that Gap failed to investigate the data
security practices of its third-party vendor; that it saved
sensitive records on portable computers that should have been
housed in a secure central computer; and negligently required
job applicants to input sensitive personal information,
including Social Security numbers, to apply for a job.

Mr. Ruiz received a letter from Gap CEO Glenn Murphy, assuring
him that the information had not been "accessed or used
improperly."  Gap also offered to pay for 12 months of credit
monitoring and fraud assistance.  But Mr. Ruiz wants long-term
monitoring of Gap's security measures.  He also refused the
offer because by doing so, they would have waive their right to
a jury trial should the credit monitoring service fail.

He brings this suit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons that
have applied for a position with Gap Inc., Old Navy, Banana
Republic, Piperline, Outlet Stores, or any other relevant Gap
brand store, through Gap's application process from July 1, 2006
to July 31, 2007, and whose personal information was compromised
in a laptop theft from one or more of Gap's third party vendors.

He asks the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Gap failed to exercise reasonable security
         measures to protect the personal information of
         plaintiff and the class;

     (b) whether Gap's failure to protect the personal
         information of plaintiff and the class violated their
         legally protected privacy interest under the California
         Constitution;

     (c) whether plaintiff and the class are at an increased
         risk of identity theft as a result of Gap's failure to
         protect the personal information of plaintiff and the
         class;

     (d) whether defendant owed the legal duties discussed to
         plaintiff and the class and whether defendant breached
         these duties; and

     (e) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to the relief sought, including injunctive relief.

Plaintiff demands judgment on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the proposed class under Federal
        Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and appointing
        plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel of record to represent
        said class;

     -- awarding plaintiff and class members compensatory
        damages against defendant in an amount to be determined
        at trial, together with prejudgment interest at the
        maximum rate allowable by law;

    -- grant all appropriate injunctive relief under Cal.Bus.
       and Prof.Code Section 17200 et seq. as stated;

    -- grant all appropriate relief under Cal.Civ.Code Section
       1798.85;

    -- awarding plaintiff and class members the reasonable costs
       and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees, filing
       fees; and

    -- grant additional legal or equitable releif as the court
       may find just and proper.

The suit is "Joel Ruiz et al. v. Gap, Inc. et al., Case No. CV
07 5739," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 398-8700
          Fax: (415) 398-8704

          Mila F. Bartos
          Tracy Rezvani
          Karen J. Marcus
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          1050 30th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 337-8000
          Fax: (202) 337-8090

          - and -

          Ben Barnow
          Barnow and Associates PC
          One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602


MULTIPLEX GROUP: ASIC Told to Hand over Investigation Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court ordered the Australian Securities and
Investments Commissions to hand over documents and examination
transcripts to a shareholder class action against Multiplex,
Elisabeth Sexton of Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Justice Alan Goldberg rejected the regulator's claim the
material was protected by public interest immunity.  He
explained the reasons to ASIC, but not to the public.  

The materials include 36 documents and statements and
examination transcripts of 23 witnesses ASIC interviewed during
a forceful investigation into Multiplex's disclosure of delays
to its Wembley Stadium project.  In December, the ASIC concluded
from the investigation that Multiplex failed to comply with its
continuous disclosure obligations from February 3 to 23, 2005.

Without admitting guild, Multiplex signed an enforceable
undertaking and agreed to pay shareholders $32 million in
compensation.

The class action is seeking $100 million and alleges failure to
disclose between August 2, 2004, and May 30, 2005.

"We expect that the transcripts of the examinations will go a
substantial way in showing the shareholders what the company
knew and when," said shareholders' solicitor, Bernard Murphy,
from Maurice Blackburn.

In September 2002, Multiplex won a contract to rebuild Wembley  
Stadium. Cost blowouts and problems with contractors delayed  
construction and caused hundreds of millions in losses.

Subsequently, Maurice Blackburn lodged a class action in the
Federal Court, in Melbourne, on behalf of shareholders of
Australian property developer  Multiplex over the redevelopment
of London's iconic Wembley Stadium (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
19, 2006).

The suit claims shareholders were victims of Multiplex's failure  
to keep the market properly informed about problems it was  
having with the $1 billion project and the likely impact those  
problems would have on the company's profits.


NEBRASKA: Black Workers Pay More for Health Insurance, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Nebraska and its Health and Human Services
Department are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 7 in
the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska claiming black
employees are forced to pay more for health insurance, with
fewer plan choices, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Sandra Cartwright claims 96 of the defendants'
black workers live in three ZIP codes, and workers in those ZIP
codes only must pay more money for less coverage, with less
choice of plans.

She claims that only certain employees of the defendant were
required to purchase their health insurance exclusively through
Mutual of Omaha or pay significantly higher premiums for
coverage offered through BlueCross BlueShield. The citizens and
employees who were offered these options resided in certain zip
code areas in the State of Nebraska. Further, citizens in these
zip codes, were required to purchase health insurance which was
not equal to in price or in benefits to the health insurance
other employees of the defendants, who lived in other zip codes
could purchase.

The health insurance coverage offered through the Mutual of
Omaha Insurance was less satisfactory, less comprehensive,
provided fewer services, fewer providers, less coverage and less
treatment options than the health insurance plan offered in all
other zip codes in the State of Nebraska other than zip codes
starting with 680, 681 and 685.

As a proximate result of the defendants' illegal conduct,
plaintiff has suffered actual monetary and compensatory damages
and continue to suffer them on an ongoing basis.

She requests that the court enter judgment as follows:

     -- certify this as a class action proceeding;

     -- declare the conduct of the defendants to be violative of
        the rights of all plaintiffs under state and federal
        law;

     -- order that the defendants immediately offer to the
        plaintiffs the same coverage available to other
        employees of the State of Nebraska who reside in
        different zip codes or to offer them the same type of
        insurance available to approximately 96% or more of all
        white citizens employed by the State of Nebraska;

     -- award all plaintiffs in the class compensatory damages
        for pain, suffering, humiliation and emotional distress
        in an amount to be determined by the jury;

     -- enjoin the defendants from any further discrimination
        against the plaintiff; and

     -- award the plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney fees
        and such other and further relief as the court deems
        just, reasonable and appropriate to correct the wrong
        done to the plaintiff.

The suit is "Sandra Cartwright et al. v. The State of Nebraska
et al., Case No. CV07-4648," filed in the District Court of
Lancaster County, Nebraska.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kathleen M. Neary
          Vincent M. Powers
          Vincent M. Powers & Associates
          411 south 13th Street, Suite 300
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Phone: (402) 474-8000


SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Witch Creek Wildfire
------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed Nov. 13 in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, claiming it caused the devastating Witch Creek wildfire
by failing to inspect and trim trees, brush and hazards near its
power lines, the CourtHouse News reports.

Named plaintiffs Kenyon and Kathy Clark brings this action as a
class action for economic damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of all persons whose property was destroyed by the "Witch
Creek fire" against defendant in the State of California.

The Witch Creek Fire, which started Oct. 21, burned 197,990
acres from Santa Ysabel to Rancho Santa Fe. The cost as of Nov.
1 for the Witch Creek Fire was $16 million, according to the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The 198,000-acre Witch Creek fire destroyed 911 homes, 30
commercial buildings and 239 automobiles from Oct. 21 to Nov. 5
and "was caused by a power line owned and operated by SDG&E,"
the complaint states.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether SDG&E properly removed vegetation that could
         interfere with its transmission and distribution lines;

     (b) whether SDG&E failed to clear vegetation from its
         transmission and distribution lines according to state  
         codes and regulations;

     (c) whether SDG&E failed to clear vegetation from its
         transmission and distribution lines according to its
         own standards;

     (d) whether SDG&E's conduct violates the California Public
         Resources Code;

     (e) whether SDG&E's conduct violates the California common
         laws;

     (f) whether SDG&E's conduct is unlawful and/or unfair   
         constitution violations of Section 17200, et seq. of
         the California Business and Professions Code; and

     (g) whether SDG&E intentionally failed to cut and trim
         brush as required by State codes and is liable for
         punitive damages or waiting time penalties.

They request that the court grant the following relief:

     -- that this action be certified as a class action on
        behalf of the proposed plaintiff class and the
        plaintiffs be appointed as the representatives of the
        class, and for an order requiring defendants to identify
        each member of the class by name, home address, and home
        telephone number;

     -- for an accounting, under administration of the
        plaintiffs and/or the receiver and subject to court
        review, to determine the amount to be returned by
        defendants, and the amounts to be refunded to members of
        the class who are owed monies by defendants;

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

     -- general damages according to proof;

     -- compensatory damages according to proof;

     -- consequential damages according to proof;

     -- prejudgment and post judgment interest as provided by
        statute;

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

     -- punitive damages; and

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

The suit is "Kenyon Clark et al. v. San Diego Gas & Electric
Company, et al., Case No. 37-2007-00081605-CU-NP-CTL," filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego under
Judge Charles R. Hayes.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          James P. Frantz, Esq.
          Philip C. Aman, Esq.
          Franzt Law Group
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1200
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-5945
          Fax: (619) 525-7672


SOLUTIA INC: “Reiff” ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit, “Reiff v. Metz,” which alleges  
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, have
filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Former officers and employees of Solutia, Inc., and Solutia's
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds
Committee faces a purported class action alleging violations of
ERISA.

The suit, Reiff v. Metz, was filed on June 25, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
purported class representative in Reiff is a current Solutia
employee.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in September 2007, which is
pending before the Court.

The suit is “Reiff v. Metz et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06011-LAP,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 868-3610
          Fax: (212) 918-7967
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com


TIGER BRANDS: Could Face South African Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
South African bread distributors, led by Imraahn Ismail-
Mukaddam, and trade union Cosatu are considering legal action
against food and pharmaceuticals group Tiger Brands after the
company admitted price-fixing, Reuters South Africa reports.

According to the report, South Africa's Competition Commission
said that Tiger Brands had admitted guilt in taking part in a
cartel with other food companies and would pay a fine of close
to ZAR100 million ($14.9 million).

The Competition Commission found that bakeries owned by Tiger
Brands, Premier Foods Ltd. and a third company had colluded to
raise prices to distributors and agreed not to supply each
others', the report said.

"It had an immediate impact on our business... and we had to
pass that loss on to the consumers," Mr. Ismail-Mukaddam told
Reuters.

"We must take this further and we are definitely considering
taking this further in the form of a class action suit ...," he
added.  According to Mr. Ismail-Mukaddam, up to 50 parties could
take part in the class action.

"We'll support any steps that bring relief to poor people from
the rampant exploitation of many of these big companies that are
colluding to really profit off people's misery,” said Tony
Ehrenreich, Cosatu's Western Cape provincial secretary.

Tiger Brands could not immediately be reached for comment, the
report said.

Tiger Brands Ltd. makes a lot of rands. Its largest sector is
food manufacturing, which including products such as breakfast
cereals, confectionery, canned and ready-to-eat foods, sugar,
flour, salty snacks, and baked goods. Tiger's healthcare
division manufactures over-the-counter and prescription
medicines as well as hospital products. The company has
operations in the fishing and personal care products sectors.
The company operates a joint venture with Ashton Canning
Company, L&A Foods, a leading South African supplier of canned
fruit for the export market.


WAL-MART STORES: “Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Additional Award
---------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein awarded Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. employees $46.7 million in costs and attorneys
expenses, the Jurist reports.  Wal-Mart has said it will appeal
the decision.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded $62.3 million in back-pay
damages to the plaintiffs for off-the-clock work and missed rest
breaks.  The plaintiffs consist of 187,000 current and former
employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs from March 1998
through May 2006.  In the recent ruling, about 125,000 people
will receive $500 each in damages under a state law invoked when
a company, without cause, withholds pay for more than 30 days.  

                        Case Background

The suit, "Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was certified in
January 2006.  In October 2006, a jury awarded nearly $78.5
million to the class comprising of some 186,000 current and
former employees of Pennsylvania stores who claimed they weren't
properly paid for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

The case involves labor practices at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club
stores between March 1998 and May 1, 2006.  The lead plaintiff
is Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam's Club in Reading from
1992-2002.  

Ms. Hummel charged that she had to work through breaks and after
quitting time to meet work demands in the bakery.  She said that
she worked eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average, to meet
work demands.

The recent ruling brings the total award in the case to $187.5
million.

For more details, contact plaintiff’s lawyer:

          Michael Donovan, Esq.
          Donovan Searles
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, (Philadelphia Co.)
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060


                       Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Removal Expense for Cleco Unit at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corp. says that a US$100,000 increase in equity earnings
at its Cleco Evangeline LLC affiliate was primarily due to the
absence of asbestos removal expense during the 2007-3rd quarter,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007.

Equity income from investees increased US$12.8 million, or 86.8
percent, in the 2007-3rd quarter compared with the 2006-3rd
quarter.

The increase was due to a US$12.7 million increase in equity
earnings at affiliate Acadia Power Holdings LLC (APH) and a
US$100,000 increase at Evangeline.

Pineville, La.-based Cleco Corp.'s Cleco Power LLC unit
generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to 268,000
residential and business customers in 104 communities in
Louisiana. Cleco Power has a generating capacity of more than
1,350 MW from its interests in fossil-fueled power plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,993 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2007,
recorded about 1,993 pending asbestos-related claims filed
against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31,
2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,645
plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 2,652 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company faced lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos involving about 4,592 plaintiffs. Of those
claims, about 1,950 claims were pending and 2,642 have been
closed through dismissals or settlements. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed
at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000.

With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability, if any.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had accrued US$900,000 for
liability and related expenses.

Based in Hoffddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. is a global specialty engineering and construction
company that makes flat-bottom tanks for storing crude oil, gas,
water, chemicals, and manufacturing feedstocks; cryogenic tanks
and systems to maintain liquid gases; natural gas processing
plants; elevated tanks for water storage; and pressure vessels
for high-pressure/high-temperature applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $637M Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liability amounted to US$637 million in its consolidated balance
sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$652.8 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 long-term asbestos liability, as of June 30, 2007,
amounted to US$642.6 million. (Class Action Reporter, July 20,
2007)

The Company's long-term asbestos receivable amounted to US$336
million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with US$336.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company’s long-term asbestos receivable
amounted to US$336.9 million. (Class Action Reporter, July 20,
2007)

Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes
air-conditioning systems and plumbing products. The Company's
air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems
under the Trane and American Standard brand names. The Company
plans to rename itself Trane, after its best-selling brand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cos. Faces 102,663 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc. faced 102,663 open asbestos-
related claims in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared
with 102,223 claims 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. 30, 2007.

The Company recorded 102,653 open asbestos-related claims filed
against as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17,
2007)

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded
2,308 new claims filed, 521 claims settled, and 1,347 claims
dismissed. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded  
4,440 new claims filed, 846 claims settled, and 15,107 claims
dismissed.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal
injury claims arising primarily from its historical sales of
boilers and railroad brake shoes.

In these asbestos-related lawsuits, the Company is usually named
as one of a large group of defendants. Many of these lawsuits
involve multiple claimants, do not specifically identify the
injury or disease for which damages are sought and do not allege
a connection between any Company product and a claimed injury or
disease. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been placed, and
may remain on, inactive or deferred dockets, which some
jurisdictions have established.

From receipt of its first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
to Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has resolved 62,797 claims. The
total amount of all settlements paid by the Company (excluding
insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers is about
US$100.2 million, for an average payment per resolved claim of
US$1,595.

The average payment per claim resolved during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007 was US$8,175, compared with US$1,260 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Because claims are frequently filed and settled in large groups,
the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the number of
open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period.

The Company's total asbestos liability was estimated at US$650
million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$665.8 million at
Dec. 31, 2006. The asbestos indemnity liability decreased by
US$15.8 million during the first nine months of 2007 due to
claims payments made during the year.

Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes
air-conditioning systems and plumbing products. The Company's
air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems
under the Trane and American Standard brand names. The Company
plans to rename itself Trane, after its best-selling brand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has N.J. Coverage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc. continues to be involved in
litigation filed in New Jersey court against certain carriers
whose policies the Company says provide coverage for asbestos
claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

The insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the
Company’s right to recovery.

The Company filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various of its primary
and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for
environmental claims. The N.J. Litigation was later expanded to
also seek coverage for asbestos related liabilities from 21
primary and lower layer excess carriers and underwriting
syndicates.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company’s motion to add
to the N.J. Litigation 16 additional insurers and 117 new
insurance policies. The court also required the parties to
submit all contested matters to mediation.

The Company and the defendants in the N.J. Litigation engaged in
their first mediation session on Jan. 18, 2006 and have been in
active discussions since that time. During the mediation, the
parties agreed to an extension of discovery through Nov. 12,
2007.

With the addition of the parties and policies, the N.J.
Litigation would resolve the coverage issues with respect to
about 94 percent of the recorded receivable. The remaining six
percent of the recorded receivable comes from policies as to
which the Company has not sought resolution of coverage because
the policies were issued by parties whose coverage obligations
are triggered at higher excess layers that are not expected to
be reached in the near future.

In February 2005, the Company settled with Equitas for US$84.5
million to buy-out the participants of certain underwriters in
pre-1993 Lloyd’s, London policies included in the Company’s
insurance coverage. As of Dec. 31, 2006, US$64.9 million
remained in a trust, excluding interest, which expired Jan. 3,
2007.

Under the settlement, since there was no U.S. Federal
legislation by Jan. 3, 2007 that took asbestos claims out of the
courts, the balance of the funds was disbursed to the Company on
Jan. 4, 2007.

Of the US$64.9 million, about US$44.2 million relates to
historical asbestos claim settlements and current legal expenses
incurred and the balance represents amounts relating to future
legal costs to be incurred.

The Company's asbestos receivable was US$345.4 million at Sept.
30, 2007, compared with US$385.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The asbestos receivable decreased by US$40.4 million during the
first nine months of 2007.

Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes
air-conditioning systems and plumbing products. The Company's
air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems
under the Trane and American Standard brand names. The Company
plans to rename itself Trane, after its best-selling brand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $30.8M Charge at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group Inc., in the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2007, recorded a pre-tax asbestos charge of US$30.8 million
for P&C insurance runoff operations, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

The Company, in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded
an after-tax asbestos charge of US$20 million for P&C insurance
runoff operations.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded a
pre-tax asbestos charge of US$19 million for former railroad and
manufacturing operations.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded an
after-tax asbestos charge of US$12.4 million for former railroad
and manufacturing operations.

Cincinnati-based American Financial Group Inc., through the
operations of the Great American Insurance Group, is engaged
primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on
specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale
of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a
variety of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.34B for Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp.'s reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.34
billion at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$1.38 billion at 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's reserves for asbestos claims, net of insurance
recoverables, were US$804 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared
with US$823 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's reserves for asbestos claims, at June 30, 2007,
amounted to US$1.35 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of
US$805 million. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

About 64 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at Sept. 30, 2007 were for incurred but not reported
estimates, compared with 67 percent at Dec. 31, 2006.

Underwriting losses of US$71 million in the 2007-3rd quarter and
US$36 million in the first nine months of 2007 were primarily
related to a US$6 million unfavorable reestimate of asbestos
reserves.

The nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 also includes a US$46
million reduction in the reinsurance recoverable valuation
allowance related to Equitas Ltd.’s improved financial position
as a result of its reinsurance coverage with National Indemnity
Co.

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

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corp. is the
second-largest U.S. personal lines insurer, behind State Farm.
The Company sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life
insurance products in Canada and the U.S.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces More Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco Inc. says that legal and administrative proceedings are
pending or may be brought against it arising out of allegations
of exposures of third parties to toxic substances like asbestos
or benzene.

Many other legal and administrative proceedings are pending or
may be brought against the Company arising out of its current
and past operations, including matters related to commercial and
tax disputes, product liability, antitrust, employment claims,
leaks from pipelines and underground storage tanks, natural
resource damage claims, premises-liability claims, and general
environmental claims.

Although the ultimate outcome of these proceedings cannot be
ascertained at this time, it is reasonably possible that some of
these matters could be resolved unfavorably to the Company.

The Company said it believes that any liabilities that may arise
from those matters would not be material in relation to the
Company’s business or consolidated financial position at Sept.
30, 2007.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets various petroleum products, including
fuels, lubricants, and petrochemicals in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Litigation Ongoing v. SCC Affiliates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp.'s direct and indirect parent corporations
continue to be named parties in various litigations, including
those that are asbestos-related, involving Asarco, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

These direct and indirect parent corporations include Americas
Mining Corp. and Grupo Mexico.

In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance over AMC’s then-proposed purchase
of the Company from Asarco. That action was settled under a
Consent Decree dated Feb. 2, 2003. In March 2003, AMC purchased
its interest in the Company from Asarco.

In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other
parties, not including the Company, were named in a lawsuit
filed in New York State court in connection with alleged
asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC’s purchase
of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance.

The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result
of the Aug. 9, 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco.

On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in
possession, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in
the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC’s purchase of the
Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.

In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy
petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In
July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work
stoppage.

As a result of various factors, including the above-mentioned
work stoppage, on Aug. 9, 2005 Asarco filed a voluntary petition
for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.

Asarco’s bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy
cases of its subsidiaries. Asarco’s bankruptcy could result in
additional claims being filed against Grupo Mexico and its
subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or its
subsidiaries.

With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Southern Copper Corp.
mines, smelts, and refines copper at its Toquepala and Cuajone
mines. The Company produces blister copper and copper cathodes
at its smelter and refinery in Peru. The Company produces about
1.5 billion pounds of copper annually. Americas Mining Corp., a
Grupo Mexico subsidiary, owns 75 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp.'s Liability Remains at $18.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities totaled
US$18,694,000 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 8, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$18,694,000 as of July 1, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
17, 2007)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$4,244,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables
amounted to US$18,503,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables
amounted to US$4,244,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty materials are
used in various electronic and consumer products. The Company's
products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester-
based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular
communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Has 177 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp. recorded about 177 pending asbestos-related claims
filed against it as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 148 pending
claims at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 8, 2007.

The Company, as of July 1, 2007, recorded about 161 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against it. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos.
Rather, the Company made some limited products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to
industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these
products in 1987.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.

In the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company was
able to have about 44 claims dismissed and settled five claims.
For the full year 2006, about 78 claims were dismissed and 16
were settled. Most of the costs have been paid by the Company's
insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the
small number of cases that have been settled.

Those settlements totaled about US$700,000 in the nine-month
period ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$5.1 million in all of 2006.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty materials are
used in various electronic and consumer products. The Company's
products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester-
based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular
communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Suit v. 2 Reynolds Units Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is
still stayed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1,
2007.

In Parsons v. AC&S Inc. (a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va.), the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1,000,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons’ use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs’ motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants (Nitral Liquidators Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries) filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.’s wholly owned
subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc.,
R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., and Conwood Company LLC,
Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and Rosswil LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Awaits Ruling in Cooper Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas Inc. expects the Illinois Supreme Court to
announce in the 2007-4th quarter or the 2008-1st quarter whether
it will allow Cooper Industries LLC's request for a further
appeal in an asbestos-related action, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against
the Company, Pneumo Abex LLC, and the Trustee of the Trust,
captioned Cooper Industries LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05 CH 09214 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.).

The claims involve the Trust and an insurance policy bought by
the Company in the 2002-2nd quarter. The insurance coverage
related to sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex
and its units. The trust, which was established in 2000 with the
proceeds from an insurance settlement, bought insurance coverage
and funded coverage for remedial and other costs related to the
sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its
units.

Cooper asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that
previously was in the Trust and that was used to purchase the
insurance policy. Cooper claims that Trust funds should have
been distributed for underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims
indemnified by Cooper.

Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the
Trust because of the Trustee’s decision to use the Trust funds
to purchase the insurance policy.

Pneumo Abex LLC, the corporate successor to the Company's prior
subsidiary, has been dismissed from the suit.

During the 2006-2nd quarter, the Trustee’s motion to dismiss, in
which the Company had joined, was granted and three counts
against the Company based on the use of Trust funds were
dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts against the
Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue
these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust.

The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the
remaining counts against it. The Company's motion was granted
during the 2006-2nd quarter and all remaining counts against the
Company were dismissed with prejudice.

Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all
rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company
and the Trustee.

Prior to any oral argument, the appellate court on Sept. 7, 2007
issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s opinion. Cooper
subsequently filed motion papers asking the Illinois Supreme
Court to accept a discretionary appeal of the rulings.

The Trustee then filed an opposition brief explaining why the
Illinois Supreme Court should not allow another appeal, and the
Company joined in that brief.

The Company also has certain indemnification obligations related
to product liability and toxic tort claims that might emanate
out of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex. Other companies not
owned by or associated with the Company also are responsible to
Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all asbestos product
liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex after a certain date
in 1998, except for certain claims indemnified by the Company.

Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas Inc. is the world's No. 2 Pepsi
bottler (behind Pepsi Bottling Group). The Company also
distributes Dr Pepper, Lipton Iced Teas, Welch's fruit drinks,
Schweppes (tonic water, ginger ale), Starbucks Frappuccino, and
bottled water. The Company operates in 19 U.S. states (mostly in
the Midwest) and holds about 19 percent of the U.S. market for
Pepsi products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Pepco in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings Inc. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2007, about 180
asbestos-related cases are still pending against it in the State
Courts of Maryland, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
1, 2007.

Of the 180 cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000,
and have been tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and
indemnification under the terms of an Asset Purchase and Sale
Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant
has agreed to assume this contractual obligation.

The Company, as of June 30, 2007, continues to face about 180
asbestos-related cases pending against it in the State Courts of
Maryland. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints
filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County,
Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing,
consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not
providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on Company property.

Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added the
Company to their complaints. While the pleadings are not
entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2
million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive
damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have
been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss,
numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary
judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases
successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the
plaintiff or by the court.

Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes
electricity to more than 1.8 million customers and natural gas
to 121,000 customers through its utility subsidiaries. Non-
regulated operations include independent power production (more
than 5,000 MW of generating capacity), wholesale and retail
energy marketing, and energy management services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Tech. Faces 26 Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., in the 2007-3rd quarter, continues
to face 26 asbestos-related cases filed against it, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

The Company recorded 26 pending asbestos-related cases in the
2007-2nd quarter, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos containing materials.

To date, one asbestos case have been dismissed. The Company has
not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date.

The Company is unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense
of asbestos and silica cases in 2006 was US$100,000. Costs for
the legal defense of these cases in the first three quarters of
2007 were US$49,900.

To date, the Company has not been liable to plaintiffs in any of
these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any
settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits.

New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc.’s precipitated calcium
carbonate (PCC) products brighten and whiten paper, polymers,
and teeth. Paper mills are major users of PCC, along with food
and pharmaceutical companies, which use it for calcium and as a
buffering agent in tablets. PCC products account for about half
of the Company’s sales. The Company also sells monolithic and
pre-cast refractory products, which are used to coat steel,
cement, and glass production surfaces with high-temperature-
resistant material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Cleared in Miss. Cases, 5 Ill. Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co. Inc., as of the Company's 2007-3rd quarter report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
1, 2007, has been dismissed from most asbestos cases in
Mississippi and five of the cases in Illinois.

From time to time the Company is involved in legal proceedings
relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal
course of business.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos cases in Mississippi, six asbestos cases in Illinois
and one asbestos case in California.

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company’s exposure to asbestos involves products the Company
purchased from third parties.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims
and is vigorously defending these actions. The Company has not
made any provision in its financial statements for the asbestos
litigation.

Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co. Inc. designs and manufactures
high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and
industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components,
landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products
generate more than 80 percent of the Company's sales. General
industrial components account for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Suits in Miss. Ongoing v. GlobalSantaFe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of GlobalSantaFe Corp. still face six
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Mississippi, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

Five of the suits are pending in the Circuit Court of Jones
County and one of which is pending in the Circuit Court of
Jasper County, Miss. The suits allege that certain individuals
aboard the Company's offshore drilling rigs had been exposed to
asbestos.

Filed in August 2004, these six lawsuits are part of a group of
23 lawsuits filed on behalf of about 800 plaintiffs against a
large number of defendants, most of which are not affiliated
with the Company.

The Company's subsidiaries have not been named as defendants in
any of the other 17 lawsuits. The lawsuits assert claims based
on theories of unseaworthiness, negligence, strict liability and
its subsidiaries’ status as Jones Act employers and seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In general, the
defendants are alleged to have manufactured, distributed or
utilized products containing asbestos.

In the case of the Company's named subsidiaries and that of
several other offshore drilling companies named as defendants,
the lawsuits allege those defendants allowed such products to be
utilized aboard offshore drilling rigs.

The Company has not been provided with sufficient information to
determine the number of plaintiffs who claim to have been
exposed to asbestos aboard its rigs, whether they were employees
nor their period of employment, the period of their alleged
exposure to asbestos, nor their medical condition.

Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate its potential
exposure in these lawsuits.

Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is an offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59
marine drilling rigs. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's fleet
included 43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three
drillships, and two additional semisubmersible rigs the Company
operates for third parties under a joint venture agreement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GlobalSantaFe Corp. subsidiary is still involved in an
asbestos-related insurance lawsuit filed against its insurance
underwriters in the Superior Court of San Francisco County,
Calif., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

In the suit filed in February 2004, the Company seeks a
declaration as to its rights to insurance coverage and the
proper allocation among its insurers of liability for claims
payments in order to assist in the future management and
disposition of certain claims.

The subsidiary’s three primary insurers had historically paid
settlement and defense costs for the subsidiary. One of these
insurers was nearing insolvency and claimed exhaustion of its
coverage limits, but following negotiations agreed to make a
cash payment in exchange for a release of all further liability
for the subsidiary’s asbestos liabilities.

Both of the subsidiary’s other primary insurers have entered
into settlement agreements with the subsidiary that will provide
for limited additional funding of asbestos liabilities and
attorneys’ fees and costs associated therewith. The subsidiary
also intends to enter into discussions with its excess insurers.

The insurance coverage in question relates to lawsuits filed
against the subsidiary arising out of its involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in
the litigation and funds received from the cancellation of
certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the
subsidiary had been named as a defendant in about 4,300
lawsuits, the first of which was filed in 1990, and a
substantial number of which are currently pending.

The Company said it believes that as of Jan. 1, 2007, from US$40
million to US$45 million had been expended to resolve claims
(including both attorneys’ fees and expenses, and settlement
costs), with the subsidiary having expended US$4 million of that
amount due to insurance deductible obligations, all of which
have now been satisfied.

The same subsidiary was a defendant in a lawsuit filed against
it by Union Oil Company of California in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Ill. That lawsuit arose out of claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos at a refinery
owned by Union and constructed by the Company's subsidiary.

Union alleged that the subsidiary was required to defend and
indemnify it under the terms of contracts entered into for the
construction of the refinery.

The Company was also named as a defendant in the pending
litigation. Union stated that it intended to attempt to
establish liability against the Company as the alter ego of, and
successor in interest to, its subsidiary and on the basis of a
fraudulent conveyance of the subsidiary’s assets, and to seek to
pierce the corporate veil between the subsidiary and the
Company.

The parties settled that lawsuit in June 2007, with the  
subsidiary having agreed to pay an amount from funds previously
received from insurance underwriters, and with no contribution
from the Company.

Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is an offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59
marine drilling rigs. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's fleet
included 43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three
drillships, and two additional semisubmersible rigs the Company
operates for third parties under a joint venture agreement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Record 1,303 Suits at Oct. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corp., as of Oct. 29, 2007, recorded 1,303 asbestos-related
cases pending against its subsidiaries or the former subsidiary
where the Company has provided a limited indemnity, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

The Company, as of Feb. 15, 2007, recorded 1,295 asbestos-
related cases pending against its subsidiaries or the former
subsidiary where the Company has provided limited indemnity.
(Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007)

Several of the Company’s subsidiaries have been named as
defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury relating to
asbestos. In these cases, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises
liability or, in the case of subsidiary American Steamship Co.,
the Jones Act, which makes limited remedies available to certain
maritime employees.

In addition, demand has been made against the Company under a
limited indemnity given in connection with the sale of a
subsidiary by the purchaser for asbestos-related claims filed
against the former subsidiary.

Out of the total number of 1,303 pending cases, 1,203 are Jones
Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC prior to the
year 2000. During 2006, 124 new asbestos-related cases were
filed and 112 cases were dismissed or settled. During 2005, 22
new cases were filed and 46 cases were dismissed or settled.

For this two-year period, the aggregate amount paid to settle
asbestos-related cases filed against the Company’s subsidiaries
and the former subsidiary was less than US$185,000.

Chicago-based GATX Corp. leases, manages, operates and invests
in long-lived, widely used assets in the rail, marine and
industrial equipment markets. The Company has has three
financial reporting segments: Rail, Specialty and American
Steamship Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Has Pending Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corp. continues to face a large number of pending
lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple claimants) that
seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos-containing products made and distributed by
the Company in the past.

While the aggregate number of asbestos-related claims against
the Company has declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue.

Any such products were encapsulated and used as components of
process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that
any significant emission of respirable asbestos fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment.

The Company said it believes that a high percentage of the
claims are covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from
other companies, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
1, 2007.

Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corp. makes makes pumps, valves,
and mechanical seals. The acquisition of Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps
(IDP) from Ingersoll-Rand in 2000 made the Company the world's
largest provider of pumps for the chemical, petroleum, and power
industries. The Company's flow solutions division offers
mechanical seals, sealing systems, and repair services to OEMs
that make pumps, compressors, and mixers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Faces 25,000 Claims in Six States
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Co.,
which distributes industrial supplies, faces about 25,000
asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi and New Jersey, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by
third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have
contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of
mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a
hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont
to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims
or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time and, in recent years, some
of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have
sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.
Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases.

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, payments by
Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material.

Pittsburgh-based CONSOL Energy Inc. operates as a coal mining
company. The Company has some 4.3 billion tons of proved
reserves, mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the
Illinois Basin, and produces about 70 million tons of coal
annually. The Company also engages in natural gas exploration
and production. Its proved reserves total 1.3 trillion cu. ft.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Has Unresolved Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. faces unresolved legal actions, including
asbestos-related, that arise in the normal course of business,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.

Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. manufactures earthmoving
machinery and supplies agricultural equipment. The Company makes
construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural
gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power-
generation systems. The Company has plants worldwide and sells
its equipment globally via a network of 3,500 locations in 180
countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Garcia Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 1, California,
upheld the ruling of the San Francisco Superior Court in an
asbestos-related action filed by Genaro Garcia and his wife
Delia Garcia.

Judges Stein, Marchiano, and Margulies entered judgment of Case
Nos. A113027 and A113369 on Oct. 16, 2007.

The Garcias brought a personal injury and loss of consortium
action against numerous defendants, including Duro Dyne Corp.,
alleging that Mr. Garcia developed mesothelioma as a result of
being exposed to products containing asbestos when he worked in
the sheet metal industry.

The named defendants included: (1) manufacturers including Duro
Dyne and Owens-Illinois Inc.; (2) distributors including Thorpe
Insulation Co. and Bell Industries Inc., and (3) general
contractors including Holmes and Narver Inc.
     
The parties agreed that Bell was sued as successor-in-interest
to Reliable Steel Inc., which was a distributor of asbestos-
containing products.

The Garcias proceeded to trial against two defendants, Duro Dyne
and Holmes, after settling with Thorpe for US$675,000, with Bell
for US$250,000, and with Owens for US$25,000.

The Garcias also entered into smaller settlements totaling
US$176,420 with seven defendants, and exchanged releases for
mutual cost waivers with 16 other defendants.

After a one-month trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Holmes but against Duro Dyne, awarding US$1,605,619.32 to Mr.
Garcia for his claims and US$300,000 to Mrs. Garcia for her loss
of consortium claim.

Mr. Garcia's US$1,605,619.32 award consisted of US$125,369.32 in
past medical expenses, US$200,000 in future medical expenses,
US$530,250 in nonmedical economic damages and US$750,000 in
noneconomic damages.

The jury found that Duro Dyne was strictly liable for
manufacturing asbestos-containing products and negligent in
failing to warn customers or recall their products.

The trial court heard various post-trial motions, including Duro
Dyne's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the
jury's award of future damages, which the court denied.

Duro Dyne filed a timely appeal. The Garcias cross-appealed.

The Garcias contended the trial court erred in offsetting the
jury's economic damages award by US$64,000 for the releases for
cost waivers they entered into with 16 defendants.

The Appeals Court rejected both parties' contentions on appeal
and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Brayton Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Lloyd F. LeRoy, Gary L.
Brayton, represented Genaro Garcia and other Plantiffs and
Appellants.

Thomas A. Trapani, Adams Nye, Sinunu, Bruni, Becht, Robert M.
Channel, Lisa R. Ackley, Dana L. Burch, Walsworth, Franklin,
Bevins & McCall, represented Duro Dyne Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Expenses Total $11.5Mil at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to
US$11.5 million in the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared
with US$28.7 million in the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007.

The Company’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$13.1
million for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, compared with
US$20.7 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

The Company’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$37.5
million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$54.3 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Asbestos liabilities, net of receivables, amounted to US$23.4
million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$18.6 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$64.8 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$71.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted
to US$328.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$396.7
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s current asbestos liability amounted to US$86.4
million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$88.8 million as
of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company’s long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$430.3
million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$497.1 million as
of Dec. 31, 2006.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the
design, development, manufacturing and marketing of well
recognized, proprietary engineered industrial products that
include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and
filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Still Has 106,500 Open Cases at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. says that of the 106,500 open asbestos-
related cases at Sept. 30, 2007, it is aware of about 9,400
(nine percent) that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma,
lung cancer or some other cancer, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 6, 2007.

According to its quarterly report filed with the SEC on Aug. 7,
2007, the Company still faces 106,500 asbestos-related cases
filed against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 17, 2007)

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., are among a large
number of defendants in actions filed in various states by
plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers.

Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial
sealing products, including gaskets and packing products.  The
damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases
plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any
punitive damage awards. Since the first asbestos-related
lawsuits were filed against Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor
have processed about 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion
(including judgments, settlements and dismissals) and, together
with their insurers, have paid about US$1.3 billion in
settlements and judgments and over US$400 million in fees and
expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims
of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six
percent have been claims of plaintiffs with lung or other
cancers, and more than 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs
alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant
impairment of the respiratory system.

The number of new actions filed against the Company’s
subsidiaries in 2006 (7,700) was significantly lower than the
number filed in 2005 (15,300) and 2004 (17,400).

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops,  
manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer
bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and
heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Settlement Commitments Total $64M
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. recorded US$64 million in new asbestos-
related settlement commitments for its subsidiary Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC in the first nine months of 2007,
compared with US$59 million in the first nine months of 2006,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007.

During the first nine months of 2007, Garlock began seven
trials. A Massachusetts jury returned a defense verdict in favor
of Garlock. Four lawsuits in Pennsylvania, one in Maryland and
another in Washington settled during trial before the juries had
reached a verdict.

In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs.
Garlock received jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.;
Easton, Pa.; and Louisville, Ky.

In Pennsylvania, three other lawsuits involving four plaintiffs
settled during trial before the juries reached verdict. Garlock
also settled cases in Massachusetts, California and Texas during
trial.

In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was significantly less
than the US$1.75 million award against Garlock in the previous
trial, which Garlock successfully appealed. Garlock has also
appealed the new verdict. In addition, Garlock obtained
dismissals in two cases in Philadelphia after the juries were
selected but before the trials began because there was
insufficient evidence of exposure to Garlock products.

During 2005, Garlock began 13 trials. Six of these lawsuits
settled during the trials. In a mesothelioma case in Texas, the
jury returned a defense verdict in Garlock’s favor just after
settlement was reached. An Illinois jury and a Washington jury
also each returned defense verdicts for Garlock.

A Los Angeles jury returned an award to a living mesothelioma
claimant, but Garlock was able to settle the claim as part of a
large group settlement prior to the entry of judgment. A
Baltimore jury returned a verdict of US$10.4 million against
Garlock and two other defendants in a mesothelioma case.
Garlock’s one-third share was about US$3.5 million. A Dallas
jury returned a verdict of US$260,000 in another mesothelioma
case. Garlock’s share was about US$10,000, four percent of the
total verdict.

An Illinois jury in an asbestosis case returned a verdict
against Garlock of US$225,000, all of which was offset by
settlements with other defendants. The final 2005 trial was the
Kentucky case described in the previous paragraph, which
resulted in a verdict that was later overturned and subsequently
retried in 2006.

In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals,
in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict
that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial.
The case subsequently settled. On the other hand, the Maryland
Court of Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal from the 2005 Baltimore
verdict, and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment
interest, in the 2006-4th quarter.

In a separate Baltimore case in the 2006-4th quarter, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal from
another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was
also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in the 2007-2nd
quarter of 2007.

In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned an US$800,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. At Sept. 30,
2007, two Garlock appeals were pending from adverse verdicts
totaling US$1.2 million, down from US$6 million at Dec. 31,
2006, and more than US$41 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had US$1.1 million of cash
collateral relating to appeal bonds recorded as restricted cash
on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Garlock reduced new settlement commitments from US$180 million
in 2000 to US$94 million in 2001, US$86 million in 2002, US$86
million in 2003, US$84 million in 2004, US$79 million in 2005
and US$84 million in 2006. About US$15 million of the 2006
amount was committed in settlements in 2006 to pay verdicts that
had been rendered in the years 2003 to 2005.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops,  
manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer
bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and
heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $393M Reserve for Future Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.’s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, at Sept. 30, 2007, had available US$393 million of
insurance and trust coverage that the Company believes will be
available to cover future asbestos claim and certain expense
payments.

Garlock, at June 30, 2007, had available US$405 million of
insurance and trust coverage. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17,
2007)

In addition, at Sept. 30, 2007, Garlock had US$56 million of
otherwise available insurance that the Company classifies as
insolvent. Garlock has collected about US$1 million from
insolvent carriers in the first nine months of 2007, bringing
total collections from insolvent carriers from 2002 through 2007
to about US$39.3 million.

During the 2006-4th quarter, the Company reached an agreement
with a significant group of related U.S. insurers. These
insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of the matter.

The agreement provides for the payment of the full amount of the
insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual payments
to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the agreement, Garlock
received US$22 million during the first nine months of 2007.

In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer
that resolved two lawsuits and an arbitration proceeding. Under
the settlement, Garlock received US$4 million in December 2006
and will receive another US$17 million in the future. As part of
the agreement, Garlock agreed to forgo US$19 million of nominal
insurance.

During the 2005-1st quarter, the Company reached agreement with
two of Garlock’s U.S. insurers. The insurers agreed to pay
Garlock a total of US$21 million in three equal bi-annual
payments of US$7 million. The first payment was received in May
2005; the second was received in April 2007. The third payment
is due in May 2009.

In the 2004-2nd quarter, the Company reached agreement with
Equitas, the London-based entity responsible for the pre-1993
Lloyds’ of London policies in the Company’s insurance block,
concerning settlement of its exposure to the Company’s
subsidiaries’ asbestos claims. As a result of the settlement,
US$88 million was placed in an independent trust.

In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached agreement with a
group of London market carriers (other than Equitas) and one of
its U.S. carriers that has some policies reinsured through the
London market. As a result of the settlement, US$55.5 million
was placed in an independent trust.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the market value of the funds remaining in
the two trusts was US$44 million, which was included in the
US$393 million of insurance and trust coverage available to pay
future asbestos-related claims and expenses.

The Company currently estimates that the liability of its
subsidiaries for the indemnity cost of resolving asbestos claims
for the next 10 years will be US$511 million. The estimated
liability of US$511 million is before any tax benefit and is not
discounted to present value, and it does not include fees and
expenses, which are recorded as incurred.

During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge to income of US$11.5 million to reflect net cash outlays
of US$5.9 million for legal fees and expenses incurred during
the quarter, and a US$5.6 million non-cash charge primarily to
add an estimate of the liability for the 2017-3rd quarter to
maintain a 10-year estimate.

For the first nine months of 2007, the Company has recorded pre-
tax charges to income of US$37.5 to reflect net cash outlays of
US$19.6 million of legal fees and expenses and a US$17.9 million
non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of the liability
for the first nine months of 2017.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops,  
manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer
bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and
heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $516.7M at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.’s total liability at Sept. 30, 2007 was
US$516.7 million, which is the Company’s estimate of a US$510.5
million liability plus US$6.2 million of accrued legal and other
fees already incurred but not yet paid, according to the
Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007.

This amount includes US$94.9 million for advanced-stage cases,
settled claims and accrued legal and other fees, and US$421.8
million for early-stage and unasserted claims.

The recorded amounts do not include legal fees and expenses to
be incurred in the future. The recorded amounts include US$86.4
million classified in current liabilities and US$430.3 million
classified in non-current liabilities.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had remaining solvent
insurance and trust coverage of US$393.4 million which is
reflected on its balance sheet as a receivable (US$64.8 million
classified in current assets and US$328.6 million classified in
non-current assets) and which it believes will be available for
the payment of asbestos-related claims.

Included in the receivable is US$246.6 million in insured claims
and expenses that the Company’s subsidiaries have paid out in
excess of amounts recovered from insurance.

These amounts are recoverable under the Company’s insurance
policies and have been billed to the insurance carriers. The
remaining US$146.8 million will be available for pending and
future claims.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops,  
manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer
bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and
heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel
reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Losses & ALAE Total $320.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.’s asbestos-related net unpaid
losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses amounted to
US$320,686,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2007, compared with US$341,927,000 in the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company’s asbestos-related net unpaid losses and ALAE
amounted to US$328,954,000 for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2007, compared with US$356,787,000 for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17,
2007)

The Company’s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and ALAE
amounted to US$410,184,000 in the three and nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$422,367,000 in the three and
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company’s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and ALAE
amounted to US$421,380,000 for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2007, compared with US$441,752,000 for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17,
2007)

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
arising from the sale of general liability, commercial multi-
peril and umbrella insurance policies, the majority of which
were written for accident years 1985 and prior.

Estimation of ultimate liabilities for these exposures is
unusually difficult due to such issues as whether or not
coverage exists, definition of an occurrence, determination of
ultimate damages and allocation of such damages to financially
responsible parties.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100
percent owned by Fairfax Inc., which is ultimately owned by
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers a range of commercial property and casualty
insurance distributed through an independent producer force
located across the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelly-Moore Coverage Action Ongoing v. Crum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is in litigation with Kelly-Moore
Paint Company Inc. in connection with certain general liability
and umbrella liability policies issued to Kelly-Moore, according
to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

Filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, the litigation seeks
coverage for bodily injury claims arising out of exposure to
asbestos-containing products that Kelly-Moore and a subsidiary
sold between 1960 and 1978. It also seeks breach of contract and
bad faith damages.

In May 2006, Kelly-Moore filed a second amended complaint
seeking to recover from the Company defense costs it allegedly
paid to defend asbestos claims. Kelly-Moore also seeks payment
of sums for contribution and subrogation under three other
excess insurers’ assigned claims based on defense payments
allegedly made on Kelly-Moore’s behalf.

The Company has learned through discovery and submissions to the
court filed by Kelly-Moore that Kelly-Moore is seeking US$53
million for the defense costs, plus interest, and an additional
US$33 million for the contribution/subrogation claims.

Kelly-Moore also seeks to recover extra-contractual damages as
part of its bad faith claim.

The Company filed a cross-complaint against Kelly-Moore seeking
reimbursement of certain substantial loss and expense payments
made to or on behalf of Kelly-Moore to date.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100
percent owned by Fairfax Inc., which is ultimately owned by
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers a full range of commercial property and
casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer
force located across the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. ConEd, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Inc. says that asbestos-related suits have
been brought in New York State and federal courts against its
Utilities (Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and
Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.) and many other defendants,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007.

In the suits, a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts
of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of
the Utilities.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions
of dollars. However, the Utilities believe that these amounts
are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous
claims.

In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10
million.

In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers’ compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.

Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is
permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery
through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and
workers’ compensation claims.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company’s accrued liability for asbestos
suits amounted to US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its accrued liability
for workers’ compensation amounted to US$120 million, and its
regulatory assets for workers’ compensation amounted to US$45
million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s accrued liability for asbestos
suits amounted to US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its accrued liability
for worker’s compensation amounted to US$117 million, and its
regulatory assets for workers’ compensation amounted to US$42
million.

At Sept. 30, 2007, Con Edison of New York’s accrued liability
for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its regulatory
assets for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its accrued
liability for workers’ compensation amounted to US$115 million,
and its regulatory assets for workers’ compensation amounted to
US$42 million.

New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc.’s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to more than one
million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities
serves almost 421,000 electric and gas customers in three
states. The Company’s nonutility operations include retail and
wholesale energy marketing, independent power production, and
infrastructure project development.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $19Mil Costs for N.Y. Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, with respect to
a July 2007 pipe explosion, incurred estimated of US$19 million
for property damage, cleanup and other response costs.

The Company also invested US$11 million in capital, retirement
and other costs.

In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc.
steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. The cause of
the rupture is being investigated. It has been reported that one
person died and others were injured as a result of the incident.

Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of several buildings and
streets for various periods.

Several plaintiffs have sued the Company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages,
for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.

The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and
believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of
the Company’s costs, which could be substantial, to satisfy its
liability to others in connection with the incident.

New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc.’s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to more than one
million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities
serves almost 421,000 electric and gas customers in three
states. The Company’s nonutility operations include retail and
wholesale energy marketing, independent power production, and
infrastructure project development.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City IMS Has Claims from Old Ventures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tube City IMS Corp. has been named as a defendant in certain
asbestos-related claims relating to lines of business that were
discontinued over 20 years ago, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

Two non-operating subsidiaries of the Predecessor Company, along
with a landfill and waste management business, were spun-off to
the Company's former stockholders in October 2002. The two
former subsidiaries were subject to asbestos related personal
injury claims.

Management said it believes that the Company has no obligation
for asbestos related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries.

Management said it believes that the Company is sufficiently
protected by insurance with respect to these asbestos-related
claims related to these former lines of business.

Glassport, Pa.-based Tube City IMS Corp. provides outsourced
services to steel mills in North America with an emerging
presence globally. The Company has operations at 68 sites in
North America and Europe. Its primary services offered include
slag processing and metal recovery services, scrap management
and scrap preparation, raw materials procurement, surface
conditioning and scrap optimization.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Cites $2.6M Removal Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, has accrued
US$2.6 million for future asbestos-related removal costs,
according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

The Company, as of June 30, 2007, has accrued US$3 million for
future asbestos-related removal costs. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 24, 2007)

With respect to asbestos materials present at the Company’s City
National Plaza property, these materials have been removed or
abated from certain tenant and common areas of the building
structure.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos materials from
various areas of the building structure.

Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group Inc. invests in,
develops, and manages multifamily, office, and retail real
estate. The firm owns or manages some 20 properties in
California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Thomas
Properties' preferred strategy is to utilize investment
partnerships for acquisitions. Its largest tenant is Conrail,
which accounts for some 20 percent of the Company's rental
income.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int’l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Pride International Inc., since August
2004, have been named in 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 Nov. 2,
2007.

The suits were filed by several hundred individuals that allege
that they were employed by some of the named defendants between
about 1965 and 1986. Additional suits have been filed since
August 2004.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used
products containing asbestos in offshore drilling operations,
land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures,
drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment.

The plaintiffs assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act. The complaints name as
defendants numerous other companies that are not affiliated with
the Company, including companies that allegedly manufactured
drilling related products containing asbestos that are the
subject of the complaints.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. Eight individuals of the many plaintiffs in
these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for
the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors.

In August 2007, the special master overseeing the various suits
identified 60 plaintiffs whose cases could proceed to formal
discovery and possible trial. One of the 60 plaintiffs
identified the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors
as a former employer.

As of this time, the Company does not know when or if the claim
by this plaintiff will proceed to trial. Currently, none of the
other eight individuals identified as allegedly having worked
for the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors have
been selected for discovery and possible trial.

Discovery and investigation are ongoing to determine whether
these individuals were employed in the Company’s offshore
operations during the alleged period of exposure.

Houston-based Pride International Inc. is an international
provider of contract drilling services. The Company provides
contract drilling services to oil and natural gas exploration
and production companies through the operation and management of
61 offshore rigs and seven land drilling rigs. The Company also
has two ultra-deepwater drillships under construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Rise to 260
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 10 percent of the 2,600 product liability lawsuits,
pending against Mine Safety Appliances Co. are related to
asbestos or combined injuries, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 16,500
plaintiffs. About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve
plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in
silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there
has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could
potentially involve the Company.

The Company cannot determine its potential maximum liability for
such claims, in part because the defendants in these lawsuits
are often numerous, and the claims generally do not specify the
amount of damages sought.

About 10 percent of the 2,500 product liability lawsuits, or 250
cases, pending against the Company were related to asbestos or
combined injuries. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective
equipment for workers in the military, as well as the fire
service, construction, homeland security industries, and miners.
The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas
masks, and head protection gear, much of which carries the MSA
brand.




ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety in Dispute w/ Century Indemnity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Co. is involved in coverage litigation
with Century Indemnity Co., according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 2, 2007.

Century filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey
seeking a declaration of Century’s obligations with respect to
certain asbestos, silica and other claims under five insurance
policies issued to the Company by Century.

The New Jersey Superior Court issued an order granting the
Company’s motion to dismiss this case. Century has appealed that
order.

The Company has sued Century in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pa., alleging that Century breached the five
insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owing to the
Company.

The Pennsylvania court has denied a motion by Century to stay or
dismiss the Pennsylvania lawsuit in favor of the New Jersey
action and the Pennsylvania action is proceeding.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective
equipment for workers in the military, as well as the fire
service, construction, homeland security industries, and miners.
The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas
masks, and head protection gear, much of which carries the MSA
brand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Continues to Face Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company Inc. continues to be involved in numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company
is one of numerous defendants, according to the Company’s
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

After taking into consideration legal counsel’s evaluation of
those actions, the current political environment with respect to
asbestos related claims, and the liabilities accrued with
respect to those matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate
resolution is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company.

Based in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company Inc. makes ice-
making, beverage-dispensing, and refrigerating products, as well
as cranes and other material-handling equipment. The Company
sells its boom cranes, tower cranes, telescopic cranes, and
related equipment to companies in the construction and mining
industries. The Company also has a marine segment with shipyards
that build, service, and repair commercial and military vessels.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $7M for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., for the three and nine month
periods ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about US$7 million as
total costs for settlement of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 2, 2007.

For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2007, the
Company recorded about US$8 million for settlement of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

For the three and nine month periods ended Sept. 30, 2007, total
costs for defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries
and net of tax were about US$27 million.

For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2007, the
Company recorded about US$20 million for defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants.

Most of those claims has been filed against Ingersoll-Rand Co.
(IR-New Jersey), and generally allege injury caused by exposure
to asbestos contained in certain of IR-New Jersey’s products.

Although IR-New Jersey was neither a producer nor a manufacturer
of asbestos, some of its formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components, such as gaskets purchased from
third-party suppliers.

All asbestos-related claims resolved to date have been dismissed
or settled.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., with about
100 plants worldwide, makes refrigeration equipment (Thermo
King, Hussmann) used mostly in trucks and supermarkets, locks
and security systems (Schlage, Kryptonite), construction
equipment (Bobcat skid steers, light towers, portable
compressors), industrial equipment (generators, turbines, and
the like), and heavy equipment and golf carts (Compact Vehicle
Technologies).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Houston Wire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Co., along with many other defendants,
still faces a number of lawsuits in the state courts of
Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota alleging that certain
wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury
to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.

These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of
the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties
from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that
any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained
asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages
associated with these claims that the Company believes it could
enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

In addition, the Company maintains general liability insurance
that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated
with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance
policies and all defense of these claims has been handled by the
applicable insurance companies.

Houston Wire & Cable Co., through its wholly owned subsidiaries,
HWC Wire & Cable Co., Advantage Wire & Cable, and Cable
Management Services Inc., distributes specialty electrical wire
and cable to the U.S. electrical distribution market through 11
locations in 10 states throughout the United States. The Company
is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Looming After ASARCO Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for
the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, the Future Claims
Representative, and other parties-in-interest attended a three-
day initial mediation session from Oct. 29, 2007 to Oct. 31,
2007, in New Orleans before the Court-appointed mediator, Judge
Elizabeth W. Magner of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

ASARCO LLC told Judge Richard Schmidt, at a Nov. 9, 2007
hearing, that it is "very, very close" to reaching agreement in
mediation on a term sheet for settlement of its asbestos claims,
Bloomberg News reports.

To recall, ASARCO LLC, in March 2007, estimated that its
asbestos liabilities total US$242,100,000 to US$446,900,000.
Asarco Inc., ASARCO LLC's parent, said ASARCO LLC's asbestos
liabilities total no more than US$490,300,000. The Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors for ASARCO LLC provided the
lowest estimate, asserting that ASARCO LLC's asbestos
liabilities total no more than US$180,000,000.

The Asbestos Committee and the FCR estimate ASARCO LLC's
asbestos liabilities to be between US$906,000,000 and
US$2,655,000,000.

An estimation hearing on ASARCO LLC's asbestos liabilities is
scheduled to begin on Jan. 2, 2008.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 59; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Mt. McKinley, Everest Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Aug. 9, 2005 Petition Date, Asarco Inc., CAPCO Pipe
Company Inc., and Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltee., filed a lawsuit
against Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co.
and a number of other insurers in the 105th Judicial District
Court, Nueces County, Tex., for coverage determination with
respect to asbestos-related claims under insurance policies.

ASARCO and Mt. Kinley and Everest settled the dispute and agreed
that all claims asserted against Mt. McKinley and Everest were
dismissed with prejudice.

In April 2007, ASARCO LLC and the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors
commenced an adversary proceeding against Mt. McKinley and
Everest and other insurers seeking recovery of the alleged value
of releases purported to have been made under the prepetition
settlement agreement.

In August 2007, the Debtors commenced another adversary
proceeding against Mt. McKinley and Everest seeking a
declaration that certain transfers allegedly made to Mt.
McKinley and Everest are void and a recovery of the alleged
value of the transfers to have been made under prepetition
settlement agreements.

On June 28, 2007, the Debtors filed a notice supplementing their
Bar Date service lists, which included an amended Schedule F of
their Schedules of Assets and Liabilities. The Amended Schedule
F noted that certain insurance companies including Mt. McKinley
and Everest are potential creditors of the Debtors' estates.

The Supplemental Bar Date Notice stated that the additional
potential creditors have until Aug. 27, 2007, to file any proofs
of claim based on the potential claims.

Mt. McKinley and Everest did not file a proof of claim before
the Aug. 27, 2007 Bar Date because they did not discover the
Supplemental Bar Date Notice until about Oct. 16, 2007, Daniel
F. Patchin, at McLain & Patchin, P.C., in Houston, tells the
Court.  

According to Mr. Patchin, Mt. McKinley and Everest have no
formal involvement in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases until the
Adversary Proceedings were commenced. After the Adversary
Proceedings were filed, Mt. Kinley and Everest began a more
comprehensive review and analysis of the main bankruptcy case
including a review of all pleadings filed. Only then did Mt.
McKinley and Everest find the Supplemental Bar Date, Mr. Patchin
notes.

Counsel for both Mt. McKinley and Everest both reviewed their
records to determine whether the notice had been served on them
but found that neither had received the notice, Mr. Patchin
says.

Accordingly, Mt. McKinley and Everest seek the Court's
permission to file a late claim against the Debtors.

Mr. Patchin asserts that Mt. McKinley and Everest's failure to
file proofs of claim on the August 27 Bar Date constitutes
excusable neglect. He adds that the length of delay in filing is
negligible.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 59; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling v. Ford, Merck
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, California,
reversed a summary judgment ruling that was in favor of Ford
Motor Co. and Merck & Co. Inc., in an asbestos-related action
filed by Eileen Honer.

Judges Woods, Perluss, and Johnson entered judgment of Case No.
B189160 on Oct. 15, 2007.

Mrs. Honer's case was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County.

In her October 2004 complaint, Mrs. Honer alleged that her
father Joseph Mara and brother Joseph Mara, Jr. worked as
insulators at job sites including the Merck facility in Rahway,
N.J., and at the Lincoln-Mercury plant in Metuchen, N.J.

As a result, Joseph Mara and Joseph Mara, Jr. were exposed to
asbestos-containing products which caused their clothing,
bodies, vehicles and tools to be contaminated with asbestos
fibers.

Mrs. Honer then breathed these asbestos fibers because of her
direct and indirect contact with her father and brother
themselves as well as their clothes, vehicles, tools and general
surroundings.

In July 2004, Mrs. Honer alleged, she was diagnosed with
mesothelioma caused by her exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

According to Mrs. Honer's complaint, Merck and Ford caused the
release of respirable asbestos fibers by their own workers as
well as various contractors on Merck and Ford premises.

Mrs. Honer moved to California in 1956 and lived in California
from that date forward.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Ford on the ground
that the New Jersey statute of repose barred the action and for
Merck on the ground that the defendant owed no duty to Ms. Honer
who had never been to the work site.
     
Mrs. Honer appealed.

Because summary judgment was not properly granted as to either
defendant, the Appeals Court reversed and remanded to the trial
court with directions to enter new and different orders denying
the motions for summary judgment and placing this matter back on
the civil active list.

Waters & Kraus, Paul C. Cook, and Michael B. Gurien represented
Eileen Honer.

Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons, Farrise & Greenwood
and Steven Kazan as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Eileen Honer.

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, Daven G. Lowhurst and Paul
V. Lankford represented Ford Motor Co.

Jackson & Wallace, Gabriel A. Jackson, Todd M. Thacker and
Christine A. Huntoon represented Merck & Co. Inc.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Kevin Underhill as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Defendants and Respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jambon Action v. Northrop Grumman Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana, granted Doris Rita
Buffone Jambon's motion to remand, in an asbestos related action
filed against Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc.. f/k/a Avondale
Industries Inc., a privately owned shipyard that constructed
both military and commercial vessels.

The case was remanded to Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana.

U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon entered judgment of
Civil Action No. 07-6056 on Oct. 10, 2007.

Mrs. Jambon suffers from mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos brought home from work on the clothes of her husband,
Mason Jambon, and her two sons Billy and Bobby. The three Jambon
men were employed by Northrop Grumman.

Mrs. Jambon filed a petition for damages in Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, against Avondale
and multiple other defendants. Avondale removed the case to
federal court, alleging jurisdiction under the federal officers
removal statute.

Mrs. Jambon filed a motion to remand.

Accordingly, the District Court lacks jurisdiction over the
matter, and the motion to remand the case to state court is
granted.

Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Jonathan Brett Clement, Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Roussel, Laplace, La., represented Doris
Rita Buffone Jambon.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Able UK Holdings to Pay GBP22T for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Able UK Holdings Ltd., the parent company to Able UK and Alab
Environmental Services (AES), on Nov. 13, 2007, was fined
GBP22,000 for failing to appropriately treat asbestos waste in
line with petroleum regulations, MoreThanWaste reports.

The Company, which received planning permission to dismantle the
so-called American "ghost ships," pleaded guilty at Hartlepool
Magistrates Court on two counts.

The prosecution was brought by the Environment Agency and
related to asbestos disposal operations at the Seaton Meadows
Landfill Site, Hartlepool, England, which is operated by AES,
though the permit for the site is understood to be held by Able
UK.

The Court heard that in October 2005, a visiting Agency official
found that the main tipping area for asbestos had broken bonded
asbestos in it and a machine was moving the material.

According to Trevor Cooper, prosecuting for the Environment
Agency, there was no apparent dampening of the materials to
prevent asbestos fibers being released.

An Agency officer again visited the site in January 2006 and
found similar activities.

Able UK holdings admitted the offense, but in mitigation said
that the first was due to difficulties in obtaining cover
material because of equipment breakdown. On the second occasion
a sub-contractor failed to follow site safety instructions.

In October 2007, Able UK obtained planning approval to dispose
of four redundant U.S. Navy warships moored near Hartlepool.

Hartlepool Council had originally rejected the application
against the advice of its officers and with other issues this
led to delay in the planning approval for several years.

The effect of the delay was that Able UK lost part of its
contract for a further nine vessels to be dismantled and it is
understood that the Company is seeking to recover costs of up to
GBP1 million from the Council.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liverpool Pays Over GBP250,000 in 18 Months
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Post reveals that more than GBP250,000 has been paid
out in asbestos compensation claims by Liverpool City Council in
the past 18 months, Liverpool Echo reports.

The payouts related to four claims dating back as far as the
1960s, but it has raised concerns that the council may have left
itself vulnerable to a raft of future claims because it was
providing “inadequate” information and training on asbestos
management.

On Nov. 14, 2007, it was reported the Health and Safety
Executive had issued an enforcement notice to the council
demanding it gives proper training on asbestos to staff that
manage buildings. It has led to almost 800 staff being fast-
tracked on a training course on how to properly manage asbestos.

A city solicitor who specializes in asbestos claims said local
authorities needed to have in place adequate safeguards or there
could be “a deadly legacy for the future.”

Labor leader Joe Anderson warned that the GBP250,000 could be
the “tip-of-the-iceberg” in relation to claims that could come
in future.

The council said four claims related to a period of time when
the understanding of the dangers of asbestos were not understood
as well as today.

The council disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act that
between April 2006 and March 2007 the council paid out a total
of GBP70,000 for two claims.

One from a joiner, who alleged exposure before 1960, and the
other a boilerman, who alleged exposure from 1963 to 1969.

Since April 2007, the council has paid out GBP184,700 in respect
of two claims, from joiners. These claims related to exposure
from 1963 to 1969 and 1972 to 1974.

Kevin Johnson, of John Pickering solicitors, who is dealing with
a number of claims relating to the council, said, “If they have
not been adequately implementing regulations, and as a result
people are being exposed, it does raise concerns.”

Mr. Johnson has a number of cases ongoing with the council and
said some result in six-figure pay-outs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Aftermath of London Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
The fire service in London confirmed that asbestos has been
found on the site of the Nov. 12, 2007 London blaze, Building
reports.

The site is at a warehouse on Waterden Road, on the edge of the
2012 Olympic site in Hackney Wick.

The Health Protection Agency has warned the public not to touch
any material that may have come from the fire.

Up to 75 firefighters and six fire engines are believed to have
attended the fire.

The Olympic Delivery Authority is investigating the fire,
although it is thought that the blaze was an accident rather
than arson.

The area around the blaze was evacuated, although work continued
on the remainder of the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Farmer Sues 98 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hawley, a farmer from Wyoming, on Nov. 2, 2007, sued 98
defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
claiming that the companies are responsible for his
mesothelioma, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Hawley was employed from 1946 to 1999 as a farmer/rancher at
various locations throughout the States of Illinois, Wyoming,
and North Dakota.

Mr. Hawley claims he was diagnosed with the fatal disease on
July 1, 2007, and asserts his exposure to asbestos fibers was
completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated
by the defendants.

Some of the defendants include Bondex, CBS Corp., Chrysler, Ford
Motor Co., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., John Crane Inc., John Deere, MetLife
Inc., Owens-Illinois Inc., Royal Philips Electronics N.V., Union
Carbide Corp., and Western Auto.

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

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

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

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

As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Hawley claims he was
exposed to fibers containing asbestos. The complaint states
that, Mr. Hawley developed a disease caused only by asbestos
which has disabled and disfigured him. He seeks damages to help
pay for the cost of treatment.

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

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

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

Mr. Hawley seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$300,000,
plus punitive damages. He is represented by Tim Thompson and G.
Michael Stewart of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.

Case No. 07 L 950 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Reconsider Dana Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A committee representing asbestos-personal creditors in Dana
Corp.'s bankruptcy has asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Manhattan to throw out the Company's settlements with 7,500
asbestos creditors unless the Company provides more details on
the agreements, The Associated Press reports.

In papers filed Nov. 8, 2007 the Bankruptcy Court, the ad hoc
committee said Dana's settlement proposal could provide for
"more favorable treatment" for asbestos creditors who opt to
settle their claims before the Company's Chapter 11
reorganization plan is confirmed.

The committee said, “The ad hoc committee and other parties in
interest are entitled to full disclosure of all of the terms of
the proposed settlements by reviewing the actual settlement
agreements and should not be limited to relying on (Dana's)
description of some of the terms of the settlements.”

If Dana agrees to provide more details on the settlements, the
committee asked the bankruptcy court to delay a hearing on the
proposed settlement to give it time to review the settlements.

In October 2007, the Company reached a deal to pay 7,500
asbestos-personal injury claimants a total of US$2 million to
resolve their lawsuits stemming from the Company's asbestos-
containing automotive gaskets.

The Company has said asbestos-related personal-injury claims,
which totaled 150,000 as of June 30, 2007, will pass through its
bankruptcy unchanged. However, the company said many of the
claimants have not become sick.

According to court papers, about seven percent of the asbestos
claims filed against Dana allege mesothelioma or cancer.

The Toledo, Ohio-based Company is trying to exit bankruptcy
protection under a reorganization plan that calls for unsecured
creditors to recover between 72 percent and 86 percent on their
claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Covers Asbestos at Ill. Dairy Farm Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials say that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
covering asbestos contamination at a former dairy farm to
prevent it from becoming a problem for residents, officials say,
Observer-Dispatch reports.

Kristen Skopeck, EPA Region 2 public affairs specialist said
that the contamination at 3720 Southside Road does not present
an imminent danger, but officials want to avoid possible
problems from wind blowing the asbestos, people walking on it or
water causing it to run into the nearby Mohawk River.

Ms. Skopeck said that negotiations and possible litigation to
determine the responsible parties, who would have to pay for the
cleanup, must be completed before EPA officials receive
authorization to determine the next step.

Frankfort, Ill., resident John Dickan lives only a few miles
from the site and thinks the asbestos should be removed in case
it can spread through the air.

The site is about 1.25 miles northwest of Frankfort on Southside
Road, a heavily traveled highway between Ilion and Utica.
Surrounding land is either farmland or residential. About 2,537
people live within a half-mile of the site, according to the
EPA.

Cathy Downes almost daily visits her friend who lives near the
site. The friend babysits for one of Downes’ children.

The 1.75-acre contamination site is part of a 192-acre former
dairy farm owned by Cross Nicastro. A pile of shredded building
debris, 50,000 square feet in size and up to 20 feet high, is
located at the site. On this pile are 12 to 15 smaller piles of
the same material, according to the EPA.

Interim work will consist of leveling the smaller debris piles
and installing a synthetic liner cover over the area to prevent
the migration of asbestos. A security fence also will be
installed around the area, according to the EPA.

According to the EPA, the action should be completed in a month.

Funding from the EPA will cover the US$120,000 interim solution,
Ms. Skopeck said. The responsible party likely will have to
cover the costs of the next step and pay back the interim costs,
she added.

Frankfort town Supervisor Joseph Kinney said he understands the
EPA’s plan to first take interim measures because a responsible
party must be determined before further action.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Suits Filed v. Cayuga County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cayuga County Democratic Election Commissioner Dennis Sedor
filed two lawsuits against the county on the illegal removal of
asbestos in the county Board of Elections building, the latest
in a string of legal complaints filed against the county in
connection with the scandal, The Citizen reports.

Mr. Sedor, an Auburn, N.Y. attorney, filed suit on behalf of
himself and Board of Elections worker John Breanick, arguing
they were both exposed to cancer-causing asbestos in the
workplace after an old boiler was improperly removed from the
basement of the building in February 2006.

Suspended county carpenter John Chick pleaded guilty to
violating the Clean Air Act earlier in 2007 for his role in
illegally removing asbestos from the building's basement during
a boiler replacement project.

Mr. Chick remains on the county payroll pending the outcome of a
hearing on his employment status. His legal sentence is pending
in federal court.

In testimony given as part of his case, Cayuga County
Legislature Chairman George Fearon said he first knew about the
asbestos removal in June 2006, a month before the public or
employees at the Board of Elections building were notified.

However, the former superintendent of buildings and grounds for
the county, Ernie DeCaro, has testified that he told Mr. Fearon
about the situation in February 2006.

Mr. DeCaro has admitted knowing about Mr. Chick's illegal
activity while it was going on, but said he did nothing because
he did not want to become involved in the case.

Several other lawsuits in connection with the case were
previously filed on behalf of county employees, including
Republican Election Commissioner Cherl Heary and deputy
commissioners Thomas Prystal and Deborah Calarco, as well as
members of the public who did business in the building, and
county jail inmates who performed the demolition work that broke
up asbestos-laden pipes.

Both suits filed by Mr. Sedor complain that asbestos exposure in
the building was a result of “outrageous, illegal, unlawful,
willful, reckless, negligent and grossly negligent” acts by the
county, its employees and elected officials.

The suits seek, in part, unspecified actual and compensatory
damages, punitive damages and legal fees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Files Class Action Lawsuit v. County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn, N.Y. Lawyer Carl J. DePalma filed a fourth class-action
lawsuit against Cayuga County on the illegal removal and
disposal of asbestos in 2006, The Post-Standard reports.

On Nov. 2, 2007, Mr. DePalma filed the lawsuit on behalf of
seven members of the general public who were exposed to asbestos
during visits to the county's Board of Elections building on
Court Street.

Mr. DePalma already has filed lawsuits on behalf of a former
county employee ordered to remove the asbestos, a group of
county inmates ordered to work on the project and a group of
county employees exposed to asbestos at work.

Mr. DePalma said that the four legal actions could take 12 to 18
months to work their way through the courts. Each of the
lawsuits seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
from the county.
                       
  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: BBX) between November 9, 2005
and October 25, 2007, inclusive.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants issued misleading, positive statements about the
Company's land acquisition and development loan portfolio.
Defendants also made numerous claims in press releases and
public filings that the Company had significantly increased its
commercial real estate loan portfolio, but failed to disclose a
$27.8 million non-performing loan.

On April 25, 2007, BankAtlantic issued a partial disclosure --
announcing that the Company would likely suffer an impairment to
its loan portfolio because of a non-performing asset. Then, on
October 25, 2007, the Company announced the full extent of its
loan losses and real estate impairments, including non-
performing loans which had increased, from $21.8 million on June
30, 2007, to $165.4 million on September 30, 2007, primarily the
result of eleven commercial real estate loans totaling $148.7
million placed in non-accrual status. As a result of this news,
the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40 percent.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 28,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

BankAtlantic operates as the holding company for a Florida-
chartered bank which offers consumer and commercial banking
services in Florida, including commercial demand deposit
accounts, retail demand deposit accounts, savings accounts,
money market accounts, certificates of deposit, and individual
retirement accounts.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esquire
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Website: http://www.glancylaw.com


FUWEI FILMS: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Weiss & Lurie has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co., Ltd. and certain
individuals and underwriters associated with the Company.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of shares pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on or
about December 19, 2006 ("IPO") and through November 12, 2007.

The complaint charges Fuwei, certain of its executives and
underwriters with violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented or omitted material information regarding the
Company and its business operations.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who
purchased Fuwei securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 18,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Mark D. Smilow
          James E. Tullman
          David C. Katz
          Weiss & Lurie
          Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025
          e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com


WSB FINANCIAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or acquired the common stock of WSB
Financial Group, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the initial public offering of WSB Financial common stock on
December 14, 2006 and through and including October 23, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO misrepresented:
the standards by which WSB Financial conducted, originated,
administered and monitored construction and mortgage loans; its
compliance with applicable laws; and its financial condition. As
such it is alleged that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

On October 23, 2007, WSB Financial disclosed that certain
deficiencies were identified in various lending products and
practices. WSB Financial further disclosed that regulators were
scrutinizing "the application, processing and approval of
certain loans previously made." On this news, WSB Financial's
stock fell dramatically over the next two trading days, from a
closing price of $11.56 a share on October 23, 2007 to a closing
price of $4.73 a share on October 25, 2007, on unusually high
trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Kirwan, Esq.
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          Phone: 1-800-721-3900
          E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or skirwan@zsz.com


WYETH INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Wyeth securities
between January 31, 2006 and July 24, 2007.

The complaint charges Wyeth and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Wyeth is a leading pharmaceutical company and maintains a
large business in women's health care products.

According to the complaint, from 2003 to 2006, Wyeth conducted
Phase 3 clinical trials on its new drug, Pristiq for
postmenopausal symptoms of hot flashes and night sweats. In June
2006, Wyeth announced that it had submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
for this indication. The complaint alleges that defendants'
statements regarding Pristiq were materially false and
misleading when made because defendants concealed negative data
regarding Pristiq's hepatic and cardiovascular effects.

On July 24, 2007, Wyeth announced that it received an approvable
letter from the FDA for Pristiq. In its letter, the FDA said
that before the application could be approved, it would be
necessary for Wyeth to provide additional data regarding the
potential for serious adverse cardiovascular and hepatic effects
associated with the use of Pristiq in this indication. The FDA
requested that these data come from a randomized, placebo-
controlled clinical trial of a duration of one year or more
conducted in postmenopausal women. After the announcement of the
FDA committee's decision, Wyeth's stock price dropped from $56
to $50.30 the next day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Wyeth securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.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  * * *