CAR_Public/071123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 233

                            Headlines

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Certification Order in OrthoClear Suit Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Reinstatement of Maine Lights Lawsuit
CANADA: Labradormiut File Suit Over Residential School Abuse
CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Securities Lawsuit
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Md. Students' Litigation

CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. FLSA Violations Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Students of Calif. Culinary Academy File Suit
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Shop Lights Posing Shock Hazard
ELI LILLY: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint

FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Jewelry on Paint's High Lead Content
GAS PIPELINES: No Ruling Yet in Antitrust Suit Certification
GAS PIPELINES: No Certification Yet in Gas Royalty Owners Suit
L-3 COMMS: Pension Fund Amends Suit Over Stock Options Award
NVR INC: Faces Several Overtime Wage Suits in Ohio, Md., N.Y.

NVR INC: Still Faces Penn. Suit Alleging RESPA Violations
PHILIP MORRIS: Award in Brazilian Consumer Suit Under Appeal
PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Smokers Class Certification Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces Tobacco Marketing Fraud Suit in Cal.
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces 17 Lights/Ultra Lights Suits in U.S.

PHILIP MORRIS: Revival of “Aspinall” Lights Lawsuit Under Appeal
SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles Suit Over Gas Ranges Without “Anti-Tip”
STEWART TITLE: Court to Evaluate Yigo Lands Suit Certification
TOTAL HEALTH: Settles Workers' Suit in Penna. Court for $2.2M

TRI-STATE CHRYSLER: W.Va. Woman Sues Over “Fraudulent Contest”
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Awaits Ruling in “Taylor” Policyholders Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed "Preferred List"


                      Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Connors Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Faces 208 Cases at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at Oct. 15
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Ongoing v. CenterPoint, Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Has $56.3M Loss Reserves at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 10 Cases Set for Trial in 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Has $189M for Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATSDR Finds Illinois Beach Park Hazard-free
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison County Trial Ends with Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Gov't. Indicts Contractors for Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Awards JPY22M Payout to Widow
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Party to W.R. Grace Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Involved in Grace Case in Canada
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Deficit Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Bid on Disclosure Statement Granted

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Inc. Faces 470 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 3,479 Claims in Jan.-Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Faces 72,790 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Faces 400 Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Faces Injury Case in L.A.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,300 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Insurance Reserves $23M at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Has $331,000 for Ohio Facility
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Rise to 1,697 at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 660 Suits w/ 6,800 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Faces 140 Actions with 4,100 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Cases at Sept. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit, Carrier Enter Claims Agreement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 115 Actions at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,702 Claims at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending v. Gardner Denver
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $363.48M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 343 Open Claims in U.K.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 132,810 U.S. Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner to Claim Extra Damages v. Hardie
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Testing Offered to Ferry Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Monitor Air During Kans. Demolitions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: L. Tersigni Files for Bankruptcy in Conn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Finalizes Sale of Lummus for $950M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Sues 65 Corporations in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arizonian Sues 67 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capital Manor, Contractors Fined $64,058
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Fitter Files GBP100T Suit v. Employers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Dana Corp.'s $2M Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Worker Sues 38 Firms in West Virginia
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Announces Ariz. Enforcement Achievement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Local Files Suit v. 26 Corporations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Pleasant Acres Worker Sues York County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victim Gets Payout From Hardie Unit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP to Penalize for Hazard at Fla. Hospital
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Engineer Payout Rights
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida DEP to Check for Hazard in Landfill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owner of Ill. Demolition Cos. Pleads Guilty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Swiss School Staff Fall Ill Due to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Widow Files Lawsuit Against Transfield
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. A.O. Smith, 40 Firms in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Settle Minnesota Claim for $26,472
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Grace to Settle 40 Damage Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Disallow Allegheny PD Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Reports Settlement of Claims for 3Q07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $8.2M Verdict Against Union Carbide, Hexion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Phelps Dodge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Records $7.25M for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Drop to 240 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces ACE Insurance Action


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ACA CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
CHINA EXPERT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
E-TRADE: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
FEDERAL HOME: Coughlin Stoia Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
FORMFACTOR INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.

HOME SOLUTIONS: Schatz Nobel Files Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PZENA ASSET: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Certification Order in OrthoClear Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions for and against a certification of a
class in a suit that names Align Technology, Inc., OrthoClear
Inc., and OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., d/b/a OrthoClear, Inc., as
defendants.

The Complaint, filed on behalf of Debra A. Weber and all others
similarly situated on May 18, 2007, alleges that orthodontic
treatments of the dental patient plaintiff “were interrupted,
unduly prolonged or terminated as a result of defendants'
unlawful conduct” relating to the OrthoClear Settlement.

                    OrthoClear Settlement

On Oct. 13, 2006, the Company entered into a formal agreement
with OrthoClear, Inc., OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., and OrthoClear
Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. (OrthoClear), together with certain
individuals associated with OrthoClear to end all pending
litigation between the parties.  

As part of the OrthoClear Agreement, OrthoClear agreed to stop
the importation of aligners into the U.S. and discontinue all
aligner business operations worldwide.  

As a result, most OrthoClear patients were unable to complete
their orthodontic treatment with OrthoClear.  In an attempt to
help minimize treatment disruptions for the OrthoClear patients
and their doctors, the Company committed to make treatment
available to these patients at no additional cost under the
Patients First Program.“

Align Technology launched the Patients First Program to provide
new Invisalign treatment to former OrthoClear patients at no
charge to patients or their doctors.

                       Causes of Action

The Complaint alleges two causes of action against the
OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align
Technology for breach of contract.  

The cause of action against Align Technology references Align's
agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to OrthoClear
patients, alleging that Align failed “to provide the promised
treatment to Plaintiff or any of the Class Members.”

On July 3, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint
and asserted 17 affirmative defenses.  On July 20, 2007, the
company filed a motion for summary judgment on the Third Cause
of Action (the only cause of action alleged against Align).  

On Aug. 24, 2007, Ms. Weber filed a motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 1, 2007, the company filed an opposition
to the motion of class certification and it is currently
awaiting rulings from the Court.

The suit is “Weber v. Align Technology, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Norman A. Mordue,
with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Mark J. Schulte, Esq.
         Daniel B. Berman, Esq.
         Maureen E. Maney, Esq.
         Zachary M. Mattison, Esq.
         Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm
         P.O. Box 4976
         1500 MONY Tower I
         Syracuse, NY 13221-4976
         Phone: 315-471-3151
         Fax: 315-471-3167 or 315-233-4312
         E-mail: mschulte@hancocklaw.com or
                 dberman@hancocklaw.com or
                 mmaney@hancocklaw.com or
                 zmattison@hancocklaw.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Reinstatement of Maine Lights Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit, “Good, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et
al.,” filed a petition for a writ of certiorari against a
decision reinstating the lights class action.

The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of Maine residents who
smoked Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights manufactured by
Philip Morris USA, Inc.  The lawsuit contends that Philip
Morris, USA Inc., and its parent company, Altria Group, Inc.,
violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Law by engaging in
unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company made
affirmative representations that some of its brands are “Light”
and that they deliver “Lowered Tar and Nicotine” when in fact
they do not do so and the company knew that they do not do so.

The lawsuit was dismissed on May 25, 2006 by U.S. District Court
Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., who ruled that the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) pre-empts the
plaintiffs’ claims.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit on August 31, 2007, issued a ruling that reinstated the
suit.

The court vacated the district court’s grant of PM USA’s motion
for summary judgment on federal preemption grounds and remanded
the case to district court. The district court has stayed
proceedings pending the ruling of the United States Supreme
Court on defendant’s anticipated petition for a writ of
certiorari, which was filed on October 26, 2007.


CANADA: Labradormiut File Suit Over Residential School Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------
While the residential school survivors across Canada are in the
process of receiving their Common Experience Payments and
applying for increased compensation for the most serious claims
of abuse, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and
Nunatsiavut have been left out.

Over 300 individual survivors of residential schools located
throughout Labrador and Northern Newfoundland, have retained
Steven Cooper of the law firm of Ahlstrom Wright Oliver & Cooper
LLP of Sherwood Park, Alberta and Kirk M. Baert of Koskie Minsky
LLP of Toronto, Ontario to represent their interests and that of
all similar survivors.

Recently, a class action was filed in the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador seeking compensation similar to that
already agreed upon for survivors in all other parts of Canada.

Messrs Cooper and Baert are members of the National Consortium
Negotiating Committee which represented over 7500 survivors in
negotiations resulting in the settlement of the national class
action currently being implemented in the rest of the country.

Mr. Cooper's clients include survivors from across Northern
Canada including Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut and
elsewhere. Mr. Baert is one of Canada's leading class action
lawyers and represented survivors from across Canada when the
class action settlement was presented to 9 provincial and
territorial superior courts across Canada.

"I wondered why no one from Labrador showed up at the
negotiations. To this day, neither I nor anyone I represent have
received a satisfactory explanation as to why Labrador survivors
were not included in the settlement package," said Mr. Cooper.

"I was contacted by a small group of residential school
survivors from Labrador approximately one year ago and despite a
number of attempts to get information from and work with the
Nunatsiavut Government, I have heard nothing formally from them.

“My clients have been told that efforts are being made to
include them in the settlement agreement but as far as I can
tell, nothing has come of those attempts. In the absence of a
political solution, we must look to the courts for equitable
treatment for our clients and for all survivors across
Newfoundland and Labrador including the area of Nunatsiavut."

The class action claim will eventually include all residential
schools operated by any entity in Newfoundland and Labrador,
including those that may have been operated by the Newfoundland
and Labrador Government before Confederation in 1949.

"Although the claim asks for the same sort of relief as was
requested of the Courts across the country, we are looking for
nothing more than what has been negotiated on behalf of
survivors in the rest of Canada," notes Mr. Baert.

"What we negotiated on behalf of the residential school
survivors in the rest of the country is fair compensation for
all survivors. Our clients seek nothing other than fair and
equal treatment with their fellow survivors across the country."

"I am happy Mr. Cooper and Mr. Baert have been hired to help
people in Labrador. Mr. Cooper has represented survivors in
Nunavut for a decade and I know Nunatsiavutmiut(Labradormiut)
are in good hands. As someone who grew up in the North, Mr.
Cooper understands what we went through and he has worked for us
for years without any help from anyone.

“I hope the Federal Government treats my colleagues in Labrador
the same as survivors in the rest of the country. I hope they
settle this claim quickly and fairly. I cannot believe they were
not included in the current settlement," said former Nunavut
Commissioner and former residential school student Peter Irniq.

Mr. Baert and Mr. Cooper were quick to point out that they
continue to hope to work with the representatives of the
Nunatsiavut Government but will continue to represent individual
clients and their class interests, regardless of what the
Nunatsiavut Government may do in the future.

The Government of Canada, under pressure from more than 15,000
individual lawsuits, 21 class actions and pressure from the
Assembly of First Nations, agreed formally on May 30, 2005, to
enter into settlement negotiations. The negotiations took place
over the latter half of 2005 and resulted in a landmark
settlement on November 20, 2005.

The settlement was ultimately approved by courts across the
country from December 2006 to March 2007. Implementation began
in late September 2007. Under the settlement currently being
implemented across the country, it is expected that
approximately 80,000 survivors and their families will share in
approximately $5 billion dollars in settlement funds.

The funds represent payments to individuals and payments, a
truth and reconciliation commission, commemoration funds and
healing funds.

Under the settlement in operation in the rest of the country,
survivors will not only receive a compensation payment based on
their years of attendance at residential schools, but up to
$525,000.00 each for serious physical and any sexual abuse and
resulting economic losses.

The process for which claims may be made under the more serious
abuse category called the Independent Assessment Process allows
for a supportive, private hearing to determine entitlement
before an independent adjudicator.

For more info, contact:

          Steven Cooper
          Kirk M. Baert
          Phone: 1-800-994-7477 or (780) 464-7477 or
                 (416) 595-2117
          Email: steven@awoc.ca or kbaert@kmlaw.ca
          Website: http://www.awoc.caor http://www.kmlaw.ca


CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the consolidated class
action, “In re: Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:03-cv-08884,” according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The case, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, represents the consolidation into
one suit of six purported class actions filed between Dec. 9,
2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, by and on behalf of certain purchasers
of the company's common stock, against the company, John M.
Larson, a former officer of CEC, and Patrick K. Pesch, a current
officer of the company.

The lawsuit alleged that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiffs further claimed that Messrs. Larson and Pesch were
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On March 29, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed with
prejudice the plaintiffs' third amended consolidated complaint.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their
third amended consolidated complaint to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 24, 2007.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle the plaintiffs'
claims on appeal.  

This settlement is subject to the case being remanded to the
District Court by the Court of Appeals and approval by the
District Court after notice to potential class members.

The suit is “In re: Career Education Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan
Humphrey Lefkow.

Representing the company are:

         Karl Richard Barnickol, Esq.
         Mary Ellen Hennessy, Esq.
         Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq.
         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman
         525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600
         Chicago, Il 60661-3693
         Phone: (312) 902-5200

    
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Md. Students' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, “Laronda
Sanders, et al. v. Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. et al.,”
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

On March 15, 2006, 12 former students of the Landover, Maryland
campus of Sanford-Brown Institute, one of Career Education
Corp.'s schools, filed a class-action complaint, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, against Career
Education and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., one of the
company's subsidiaries.  The suit was filed in the Circuit Court
for Prince George's County, Maryland.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants made fraudulent
misrepresentations and violated the Maryland consumer fraud act
by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things,
details regarding instructors' experience or preparedness,
availability of clinical externship assignments, and estimates
for the dates upon which the plaintiffs would receive their
certificates and be able to enter the work force.  

Plaintiffs further allege that defendants failed to maintain
accurate attendance records, and that the defendants negligently
or deliberately dropped students without justification.  

The complaint also alleges that defendants breached the
enrollment contract with plaintiffs by failing to provide the
promised instruction, training, externships, and placement
services.  Plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, and
costs.  

Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, and filed a motion to dismiss significant
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff moved to remand the action
to state court.  

On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  The Court also granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the common law and statutory fraud counts of the complaint, with
leave to amend.  On Oct. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

The plaintiffs purport to bring their claims on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of similarly situated former
students.  The case was later consolidated with a separate
action brought in the same court by another former student.

On March 12, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which alleges that the defendants made fraudulent
misrepresentations and violated the Maryland consumer fraud act
by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things,
details regarding instructors' experience or preparedness,
availability of clinical externship assignments, and estimates
for the dates upon which the plaintiffs would receive their
certificates and be able to enter the work force.

The complaint also alleges that defendants breached plaintiffs'
enrollment contracts by failing to provide the promised
instruction, training, externships, and placement services.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, punitive damages,
and costs.

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is a  
educational services company operating.

    
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. FLSA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Career Education Corp., American InterContinental
University, Inc. (AIU Online), and the president of the
company's Online Education Group.  

The litigation, “Paul Vander Vennet, et al. v. American
InterContinental University, Inc., et al.,” was filed on Aug.
24, 2005 by former admissions advisors of AIU, alleging that the
defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.  The defendants allegedly failed to pay the plaintiffs for
all of the overtime hours they allegedly worked.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class under the
FLSA and, on Aug. 24, 2005, filed a motion for FLSA Notice.  On
Dec. 22, 2005, and April 7, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motions to send FLSA Notice, and plaintiffs' counsel has
distributed such notice to certain current and former admissions
advisors.

On April 7, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
expand the class to include temporary admissions advisors.  The
deadline for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to this lawsuit was
June 23, 2006.  

Less than 10 percent of the persons to whom notice of the suit
was sent, including current and former admissions advisors, have
joined the litigation.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental
University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge William T. Hart.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robin B. Potter, Esq.
          Robin Potter & Associates P.C.
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: robinpotter@igc.org

Representing the defendants is:

          James M. Gecker, Esq.
          Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP
          525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: 312-902-5200
          E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com


CAREER EDUCATION: Students of Calif. Culinary Academy File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. faces a purported class action in
California entitled, “Amador et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corp.”

On Sept. 27, 2007, a complaint was filed in the California
Superior Court in San Francisco on behalf of 37 current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy.

Plaintiffs plead their complaint as a putative class action and
allege four putative causes of action: fraud; constructive
fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process.  

The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of
the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon
graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial
student loans.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is a  
educational services company operating.


COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. and five of the company's subsidiaries
continue to face a purported class action filed in the Superior
Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, entitled, “Knox, et
al. vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445.”

The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called “payday
lending” business, certain of the Company's Retail Micro-Lending
and Servicing segment subsidiaries violated various laws
governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade
practices and loan brokering.  

The plaintiffs further allege that the Company is the alter ego
of its subsidiaries and is liable for their actions.  The
plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class
member.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a  
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the underserved (or sub-prime)
consumer credit market, as well as to un-banked consumers.


COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Shop Lights Posing Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Lighting Inc., a division of Cooper Industries, of
Houston, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 274,000 Metalux
Fluorescent Shop Lights.

The company said when the two prongs on the plug's electrical
cord are touched simultaneously while lamps are installed, the
light can pose an electric shock hazard to consumers.

Cooper Lighting has received six reports of consumers
experiencing an electric shock. No serious injuries have
occurred.

This recall involves the Metalux fluorescent shop
lights Model 9240. Only date codes between December 1, 2006
("344 06") and September 14, 2007 ("257 07") are included in
this recall. The date code format includes the day and the year.
For example, "344 06" refers to the 344th day of year 2006, or
December 1, 2006. The model number and date code can be found on
the packaging and on labels adhered to the fixture housing.

The fluorescent shop lights were made in China and sold at major
home center and hardware stores nationwide from January 2007 to
October 2007 for between $8 and $10.

Consumers are advised to stop using the light fixture
immediately and uninstall it according to instructions posted at
http://www.cooperlighting.com.

The fixture should be returned to the place of purchase for a
full refund or credit.

For additional information, contact Cooper Lighting at
(800) 440-1676 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit http://www.cooperlighting.com.


ELI LILLY: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. is seeking for the dismissal of an amended
consolidated securities complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suits, which were filed against the company and various
current and former directors, officers and employees, are:

       -- “Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.,” filed
          on March 28, 2007, and

       -- “Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.,” filed
          on April 5, 2007.

In both lawsuits, plaintiffs request certification of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from March 28, 2002, through
Dec. 22, 2006.

The complaints allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys’ fees.

In October 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, according to its Nov. 5, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Jewelry on Paint's High Lead Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, of Charlotte, N.C., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
205,000 Rachel Rose and Distinctly Basics Assorted Metal
Jewelry.

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

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled jewelry was sold under the Rachel Rose and
Distinctly Basics brands and includes key rings and pins with
religious themes (crosses and fish symbols), key rings with
"Mom" and cheerleader charms; bracelets with charms like
handbags, flip flops, hearts, dresses, and flowers; silver-
colored rings with designs or stones in a variety of colors;
clutchless hoop earrings with decorations such as butterflies;
and filigree and long drop earrings with stones in a variety of
colors.

The jewelry was made in China and sold at Family Dollar stores
nationwide from January 2003 through August 2007 for between
$.50 and $2. A complete list of the recalled jewelry can be
found at htpp://www.familydollar.com.  It was sold at Hobby
Lobby stores nationwide from August 2007 through November 2007
for about $1.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children and return it to a Family Dollar store for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact Family Dollar at
(800) 547-0359 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.familydollar.com.


GAS PIPELINES: No Ruling Yet in Antitrust Suit Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
a motion to certify a new class action, styled, “Price, et al.
v. Gas Pipelines, et al.”  Gas Pipelines is a subsidiary of XTO
Energy, Inc.

The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and operators.  It
seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
similarly situated gas royalty owners either from whom the
defendants had purchased natural gas or measured natural gas
since January 1, 1974 to the present.

The new petition alleges the same improper analysis of gas
heating content that had previously been alleged in "Price"
until it was removed from the case by the filing of the amended
class action petition.

The previous "Price" case is styled, "Price, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines, et al. (formerly "Quinque" case)."  It was filed in
June 2001, on behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
similarly situated gas working interest owners, overriding
royalty owners and royalty owners either from whom the
defendants had purchased natural gas or who received economic
benefit from the sale of such gas since Jan. 1, 1974.

In all other respects, the new petition appears to be identical
to the amended class action petition in that it has a proposed
class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy, unjust
enrichment and accounting, and only applies to gas measured in
Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine
whether the amended class should be certified, and the Company
is awaiting the Court's decision.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com– along with its  
subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development,
exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas
properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and
transportation of oil and natural gas.


GAS PIPELINES: No Certification Yet in Gas Royalty Owners Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
a motion to certify a lawsuit filed by gas royalty owners
against Gas Pipelines, a subsidiary of XTO Energy, Inc.

On Aug. 5, 2003, plaintiffs in “Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines,
et al.,” served one of the company's subsidiaries with a new
original class action petition, “Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines,
et al.”  The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens
County, Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and
operators.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of plaintiffs
consisting of all similarly situated gas royalty owners either
from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or measured
natural gas since Jan. 1, 1974 to the present.

The new petition alleges the same improper analysis of gas
heating content that had previously been alleged in the Price
case discussed above until it was removed from the case by the
filing of the amended class action petition.

In all other respects, the new petition appears to be identical
to the amended class action petition in that it has a proposed
class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy, unjust
enrichment and accounting, and only applies to gas measured in
Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine
whether the amended class should be certified, and the company
is awaiting the decision of the court.  The amount of damages
was not specified in the complaint.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com– along with its  
subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development,
exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas
properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and
transportation of oil and natural gas.


L-3 COMMS: Pension Fund Amends Suit Over Stock Options Award
------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund (IBEW) filed
an amended complaint in a suit over L-3 Communications Corp.'s
stock options award practices.

On Nov. 20, 2006, IBEW filed a class action complaint in the
Supreme Court of New York, County of New York against the
Company and certain current and former directors and officers
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the
Company’s historical stock option grants and disclosures.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission of the 2004
amendment to the 1999 Long Term Performance Plan, equitable
relief, and the award of fees and expenses.

The Company and other defendants filed a notice of removal of
this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on Jan. 9, 2007, which was denied on July 24, 2007.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action.  Thereafter, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Oct. 17, 2007, asserting
claims against a slightly different group of current and former
directors and officers.

This new complaint adds several state law claims brought
derivatively by the plaintiff, including breach of fiduciary
duty.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission
of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Long Term Performance Plan,
equitable relief, disgorgement and attorney’s fees and costs.

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.L-3com.com-- is  
a system contractor for aircraft modernization and operations
and maintenance, command, control and communications,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance collection systems
and services, training and simulation, intelligence services and
government support services.


NVR INC: Faces Several Overtime Wage Suits in Ohio, Md., N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc. faces several purported class actions in Ohio,
Maryland, and New York with regards to overtime wages, according
to its Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

On July 18, 2007, former employees filed lawsuits against the
coampny in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in the Superior Court in
Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the
Superior Court in New Jersey.

The suits are alleging that the company incorrectly classified
its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from
overtime wages.  

These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on
Oct. 29, 2004 by another former employee in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other
fees and interest.  

The suits were filed as purported class action.  The class of
individuals that any of the lawsuits purport to represent has
not been certified.

NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- is engaged in the  
construction and sale of single-family detached homes, town
homes and condominium buildings.  NVR also operates a mortgage
banking business.


NVR INC: Still Faces Penn. Suit Alleging RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc. faces a purported class action in Pennsylvania,
alleging that it violated Section 8 of the Real Estate
Settlement and Protection Act.

On April 16, 2007, a lawsuit was filed by one of the company's
customers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs allege that the company violated Section 8 of the
Real Estate Settlement and Protection Act.  

The complaint seeks treble damages, interest, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorney fees and other expenses.  The
lawsuit was filed as a purported class action.

NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- is engaged in the  
construction and sale of single-family detached homes, town
homes and condominium buildings.  NVR also operates a mortgage
banking business.


PHILIP MORRIS: Award in Brazilian Consumer Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in smoking and health class actions brought against
tobacco industry participants in Brazil are appealing a 2004
order granting damages award to plaintiffs.

In addition to the cases brought in the United States, three
smoking and health class actions have been brought against
tobacco industry participants, including certain Philip Morris
International Inc. subsidiaries in Brazil and Israel.

In one class action in Brazil, a consumer organization is
seeking damages for smokers and former smokers, and injunctive
relief. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff in
February 2004. The court awarded BRL$1,000 (currently
approximately $500) per smoker per full year of smoking for
moral damages plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of
the date of the ruling. Actual damages are to be assessed in a
second phase of the case. The size of the class is currently
unknown.

Defendants appealed the decision to the Sao Paulo Court of
Appeals and the case, including the judgment, is currently
stayed pending appeal. In addition, the defendants filed a
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on the basis
that the consumer association does not have standing to bring
the lawsuit. Both appeals are pending, according to Altria Group
Inc.'s Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.


PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Smokers Class Certification Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Currently pending are two purported class actions against Philip
Morris USA:

     (1) Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of New York;  
         and

     (2) Donovan, filed in March 2007 in the United States
         District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The suits were filed on behalf of each state’s respective
residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro
brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed
with lung cancer nor are under examination by a physician for
suspected lung cancer.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various
product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-
supervised program providing members of the purported class Low
Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer.

Neither claim seeks punitive damages.  Plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification is pending in Caronia, according to Altria
Group Inc.'s Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2007.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces Tobacco Marketing Fraud Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA faces two remaining tobacco-related class
actions under the California Business and Professions Code after
the dismissal of one suit in August.

In June 1997 and July 1998, two suits, “Brown” and “Daniels”
were filed in California state court alleging that domestic
cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, have
violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200
and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices.

Class certification was granted in both cases as to plaintiffs’
claims that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the
costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods and
injunctive relief.

                        Daniels Lawsuit

In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motion for
summary judgment as to all claims in “Daniels,” and plaintiffs
appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court
of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and also denied
plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing.

In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear
plaintiffs’ appeal. In August 2007, the California Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal of the Daniels class action on federal
preemption grounds.

                         Brown Lawsuit

In September 2004, the trial court in “Brown” granted
defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims
attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and
denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’
claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements.

Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In March 2005, the
court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class based on
a recent change in California law, which, in two July 2006
opinions, the California Supreme Court ruled applicable to
pending cases.

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that
decertified the class was denied, and plaintiffs have appealed.
In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court’s order decertifying the class in Brown. In November
2006, the California Supreme Court accepted review of the
appellate court’s decision.

                      Gurevitch Lawsuit

In May 2004, “Gurevitch” was filed in California state court on
behalf of a purported class of all California residents who
purchased the Merit brand of cigarettes since July 2000 to the
present alleging that defendants, including PM USA, violated
California’s Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices, including false and misleading advertising.

The complaint also alleges violations of California’s Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. In July 2005,
defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; however, plaintiffs’
motion for leave to amend the complaint was also granted, and
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2005.

In October 2005, the court stayed this action pending the
California Supreme Court’s rulings on two cases not involving PM
USA. In July 2006, the California Supreme Court issued rulings
in the two cases and held that a recent change in California law
known as Proposition 64, which limits the ability to bring a
lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who have “suffered injury in
fact” and “lost money or property” as a result of defendant’s
alleged statutory violations, properly applies to pending cases.

In September 2006, the stay was lifted and defendants filed
their demurrer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. In March 2007,
the court, without ruling on the demurrer, again stayed the
action pending rulings from the California Supreme Court in
another case involving Proposition 64 that is relevant to PM
USA’s demurrer.


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces 17 Lights/Ultra Lights Suits in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------
Seventeen Lights/Ultra Lights Cases are pending in the U.S.
against Philip Morris USA and, in certain instances, Altria
Group, Inc. (ALG) and  Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) or
its subsidiaries.

Plaintiffs in these class actions (some of which have not been
certified as such), allege, among other things, that the uses of
the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive
and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act violations, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages.

These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in
certain instances, ALG and PMI or its subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the
statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by
the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission,
non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct
that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First
Amendment.

Seventeen cases are pending in:

      Arkansas       2       Delaware       1
      Florida        1       Illinois       1
      Maine          1       Massachusetts  1
      Minnesota      1       Missouri       1
      New Hampshire  1       New Jersey     1
      New Mexico     1       New York       1
      Oregon         1       Tennessee      1
      West Virginia  2

In addition, there are two cases pending in Israel. Other
entities have stated that they are considering filing such
actions against ALG, PMI, and PM USA.

To the date of Altria Group's Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2007., 10 courts in 11 cases have refused to
certify class actions, reversed prior class certification
decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico, Oregon and
Washington have refused to certify a class, an appellate court
in Florida has overturned class certification by a trial court,
the Ohio Supreme Court has overturned class certifications in
two cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has dismissed a purported Lights class action,
“Sullivan,” brought in Louisiana federal court on the grounds
that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act.

“Sullivan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al.,” was filed in
United States District Court, Western District, Louisiana on
March 28, 2003. In August 2005, the court granted in part the
motion for summary judgment filed by PM USA by dismissing
plaintiffs' claims asserted under the Louisiana Unfair Trade and
Consumer Protection Act.


PHILIP MORRIS: Revival of “Aspinall” Lights Lawsuit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for direct appellate review by the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court of an order reinstating the lights suit,
“Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 813 N.E.2d 476,” were
granted.

The civil action was commenced in the Superior Court Department
on November 25, 1998.  The plaintiffs claim that the defendant
companies’ marketing of “light” cigarettes as delivering
“lowered tar and nicotine” constituted deceptive conduct in a
trade or business. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that
Philip Morris knew that smokers of Marlboro Lights could receive
as much, or more, tar and nicotine than if they had smoked
regular cigarettes.

Plaintiffs seek only to recover for economic loss, and not
personal injuries.

The Aspinall case was initially certified as a class action by a
Massachusetts trial court on October 11, 2001.  The Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts is the first state supreme court
to certify a class action against Philip Morris Cos. for
allegedly deceiving consumers in its marketing of so-called
light cigarettes.  

The suit was later decertified by a judge of the state's
intermediate appellate court.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
reinstated the "lights" class action, ruling that Massachusetts'
Consumer Protection laws require the trial court to allow the
case to proceed as a class action but noting that the class
certification "may be revisited" at a later time.  The ruling
was limited to Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 16,
2004).

In April 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to redefine the class
to include all persons who after November 25, 1994 purchased
packs or cartons of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Massachusetts
that displayed the legend “Lower Tar & Nicotine” (the original
class definition did not include a reference to lower tar and
nicotine).

In August 2006, the trial court denied Philip Morris USA’s
motion for summary judgment based on the state consumer
protection statutory exemption and federal preemption. On motion
of the parties, the trial court has subsequently reported its
decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for
review and the trial court proceedings are stayed pending
completion of the appellate review.

Motions for direct appellate review with the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court were granted in April 2007.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles Suit Over Gas Ranges Without “Anti-Tip”
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron has set a January
hearing to approve a settlement between attorney Stephen Tillery
of St. Louis and Sears Roebuck in a suit about gas or electric
ranges that lack anti-tipping device, Steve Korris of Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

The suit was filed in 2004 on behalf of people who purchased
free-standing or slide-in gas or electric ranges, which Sears
delivered and set up without installing an "anti-tipping" safety
device from Sept. 11, 1999, until the date of certification
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2007).

Plaintiffs -- Charles and Annemarie Parker and Joyce and David
Sumpter -- alleged the ranges they purchased from Sears were not
installed properly.  They claimed Sears breached warranty by not
installing "anti-tip brackets," which put them in danger, rather
than claim injuries.  The class had wanted $60-125 to have the
brackets installed.

On Sept. 18, Mr. Tillery and Sears attorney Larry Hepler of
Edwardsville announced a settlement.  They agreed to certify a
settlement class of range buyers in 50 states, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico, back to July 2, 2000.  

Under the agreement, a class member can request installation of
an anti-tip device on his or her range from Sears free of
charge.  Alternatively, a class member can request a $50 gift
card on a Sears range.  A class member who has paid for anti-tip
installation can receive reimbursement up to $100, they agreed.

Sears agreed to install anti-tip devices as part of normal
delivery for three years.

The class excluded anyone who filed a personal injury suit over
a tipping range, anyone who moved since buying a range, and
anyone who might opt out of the settlement.

The settlement excludes those customers for whom installation of
a range stability device is not reasonably feasible due to the
physical condition of the class member's range or home," the
parties wrote in a joint motion for preliminary approval.

"...[C]lass members must acknowledge that a certain amount of
damage to building materials (i.e. - screw holes, etc.) is a
necessary byproduct of installation…," they wrote.

They also agreed that the settlement would not obligate Sears to
install a device if the repair person showed up at the appointed
time to find the stove hot.

Class counsel plans to petition for attorney fees and costs not
to exceed $17 million.  Judge Byron granted preliminary approval
to the settlement and set a fairness hearing in January.

Settlement administrator Rust Consulting of Minneapolis has
mailed notices to the class.

For more information, contact:

         Stephen Tillery, Esq.
         Korein Tillery LLC
         Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Phone: (314) 241-4844
         Fax: (314) 588-7036

Representing Sears is:

         Larry E. Hepler, Esq.
         Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank, True & Noce, LLC
         Two Mark Twain Plaza, Suite 300
         103 West Vandalia Street
         P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-0510
         Phone: 618-307-1117
         Telecopier: 618-656-1364


STEWART TITLE: Court to Evaluate Yigo Lands Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Guam will evaluate
the certification of a lawsuit against an insurance business
that provides title insurance for its properties in Yigo, Gina
Tabonares of the Marianas Variety reports.

Gill Baza subdivision developer Cyfred Ltd. filed the suit on
Aug. 20 raising claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007). It
seeks $9,999,000.

The Gill-Baza Subdivision was a way for low-income residents to
find their way to home ownership by purchasing lots from a
company called Cyfred, Inc.  These residents could purchase
property for zero or low money down at a 12% interest rate, with
monthly payments under $500 a month.

Attorney Curtis Van De Veld filed the action, alleging Stewart
Title Guaranty and others failed to seek approval of insurance
forms and rates they charge consumers.  

Under Guam law, all insurance companies are required to obtain
approval from the Guam Banking and Insurance Commissioner before
it can sell insurance policies, the report said.

Cyfred also alleges the company only provided "an illusion of
insurance coverage"; it never intended to provide and that its'
policies were unfair and illegal.

Recently, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan issued a
scheduling order and discovery plan after the parties were
unable to agree on several terms.

The suit is Cyfred, Ltd. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00023, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Guam.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Curtis Charles Van de veld
          The Vandeveld Law Offices, P.C.
          Second Floor, Historical Bldg.
          123 Hernan Cortes Avenue
          Hagatna, GU 96910
          Phone: 671-477-2020
          Fax: 671-472-2561


TOTAL HEALTH: Settles Workers' Suit in Penna. Court for $2.2M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total Health Home Care Corp. has agreed to pay $2.2 million to
settle a class action filed by a group of caregivers alleging
they were not paid or paid less than they should for hours
worked, The Associated Press reports.

In 2006, the group filed the suit in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia, claiming the company should have paid them for
the time they spent traveling between clients (Class Action
Reporter, May 22, 2006).  One of the plaintiffs is Tracey
Dennis.

According to the report, they further claim the company forfeits
some of their earnings through a wage practice that requires
them at least 38 hours of time with clients in a week, or else
their wage rate for all hours worked during that week will be
reduced to as little as the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.  The
workers claim the practice unjustly enriches Total Health at
their expense.

The settlement will cover 3,000 former and current
nonsupervisory workers employed by the company from May 18,
2002, to March 17, the report said.


TRI-STATE CHRYSLER: W.Va. Woman Sues Over “Fraudulent Contest”
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-State Chrysler Jeep and Smart Automotive Group is facing a
class-action complaint filed Nov. 7 in Kanawha Circuit Court
over the car dealer's alleged “misleading contest,” Cara Bailey
of the West Virginia Record reports.

Named plaintiff Cabell County woman Carol Patterson claims she
was misled after receiving an advertisement that entitled her to
several thousands dollars off a vehicle.  

Ms.Patterson claims she received a direct mail solicitation,
which indicated she had won a contest that entitled her to
$4,000 off any vehicle sold by the dealership.  But when she
visited the dealership in 2006 to purchase a vehicle, she did
not receive the promised reduction.

Afterwards, she traded a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee that she later
found out to have been used as a rental vehicle.  Allegedly, the
company did not inform her of the vehicle's history.  She tried
to get her original vehicle but was told it was already sold.  
Ms. Patterson says she later learned that is was not sold until
several weeks after the transaction, according to the report.

Ms. Patterson seeks relief for the class who are those who
received a mailing solicitation within the last 10 years from
Smart Automotive Group and have not filed an individual civil
action alleging misconduct.

The class seeks compensation for emotional and mental distress,
loss of use, aggravation, anxiety, annoyance and inconvenience.
They also seek punitive damages for willful, wanton and reckless
disregard for their legal rights, Ms. Bailey says.

Representing Ms. Patterson is:

          David L. Grubb
          The Grubb Law Group
          1324 Virginia Street E
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 345-3356 or (866) 851-9292 (Toll Free)
          Fax: (304) 345-3355
          Web site: http://www.grubblawgroup.com


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Awaits Ruling in “Taylor” Policyholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has reserved further ruling on a motion for
summary judgment by UnumProvident Corp. in the putative class
action, “Taylor v. UnumProvident Corp., et al.,”

The suit was filed April 30, 2003, originally in the Tennessee
Circuit Court.  It was subsequently removed to federal court.

The suit alleges claims against UnumProvident and certain
subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class of long-term
disability insurance policyholders who did not obtain their
coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary
after Jan. 1, 1995, seeking equitable and monetary relief.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated various state
laws by engaging in unfair claim practices and improperly
denying claims.

The court subsequently granted in part the company's motion for
summary judgment in “Taylor,” dismissing plaintiff’s request for
equitable relief on her breach of contract claim and dismissing
any claim plaintiff may make for punitive damages under the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  

The former claim is the principal claim upon which class
certification is sought.

The court reserved ruling on the remainder of the pending motion
for summary judgment pending further mediation of the matter,
according to the Unum Group's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident  
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed "Preferred List"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, asserting that
Washington Mutual maintained and failed to disclose a "preferred
list" of proprietary mutual funds while concealing from
investors revenue-sharing and other incentive programs intended
to sell the WM Group of Funds.

The complaint alleges that Washington Mutual violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
information in the mutual fund prospectuses, which impeded
investor access to alternative funds and superior returns.

On June 6, 2007, the district court appointed the named
plaintiff as lead plaintiff and Finkelstein & Krinsk as lead
counsel.

For more information, contact:

          William Restis, Esq.
          Finkelstein & Krinsk
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego CA, 92101
          Toll free: 877-493-5366
          E-mail: wrr@classaction.com


                      Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Connors Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld a June 28,
2005 ruling Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling, which denied
service connection for the cause of John T. Connors' death.

Judge Davis entered the decision of Case No. 05-2198 on Oct. 9,
2007.

John T. Connors served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from
January 1968 to November 1971. His military records reflect that
he was an aircraft electrical repairman, and that he served in
Japan, Korea, and Thailand.

Mr. Connors received the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). However,
nothing in his service records officially documents his physical
presence there. He died on Jan. 11, 1993. His death certificate
listed as the cause of death respiratory failure due to
pneumonia as a consequence of lung cancer.

In February 2003, Mrs. Connors filed a claim for dependency and
indemnity compensation, alleging that the veteran's lung cancer
resulted from Agent Orange exposure. In April 2003, the
Manchester, N.H., VA regional office (RO) denied her claim. Mrs.
Connors filed a Notice of Disagreement, and the RO issued a
Statement of the Case (SOC).

Mrs. Connors attended a personal hearing on Feb. 5, 2004. Her
representative stated that many of the airplanes on which Mr.
Connors worked contained asbestos, and that records revealed
that the veteran was once sent to a satellite airbase to repair
an aircraft. The representative suggested that the airbase was
likely in Vietnam, which would explain the veteran's receipt of
the medal.

In the June 28, 2005 decision on appeal, the Board denied
service connection for the cause of Mr. Connors' death,
specifically finding that his death was not "proximately due to
or the result of a condition incurred or aggravated during
service."

Elaine M. Connors, Mr. Connors' surviving spouse, appealed
through counsel from the June 28, 2005 Board decision.

The appeal was timely, and the Court had jurisdiction to review
the Board's decision. Single-judge disposition was appropriate.

The Appeals Court found no reason to disturb the Board's
conclusion that Mr. Connors did not serve in Vietnam and that
"the veteran was not exposed to herbicides during service and
that his death many years later was unrelated to his service."

Similarly, to the extent Mrs. Connors suggested that Mr. Connors
was exposed to asbestos during military service, her arguments
cannot be sustained.

After consideration of the parties' briefs and a review of the
record, the Appeals Court affirmed the Board's June 28, 2005
decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Faces 208 Cases at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation LLC, at Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about 208
asbestos-related cases for which it was potentially liable and
that had not been settled and dismissed, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

At June 30, 2007, the Company recorded about 179 cases for which
it was potentially liable and that had not been settled and
dismissed. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

The Company had recorded a US$64.2 million liability at Sept.
30, 2007 related to this matter.

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison Co. and Exelon Generation Company LLC on
Feb. 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute on the interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in an Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and
agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses
associated with future asbestos-related claims set forth in the
agreement.

Commonwealth Edison and Midwest Generation apportion
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the
number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations
or Midwest Generation locations.

The supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision. Payments are made under this
indemnity upon tender by Commonwealth Edison of appropriate
proof of liability for an asbestos-related settlement, judgment,
verdict, or expense.

Chicago-based Midwest Generation LLC is a power producer with a
generating capacity of more than 5,610 MW from its six plants in
Illinois. The Company also oversees the operation of the Fisk
and Waukegan on-site generating plants, which have 305 MW of
capacity. The Company is a subsidiary of Edison International
unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at Oct. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group Inc. states that, as of Oct. 15, 2007, of the
3,310 pending asbestos cases filed against subsidiary Central
Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., 1,183 cases remain pending,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,976
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the
remaining asbestos lawsuits; accordingly, it cannot determine
the ultimate liability relating to these cases.

Central Hudson, as of June 30, 2007, had 1,181 pending asbestos-
related cases, out of the 3,306 cases filed against it. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group Inc.'s utility
subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. provides
electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York
State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and
electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory extending
from New York City to Albany, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Ongoing v. CenterPoint, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits filed by individuals who claim injury to to exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company
anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known
as NRG Texas LP (NRG).

Under the terms of the arrangements on separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco
LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims on the generating business has been assumed by Texas
Genco LLC and its successor.

However, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend those
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
the Company.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Inc.'s regulated utilities
distribute natural gas and electricity to more than 5 million
customers in six states, primarily in the southern U.S. The
Company also operates 7,900 miles of gas pipeline, and it has
gas gathering and storage operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Has $56.3M Loss Reserves at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of Sept.
30, 2007 includes estimated liabilities for unpaid losses from
property and casualty insurance and reinsurance contracts of
US$56.3 billion, an increase of US$8.7 billion from Dec. 31,
2006.

The increase in unpaid loss reserves was principally due to the
Equitas reinsurance transaction that became effective on March
30, 2007.

The reserves associated with this reinsurance transaction are
considered to be long-tailed and include significant amounts
related to asbestos, environmental, mass tort as well as other
losses.

Based in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding
company owning subsidiaries engaged in diverse business
activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses
conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. The
Company also owns and operates other businesses engaged in
various activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 10 Cases Set for Trial in 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. (f/k/a Belden CDT Inc.) has 10 asbestos-related
actions, which are scheduled for trial in 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007.

These 10 cases are included in about 155 personal injury cases
in which the Company was aware of at Oct. 30, 2007.

The Company recorded 26 asbestos-related cases that are
scheduled for trial in 2007. These 26 cases are included in
about 150 personal injury cases the Company was aware of at July
30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

The Company is party to various legal proceedings and
administrative actions that are incidental to its operations in
which the claimant alleges injury from exposure to asbestos
fiber, generally contained in a small number of products made by
the Company's predecessors.

These proceedings include personal injury cases in which the
Company is a defendant.

Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in these cases seek
compensatory, special and punitive damages. Through Oct. 30,
2007, the Company has been dismissed (or reached agreement to be
dismissed) in about 191 similar cases without any going to
trial, and with 12 of these involving any payment to the
claimant.

The Company has insurance that it believes should cover a
significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by
the Company in these types of cases.

St. Louis, Mo.-based Belden Inc. makes cable and wire products
for use in the broadcasting, computer, entertainment, security,
instrumentation, and networking industries. Products include
fiber optic, coaxial, and multi-conductor cables, as well as
lead and hookup wires and connectivity and management products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Has $189M for Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp.'s claim reserves for asbestos
and environmental matters, at Sept. 30, 2007, amounted to a
gross of US$189 million and a net of US$153.6 million.

The Company's claim reserves for asbestos and environmental
matters, at June 30, 2007, amounted to a gross of US$190.3
million and a net of US$153.4 million. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 10, 2007)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's claim reserves for asbestos and
environmental matters amounted to a gross of US$194.9 million
and a net of US$157.8 million.

During the three most recent calendar years, the general
insurance group experienced favorable development of prior year
loss reserves primarily stemming from the commercial automobile
and the E&O/D&O (financial indemnity) lines of business; this
was partially offset by unfavorable development in excess
workers compensation coverages and for ongoing development of
asbestos and environmental exposures (general liability).

Unfavorable developments attributable to A&E claim reserves are
due to periodic re-evaluations of those reserves as well as
reclassifications of other coverages’ reserves, typically
workers compensation, deemed to be assignable to A&E types of
losses.

Chicago-based Old Republic International Corp., through
subsidiaries covering the U.S. and Canada, is an insurance
holding company operating in three areas: Old Republic General
Insurance offers general insurance including commercial property
and liability; the Company's Mortgage Guaranty unit offers
mortgage guaranty insurance; and its Title Insurance Groups
specialize in title insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATSDR Finds Illinois Beach Park Hazard-free
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a Nov. 9, 2007 press release by the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, conditions on the Adeline
Jay Geo-Karis Illinois Beach State Park are not thought to harm
people's health, Associated Content reports.

The beach has been under investigation for asbestos
contamination since 2006. The ATSDR released the results from
the exposure investigation. The study was conducted by ATSDR
starting in the spring of 2006. The documentation supporting the
findings indicates that the IBSP beaches are fine.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set up an expert panel
that decided that more sampling should be done to confirm the
findings from the investigation report. The EPA, in September
2007, took steps to do more sampling that is still in the lab
being analyzed.

It is ATSDR's responsibility to look at the results of the
additional sampling done by the EPA and write an evaluation of
the results in 2008. The current report is the result of the
prior findings.

Adeline Jay Geo-Karis Illinois Beach State Park is located along
Lake Michigan, and has been watched by state agencies, the EPA,
and the University of Illinois at Chicago since 1997.

In 1997, building materials were found along the shoreline in
the area, and it was discovered that the material contained
asbestos. However, the reports to date have not shown
chrysotile, which is the main type of asbestos that was found in
the debris.

Another type of asbestos was found in the air in small
quantities after intense stirring of the sand that would not
normally occur.

ATSDR sampled sand and air during two types of activities, the
construction of sand castles and tractor pulled grading
equipment used to level the beach. This was a way to get the
most sand disturbance and there by the best samples.

Scientists collected samples from the sand and air and compared
them to samples before the sand was disturbed. There was a
slightly higher level of asbestos after the grading, but this
much disturbance is not likely to occur during a normal day at
the beach.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison County Trial Ends with Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Ill.'s third asbestos trial in 45 days settled
after a jury was empaneled to hear Gilbert Carrizales' suit, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Represented by Randy Gori of Edwardsville, Ill., Mr. Carrizales,
of Madison County, sued 13 days after he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

On March 15, 2007, Mr. Carrizales sued 105 defendants. However,  
the trial was narrowed down to Georgia-Pacific Corp. and John
Crane Inc.

Mr. Gori and Georgia-Pacific's attorney, Jeff Hebrank, spent the
last two days picking a jury to hear the case.  Shortly before
opening arguments were scheduled to begin on Nov. 8, 2007, it
was announced that a settlement had been reached in the case.

In addition to asbestos exposure during his career, Mr.
Carrizales also alleged he was exposed to asbestos during non-
occupational work projects including home and automotive
repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

Mr. Carrizales alleged that Georgia-Pacific and John Crane
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. Carrizales alleged the defendants are guilty of willful and
wanton misconduct. He claims he has had to undergo costly
medical treatment and that he suffers great physical pain and
mental anguish as a result of his asbestos exposure.

Over the past several years, Georgia-Pacific has done very well
in defending asbestos cases in Madison County.

In two separate trials in 2005 and 2006, Georgia-Pacific was
granted defense verdicts.

Attorney Mark "Moose" Phillips of Nelson Mullins in South
Carolina assisted Mr. Hebrank in those trials.

Several weeks ago, Georgia-Pacific settled a case for a nominal
amount right before closing arguments in Chester Black's trial.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack presided over the voir
dire portion of jury examination.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Gov't. Indicts Contractors for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inter-agency task force overseen by Massachusetts Attorney
General Martha Coakley, on Nov. 5, 2007, charged Francis
Tramontozzi (72) and his son Thomas (47) with illegal asbestos
removal, LegalNewsline.com reports.

Ms. Coakley says the Tramontozzis did not notify the Department
of Environmental Protection and caused asbestos emissions to be
released. As a result, each was charged with violating the
state's Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Crimes Strike Force, a joint effort of Ms.
Coakley's office and Secretary of Environmental Affairs Ian
Bowles, learned of the case about one year ago.

The Tramontozzis owned the property from which they were
removing asbestos.

In May 2006, a Board of Health Violation notice was issued to
Francis Tramontozzi, who was ordered to fix the asbestos
problem. When an inspector returned several months later, the
deteriorating asbestos insulation was not fixed, Ms. Coakley
says.

In September 2006, the Tramontozzis had repaired the insulation.
After a review by the Board of Health found asbestos debris and
powder, which was not contained, in an area surrounding the
building, the state's DEP was contacted, Ms. Coakley says.

The Tramontozzis were released on their own recognizance and
will appear in court Dec. 18, 2007 for a pretrial conference.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Awards JPY22M Payout to Widow
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Okinawa Defense Bureau, a Japanese Defense Ministry branch,
has paid about JPY22 million (US$194,700) in compensation to the
bereaved wife of a former worker at a Kadena Air Base who died
of lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos while at work,
AirForceTimes report.

The 62-year-old widow's lawyer, Takeshi Furukawa, made the
announcement on Nov. 7, 2007.

The Okinawa Defense Bureau decided Oct. 3, 2007 to make the
first damages payment for asbestos victims at the base in
Okinawa under the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement,
according to Mr. Furukawa.

The former worker serviced boilers at Kadena between 1964 and
1996, and died in 2001. His death was officially recognized to
be an industrial accident in 2006.

His wife then filed a JPY30 million suit against the Okinawa
bureau in December 2006, saying asbestos measures were
insufficient at the U.S. base.

The bureau has admitted that the U.S. side and the Japanese
government, which employs workers for U.S. bases in Japan, had
neglected to take sufficient asbestos measures and paid
compensation, Mr. Furukawa said.

Mr. Furukawa said the case is significant in that it will pave
the way for numerous U.S. base workers in Okinawa to seek
redress from courts for asbestos-induced illnesses.

Mr. Furukawa added that 13 cases of compensation have been paid
to workers, or families of workers at Yokosuka Naval Base under
the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Party to W.R. Grace Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. continues to be involved in W.R. Grace & Co.’s
bankruptcy case, which is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in the District of Delaware, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in
the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current
and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and
its affiliates, the fraudulent transfer claims, successor
liability claims, and indemnification claims by Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings Inc. and affiliated companies in
connection with the Cryovac transaction.

On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors approved the
agreement in principle. The Company received notice that both of
the committees had approved the agreement in principle as of
Dec. 5, 2002.

The parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive
settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the
terms of the agreement in principle. The Company recorded a
charge of US$850.1 million as a result of the asbestos
settlement in its consolidated statement of operations for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2002.

On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware, where the Grace bankruptcy case is pending, signed an
order approving the definitive settlement agreement.

Although Grace is not a party to the settlement agreement, under
the terms of the order, Grace is directed to comply with the
settlement agreement subject to limited exceptions. The order
also provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction of any
dispute involving the interpretation or enforcement of the terms
and provisions of the definitive settlement agreement.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization
and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court.

A number of objections were filed, and the Company does not know
whether the final plan will be consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement or if the other conditions to the Company's
obligation to pay the settlement amount will be met.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp. is a manufacturer of
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems   
that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and consumer
applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's
international reach generated revenue of US$4.3 billion in 2006.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Involved in Grace Case in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. continues to be involved in litigation with
W.R. Grace & Co. in Canadian court, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2007.

On March 31, 1998, the Company completed a multi-step
transaction that brought the Cryovac packaging business and the
former Sealed Air Corp.’s business under the common ownership of
the Company.

In its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2006, the Company described the Cryovac transaction and
contingencies related to the Cryovac transaction.

The Company also described the cases of:

-- Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al., and

-- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v.
The Attorney General of Canada, et al.

The Company also described six additional putative class
proceedings that had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canadian courts seeking recovery from the
Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac Inc. and Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie as well as other defendants, including Grace,
for asbestos-related injuries.

In April 2001, Grace's subsidiary Grace Canada Inc. had obtained
an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. 01-CL-4081) recognizing
the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving
Grace Canada's U.S. parent corporation and other U.S. affiliates
of Grace Canada, and enjoining all new actions and staying all
current proceedings against Grace Canada related to asbestos
under the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That
order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, the court ordered
an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving
asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the
Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all
Canadian actions.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to lift the stay and enable the
Canadian litigation to proceed in order to establish the
validity and amount of their claims.

The court has entered an order extending the stay until the date
on which the relief sought by class action plaintiffs in their
motion is either granted or denied by the court.

The plaintiffs' motion was scheduled to be heard on Nov. 22,
2007.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp. is a manufacturer of
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems   
that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and consumer
applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's
international reach generated revenue of US$4.3 billion in 2006.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Deficit Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp.'s US$105.7 million decrease in working capital
during the first nine months of 2007 resulted from an increase
in current liabilities of US$35.6 million, due to an increase in
accrued interest of US$26.2 million on the Company's liability
under an asbestos settlement agreement.

At Sept. 30, 2007, working capital was US$244.9 million compared
with US$350.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp. is a manufacturer of
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems   
that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and consumer
applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's
international reach generated revenue of US$4.3 billion in 2006.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Bid on Disclosure Statement Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. says that, on Oct. 23, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York granted subsidiary
Quigley Company Inc.'s application to approve its disclosure
statement, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5,
2007.

Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small
amounts of products containing asbestos until the 1970s. In
September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were
intended to resolve all pending and future claims against Pfizer
and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from
exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or
mixed dust.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy
Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization
plan in the Bankruptcy Court that needed the approval of both
the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York after receipt of the favorable
vote of 75 percent of the claimants.

In connection with that filing, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80
percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley
products against Quigley and the Company.

The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in
payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005
and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of
certain required documentation from each of the claimants.

The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a
Trust for the payment of all remaining pending claims as well as
any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley
products.

As certified by the balloting agent in May 2006, more than 75
percent of Quigley's claimants holding claims that represent
more than two-thirds in value of claims against Quigley voted to
accept Quigley's plan of reorganization.

On Aug. 9, 2006, in reviewing the voting tabulation methodology,
the Bankruptcy Court ruled that certain votes that accepted the
plan were not predicated upon the actual value of the claim. As
a result, the reorganization plan was not accepted.

In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization
that is intended to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns
regarding the voting tabulation methodology. In July 2007, the
Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to consider the adequacy of
Quigley's disclosure statement.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court granted Quigley's
application to approve its disclosure statement.

The parties have scheduled a conference with the court on Nov.
6, 2007 to resolve any remaining solicitation, voting or
scheduling issues and, thereafter, will submit a proposed order
to the court to approve the disclosure statement.

N.Y.-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based pharmaceuticals firm.
Products include Viagra, Celebrex, Zoloft, and Lipitor.
Subsidiaries include Embrex, Warner-Lambert, and Parke-Davis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Inc. Faces 470 Pending Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related cases against NL Industries Inc. totals about
470, in which these cases involve a total of about 7,000
plaintiffs and their spouses, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2007.

The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in
several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by its
former operations containing asbestos, silica and mixed dust.

In addition, the claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have
been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. The
Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless
the plaintiffs meet the courts’ medical criteria for asbestos-
related claims.

The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation
because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability. To date, the Company has not
been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.

In addition, from time to time, the Company has received notices
on asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against
former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with
which the Company has entered into settlements extinguishing
certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek
indemnification from the Company.

Dallas-based NL Industries Inc., through subsidiary Kronos
Worldwide, supplies titanium dioxide (T1O2), which maximizes the
whiteness, opacity, and brightness of paints, plastics, paper,
fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc. owns 83 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 3,479 Claims in Jan.-Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc.'s subsidiary Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
received about 3,479 new asbestos-related claims during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 6,384 claims during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2007.

Metropolitan Life received about 2,599 new asbestos-related
claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with
3,886 new claims during the six months ended June 30, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek
both actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with
respect to certain research, publication and other activities of
one or more of Metropolitan Life’s employees during the period
from the 1920s through about the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks.

Since 2002, trial courts in California and Illinois have denied
Metropolitan Life’s motions to dismiss. As reported in the 2006
Annual Report, Metropolitan Life received about 7,870 asbestos-
related claims in 2006.

New York-based MetLife Inc., with its subsidiaries including
Metopolitan Life Insurance Co., offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products and
services to corporations and other institutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Faces 72,790 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corp. faced about 72,790 pending asbestos claims as of Sept.
30, 2007, compared with about 73,310 as of Dec. 31, 2006 and
about 81,300 as of Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2007.

The Company had had about 72,890 pending asbestos claims as of
June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, before the
1970s. The Company is typically named as one of a large number
of defendants in both state and federal cases.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial
ships.

Of the claims pending as of Sept. 30, 2007, about 48,260 were
pending in state courts, 21,210 in federal courts and,
additionally, about 3,500 were third party claims pending in
state courts.

During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company received about 880 new
claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 800
claims.

To date, the Company has not been liable for any third party
claims.

The Company's total costs for 2006 for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax
benefits was about US$5.7 million, compared with US$37.2 million
for 2005.

New York-based CBS Corp. is comprised of the following segments:
Television (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Network,
television stations, and its television production and
syndication operations; Showtime Networks; and CSTV Networks),
Radio (CBS Radio), Outdoor (CBS Outdoor) and Publishing (Simon &
Schuster).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. continues to be involved in numerous asbestos-
related legal proceedings, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 6, 2007.

Before Sept. 1, 1997, the Company was a wholly owned subsidiary
of the former Monsanto Co. (now known as Pharmacia Corp., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.). On Sept. 1, 1997,
Pharmacia distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Solutia as a dividend to Pharmacia stockholders. As a
result of the Solutia Spinoff, on Sept. 1, 1997, the Company
became an independent publicly held company and its operations
ceased to be owned by Pharmacia.

Monsanto also indemnified Pharmacia on legal proceedings
described in the Company's 2003 Form 10-K/A in which the Company
was a named defendant or was defending solely due to its
Pharmacia related indemnification obligations. Solutia is
prohibited from performing with respect to these obligations,
and developments in these matters are managed by Monsanto or
other named defendants.

Accordingly, the Company has ceased reporting on the status of
those legal proceedings. The legal proceedings in this category
relate to property damage, personal injury, products liability,
premises liability or other damages relating to exposure to PCB,
asbestos and other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia
Spinoff.

Defense and settlement costs as well as judgments are being
funded by Monsanto for these matters. Monsanto’s funding of
these legal activities, and the resulting claim against the
Company which Monsanto has asserted in the Chapter 11 case,
inclusive of the non-qualified unliquidated and contingent
components of their claim, will be resolved via the Plan.

The estimated unsecured claim amount was classified as a
liability subject to compromise as of Sept. 30, 2007 in the
amount of US$106 million and as of Dec. 31, 2006 in the amount
of US$111 million.

St. Louis-based Solutia Inc. manufactures and markets chemical-
based products. The Company makes performance films for
laminated safety glass and after-market applications; chemicals
for the rubber industry; specialty products such as heat
transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluids; and nylon
products including high-performance polymers and fibers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Faces 400 Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits against MeadWestvaco Corp., as of
Sept. 30, 2007, increased to about 400, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company faced about 350 asbestos-
related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

The Company said that as with numerous other large industrial
companies, it has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. These suits also name many other
corporate defendants.

All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been
concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through
settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material
to the Company.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$21 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.

Glen Allen, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corp. provides packaging
solutions to the food and beverage, media and entertainment,
personal care, home and garden, cosmetics, and healthcare
industries. The Company has positions in its Consumer & Office
Products and Specialty Chemicals businesses, and operates in
more than 30 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Faces Injury Case in L.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group and a number of co-defendants
continue to face a complaint in the Superior Court County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC360406, for personal injury allegedly caused
by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 6, 2007.

The plaintiff claims to have worked for three of the Company’s
contractors on pipeline projects during the period 1958-1999,
including Palos Verdes Water Co., a water utility the Company
acquired in 1970.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and other defendants are
responsible for his asbestos-related injuries.

On April 20, 2007, the Superior Court sustained the Company’s
demurrer without leave to amend all Plaintiff’s claims alleging
products liability and intentional torts. The Court also
sustained the Company’s demurrer with leave to amend Plaintiff’s
claim for premise owner contractor liability, a negligence
claim, alleging misconduct that may allow for punitive damages
(the “Premise/Owner Claim”) and severed the Company from the
accelerated trial with other named defendants.

On July 3, 2007, the Court sustained the Company’s demurrer with
leave to amend the Plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleging
the Premise/Owner Claim. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended
complaint restating the Premise/Owner Claim.

The Court overruled the Company’s demurrer on the Plaintiff’s
fourth amended complaint, but the Court sustained the Company’s
motion to strike punitive damages.

The Company used asbestos cement pipe and fittings, which were
widely used in the water industry and permitted for such use by
regulatory agencies, and the Company hired qualified contractors
to install the pipe and fittings in accordance with laws and
regulations at the time.

The Company’s insurance carrier has accepted the defense of the
claim, reserving certain rights along with one of the
contractors’ insurance companies.

On May 30, 2007, the Company and a number of co-defendants were
served with a complaint in the Superior Court County of San
Francisco, Case No. CGC-07-274213, for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos. The Plaintiff dismissed the
Company from the complaint without prejudice prior to setting a
trial date. The Company sustained no liability.

San Jose, Calif.-based California Water Service Group is a
holding company with five wholly owned subsidiaries that provide
water utility and other related services in California,
Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii. California Water Service Co.,
Washington Water Service Co., New Mexico Water Service Co., and
Hawaii Water Service Company Inc. provide regulated utility
services under the rules and regulations of their respective
state’s regulatory commissions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,300 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Corp. subsidiaries have been named as
defendants or third-party defendants in open asbestos-related
claims brought on behalf of 6,300 plaintiffs, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007.

These subsidiaries are Leslie Controls Inc., Spence Engineering
Company Inc., and Hoke Inc., three subsidiaries in the Company's
Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid Controls Products segment. In
some instances, the Company also has been named individually and
as successor in interest to one or more of these subsidiaries.

Of about 6,300 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but
about 1,100 have brought their claims in Mississippi. The
remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of about
32 different states with California, Texas, New York,
Massachusetts and Connecticut having the most significant
percentage of the claims.

Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, have been named as defendants or
third-party defendants in open asbestos related cases brought on
behalf of about 6,100 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
17, 2007)

The Company's Leslie subsidiary is responsible for 29 percent of
all defense and indemnity costs associated with asbestos claims
made against it.

On Oct. 12, 2007, a Los Angeles jury rendered a verdict that, if
allowed to stand, would result in a liability to Leslie of about
US$2.5 million (29 percent, or about US$700,000, would be paid
by Leslie while insurance would pay the rest).

During the first three quarters of the Company's 2007 fiscal
year and excluding the Oct. 12, 2007 verdict, Leslie resolved a
total of 70 asbestos cases for an aggregate indemnity amount of
US$4.8 million, of which 71 percent or US$3.4 million was paid
by insurance.

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company
recorded 139 cases filed, 51 cases dismissed, and 12 cases
resolved. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the
Company recorded 424 cases filed, 129 cases dismissed, and 70
cases resolved.

During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, aggregate
indemnity costs amounted to US$1.4 million and aggregate defense
costs amounted to US$2.4 million. During the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007, aggregate indemnity costs amounted to US$4.8
million and aggregate indemnity costs amounted to US$6.1
million.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 716 total open asbestos-
related cases and 324 open mesothelioma cases.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and excluding the Oct.
12, 2007 verdict, Leslie’s average per quarter share of combined
defense and indemnity costs have been about US$1.1 million
compared with a per quarter average of US$600,000 for the 2006
fiscal year.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International Inc. provides
valves and fluid control products for the industrial, aerospace,
petrochemical, and energy markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Insurance Reserves $23M at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corp.'s subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC,
at Sept. 30, 2007, reserved a gross of US$23 million (a net of
US$22.9 million) for asbestos and environmental unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses.

AIHL, at June 30, 2007, recorded a gross of US$23.5 million (a
net of US$23.4 million) as A&E reserves for unpaid losses and
LAE. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

These reserves are for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corp. (a Company subsidiary) between 1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited this business in 1976.

New York-based Alleghany Corp. has interests ranging from
property/casualty insurance to real estate. The Company's RSUI
Group is an underwriter of wholesale specialty insurance. The
Company also has commercial and residential real estate
interests in California.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Has $331,000 for Ohio Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has identified and established a reserve of
US$331,000 over a potential asbestos issue at its Gradall
facility, in New Philadelphia, Ohio, which is being evaluated,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007.

The Company had identified and established a reserve of
US$350,000 on a potential asbestos issue at its Gradall
facility. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

On Feb. 3, 2006, the Company purchased substantially all of the
assets and assumed certain liabilities of the Gradall excavator
business of JLG Industries Inc.

Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. provides tractor-mounted
mowing equipment (rotary, flail, and sickle-bar). The Company's
Alamo Industrial and Tiger hydraulically powered tractor-mounted
mowers are primarily sold to government entities. The Company's
Rhino and M&W subsidiaries sell rotary cutters and other
equipment to farmers and ranchers for pasture maintenance. The
Company's McConnel, Bomford, and S.M.A. units sell hydraulic
boom-mounted hedge and grass cutters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Rise to 1,697 at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, was a party to about 1,697
pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about
9,662 claimants, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
7, 2007.

These claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

The Company, as of June 30, 2007, was party to about 1,648
pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about
9,810 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded
413 claims filed, 1,183 claims dismissed, and 119 claims
settled. The Company recorded US$7,095 as the average settlement
amount per claim during period and US$3,939,734 as total defense
costs during period.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
3,766 claims filed, 12,508 claims dismissed, and 123 claims
settled. The Company recorded US$5,613 as the average settlement
amount per claim during period and US$4,895,104 as total defense
costs during period.

Of the 9,662 claims pending at Sept. 30, 2007, 160 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum), 137 of the 160 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages and 23
sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages.

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 143 of the 160
claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 17 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million. Solely with respect to
punitive damages, 137 of the 160 claims sought between US$1
million and US$2.5 million and 23 sought US$5 million.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
about US$4.6 million.

Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corp. manufactures products
for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The Company is
engaged in five business segments: Packaging Systems, Energy
Products, Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products, and
Recreational Accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 660 Suits w/ 6,800 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. has been named as a defendant in over 660
asbestos-related lawsuits (with about 6,800 claimants) pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

The suits are related to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Company’s Stearns division.
Invensys PLC and FMC, the prior owner of the Stearns business,
have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the
Stearns lawsuits.

Similarly, the Company’s Prager subsidiary has been named as a
defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of
asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. About
3,600 claimants are in the Prager lawsuits.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is an industrial company
comprised of two segments, Power Transmission and Water
Management. PT manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop
chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings
and seals, industrial chain and special components. WM supplies
professional grade specification drainage, water control, PEX
piping and commercial brass products, serving the commercial and
institutional construction, civil and public water works
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Faces 140 Actions with 4,100 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc.'s Falk subsidiary faces over 140 lawsuits
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions over
alleged personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in
certain clutches and drives previously made by Falk.

About 4,100 claimants are in these suits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

Hamilton Sundstrand is defending Falk in these lawsuits under
its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs
to date.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is an industrial company
comprised of two segments, Power Transmission and Water
Management. PT manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop
chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings
and seals, industrial chain and special components. WM supplies
professional grade specification drainage, water control, PEX
piping and commercial brass products, serving the commercial and
institutional construction, civil and public water works
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Cases at Sept. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. and an average of 67 other unrelated companies,
as of Sept. 29, 2007, were defendants in about 6,700 asbestos-
related lawsuits representing about 45,300 claims, in which the
suits relate to the Company's Zurn water management business.

The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$12.5
billion against all defendants.

Plaintiffs’ claims against Zurn allege personal injuries caused
by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers
formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn.

Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are
being handled under a defense strategy funded by Zurn’s
insurers.

The Company estimates that Zurn’s potential liability for
asbestos claims pending against it and for claims estimated to
be filed through 2016 is about US$136 million, of which the
Company expects to pay about US$102 million through 2016 on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid
in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of Sept. 29, 2007, is about
US$285 million.

As of Sept. 29, 2007, the Company had recorded a receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$136 million, which corresponds to
the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered
by available insurance and is currently determined to be
probable of recovery.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is an industrial company
comprised of two segments, Power Transmission and Water
Management. PT manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop
chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings
and seals, industrial chain and special components. WM supplies
professional grade specification drainage, water control, PEX
piping and commercial brass products, serving the commercial and
institutional construction, civil and public water works
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit, Carrier Enter Claims Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive Quaker Chemical Corp. subsidiary and a primary
insurance carrier, during the 2007-3rd quarter, entered into an
asbestos-related Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

Under the agreement, the carrier will pay 27 percent of defense
and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary
in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum
of five years beginning July 1, 2007.

The subsidiary that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products
containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is
among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to
exposure to asbestos.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received in 2005 and early in the 2007-2nd quarter.

To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without
payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the
subsidiary. It is projected that the subsidiary’s total
liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about
US$12,700,000.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary’s primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of
their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged
the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought
against the subsidiary.

In response to this challenge, two of the three carriers entered
into separate settlement and release agreements with the
subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the 2007-1st
quarter for US$20 million.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was
received early in the 2007-2nd quarter.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 115 Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Power & Light Co., an IPALCO Enterprises Inc.
subsidiary, faces about 115 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as
of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 114 pending suits at Dec. 31,
2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a
“premises defendant” in that IPL did not mine, manufacture,
distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products.

These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked
for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has
insurance which may cover some portions of these claims. These
cases are being defended by counsel retained by various insurers
who wrote policies applicable to the period of time during which
much of the exposure has been alleged.

IPL faced about 116 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of June
30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises Inc. operates the
regulated electric utility, Indianapolis Power & Light Co. and
its unregulated subsidiary, Mid-America Capital Resources Inc.
All of the Company's business consists of the generation,
transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy conducted
through IPL. The Company is a subsidiary of The AES Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,702 Claims at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corp., at Sept. 28, 2007, had about 34,702
outstanding asbestos claims, in which 1,272 were non-maritime
and 33,430 were maritime, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 7, 2007.

In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured by the Company.

The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$5.3 million
at Sept. 28, 2007 and about US$5.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and
had recorded about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these
lawsuits.

The Company, at June 29, 2007, recorded about 34,805 outstanding
asbestos-related claims, of which 1,415 were non-maritime claims
and 33,390 were maritime claims. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
24, 2007)

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corp. develops,
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes copper, aluminum
and fiber optic wire and cable products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending v. Gardner Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Inc. continues to face asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
7, 2007.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants. In the Company’s experience to date, the
majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which
the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits. However, neither the Company nor its
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber. Moreover, the asbestos-containing
components of the Products were enclosed within the subject
Products.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for
asbestos lawsuits.

The Company said it believes some of the potential liabilities
regarding these lawsuits are covered by indemnity agreements
with other parties. The Company’s uninsured settlement payments
for past asbestos lawsuits have been immaterial.

Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver Inc. makes compressors, such
as reciprocating, rotary screw, and sliding vane compressors, as
well as positive displacement and centrifugal blowers. The
Company also makes well-servicing pumps for oil and natural gas
companies, and it is adding new lines, such as water-jetting
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $363.48M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s long-term asbestos-related liability
amounted to US$363,478,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007, compared with
US$424,628,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

The Company's asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$384,824,000 as of June 29, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
24, 2007)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable amounted to US$311,279,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007,
compared with US$350,322,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006.

The Company’s asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable
amounted to US$335,862,000 as of June 29, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

Net asbestos-related gains totaled US$8,633,000 during the three
months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$36,074,000 during
the three months ended Sept. 29, 2008.

Net asbestos-related gains totaled US$8,633,000 during the nine
months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$115,664,000 during
the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006.

Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants
in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal
claims pending in the United States and United Kingdom.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by Company subsidiaries during the
1970s and earlier.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process
and power generating facilities. The Company operates through
two business groups: The Engineering & Construction group and
Global Power Group. The Company also builds, own, and leases
cogeneration and independent power projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 343 Open Claims in U.K.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of Sept. 28, 2007, recorded 343 open
asbestos-related claims filed against its subsidiaries in the
United Kingdom, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
7, 2007.

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have
received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure
to asbestos. To date, 855 claims have been brought against the
U.K. subsidiaries. None of the settled claims has resulted in
material costs to the Company.

As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$36.5 million comprised of an estimated liability relating
to open (outstanding) claims of US$6 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through year-end
2021 of US$30.5 million.

Of the total, US$2.3 million was recorded in accrued expenses
and US$34.2 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability
on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$2.3 million
was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$34.2
million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on an Oct. 17, 2007 final
ruling from the U.K. House of Lords upholding a court decision
that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process
and power generating facilities. The Company operates through
two business groups: The Engineering & Construction group and
Global Power Group. The Company also builds, own, and leases
cogeneration and independent power projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 132,810 U.S. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. recorded 132,810 open asbestos-related
claims filed against its U.S. subsidiaries during the three and
nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with 150,800 claims
during the three and nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006.

During the three months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted
1,080 U.S. claims filed and 1,850 U.S. claims resolved. During
the three months ended Sept. 29, 2006, the Company noted 2,030
U.S. claims filed and 12,670 U.S. claims resolved.

During the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2007, the Company noted
4,160 U.S. claims filed and 7,240 U.S. claims resolved. During
the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006, the Company noted 7,360
U.S. claims filed and 21,380 U.S. claims resolved.

Total asbestos assets amounted to US$335,110,000 as of Sept. 28,
2007, compared with US$363,700,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006. Total
asbestos liabilities amounted to US$399,300,000 as of Sept. 28,
2007, compared with US$466 million as of Dec. 29, 2006.

Payments made during the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007
reduced the Company's estimated year-end 2006 liability by
US$66,700,000.

The amount spent on asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$21,800,000 for the three months ended Sept.
28, 2007 and US$66,700,000 for the nine months ended Sept. 28,
2007.

As of Sept. 28, 2007, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$136,800,000 relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$262,500,000 relating to future unasserted claims
through year-end 2021.

The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost
per resolved claim through Sept. 28, 2007 has been about
US$2,500.

As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company estimated the value of its
asbestos insurance asset contested by its subsidiaries’ insurers
in ongoing litigation in New York state court at US$26.5
million. The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance
coverage available for asbestos-related claims and the proper
allocation of the coverage among the subsidiaries’ various
insurers and its subsidiaries as self-insurers.

In the 2007-3rd quarter, the subsidiaries reached agreements to
settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage with
two additional insurers. As a result of these settlements, the
Company increased its asbestos-related insurance asset and
recorded a gain of US$8.6 million in the 2007-3rd quarter.

In 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of a New York
state trial court decision that previously had held that New
York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the above coverage
litigation with the subsidiaries’ insurers, and as a result, the
Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a gain of
US$19.5 million.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries’ insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the
New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. On Oct.
11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the appellate
court decision in the Company's favor.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process
and power generating facilities. The Company operates through
two business groups: The Engineering & Construction group and
Global Power Group. The Company also builds, own, and leases
cogeneration and independent power projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner to Claim Extra Damages v. Hardie
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Court of Appeal, on Nov. 20, 2007, has given
asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton the go-ahead to pursue extra
“punishment” damages for James Hardie Industries N.V.'s 2001
corporate restructure as part of his compensation claim for
mesothelioma, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Mr. Banton contracted mesothelioma in August 2007.

The NSW Court of Appeal said Mr. Banton could be entitled to
additional payment if the Dust Diseases Tribunal decided it
strongly disapproved of the way Hardie set up an underfunded
compensation trust in February 2001.

Three appeal court judges said the tribunal, which will begin
hearing Mr. Banton's claim on Nov. 21, 2007, could express its
disapproval of Hardie's attempt to cut its links with asbestos
by awarding so-called "exemplary" damages.

Justice David Hodgson defined exemplary damages as "punishment
for actions in contumelious disregard for a plaintiff's rights"
designed to deter future wrongdoing.

When an AUD1.5 billion shortfall in the 2001 trust was exposed
in 2003, Hardie said it would not pay those claimants who missed
out. After a public incident, in which Mr. Banton played a
leading role, Hardie set up a second trust that began operating
in February.

The appeal judges dismissed an argument by the trust's
barrister, David Williams, that exemplary damages could only be
awarded for Hardie's conduct when Mr. Banton worked in its
factory at Camellia, New South Wales, from 1968 to 1974.

However, they agreed with Mr. Williams that Mr. Banton had
already received exemplary damages for that period. This was
because Mr. Banton contracted asbestosis in 1999 and was paid
AUD800,000 compensation in 2000.

Mr. Banton's barrister, Jack Rush, argued that although his
client's 2000 case included a claim for exemplary damages, the
out-of-court settlement did not include any payment for
exemplary damages. However, the appeal judges, on Nov. 20, 2007,
ruled the 2000 payment was not “fragmented.”

Exemplary damages had been "merged" into the AUD800,000 damages
award, Justice Hodgson said.

Mr. Banton's claim is being handled jointly by Hardie's workers
compensation insurer in the 1960s and 1970s, Allianz Australia,
and the new trust set up in February 2007, the Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund.

Allianz made a settlement offer for loss of income, medical
expenses and home care on Oct. 31, 2007. The fund challenged Mr.
Banton's right to pursue exemplary damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Testing Offered to Ferry Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crew members of the Atlantic Freighter will get medical tests
and people who worked on board in the past will receive
questionnaires as Marine Atlantic continues dealing with
asbestos on the ship, Cape Breton Post reports.

Company spokeswoman Tara Laing, on Nov. 19, 2007, explained that
current employees who worked on the vessel would be assessed by
an occupational health doctor to determine if they were exposed
to asbestos.

Former crew members, some who may have been on board when the
Crown corporation started using the vessel in 1986, will be sent
a questionnaire.

Once completed, Ms. Laing said, that document would also be
reviewed by health professionals to determine if an
investigation is required.

According to Sue Irvine, president of the Canadian Auto Workers,
Local 4285, who represents about half the 30-member crew,
contacting former employees could take a lot of time as it may
involve a lot of people, perhaps more than 1,000.

Until the company’s measures are in place, Ms. Irvine is telling
past and present crew members to see their family physicians.
She suggested the company was taking part in the health testing
so willingly because it realizes the potential risks.

Marine Atlantic, Ms. Irvine continued, has even informed workers
compensation of the problem so, if a current or former member of
the crew comes down with an asbestos-related illness, they would
not have have to prove exposure.

Workers were startled to find asbestos warnings posted around
the ship earlier in the fall. The company had the mineral
removed or enclosed in the 1990s, but a September 2007 survey
found some of the sealed areas had been damaged through wear and
tear.

The health assessments and questionnaires are another part of
Marine Atlantic’s plan to deal with the problem.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Monitor Air During Kans. Demolitions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, will conduct air
monitoring for asbestos during the demolition of 313 oil-
contaminated houses in Coffeyville, Kans., according to an EPA
press release dated Nov. 19, 2007.

Coffeyville Resources purchased the houses under a buyout
program it implemented in response to the oil spill and flooding
last summer. Demolition was scheduled for Nov. 19, 2007.

Heavy rains in June 2007 caused localized flooding and a rise in
elevation of the Verdigris River. During the night of June 30,
the Verdigris River overflowed the levee around Coffeyville,
Kans.

River levels rose rapidly and exceeded the height of the levee
by 3.9 feet. Flood waters entering the refinery led to a release
of about 90,000 gallons of crude oil.

Coffeyville Resources will conduct perimeter asbestos air
monitoring during the demolition project and will remove
asbestos as required by the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations.

EPA will collect independent samples at about 10 percent of
Coffeyville Resources' sampling locations to confirm the
company's air monitoring data.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: L. Tersigni Files for Bankruptcy in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
L. Tersigni Consulting, which advised asbestos creditors in more
than a dozen major bankruptcy cases, on Nov. 14, 2007, filed for
bankruptcy the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Bridgeport, Conn., The
Associated Press reports.

The filing came as federal bankruptcy monitors prepared to
appoint an examiner to investigate claims that the Stamford,
Conn.-based firm's deceased leader, Loreto Tersigni, improperly
inflated bills.

An investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey
that began in 2006 did not produce charges against Mr. Tersigni,
who died in May 2007.

Professionals at the Tersigni firm who became suspicious that
bills submitted to bankruptcy courts for approval were not
correct brought the matter to the attention of federal
authorities.

However, it was not until after Mr. Tersigni's death that the
firm's clients, the official committees representing asbestos
claimants in a series of Chapter 11 cases, were alerted to the
billing matter and to the federal probe.

The bankruptcy courts have begun their own investigation of L.
Tersigni's bills, by authorizing the appointment of an examiner
by the U.S. Trustee's Office, a civil agency of the Justice
Department.

Over the years, L. Tersigni billed millions to companies like
Owens Corning , Federal-Mogul Corp., W.R. Grace & Co. and others
that resorted to Chapter 11 bankruptcy in an effort to resolve
billions in damages stemming from their asbestos products.

L. Tersigni Consulting's Chapter 11 petition estimated the
firm's assets at more than US$1 million and its liabilities at
up to US$1 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Finalizes Sale of Lummus for $950M
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd., on Nov. 19, 2007, said it had completed the sale of
its downstream oil and gas business Lummus Global to Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company N.V. for an enterprise value of US$950
million, Reuters reports.

ABB, which announced the transaction in August 2007, has
received net cash proceeds of around US$800 million, which will
be booked in the fourth quarter, the group said.

ABB, which has recovered from a multi-year restructuring drive,
had long been looking to sell the Lummus Global business, the
last remaining of a number of units it was aiming to divest
after settling huge asbestos claims in previous years.

The Company said, “As previously communicated, the sale
triggered an accelerated US$204 million payment by ABB to the CE
Asbestos PI Trust. This payment will be also booked in the
fourth quarter.”

Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd. provides power and automation
technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial customers.
Power products include transmission and distribution components,
as well as turnkey substation systems. Automation technologies
are used to monitor and control equipment and processes in
industrial plants and utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Sues 65 Corporations in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayford Lee Sigman and Betty Sigman, both of West Virginia, on
Nov. 8, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 65
businesses in Kanawha Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record
reports.

The Sigman couple blames the companies, all of which are
licensed or registered to do business in West Virginia, for Mr.
Sigman's asbestosis after working years around their asbestos-
laden products.

Mr. Sigman worked for Monsanto Co., where he was exposed to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products. He claims that
because of his exposure, he developed asbestosis.

According to the suit, the defendants are negligent and should
have known of the dangers of the asbestos. The suit also states
that the defendants should have provided employees, including
Mr. Sigman, with safe and sufficient apparel and safety
equipment.

In the 13-count suit, Mr. Sigman claims he has suffered damages,
including medical and pharmaceutical expenses, travel expenses,
great pain of body and mind, immense suffering, embarrassment,
inconvenience, loss of earning capacity and loss of quality and
enjoyment of his life.

Mrs. Sigman claims she has lost the general services,
companionship and society, as well as the financial support of
her husband.

Through attorney James C. Stebbins, the Sigmans seek
compensatory and punitive damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2422 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arizonian Sues 67 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ervin Rymaszewski, of Arizona, on Nov. 15, 2007, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 67 defendant corporations in
Madison County, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Rymaszewski was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 3, 2007.

Mr. Rymaszewski alleges the companies' negligence led to his
contraction of mesothelioma.

Mr. Rymaszewski also claims that he was exposed to asbestos dust
that his wife would carry home on her clothes while working as
an assembly worker from the 1950s through the 1970s.

Mr. Rymaszewski claims his wife would carry the asbestos dust on
her clothing home with her where it would again become airborne.

Mr. Rymaszewski was employed from 1952 through 1986 as a welder,
truck driver, lineman and laborer at various locations including
Illinois. He claims he was also exposed to asbestos during non-
occupational work projects including home and automotive
repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

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

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

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

Mr. Rymaszewski claims that as a result of each defendant
breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying
documents and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in
proving claims against all potential parties. He seeks damages
to help pay for the cost of his treatment.

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

Mr. Rymaszewski seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for
negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent
spoliation of evidence among other allegations.

Nicholas Angelides of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represents Mr. Rymaszewski.

Case No. 07 L 979 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capital Manor, Contractors Fined $64,058
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Manor and two contractors have been fined a total of
US$64,058 for asbestos violations reported during 2006
remodeling work at the West Salem, Ore., retirement facility,
Statesman Journal reports.

The Department of Environmental Quality fined the retirement
home for allowing unlicensed contractors to perform asbestos-
related work and for failing to fully document the presence of
asbestos at the facility.

Capital Manor has paid its US$29,948 penalty.

Dottie Boyd, DEQ investigator, said that whether any retirement
home residents or workers inhaled asbestos fibers is unknown,
but it cannot be ruled out.

Ms. Boyd said that any Capital Manor residents or staff members
concerned about asbestos exposure "should consult their doctor
about it, at a minimum."

Capital Manor previously was cited by Oregon's Occupational
Safety and Health Division for failing to ensure that an
exposure assessment was conducted by a competent person prior to
drywall demolition work by contractors.

The workplace safety inquiry was sparked in September 2006 by a
complaint about workers being exposed to asbestos while not
wearing respirators, records show.

DEQ launched its investigation in the wake of the workplace
safety complaint, and it announced the fines on Nov. 15, 2007.

According to the DEQ, Oregon Cascade Plumbing & Heating paid its
US$2,100 fine.

Turner Construction has not yet decided whether to appeal its
US$32,010 fine, said Dan Kavanaugh, the firm's regional manager
in Portland, Ore.

DEQ reports indicate that both contractors were fined for
cutting into walls containing asbestos, allowing the hazardous
material to accumulate in the open and for performing asbestos-
related work without a license.

The violations occurred between April 2006 and September 2006,
according to the DEQ.

Capital Manor hired Turner Construction for work that was part
of a US$14 million renovation project at one of Salem's largest
retirement homes -- comprising a 10-story independent living
facility, a three-story assisted living/independent living
facility and a 93-unit housing campus.

In April 2006, workers began sawing into and removing asbestos-
containing walls in hallways and apartment bathrooms, according
to DEQ records.

The environmental agency reported that the work continued "on
and off" until Sept. 13, 2006, "and did not employ any of the
work practices required when handling and disposing of friable"
asbestos-containing material.

Mr. Kavanaugh said Turner Construction did not know about the
presence of asbestos during the wall-cutting work.

Despite such assurances, DEQ officials said residents and
workers could have inhaled asbestos fibers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Fitter Files GBP100T Suit v. Employers
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Alexander claims GBP100,000 from his former employers,
saying he was exposed to asbestos for eight years as an
electrical fitter, The Argus reports.

The 71-year-old Mr. Alexander has filed a High Court writ
claiming his work in maintaining boilers and pipework exposed
him to asbestos used as insulation.

Mr. Alexander, of Langdale Road, Hove, claims the mesothelioma
he developed later in life has cut his life expectancy by 12
years. He is claiming damages from the London Borough of
Hammersmith and Fulham, who he worked for between 1973 and 1981.

A writ issued by his solicitors, Simpson Millar, says Mr.
Alexander worked in a municipal laundry and swimming pool
maintaining boilers and pipework.

Mr. Alexander says the pipes were lagged with old, crumbling
asbestos, which fell onto the floor where he worked and walked.
The writ claims he once disturbed asbestos lagging as part of
work replacing an old boiler door.

Mr. Alexander says that, in 1978, he worked near contractors as
they replaced asbestos. His solicitor, Helen England, told The
Argus she hopes to reach a settlement with the London council by
the end of the year.

If a settlement is not reached the case is due to come before a
High Court judge in January 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Dana Corp.'s $2M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp., on Nov. 15, 2007, won court approval to pay US$2
million to settle personal-injury claims from 7,500 people who
say they were sickened by Company products with asbestos, The
Associated Press reports.

Judge Burton Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan
said the deal resolves large number of the 150,000 personal-
injury claims against the auto-parts maker.

Judge Lifland overruled objections from an informal committee
representing asbestos claimants. The committee asked for more
information about the Company's settlement with the 7,500
people. He said enough information about the settlement is
already available.

Dana has been working to get out of bankruptcy by the end of
2007. Part of the Company's efforts to exit Chapter 11
protection includes settling the hundreds of thousands of
personal-injury claims against it.

Dana intends to deal with other asbestos-related bankruptcy
claims after it exits Chapter 11. The company, however, said
many of those claimants have not become sick.

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

Dana has said the settlement will cost up to US$2 million as
long as all the people involved can come forward with the
required proof to support their claims. The deal will resolve
about seven percent of the mesothelioma claims and four percent
of the cancer claims filed against Dana.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Worker Sues 38 Firms in West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Holter of Ohio, on Nov. 1, 2007, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 38 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Holter claims the defendants produced asbestos-containing
materials, which caused him to contract mesothelioma. He seeks
compensatory and punitive damages.

Mr. Holter worked for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. from 1965
to 1979, where he claims he was exposed to asbestos. Goodyear is
named as a defendant in the suit.

According to the suit, Mr. Holter worked as a laborer and
maintenance worker for the Goodyear plant in Apple Grove, W.Va.
Part of his job was to tear off insulation, which contained
asbestos.

Mr. Holter claims the plant had specific knowledge of asbestos
exposure, asbestosis, cancer and mesothelioma during the
relevant time periods.

Mr. Holter has incurred medical and hospital bills, suffering
tremendous pain of body and mind, because of his mesothelioma.

In the 11-count suit, Mr. Holter and his wife seek compensatory
and punitive damages.

William K. Schwartz is representing the Holters.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2374 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Announces Ariz. Enforcement Achievement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement actions
in Arizona for 2007 continues the agency’s successful efforts to
make polluters achieve on-the-ground improvements to bring
environmental and public health benefits for the state’s
residents, according to an EPA press release dated Nov. 15,
2007.

Leading the year’s enforcement accomplishments efforts, include
regulating asbestos requirements in schools, enforcing dust
control laws and protecting air quality. Polluters committed to
more than US$2.82 million to correct environmental violations
and prevent future pollution, resulting in over 50,000 pounds of
pollutants reduced in the environment.

Wayne Nastri, administrator of the EPA's Pacific Southwest
office, said, “The EPA’s efforts to control exposure to asbestos
and protect air quality in Arizona in 2007 will benefit human
health and the environment for Arizona residents for years to
come.”

Arizona enforcement highlights for 2007 include:

-- Asbestos in schools: Seven Tucson charter school operators
were fined a combined total of US$67,240 for Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act violations. Five other Arizona charter
schools paid penalties totaling US$49,200 for asbestos
violations.

All failed to conduct inspections to determine if asbestos-
containing material was present in school buildings, and failed
to have an asbestos management plan. All of the schools have
since taken necessary actions to comply with the law.

Each school currently has a management plan, including asbestos
location and how schools will properly manage asbestos to reduce
risk of exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Local Files Suit v. 26 Corporations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon R. Conley of Kanawha County, W.Va., on Nov. 1, 2007, has
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 26 national and local
companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

Union Carbide Corp. is one of the defendants, for which Mr.
Conley worked from 1948 to 1985.

Mr. Conley claims the defendants' negligence caused him to be
exposed to asbestos, which contributed to his development of
mesothelioma.

Attorney William K. Schwartz, who is representing Mr. Conley, is
seeking punitive and compensatory damages, claiming the
companies were negligent in manufacturing, assembling, supplying
and distributing their products.

Mr. Conley worked as an electrician and chief operator at Union
Carbide facilities in South Charleston and Institute. During
that time he worked in areas where workers handled asbestos-
containing materials and products.

The suit claims that the companies knew their products contained
asbestos, which was dangerous to the workers, but did not
provide proper safety training and equipment, as well as provide
knowledge of the dangers of asbestos.

In the 12-count suit, Mr. Conley and his wife seek punitive and
compensatory damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2373 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Pleasant Acres Worker Sues York County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Gruzs, a beautician who was fired from the York County
Pleasant Acres Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in York County,
Pa., has filed a federal lawsuit against the county, the
facility and some of its managers claiming she was fired for
complaining about asbestos floor tiles in the facility salon
where she worked, York Daily Record reports.

The lawsuit says Ms. Grusz became a beautician at Pleasant Acres
on Oct. 4, 2001, and that in May 2005 the condition of the
salon's floor tiles had begun to deteriorate significantly -
many became dislodged, broken and brittle.

Ms. Gruzs claims she made several requests to have the tiles
replaced or repaired, but no action was taken for almost a year.

The lawsuit added that conversations with a maintenance worker
at the facility led Ms. Grusz to believe the floor tiles
contained asbestos. When the old tiles were removed and the
floor was replaced, work was not performed with appropriate
regard for asbestos risk, she claimed.

The suit says Ms. Gruzs asked for an air quality test in the
salon after the floor was replaced and she was told there was no
need because the tiles had been tested clean. She then took some
of the removed tiles to an outside laboratory, which reportedly
found hazardous asbestos levels in the tiles and mastic.

Ms. Gruzs says she tried to file a grievance with her union but
union officials would not accept it. She participated in a
conference call with the union and a representative of the state
Department of Environmental Protection on June 5, 2006.

Ms. Grusz then again filed a grievance with the union based on
her belief that the tiles contained dangerous levels of
asbestos-containing materials and the tiles were not properly
removed and disposed of, possibly exposing residents, coworkers,
and Ms. Gruzs to dangerous levels of airborne asbestos
particulates.

Later that month, Ms. Grusz was told her grievance would be
heard, she says, but when she came to the hearing she was fired.
She claims she was fired for exercising her First Amendment
right to speak out on a matter of public concern and for
exercising her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act.

The suit said the county alleges Ms. Gruzs violated the county's
no-call/no-show policy by failing to call in absent on three
consecutive days beginning June 6, 2006. She claims she did call
in and properly notify the facility she would be absent on June
6, 7, and 8.

Ms. Gruzs is asking for compensatory damages in excess of
US$350,000 with interest and costs and reasonable attorney fees.

County solicitor Michael Flannelly said Ms. Gruzs "was
terminated pursuant to our progressive discipline policy, and it
had nothing to do with allegations of asbestos."

Mr. Flanelly noted the tiles Ms. Grusz complained about had been
removed before she was terminated and that during the conference
call the Department of Environmental Protection had assured her
the tiles presented no health risk to her.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victim Gets Payout From Hardie Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Steiner, of Melbourne, Australia, who alleges she
developed mesothelioma from her exposure to asbestos as a child
has won payout from Amaca, a former James Hardie Industries N.V.
Subsidiary, The Age reports.

The 45-year-old Ms. Steiner was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
May 2007 following childhood exposure to asbestos material.

On Nov. 8, 2007, lawyers for Ms. Steiner and Amaca agreed on an
undisclosed settlement before the case was to go to a Victorian
Supreme Court trial.

Ms. Steiner alleged she was exposed to asbestos fibers 40 years
ago while her parents built an office and unit next to their
home in the Adelaide suburb of Torrens Park. She alleged she was
exposed to asbestos fibers from cement sheeting used during
construction.

However, Amaca's lawyer, Richard J. Stanley described the
settlement as fair and denied it was an admission of guilt.

Ms. Steiner has left her job as an IT professional and undergone
her first round of chemotherapy. Part of her right lung, its
lining and a rib were removed during surgery.

In February 2007, Hardie shareholders approved an AUD4 billion
asbestos compensation deal, ending the long-running battle
between asbestos disease victims and the building products
maker.

The deal, which followed six years of wrangling, paved the way
for victims of asbestos-related diseases caused by products made
by former Hardie subsidiaries, to get their hands on a share of
the AUD4 billion worth of compensation over the next 40 years.

The agreement to establish the Asbestos Injuries Compensation
Fund was negotiated with the company by asbestos victims'
groups, unions and the New South Wales government.

There were 202 claims for mesothelioma in the year ending March
31, 2007, according to an AICF report. The report added that
mesothelioma claim settlements over that period included five in
excess of AUD1 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP to Penalize for Hazard at Fla. Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is set to
penalize whoever is responsible for failing to locate asbestos
and relieve the contamination at the old Fort Walton Beach
Hospital in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., Southwest Florida Daily
News reports.

However, the DEP has not figured out whether Okaloosa County or
the nonprofit Elder Services of Okaloosa County is to blame.

On Oct. 9, 2007, DEP officials met with Don Turner, the director
of the county’s facility maintenance, and Ruth Lovejoy,
executive director of Elder Services.

They discussed five “possible violations of law” committed
during renovations at the old hospital on Hospital Drive to
convert it to Autumn House, an affordable assisted-living
facility. Elder Services leases the old hospital from the county
and would run Autumn House.

Greg Landry, of DEP’s air program division, told Mr. Turner and
Ms. Lovejoy that whoever was responsible for the asbestos
violations was subject to a US$33,000 fine.

DEP spokeswoman Sally Cooey said her agency has not determined
whether the county or Elder Services should bear the brunt of
the fine.

Mr. Turner and Ms. Lovejoy have been asked to submit letters by
Dec. 3, 2007 arguing their cases and stating what actions have
been taken that could lessen the fine.

In July 2007, Ms. Lovejoy announced Elder Services’ intention to
clean up the old hospital’s second floor to develop Autumn House
with help from inmates from the Florida Department of
Corrections.

Mr. Turner said Elder Services failed to let the county know
that it also had an agreement with local contractor Tracy Acree
to do some renovations.

Mr. Acree did not file a work plan with the county, Mr. Turner
said, so no one with the county knew the scope of the work to be
done.

The hospital was built in the 1950s, when asbestos was commonly
found in floor tiles and the mastic adhesive used to install
them.

Someone, likely a guard assigned to inmate supervision,
apparently got worried about possible asbestos contamination
when the tiles were being pulled from the floor, Mr. Turner
said.

Someone sent a sample off for testing without the county or Ms.
Lovejoy knowing. Then the inmates stopped coming to work.

When the inmates failed to show up a second day, Ms. Lovejoy
called the Department of Corrections and was told that her labor
force had been reassigned. The DEP called soon after.

Corrections officials contacted on Nov. 6, 2007 offered no
explanation for what had happened. Mr. Turner said no matter
where DEP lays blame, the county will likely help Elder
Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Engineer Payout Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.K. Court of Appeal denied David McGovern, a retired
heating engineer, the right to claim compensation for his
pleural plaques, Oldham Advertiser reports.

Mr. McGovern worked for a Stretford, England, firm called
William Matthews between 1959 and 1978, where he used to lag
boilers and heating pipes.

Six years ago, Mr. McGovern began having breathing problems and
was diagnosed with pleural plaques.

In October 2007, the House of Lords upheld a 2006 ruling by the
Court of Appeal that people exposed to asbestos can no longer
claim compensation for pleural plaques.

Apparently, it is considered by some specialists to be the most
“benign” of all asbestos-related diseases.

The verdict affects thousands and the trade union Amicus and law
firms, including Mr. McGovern's, have pledged to fight to re-
instate compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida DEP to Check for Hazard in Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is checking
whether asbestos was dumped improperly at a landfill northeast
of Alico Road and U.S. 41, The News-Press reports.

The DEP and Lee County have received anonymous verbal complaints
alleging the dumping of crushed asbestos pipes at the 70-acre
site.

Asbestos can be discarded only in landfills approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency.

A.J. Satyal of the DEP says, “We don't have the full report.”

The EPA regulates the removal of 160 square feet or more of
asbestos.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that
workers be trained and wear full protective equipment.

Leigh Simmons, a senior environmental specialist with Lee
County, said, “The county just wants to know that employees were
not put at risk.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owner of Ill. Demolition Cos. Pleads Guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Illinois Department of Public Health
announced that a Chicago man and two corporations he owns
recently pleaded guilty to felony asbestos charges over the 2005
demolition of a Chicago building, according to an Illinois
Attorney General press release dated Nov. 20, 2007.

On Oct. 19, 2007, Daniel T. Coyne entered a guilty plea in Cook
County Circuit Court to the charge of Failure to Remove
Asbestos, a Class 4 felony.

The court ordered Mr. Coyne to pay US$15,000 in fines, costs,
and restitution and sentenced him to 30 months probation. He
also entered guilty pleas on behalf of his corporations, ACES
Demolition and ACES Environmental Consulting. The court ordered
each corporation to pay US$15,000 in additional fines, costs,
and restitution.

An investigation by the USEPA-Criminal Investigation Division
(USEPA-CID) and the City of Chicago Department of Environment
(CDOE) revealed that in June 2005, Mr. Coyne provided the city
with fraudulent inspection information in his capacity as an
asbestos inspector.

Specifically, in an inspection report concerning a former
Dominick's store at 3649 N. Central Avenue in Chicago, Mr. Coyne
falsely certified that he had conducted a visual inspection of
the building, including the pipes, beams and other areas that
may contain asbestos, and declared the area “free of asbestos
containing materials (ACM).”

According to the IDPH, Mr. Coyne's asbestos inspector's license
had expired in May 2005. Based on Mr. Coyne's false inspection
information, the Chicago Department of Construction and Permits
issued a permit to Mr. Coyne's company to demolish the former
Dominick's store.

After the demolition began, a November 2005 CDOE inspection
revealed more than 3,000 linear feet of ACM in the form of pipe
insulation in the basement of the structure. CDOE ordered a stop
to the demolition until the ACM was properly removed. CDOE also
notified IDPH of its findings.

IDPH had previously imposed sanctions on Coyne and his companies
for other asbestos-related violations and referred the case to
the USEPA-CID. The case was then referred to Ms. Madigan's
office for prosecution.

Assistant Attorney General Richard J. Powers handled the case
for Ms. Madigan's Environmental Crimes Bureau. Special Agents
Dan Sekerek and Eric Hann investigated the case for the USEPA-
CID.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Swiss School Staff Fall Ill Due to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The contamination by the material of two workers at a school in
Thonex, Geneva, raises concerns about health risks in hundreds
of public buildings, Tribune de Geneve reports.

A pair of non-teaching employees at a junior high school in
Thonex (le Cycle d’orientation du Foron) have been diagnosed as
suffering from a disease related to exposure to asbestos.

It is not clear whether the two employees at the Thonex school
were exposed to asbestos there or elsewhere. The building has
been declared safe for teachers and students.

However, the Tribune de Geneve, on Nov. 21, 2007, reported that
308 public buildings in the canton built before 1991, including
more than 100 schools, contain asbestos.

The buildings were identified by a cantonal department (Stipi)
responsible for protecting against “pollution” inside buildings.

One of the difficulties linking health risks with specific
buildings is that some diseases related to asbestos exposure can
lie dormant for 15 years, a Stipi official said.

According to the Suva insurance company, 200 people die each
year as a result of exposure to asbestos. Maintenance staff and
workers in electrical, plumbing and other construction trades
may be among those most at risk.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Widow Files Lawsuit Against Transfield
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit is being filed against power station construction firm
Transfield Services Ltd. on behalf of an unnamed New South Wales
woman who is terminally ill with mesothelioma, ABC News reports.

The woman is the widow of the now deceased man Rino Pettinari,
who worked for Transfield at the Vales Point, Munmorah, Wangi
and Liddell power stations, as well as at BHP in the 1960s and
1970s.

Newcastle law firm Turner Freeman says while Mr. Pettinari did
not die from an asbestos-related disease, his wife is now
battling mesothelioma.

The woman's lawyer alleges she was exposed to the asbestos
fibres while laundering her husband's clothes.

While official legal proceedings are yet to begin, the law firm
has begun interviewing Mr. Pettinari's former power station
colleagues in a bid to assist with his wife's legal case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. A.O. Smith, 40 Firms in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Dee Bourliea, on behalf of Terry Bourliea, on Nov. 2,
2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against the A.O. Smith
Corp. and 40 other companies in Orange County District Court in
Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

When he was alive, Mr. Bourliea sued and received a settlement
for an asbestos-related disease. Now deceased, his benefactor is
suing on his behalf for a different asbestos-related disease.

Bryan Blevins represents Mrs. Bourliea.

In the suit, Mrs. Bourliea alleges that the defendants knowingly
and maliciously manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing
products throughout Jefferson County.

Case No. A-070625-c is styled Shelley Dee Bourliea vs. A.O.
Smith Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Settle Minnesota Claim for $26,472
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. has negotiated a settlement agreement with the
city of Barnesville, Minn., an asbestos property damage claimant
represented by Motley Rice LLC, allowing the City's Claim No.
6936 for US$26,472.

The Settlement Amount will be paid after the effective date of
any plan of reorganization approved by the Court in the Debtors'
bankruptcy cases. It will be paid by either the Debtors, an
asbestos trust, or any entity appointed to make the payment.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Grace to Settle 40 Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court authorized W.R. Grace & Co. to enter
into separate settlement agreements with more than 40 asbestos-
related property damage claimants represented by the law firm
Dies & Hill LLP:

These claimants are:

-- Acadia Parish School Board,
-- City of Amarillo, Tex.,
-- State of Arizona,
-- State of Arkansas,
-- BNC Forum LLP,
-- Brother Martin High School,
-- Caddo Parish School Board,
-- Calcasieu Parish School Board,
-- City of Eugene, Ore.,
-- City of Houston,
-- Coleman Housing Authority,
-- Congregation of Immaculate Concepcion Church,
-- Congregation of Joan of Arc Church - LaPlace,
-- Congregation of St. Dominic Catholic Church,
-- Congregation of St. Francis Assisi Church,
-- Congregation of St. Francis Xavier Cabrini Church,
-- Congregation of St. Francis Xavier Church,
-- Congregation of St. Joan of Arc Church,
-- Congregation of St. Louise De Marillac Church,
-- Congregation of St. Mary Magdalene Catholic Church,
-- Congregation of St. Philip Neri Catholic Church,
-- Congregation of St. Pius X Roman Catholic Church,
-- Congregation of St. Raymond Catholic Church,
-- Congregation of St. Rita Roman Catholic Church,
-- State of Connecticut,
-- Cook County, Ill.,
-- County of El Paso, Tex.,
-- East Baton Rouge Parish School Board,
-- EPEC Realty Inc.,
-- Harlingen Housing Authority,
-- Jefferson Davis Parish School Board,
-- Jefferson Parish School Board,
-- Lafayette Parish School Board,
-- Lafourche Parish School Board,
-- LaSalle Parish School Board,
-- Mt. Carmel Academy of New Orleans,
-- Natchitoches Parish School Board,
-- State of Oregon,
-- Oregon Health and Science University
-- City of Phoenix,
-- St. Mary's Academy of the Holy Family, and
-- City of Tucson, Ariz.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Disallow Allegheny PD Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2006, the Allegheny Center Associates filed Claim No.
9778 for alleged asbestos-related property damage in two of its
buildings located in Pittsburgh.

The Speights & Runyan law firm also filed Claim Nos. 11036 and
11037, alleging property damage for the two Allegheny buildings.

In February 2007, the Debtors asked the Court to expunge 27 PD
claims, including Claim No. 9778 on the grounds of statute of
limitations. Allegheny has admitted in its proof of claim that
the asbestos had been removed from two of its buildings in the
1980s, at least 11 years before the Debtors' Petition Date.
Thus, the Debtors sought to expunge Claim No. 9778 based on the
expiration of Delaware's three-year statute of limitations.

Allegheny did not file any response to the Debtors' request.  
Accordingly, the Court expunged Claim No. 9778.

Because Claim Nos. 11036 and 11037 are duplicative of Claim No.
9778, the Debtors ask the Court to disallow the Claims asserted
by Speights & Runyan.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Reports Settlement of Claims for 3Q07
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. reported to the Court that during the period
from July 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2007, they entered into
four separate settlement agreements:

(1) The Debtors and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency       
entered into an administrative consent order, effective       
Sept. 17, 2007, under which the Debtors will take responsibility
and pay for a Super fund remedial investigation/feasibility
study for the former Libby vermiculite mine and environs to
determine the current extent of contamination, if any, in that
area and the best means for re mediating any contamination. No
payment amount was specified in the administrative consent
order.

(2) In August 2007, the Debtors resolved Claim No. 15073 filed
by James P. Rapisardi, executor of the estate of Rosario
Rapisardi, asserting US$680,060, by allowing the Claim as an
unsecured, prepetition, non-priority claim for US$10,000.

(3) The Debtors and the state of Minnesota entered into a
settlement that allows the state's Claim No. 9648 as an
unsecured, prepetition, non-priority claim for US$360,000.

(4) The Debtors and the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality entered into a stipulation allowing the LDEQ's Claim No.
13417 as an unsecured, prepetition, non-priority claim for
US$1,478.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $8.2M Verdict Against Union Carbide, Hexion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., is announcing a US$8.2
million verdict handed down on Nov. 21, 2007 in an asbestos
lawsuit on behalf of an 73-year-old pipefitter from Texas City
and his wife of more than 50 years, according to a Baron & Budd
press release dated Nov. 21, 2007.

The verdict in Judge John Ellisor's 122nd District Court in
Galveston, Tex., includes US$7.93 million in damages against
Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. and Columbus, Ohio-based
Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. Jurors also assessed US$275,000
in punitive damages against Hexion.

Baron & Budd attorneys Denyse Finn Clancy and Russell W. Budd
represented Oliver D. Smith and his wife Peggy Ann.

Mr. Budd said, “These companies knowingly exposed Mr. Smith and
workers like him to dangerous asbestos, which caused him to
develop the cancer mesothelioma. While we can't undo the harm
they caused, we can hold them accountable.”

Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter
in the 1950s and 1960s. Evidence in the two-week trial showed
that the dangers of asbestos exposure have been widely known
since the early 1900s, but the defendants continued to expose
Mr. Smith and others to dangerous asbestos products.

Hexion owned the chemical plant where Mr. Smith worked from
1957-1964. Mr. Smith also worked at a Union Carbide facility.

The damage caused by asbestos exposure can take decades to
surface. Mr. Smith was diagnosed nearly 50 years after he began
working as a pipefitter. He continues to fight his disease from
his home in Thibodaux, La.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Phelps Dodge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s subsidiary Phelps Dodge
Corp., or its subsidiaries, has been facing a large number of
product liability or premises lawsuits claiming injury from
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 7, 2007.

Filed since about 1990, these suits claim injury from exposure
to asbestos found in electrical wire products produced or
marketed many years ago, or from asbestos at certain Phelps
Dodge properties.

Phoenix-based Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s 91 percent-
owned subsidiary, PT Freeport Indonesia (PT-FI), operates the
open-pit Grasberg gold, copper, and silver mine in Indonesia.
Through its stake in PT-FI, the Company controls proved and
probable reserves of about 35 billion pounds of copper and about
35 million ounces of gold.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Records $7.25M for Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp.'s current reserve for asbestos liability claims
amounted to US$7.25 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims
totaled US$7.5 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims
amounted to US$30.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$35 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims
totaled US$32 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos
abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. Through its
subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., the Company provides
these services to industrial, commercial and public agency
clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Drop to 240 at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related cases pending against Entrx Corp., mainly its
subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., at Sept. 30, 2007,
dropped to 240, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
7, 2007.

Asbestos-related cases pending against the Company, mainly
Metalclad, at June 30, 2007, dropped to 265. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

There were 126 new claims made in the first nine months of 2007,
compared with 179 in the first nine months of 2006.

The Company expended US$49,000 in the three months ended Sept.
30, 2007 (US$222,000 in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007) to
administer the asbestos claims.

The Company has included US$37,750,000 of insurance coverage
receivable as an asset on its Sept. 30, 2007 balance sheet, and
US$43 million on its Dec. 31, 2006 balance sheet.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos
abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. Through its
subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., the Company provides
these services to industrial, commercial and public agency
clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces ACE Insurance Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corp.'s subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp., and
several other liability insurers continue to face an asbestos-
related declaratory relief action filed by ACE Property &
Casualty Co., Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha, and
Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co.

On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE , Central National, and Industrial, which
are all related entities, sued Metalclad and a number of its
other liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a variety of
coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving
whether historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits
brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate"
limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of
liability.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Co. on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of
Metalclad, and the effect of the “asbestos exclusion” in the
Allstate policy.

The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from
Metalclad.

The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in
connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate
under the Settlement Agreement.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company’s
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE Lawsuit under the Company’s indemnification obligations in
the Settlement Agreement.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos
abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. Through its
subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., the Company provides
these services to industrial, commercial and public agency
clients.

   
                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ACA CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of ACA Capital Holdings,
Inc. (NYSE:ACA) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’ s
initial public offering IPO) on or about November 10, 2006.

The complaint charges ACA Capital and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. ACA
Capital is a holding company that provides financial guaranty
insurance products to participants in the global credit
derivative, structured finance capital, and municipal finance
capital markets.

On or about November 9, 2006, ACA Capital priced its IPO of
6,875,000 shares of newly issued common stock and 23,541 shares
of existing common stock at $13 per share, generating gross
proceeds of $89.4 million. The Registration Statement for the
IPO described positively ACA Capital’s business and the
Company’s collateralized debt obligation (CDO) asset management
business.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the
IPO contained inaccurate statements of material fact because it
failed to disclose that the Company’s CDO assets were materially
impaired and overvalued.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased ACA Capital common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company’s IPO on or about November 10, 2006.

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


CHINA EXPERT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of China Expert Technology, Inc. (formerly
OTCBB: CXTI) stock from November 14, 2006 through October 1,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges CXTI and certain of its present and former
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
complaint, during the Class Period the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements pertaining to its financial
results, condition, and business prospects.

The complaint asserts that on July 19, 2007 the Company's CFO
suddenly resigned. Thereafter, on August 14, 2007 CXTI announced
that it had obtained a five-day extension with the SEC to file
its quarterly report on Form 10-Q. During this period of time,
numerous articles were published by media outlets calling into
question the veracity CXTI's disclosures. On October 1st,
following the resignation of the Company's auditor, the SEC
temporarily halted trading of CXTI's stock. As a result of these
adverse disclosures, investors were damaged.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Tel: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866—767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


E-TRADE: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of E-Trade Financial
Corporation securities between April 20, 2006 and November 9,
2007.

The complaint charges that E-Trade and its Chief Executive
Officer (Mitchell H. Caplan) and Chief Financial Officer (Robert
J. Simmons) misled shareholders by making false statements
regarding the company's transition into the banking business for
mortgages and home equity loans.  As a result of the Company's
expansion into lending, a majority of E-Trade's recent revenue
growth has been driven by its mortgage assets.

By 2006, the Company derived about 58% of its revenues from net
interest earned on its loan portfolio, while brokerage
commissions and revenue from primarily market making
transactions accounted for only about 30% of revenue. During
this transition period, E-Trade concealed an enormously risky
and unsound subprime mortgage portfolio, and as the subprime
market began to unravel in 2006 and continue its plunge into
2007, E-Trade failed to increase its level of provision for loan
losses, as is required under Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles or "GAAP."

Despite the housing correction becoming more severe each quarter
with reports of increased delinquencies and foreclosures, E-
Trade failed to make any of the necessary adjustments to its
reserve for loan losses or to its level of charge-offs for the
substantial mortgage portfolio that it was holding in its
efforts to prop up its overall earnings in light of its sagging
brokerage business. Remarkably, E-Trade increased its earnings
guidance despite the abundant warning signs of impending
problems in the subprime housing market.

While E-Trade made generic statements about increased risk from
its loan operations, it wholly failed to adequately disclose the
devastating effects that even slight value reductions to its
mortgage portfolio would (and eventually did) have on the
Company's earnings and balance sheet. As the truth about the
actual risks and true value of E-Trade's various mortgage backed
securities were revealed to the market, E-Trade has been forced
to incur massive write downs of the value of its mortgage backed
assets held on its balance sheet.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Dustin Mansoor
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: dmansoor@gardylaw.com
          Website: http://www.gardylaw.com


FEDERAL HOME: Coughlin Stoia Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation  common
stock during the period between August 1, 2006 and November 19,
2007.

The complaint charges Freddie Mac and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Freddie Mac is a shareholder-owned company established by
Congress in 1970 to support homeownership and rental housing.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning Freddie Mac's
business, its risk management and the procedures it put in place
to protect the Company from problems in the mortgage industry.
In fact, during the Class Period, Freddie Mac was not adequately
implementing risk control measures.

Moreover, the Company's procedures for appraisals led to many
inflated appraisals, increasing the risk of defaults.
Ultimately, the Company reported billions of dollars in losses,
has been mentioned in investigations by the New York Attorney
General and announced it must raise new capital to meet
regulatory requirements. On this news, Freddie Mac stock fell
over $10 per share to close at $26.74 on November 20, 2007.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
concealed the following information, which caused their
statements to be materially false and misleading:

     (a) defendants were not implementing sufficient risk
         management controls to protect the Company from
         acquiring billions of dollars worth of mortgages with
         poor underwriting standards, causing the Company to
         have an untenable amount of risky loans;

     (b) defendants were not implementing controls to ensure
         that appraisals were done appropriately and to prevent
         collusion between lenders and appraisers, increasing
         the risk of defaults;

     (c) the Company was not adequately reserving for
         uncollectible loans, causing its financial results to
         be misleading; and

     (d) the Company had billions of dollars of bad loans which
         it would eventually have to write off, causing losses
         and capital deficiencies.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Freddie Mac common stock during the Class Period. The
plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience
in actions involving financial fraud.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


FORMFACTOR INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action against FormFactor, Inc.
and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of FormFactor
common stock purchasers during the period April 26, 2006,
through October 24, 2007, inclusive, for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's
business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the
Company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

FormFactor, Inc. develops and markets advanced wafer probe cards
used by semiconductor manufacturers to electrically test
integrated circuits ("ICs"). The Company claims that its wafer
sort, burn-in and device performance testing products are used
by semiconductor manufacturers to cost-effectively perform IC
testing upstream at the wafer level.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and financial reports
that violated generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP").
As a result, vital accounting and other information was
concealed, including a true accounting for the Company's
obsolete inventory and serious production constraints. It is
also alleged that the production constraints would likely place
a ceiling on the Company's future revenue opportunity, as a
result of any inability to recoup costs and expenses or loss of
customers.

On October 24, 2007, after the close of the markets, the Company
issued a shocking press release regarding its sudden plans to
undertake an "internal review of its inventory valuation
practices." As a result of the shocking news, on October 25,
2007, the price of FormFactor stock plunged more than 17.8% or
$7.70 per share to close at $35.54 per share on heavy volume of
8.3 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


HOME SOLUTIONS: Schatz Nobel Files Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. has filed a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Home
Solutions of America, Inc. (NasdaqGM:HSOA - News) between May
18, 2007 and November 14, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that HSOA and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning construction
contracts for projects at three sites in New York, including
Manhattan, and a site in Florida. Unbeknownst to investors,
Defendants failed to disclose the following:

     (i) HSOA did not have an agreement with Blue Diamond
         Construction to perform construction with respect to at
         least one of the three New York sites Defendants had
         previously identified; and

    (ii) that the party that had reportedly awarded the Florida
         contract to HSOA was a party related to HSOA.

On August 15, 2007, HSOA revealed that:

     (a) the Florida project was a related party transaction;

     (b) that in July HSOA had ``received informal inquiries
         from the SEC and Nasdaq with respect to prior
         disclosure and related issues;'' and

     (c) that management had requested that the audit committee
         perform an investigation into related party
         transactions and disclosures.

Then, on September 27, 2007, Defendants acknowledged that they
did not have a contract for the Manhattan element of the New
York projects. Finally, on November 14, 2007, HSOA announced
that it would delay the filing of its third quarter financial
results, citing its ``voluntary review of related party
transactions.'' On this news, HSOA's stock dropped over 20% to
close at $1.57 per share on November 15, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa
          Wayne T. Boulton
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Website: http://www.snilaw.com


PZENA ASSET: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP commenced a class action  in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York  on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Pzena Asset Management, Inc. in the
Company's initial public offering which commenced on October 24,
2007.

The claims asserted arise under Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933, 15 U.S.C. section 77k, and have been asserted against
Pzena and Richard C. Pzena, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially misleading
statements and otherwise failed to disclose a pattern of net
redemptions in the largest mutual fund advised by Pzena, which
existed at the time of the IPO. The subsequent disclosure of
these facts three weeks later resulted in the price of the
Company's common stock declining, causing Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class to suffer damages.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey Abraham, Esq.
          Larry Levit, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.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  * * *