CAR_Public/071130.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 238

                            Headlines


AMCOR LTD: Sydney Federal Court Adds Visy in Price-Fixing Suit
BC FERRIES: Suit Over 2006 Sinking Granted Partial Certification
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Settles Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit
BODEE LLC: Recalls Aminotadalafil-Containing Dietary Tabs
CANADA: Accused of Illegally Withholding Part of Fishing Quotas

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Reliant Settles Market Manipulation Cases
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 5th Circuit Hears Appeal in Tex. ERISA Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Measurement Lawsuits
DICK'S SPORTING: Recalls Recliners with Brackets than can Break
ENTROPIN INC: Cal. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set March

EV3 INC: Still Faces Suit in Del. Over Plan to Buy MTI Shares
IKANOS COMMS: Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
INDIANA: Housing Partnership Settles Fraud Lawsuit for $2.4M
MICROSOFT CORP: Class Status Requested in "Windows Vista” Suit
MISSOURI: Suit Aiming to Block MOHELA Asset Sale Dismissed

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Discount Fees Fraudulent, Mass. Suit Claims
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Pa.
PARMALAT SPA: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Block U.S. Lawsuit
PRESIDENT GLOBAL: Recalls Ice Cream Bars with Undeclared Milk
SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price I

SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price II
TELLABS INC: 7th Circuit Hears Appeal in Ill. Securities Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Medical Malpractice Suits in La.
THANE INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Remanded to Calif. Court
WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. Over Unnecessary Overdraft Charges

YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments
ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Settles Suit Over Toy Hauler Trailers

* Lawyer R. Michael Underwood Joins Fowler White in Florida


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Mayle Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Active Claims v. Dana Drop to 55T at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Unit Has Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.87B at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco Drop to 8,274 at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Records 826 W.Va. Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reserves $3.061B for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Trial Court Ruling Upheld in CIC Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Court Issues Split Ruling in ACE Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 460 Damage Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. W.R. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $917M Excess Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $267.1M Mont. Liability at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Spends $11.2M for Libby Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Action v. Grace, 2 Ex-Employees Ongoing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 507 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 54 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has 3,430 Cases at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Park-Ohio Rise to 385 in Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $269.9M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 29 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Lawsuits From Old Operations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Has 26,376 Injury Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Pending v. General Motors

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC to Pay French Agency $300T for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp. Incurs $63M Losses at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Still Has 535 Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Corp. Subject to Liability Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Faces Liability Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.4M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AON Corp. Has $71M Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: XL Gains From $13M Strengthening of Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Holds Sinnott Case Appealable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Set to Appeal $2M Dana Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Magner Assigned to ASARCO Estimation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Wabtec
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions Pending v. United Industrial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Has 4,500 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Tenneco

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Hotels Accrues $1M for Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Products Unit Has 97 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Records 76 Pending Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Essex Int'l.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Limle Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Inc. Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Parker Drilling Ongoing in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Records 14T Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Worldwide Incurs $1M Costs for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Faces 31 Lawsuits at Oct. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim Gets Payout Days Before Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Calls for an SA Specialist Tribunal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Settles Case with Aussie Campaigner
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.M. Best Sees $65B Total Incurred Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Still Has Compensation Issues

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dukeminster Accused of Negligence in Devon
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Gov't. Bldg. in Cyprus Continues


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ERICSSON LM: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LDK SOLAR: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
LEAP WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AMCOR LTD: Sydney Federal Court Adds Visy in Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Brian Tamberlin in Sydney granted an application by law
firm Maurice Blackburn to add Visys Industries to a $300 million
class action against rival Amcor Ltd.

Maurice Blackburn is representing the victims of a cartel
involving packaging company Amcor Ltd.  

In April 2006, Maurice Blackburn filed the suit in Federal Court
of Australia on behalf of the now defunct Jarra Creek Central
Packaging Shed Pty Ltd., alleging cartel behavior and seeking
declarations, injunctions and unspecified damages against:

     -- Amcor Ltd.,
     -- Amcor Packaging (Australia) Ltd., and
     -- Fibre Containers (Queensland) Pty Ltd.

The suit claimed the plaintiff has been damaged by price fixing
and market sharing in the cardboard box industry between 2000
and 2005.  Amcor escaped prosecution after being granted
immunity by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
in return for information about the practice.

The class action alleges customers of Amcor and Visy were
overcharged between 8 per cent and 15 per cent for their
cardboard packaging for a span of more than five years after the
companies allegedly entered into a deal to artificially inflate
prices.

The addition of Visys in the suit follows a $36 million
settlement between Visy and the ACCC.  It is understood that an
admission to the conspiracy by Visy owner Richard Pratt was part
of the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2007).

The suit will go before the federal court on March 14.


BC FERRIES: Suit Over 2006 Sinking Granted Partial Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Brenner certified as
class action a lawsuit filed by survivors of Canada's BC Ferry
ship Queen of the North, which sank in northern British Columbia
in March 2006.

Nanaimo Alexander and Maria Kotai filed the case, early in 2006
(Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2006).  The Kotais accuse BC
Ferries of failing to train crew adequately, supervise the crew
on the bridge, keep a proper lookout, operate at safe speed, and
conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that prevented or
minimized injuries.  

In September 2006, B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Tysoe
approved the addition of the ship's captain Colin Henthorne,
Fourth Officer Carl Lilgert and deckhand Karen Bricker as
defendants (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).

In July, Justice Tysoe granted partial certification to the suit
(Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007).  After hearing arguments
to certify the suit on June 12, Judge Tysoe ruled the suit must
be changed to include several classes of claimants before it can
proceed. Those classes would include out-of-province passengers
and some 23 dependents of passengers.

B.C. Ferries has paid out $16,700 to passengers who lost cabin
luggage but has refused to pay more.  A lawyer for the
plaintiffs said that with the most recent ruling, they can now
begin out-of-court negotiations with B.C. Ferries on damages,
CanWest News Service reports.

According to the Canadian Press, lawyer David Varty said the
certification of the class action paves the way for three
subclasses of passengers who now can proceed to an assessment of
damages:

     -- a group that will challenge the limitations on lost-
        baggage claims;

     -- a group that will represent people whose baggage claims
        were fully paid; and

     -- a group of passengers whose dependents have suffered
        losses such as contributions to domestic activities,
        household income and the ripple effect on the
        dependants' emotional health

The Kotais will head the first group.  Passenger Barney Dudowald
will represent the second group.  A representative has not yet
been selected for the latter group, Mr. Varty said.


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Settles Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. reached a settlement in a lawsuit in
which plaintiffs alleged an industry-wide scheme on the part of
commercial insurance brokers and insurance companies to defraud
a purported class of insurance purchasers through bid-rigging
and contingent commission arrangements.

Initially, Berkshire Hathaway, General Re Corp., and General
Reinsurance Corp., were named as defendants in this
multidistrict litigation, entitled, “In Re: Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663 (D.N.J.).”

On April 5, 2007, the Court dismissed all federal antitrust and
RICO claims against Berkshire, General Re and General
Reinsurance.

On May 21, 2007, the plaintiffs concluded a settlement agreement
with Berkshire, General Re and General Reinsurance that fully
and finally resolved this litigation, as between these settling
parties, without payment or admission of any liability on the
part of these settling defendants, according to its Nov. 2, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. -- http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/--  
is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of
diverse business activities, the most important of these are
insurance businesses conducted on both a primary basis and a
reinsurance basis.  Berkshire also owns and operates a number of
other businesses engaged in a variety of activities.  


BODEE LLC: Recalls Aminotadalafil-Containing Dietary Tabs
---------------------------------------------------------
Bodee LLC, 2222 Avenue of the Stars, 702E, Century City, CA
90067, is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of all the
company's supplement product sold under the name Encore Tabs.

Bodee LLC is conducting this recall after being informed by
representatives of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that
lab analysis by FDA of Encore Tabs samples found the product
contains potentially harmful, undeclared ingredients. FDA
asserts that its chemical analysis revealed that one lot of
Encore Tabs contains aminotadalafil, an analog of tadalafil, the
active ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile
Dysfunction (ED).

FDA maintains Aminotadalafil is close in structure to tadalafil
and is expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse
event profile. This undeclared chemical poses a threat to
consumers because it may interact with nitrates found in some
prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood
pressure to dangerous levels.

Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
or heart disease often take nitrates. ED is a common problem in
men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of
products to enhance sexual performance.

Encore Tabs is sold in health food stores, via the internet and
by mail order nationwide and in Canada. The Encore Tabs product
is sold as a 2-capsule blister pack packaged in a retail booklet
with five booklets in a box.

Customers who have this product in their possession should stop
using it immediately and contact their physician if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking this
product.

Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this
product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by
phone at 1-800-FDA-1088 or by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail
at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-
9787.

The company advises that any unused portion be returned to Bodee
LLC for a full purchase price refund by calling (800) 935-0296
for instructions on the return and refund process.

The Company is taking this voluntary action because it is
committed and is always concerned with the health of persons who
have consumed this product. The Company is reviewing the
procedures and policies of all firms involved with the
manufacture of the product to ensure that there will be no
future issues with regard to Encore Tabs’ composition. The
Company is working closely with the FDA in the recall process
and is committed to the quality and integrity of its products.
It sincerely regrets any inconvenience to consumers and its
other customers.


CANADA: Accused of Illegally Withholding Part of Fishing Quotas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Queen of England, the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and the Pacific Halibut Management Association of British
Columbia (PHMA) are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov.
20 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, accusing them of
unconstitutionally withholding 10 percent of fishing quotas from
halibut fishermen and selling the rights to pay for fisheries
management.

Named plaintiff Lorne Nels David Iverson bring this action on
behalf of halibut fishermen in British Columbia who held halibut
fishing licenses in the years between 2001 and 2006 inclusive.

Plaintiff seeks for the following relief:

    -- a declaration that the Minister's practice of withholding
       10% of the entire quota to be granted to the holders of
       halibut licenses in British Columbia and assigning it to
       the PHMA and in turn receiving funds or payments in kind
       from PHMA's Sale of that quota is unlawful;

    -- a declaration that all funds and payments-in-kind
       received by the Minister from the PHMA from sale of quota
       constitute either:

      (i) an unlawful conversion of property not owned by the
          Minister;

     (ii) unjust enrichment by the Minister; or

    (iii) funds collected without legislative or constitutional
          authority by the Minister.

    -- an accounting and restitution to plaintiff of all monies
       collected from the plaintiff by the Minister and the PHMA
       on behalf of the Minister from the plaintiff for the
       period Jan. 1, 2001 to date;

    -- return of funds unlawfully converted by the defendants;

    -- restitution of monies collected from the plaintiff by the
       defendants without legislative or constitutional
       authority and retained by the defendants without a
       juristic reason;

    -- for damages for misfeasance in public office;

    -- damages for unlawful administrative action;

    -- interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act;

    -- such further and other relief that this court deems
       appropriate.

The suit is "Lorne Nels David Iverson et al. v. Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada, et al., Court File No. S077807," filed
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Meldon Ellis
          Ellis Business Lawyers
          Suite 440-319, West Pender Street
          Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1T5
          Phone: (604) 688-7374
          Fax: (604) 688-0201


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Reliant Settles Market Manipulation Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court approved a settlement of 11 natural gas class actions
pending in state court in California against Reliant Energy,
Inc. (RRI).

A large number of lawsuits have been filed against numerous
market participants and remain pending in federal court in
Wisconsin, Missouri and Nevada and in state court in California
and Nevada in connection with the operation of the electricity
and natural gas markets in California and certain other states
in 2000-2001, a time of power shortages and significant
increases in prices.

These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
are based on a number of legal theories, including violation of
state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and
unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act, false claims statutes and similar
theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to
governmental entities.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which include state officials and
governmental entities as well as private litigants, are seeking
a variety of forms of relief, including recovery of compensatory
damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, interest due, disgorgement, civil penalties and
fines, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees.  

Centerpoint Energy Inc.'s former subsidiary, RRI, was a
participant in the California markets, owning generating plants
in the state and participating in both electricity and natural
gas trading in that state and in western power markets
generally.

Centerpoint and/or Reliant Energy have been named in
approximately 35 of these lawsuits, which were instituted
between 2001 and 2007 and are pending in California state court
in San Diego County, in Nevada state court in Clark County, in
federal district court in Nevada and before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. However, the Company, CenterPoint Houston and
Reliant Energy were not participants in the electricity or
natural gas markets in California.

The Company and Reliant Energy have been dismissed from certain
of the lawsuits, either voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by
order of the court, and the Company believes it is not a proper
defendant in the remaining cases and will continue to seek
dismissal from such remaining cases.

Several of the electricity complaints have been dismissed, and
several of the dismissals have been affirmed by appellate
courts. Others have been resolved by the settlement described in
the following paragraph.

Three of the gas complaints were dismissed based on defendants’
claims of the filed rate doctrine, but the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals recently reversed two of those dismissals and
remanded the cases back to the district court for further
proceedings. In June 2005, a San Diego state court refused to
dismiss other gas complaints on the same basis.

In October 2006, RRI reached a tentative settlement of 11 class
action natural gas cases pending in state court in California.
The court approved this settlement in June 2007. The other gas
cases remain in the early procedural stages.

                      FERC Settlement

In August 2005, RRI reached a settlement with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission enforcement staff, the states of
California, Washington and Oregon, California’s three largest
investor-owned utilities, classes of consumers from California
and other western states, and a number of California city and
county government entities that resolves their claims against
RRI related to the operation of the electricity markets in
California and certain other western states in 2000-2001.

The settlement also resolves the claims of the three states and
the investor-owned utilities related to the 2000-2001 natural
gas markets. The settlement has been approved by the FERC, by
the California Public Utilities Commission and by the courts in
which the electricity class actions are pending.

Two parties have appealed the courts’ approval of the settlement
to the California Court of Appeals. A party in the FERC
proceedings filed a motion for rehearing of the FERC’s order
approving the settlement, which the FERC denied on May 30, 2006.

That party has filed for review of the FERC’s orders in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company is not a party to
the settlement, but may rely on the settlement as a defense to
any claims brought against it related to the time when the
Company was an affiliate of RRI. The terms of the settlement do
not require payment by the Company.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 5th Circuit Hears Appeal in Tex. ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard argument on
an appeal against a summary judgment granted to CenterPoint
Energy, Inc. in a purported class action alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

In May 2002, three class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston on behalf of
participants in various company-sponsored employee benefits
plans.  Two of the lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice.

In the remaining lawsuit, the company and certain current and
former members of its benefits committee are defendants.  That
suit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to various employee benefits plans, directly or indirectly
sponsored by the company, in violation of ERISA by permitting
the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the company
when it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for
such securities became artificially inflated because of alleged
securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.  

The complaint sought monetary damages for losses suffered on
behalf of the plans and a putative class of plan participants
whose accounts held CenterPoint Energy or Reliant Resources,
Inc. securities, as well as restitution.

In January 2006, the federal district judge granted a motion for
summary judgment filed by the Company and the individual
defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments from the
parties in October 2007.

The suit is "Boca Raton Police &, et al. v. Reliant Resources,
et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01810," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division under
Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jacks C. Nickens, Esq.
          Nickens Keeton et al
          600 Travis, Ste. 7500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-571-9191
          Fax: 713-571-9652

          Niki L. O'Neel, Esq.
          Alan Schulman, Esq.
          David R. Stickney, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz et al
          12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 150
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 858-793-0070
      
              - and -

          Peter A. Pease, Esq.
          Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
          Wendy Hope, Esq.
          Zoberman, Berman DeValerio & Pease
          One Liberty Square,
          Boston, MA 09109
          Phone: 617-542-8300
          Fax: 617-542-1194.

Representing the company is:

          James Edward Maloney, Esq.
          Baker & Botts
          910 Louisiana, Ste 3000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-229-1255
          Fax: 713-229-7755


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Measurement Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) and certain of
its subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits
brought against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their
affiliates pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.

In one case originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times,
the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners
who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.

The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July 2003
in response to an order from the judge denying certification of
the plaintiffs’ alleged class. In the amendment, the plaintiffs
dismissed their claims against certain defendants (including two
CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of the class of
plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated previously
asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the British thermal
unit (Btu) content of the gas.

The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners, in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs
and fees.

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q
filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.


DICK'S SPORTING: Recalls Recliners with Brackets than can Break
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 125,000 lounge chairs and recliners.

The company said the plastic support brackets can break and
cause the chairs to collapse, posing a hazard to consumers.

Dick's Sporting Goods has received 19 reports of the chairs and
recliners collapsing, including 17 injuries involving
lacerations and back pains.

This recall involves the Lazy Lounger chair (Style # CEH00415),
recliner (Style # CEH00320) and oversize recliner (Style #
CEH00414, CEH00345, and CEH00443). Style numbers are printed on
the packaging.

The chairs have a mesh covering that attaches to a black or tan
metal frame by a woven cord. The mesh covering is sold in: blue,
orange, black, natural, burgundy, pink, white, green, red,
khaki, and camouflage. A padded headrest pillow is sewn on to
the mesh. Beneath the padded headrest are two tags. The first
reads: “! WARNING !”, followed by 9 numbered statements, and
“Made in China”. The second is the ?Do Not Remove Under Penalty
of Law? tag and includes the manufacturer?s Registration No:
OHIO36462HK.

These recalled recliners were manufactured by Rankam Group Ltd.,
of China and are being sold at Dick's Sporting Goods stores
nationwide and http://www.dickssportinggoods.comfrom February  
2006 to August 2007 for between $40 and $80.

Pictures of recalled recliners:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08106a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08106b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08106c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the chairs and recliners
immediately and contact Dick?s Sporting Goods for a free repair
kit.

For additional information, contact Dick's Sporting Goods toll-
free at (866) 500-4982 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or send an email: DicksLazyLounger@rankam.com -
consumers can also visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com


ENTROPIN INC: Cal. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set March
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 26, 2008 fairness hearing is set for a $4,500,000
settlement of a securities class action filed against Entropin
Inc.

The hearing will be at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 23, Third Floor,
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

The class consists of all persons who acquired:

    (a) common stock or Entropin Inc. in its July 1999 through
        September 1999 private placements; or

    (b) common stock and warrants as a unit at $7.00/share and
        $0.25/warrant) in Entropin Inc.'s March 15, 2000 Public
        Offering; or

    (c) warrants of Entropin Inc. on the NASDAQ after
        Entropin's March 15, 2000 public offering through May
        15, 2001 (inclusive).

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Wester Division, Case No. CV 04-6180-RC.

For more information, contact:

          Claims Administrator
          Entropin Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: (866) 274 4004
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net

The Rosen Law Firm PA
          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          350 Fifth Avenue
          Suite 5508
          New York, NY  10118
          (212) 686-1060


EV3 INC: Still Faces Suit in Del. Over Plan to Buy MTI Shares
-------------------------------------------------------------
ev3, Inc. continues to face a purported stockholder class action
in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in relation
to its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of
common stock of its majority owned subsidiary, Micro
Therapeutics, Inc., that it does not already own.  

On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action was filed
on behalf of Micro Therapeutics' minority shareholders against
Micro Therapeutics, Micro Therapeutics' directors and ev3
challenging the previously announced exchange offer.

The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted
a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.  It sought an
injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics or, if the transaction were to be completed,
rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

ev3 Inc. -- Net: http://www.ev3.net/-- is a global medical  
device company focused on catheter-based, or endovascular,
technologies for the minimally invasive treatment of vascular
diseases and disorders.


IKANOS COMMS: Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of an
amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Ikanos Communications, Inc.

In November 2006, three putative class actions were filed
against the company, its directors, an executive officer and a
former executive officer.  

These lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company
in connection with its initial public offering in September
2005, the follow-on offering in March 2006, and thereafter
concerning its business and prospects.  The lawsuits seek
unspecified damages.  

The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was
filed on April 24, 2007.

The amended complaint alleges certain material
misrepresentations and omissions by the Company in connection
with its initial public offering in September 2005 and the
follow-on offering in March 2006 concerning its business and
prospects, and seeks unspecified damages.

On June 25, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motions and the
matter is pending a decision by the court, according to the
company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is “Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-PAC,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Paul A. Crotty.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: (631) 367-7100
         Fax: (631) 367-1173
         E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         James N. Kramer, Esq.
         Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
         The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: (415)-773-5700
         Fax: (415)-773-5759
         E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com


INDIANA: Housing Partnership Settles Fraud Lawsuit for $2.4M
------------------------------------------------------------
The Fort Wayne Neighborhood Housing Partnership and buyers of
home from the non-profit agreed to a $2.4 million settlement of
a suit over alleged overpricing, Rebecca S. Green of The Journal
Gazette reports.

The Allen Superior Court in Indiana has granted class-action
status to the complaint filed in April by eight clients of the
agency.  They alleged that the defendant sold them homes "at
grossly inflated prices" and set them up for failure.  
Plaintiffs also accused two appraisers of conniving with the
partnership.  The suit alleges fraud, negligence, civil
conspiracy, breach of contract and breach of warranties by the
housing partnership.

In his ruling on Oct. 3, 2006, Judge David Avery specifically  
certified the complaint against the partnership as class action,
while the one against the two appraisers was conditionally  
certified as class action.

A settlement of the suit was finalized on Nov. 15.  Under it,
the partnership’s insurance company will pay the first $400,000
portion of the partnership’s judgment.

Whether another insurance company will have to pay all or a
portion of the remaining $2 million is a matter under litigation
in a federal lawsuit, said Matthew Elliott, an attorney with
Beckman Lawson LLP, who represented the homebuyers.

A hearing on that case is set for December.

The $274,000 part of the the $400,000 settlement will be divided
up among the class members – with $4,000 going to the original
eight plaintiffs and $1,000 to the remaining members, Elliott
said.  The rest will go as attorneys’ fees.

The settlement does not constitute an “admission” of anything by
the housing partnership or the appraisers, according to court
documents.

The Indiana attorney general's office is representing the
partnership because it has gone into receivership.  The non-
profit agency went into receivership in May.

For more details, contact Matthew J. Elliott of Beckman Lawson,  
LLP, Phone: (260) 422-0800, or e-mail mje@beckmanlawson.com, Web  
site: http://www.beckmanlawson.com.   


MICROSOFT CORP: Class Status Requested in "Windows Vista” Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs alleging that Microsoft Corp. deceptively marketed
its "Windows Vista" have requested class-action status for the
case, reports say.

Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington had denied Microsoft Corp.’s attempts to
dismiss the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007).

Judge Pechman ruled from the bench in favor of the plaintiff,
Dianne Kelley, on two out of four issues raised by Microsoft.
She withheld judgment on the other two.

Dianne L. Kelley filed the suit on March 29 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.  Her legal
representative in the case is the law firm of Gordon Murray
Tilden LLP (Class Action Reporter, July 11,
2007).

Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a
marketing campaign that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on
computers alerting potential buyers that they could upgrade to
Vista when it became available.

Generally, Microsoft defines a PC as "Windows Vista Capable"
when it uses "at least" an 800MHz processor, 512 megabytes of
RAM, and DirectX 9 compatible graphics card.

However, according to the suit, "a large number" of those PCs
were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista,
which lacks many of the features, such as media center, and
enhanced graphics, which Microsoft advertises as included in
Vista.

It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of
"Windows Vista Capable" computers free or reduced-price upgrades
to Vista, the company offered Home Basic to many customers.

Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the
deception by saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade
to Windows Vista for just $100.   

Microsoft had sought to have Ms. Kelley's case dismissed on the
grounds that she did not have proper standing to bring the case,
the report said.

But Judge Pechman said that issue will be determined when the
parties argue over certification of the case as a class action,
meaning it could expand to include anyone who bought a Vista
Capable PC under similar circumstances.

According to the report, Microsoft argued that Ms. Kelley did
not show that the sticker constituted a written warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  But the judge said she would
consider arguments on this point and issue a written ruling in
the next two weeks.

Microsoft also argued that Ms. Kelley did not show a "causal
link" between the allegedly deceptive Vista Capable campaign and
any damage she suffered -- a requirement for a claim under the
Consumer Protection Act, the report stated.  The judge ruled
that the plaintiffs "have pled enough" on this point
in case filings so far to allow the case to go forward.

She also sided with the plaintiff in allowing the claim of
unjust enrichment to go forward.

A jury trial was scheduled to begin Oct. 27, 2008.

Recently, reports say the plaintiffs asked for class
certification. Judge  Pechman has not set a date for her ruling
on the class-action request.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
under Judge
Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          E-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com


MISSOURI: Suit Aiming to Block MOHELA Asset Sale Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
A Cole County judge dismissed, at the request of plaintiffs, a
purported class action seeking to block the state legislature's
decision to sell the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority's
assets, David A. Lieb of Associated Press reports.  No reason
was given for the plaintiffs' request, the report said.

The suit was filed by two former students who used money from
MOHELA to help pay for a college education (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 23, 2007).  Plaintiffs claim the plan by Gov.
Matt Blunt to sell the assets to construct $335 million worth of
new buildings around the state is allegedly a breach of the
MOHELA philosophical and fiduciary mission to provide loans to
low-interest loans to Missouri students going to college.  

John Lichtenegger, one of the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs, had said the fiduciary duty of the MOHELA board
members is to provide loans, not build buildings.  The lawsuit
claimed a new capital appropriations program called the Lewis
and Clark Discovery Fund should be funded, if at all, by
Missouri taxpayers, not just college students, according to the
report.

Michael McGennis and Aaron Izadi-Moghadam filed the lawsuit in
Cole County Circuit Court against MOHELA and its board.  They
sought to declare that MOHELA's conduct was unlawful.  They also
wanted an injunction against the plan, and appropriate
compensatory and punitive damages.

The dismissal of the case cleared the way for the loan agency to
make its first contribution to Gov. Blunt's construction plan.  
Previously, the court denied a request to temporarily bar MOHELA
from paying the first installment of Gov. Blunt's plan.  During
a Sept. 11 hearing, Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan
refused to issue a temporary restraining order, deciding that
the plaintiffs hadn't shown there was a reasonable likelihood
they could later win on the merits of their case.  

Now, with the recent ruling, the loan agency will be able to
make its first payment to state of $230 million, according to
the report.


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Discount Fees Fraudulent, Mass. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed  
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging it defrauds homebuyers through its “loan discount
fees.”

Named plaintiff Thomas S. Denman brings this action pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, on behalf of all:

     (1) who entered into mortgage loan agreements with
         Novastar, on or after the date four years prior to the
         date of the filing of this matter; and

     (2) who paid fees itemized by NovaStar as "loan discount
         fees" or whose initial interest rate was fixed for
         three years or less and variable for four years or
         more.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether NovaStar structured disadvantageous
         transactions designed to hide the true costs and
         expenses of those loans to consumers by including a low
         fixed rate in those loans for a limited period of time;

     (b) whether NovaStar deliberately designed loans to be
         beyond a borrower's ability to pay according to their
         terms in order to generate settlement fees by sale to
         investors;

     (c) whether NovaStar charged borrowers "loan discount fees"
         without providing discounts for such payment in
         violation of 940 CMR Sections 3.04,3.05, 3.13, 6.05,
         8.04, 8.06 and c. 93A;

     (d) Whether NovaStar failed to offer borrowers an
         alternative loan without the “loan discount fees” for  
         the purposes of allowing borrowers to make an informed
         decision about whether the payment of discount points
         would be cost effective in violation of 940 C.M.R. §§
         3.04, 3.05, 3.13, 6.05, 8.04, 8.06 and c. 93A;

     (e) Whether NovaStar properly supervised its employees;

     (f) Whether Novstar provided inaccurate information about
         loan terms to customers in the form of bogus “good
         faith estimates” in order to mislead customers about
         the available terms of loans in violation of 940 C.M.R.
         Sections 3.04, 3.05, 3.13, 8.04, 8.06 and c. 93A;

     (g) Whether NovaStar’s closing fees are duplicative and
         excessive; and

     (h) Whether NovaStar was unjustly enriched by its conduct.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

     -- Certify this case as a class action and certify the
        named Plaintiff herein to be adequate class
        representatives and his counsel to be class counsel;

     -- Award damages, including actual damages, statutory
        damages, and multiple damages, and equitable relief, for
        Defendant’s violations of c. 93A;

     -- Award damages and equitable remedies arising from
        Defendant's unconscionable and/or illegal contract terms
        including but not limited to cancellation and/or refund
        of unjustified points;

     -- Award damages and equitable remedies arising from
        Defendant's unjust enrichment including, without
        limitation, restitution and reformation of contract;

     -- Enter a declaration that the Defendant’s lending
        practices, including, without limitation, its imposition
        of undisclosed/unjustified “loan discount fees,” are
        improper;

     -- Enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
        prevent the Defendant from continuing to violate the law
        and injuring other persons who enter into home mortgage
        loans in the future;

     -- Award reasonable attorney's fee and costs; and

     -- Enter such other relief at law or equity as this Court
        may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Thomas Denman et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.,
Case No. 07-12190," filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Gary Klein
          Elizabeth Ryan
          Shennan Kavanagh
          Roddy Klein & Ryan
          727 Atlantic Ave., 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Tel. 617-357-5500 x 15
          Fax. 617-357-5030
          E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
NutriSystem, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face
several purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suits were first commenced on Oct. 9, 2007.  The complaints
purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Company’s common stock between Feb. 14, 2007 and
Oct. 3, 2007 or Oct. 4, 2007.

The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
Company’s projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

NutriSystem Inc. -- http://www.nutrisystem.com-- is a marketer  
and provider of weight management system based on a portion-
controlled, prepared-meal program.


PARMALAT SPA: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Block U.S. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parmalat S.p.A. said that a hearing was held on Nov. 29 in the
U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeal of New York with regards to
Parmalat's appeal against the decision of a U.S. District Court
which had denied Parmalat's request for an injunction pursuant
to section 304 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Parmalat’s request had sought to preclude a purported class of
investors from proceeding with a class action against Parmalat
in the United States. The Court of Appeal has not decided and
has taken the case under advisement.

Previously, Class Action Reporter reported that Parmalat asked
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss, with prejudice,
the claims asserted by the Foreign Plaintiffs in the
Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, pursuant to
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 18, 2007).

Peter E. Calamari, Esq., at Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &
Hedges, LLP, in New York, told Judge Kaplan that the Foreign
Plaintiffs' claims against Reorganized Parmalat pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act can only be maintained if they can
overcome the general presumption that federal statutes do not
apply "extra-territorially."

To overcome that presumption, Mr. Calamari said, the Foreign
Plaintiffs must show that the wrongful conduct either occurred
in the United States, or had a substantial effect in the United
States or upon its citizens.

Mr. Calamari noted that the District Court had already dismissed
the claims asserted by the Foreign Plaintiff purchasers against
Grant Thornton, Deloitte & Touche, Bank of America, Citigroup,
Credit Suisse, and BNL.  In doing so, the District Court ruled
that the transactions forming the basis of the Foreign
Plaintiffs' allegations were overwhelmingly foreign.

Mr. Calamari said the District Court's ruling applies to the
claims asserted by the Foreign Plaintiffs against Reorganized
Parmalat.  Unlike the U.S.-based banks and auditors, the Old
Parmalat was an Italian company, and by definition, could not
have committed acts essential to the alleged fraud against
foreign purchasers outside of Italy.

Mr. Calamari contended that the Complaint asserts no domestic
conduct of Old Parmalat that relates to foreign purchasers.  Any
alleged conduct in the Unites States was incidental, and
therefore did not directly cause the losses of the Foreign
Plaintiffs, he maintained.


PRESIDENT GLOBAL: Recalls Ice Cream Bars with Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
President Global Corp. of Buena Park, CA 90620 is recalling Uni-
President Red Bean Flavored Ice Bars (Tung-I Red Bean Flavor Ice
Bars) 6/3 fl oz. and Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars (Tung-I Red Bean
Tapioca Ice Bars) 6/2.83 fl oz because they may contain
undeclared skim milk.

People who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Uni-President Red Bean Flavored Ice Bars and Red
Bean Tapioca Ice Bars were distributed in Asian Retail Food
Markets in the Southern California area.

Each product comes in a box containing 6 bars. UPC code on boxes
of Red Bean Flavor Ice Bars is 4 710608 813600. UPC on boxes of
Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars is 4 710088 070968. There are no
expiration dates on the products.

One illness in Canada has been reported to date in connection
with this problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that skim milk
containing products were distributed in packaging that did not
indicate presence of skim milk or milk protein. Distribution of
the products has been suspended until FDA and President Global
Corp. are certain the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased Uni-President Red Bean Flavor Ice
Bars and Uni-President Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or
exchange. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
( 714)-994-2990.

  
SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price I
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule
on:

     -- motions for class certification, and
     -- motion to intervene

in the purported class action, “Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, or Price Litigation
I,” which names Southern Star Central Corp as a defendant.

In this putative class action filed May 28, 1999, the named
plaintiffs, or Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Corp.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class
Action Petition alleges that the defendants have undermeasured
the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for
punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.  Despite a denial by the court on April 10, 2003 of
their original motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs
continue to seek the certification of a class.

The Plaintiffs motion seeking class certification for a second
time was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs.  

It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.


SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price II
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule
on:

     -- motions for class certification, and
     -- motion to intervene

in the purported class action, “Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23,” or “Price Litigation
II,” which names Southern Star Central Corp. as a defendant.

In this putative class action filed May 12, 2003, the named
Plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same
defendants, including Souther Star.

Asserting substantially identical legal and/or equitable
theories, as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that
the defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or
Btu, content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural
gas they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for
punitive damages.  On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading
was filed on behalf of Central.

The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
Plaintiffs second class certification motion in Price Litigation
I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs.  

It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  






TELLABS INC: 7th Circuit Hears Appeal in Ill. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently heard
oral arguments for the remanded case, “Johnson, et al. v.
Tellabs Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-04356”

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court of the Northern District of
Illinois against Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board
of Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and
Director of Tellabs).

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All nine
of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
our current or former officers and/or directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting
overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the company's
financial statements.

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about us pertaining to these matters.  
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
restitution, damages and other relief.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  

On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's motion and
dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint,
while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  

The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.

On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion
and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On March 18, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the dismissal.  

The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on Jan.
21, 2005.  On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an
opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanding for further proceedings.

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.  
On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to
file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by
the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.

On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion.  

On Sept. 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims.  On
Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a
petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the Seventh
Circuit’s decision.  

On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants’ petition was granted.  The U.S.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007.  

On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh
Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for
the remanded case, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007.

The suit is “Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc., et al., Case No.  
1:02-cv-04356,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Steven G. Schulman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

Representing the defendant is:

         David F. Graham, Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com

  
TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Medical Malpractice Suits in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. hospitals remain defendants in three
medical malpractice cases filed as purported class actions by
former patients of Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs
Medical Center in New Orleans.

In each case, family members allege, on behalf of themselves and
a purported class of other patients and their family members,
damages as a result of injuries sustained during Hurricane
Katrina.

Tenet reported no development on this 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, 2006.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is  
engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily
through the operation of general hospitals.


THANE INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Remanded to Calif. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a defense verdict
by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in a securities suit against Thane International Inc.  
The court remanded the action to the district court with
instructions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, to
address loss causation, and to conduct further proceedings.

Thane International is a Canadian direct marketing company.  The
company and certain of its officers and directors are accused of
violating the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with a merger
in which the shareholders of Reliant Interactive Media Corp.
received shares of Thane International.  The plaintiffs contend
that the prospectus distributed to Reliant shareholders
contained a material misstatement of fact because Thane did not
list its stock on the NASDAQ National Market System following
the merger.

The case was originally filed in Superior Court and removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by the Notice of Removal dated October 23, 2002.

On June 19, 2003, the case was intra-district transferred to the
Southern Division of the U.S. Court for the Central District of
California and reassigned to Judge James V. Selna by the Order
dated June 6, 2003.

On June 8, 2005, Thane won a favorable verdict.  On July 11,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the verdict.  
On November 26, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth
Circuit issued an Opinion reversing and remanding the action
back to District Court.  According to Matthew Hirsch of The
Recorder, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote in the opinion stating
that the company made material misrepresentations to
shareholders.

The ruling said that the reported share price in the weeks
following the merger ranged between $7 and $8.50. The price
dropped a few months later below $2 on a poor earnings report,
and then the company repurchased stock at 35 cents a share
before the plaintiffs sued.

The case is "Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International Inc.,
et al., Case No. 03-CV-01031," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge James V.
Selna.

Representing Thane is:

          Michael Tu, Esq.
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          Phone: (213) 612-2433
          E-mail: mtu@orrick.com

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Lionel Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy and Binkow
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA, 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: info@glancylaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. Over Unnecessary Overdraft Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging it illegally charges accountholders who use ATM
machines for overdrafts though they have sufficient funds in
their accounts to cover the transactions, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a civil action primarily seeking from defendants
restitution and disgorgement of all profits gained on their
practice of improperly assessing customers overdraft charges for
insufficient funds on debit/check card purchases and ATM
withdrawals, when there was sufficient funds in the account when
the purchases and withdrawals were made and approved by
defendants.

Named plaintiffs, Claudia Sanchez, Erin Walker and William
Smith, claim the bank facilitates this cheating by providing
them with inaccurate "available balance" statements.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all residents who
were/are checking account customers of Wells Fargo, and from May
25, 2003 to the present were assessed an insufficient overdraft
fee for at ATM, Check Card Purchase, Debit Card Purchase, or ATM
transaction for which there was sufficient funds in the checking
account at the time of the transaction.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant assessed insufficient overdraft fees
         for transactions it approved and for which there were
         sufficient funds in the account at the time of the
         transaction to cover the cost of the transaction;

     (b) whether defendant promotes, markets, encourages and
         advertises the available balance through ATM machines,
         Online, bank Statements, In-Store and Telephone as
         something for the customer to rely on, which is
         inaccurate and can result in insufficient overdraft
         charges for transaction that are within the amount of
         the stated available balance provided by Wells Fargo.

     (c) whether defendants failed to notify customers that it
         assessed insufficient overdraft fees for transactions
         it approved, and for which there were sufficient funds
         in the account at the time of the transaction to cover
         the cost of the transaction;

     (d) whether defendant failed to notify customers that
         available balance information through ATM machines,
         Online, Bank Statements, In-Store and Telephone is
         inaccurate and can result in insufficient overdraft
         charges for transaction that are within the amount go
         the stated available balance provided by Wells Fargo;

     (e) whether defendant's conduct constitute unalwful,
         unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices in
         violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies act
         and/or the Business and Professions Code Section 17200
         et seq.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the California class and
        appointing plaintiffs and his counsel to represent the
        California class;

     -- for an order certifying the National class and
        appointing plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the
        National class;

     -- for an order awarding plaintiffs and the California and
        National classes restitution and/or disgorgement and
        other equitable relief as the court deems proper;

     -- for an order awarding plaintiffs and the California and
        National classes punitive damages as the appropriate
        cause of action;

     -- for an order enjoining defendants:

        (1) under Civil Code sections 1780(a)(2) and 1781(a)
            from continuing to use, employ, or undertake unfair
            methods of competition, acts and practices, or any
            of them, which are violative of that statute as
            alleged;

        (2) under Business and Professions Code Section 17203
            from continuing to engage in business acts and
            practices, or any of them, which are unalwful,
            unfair, or fraudulent, as alleged;

        (3) under Business and Professions Code section 17535
            from continuing to engage in the dissemination of
            advertisements which are untrue or misleading,
            alleged;

     -- for an order mandating that defendants engage in a
        corrective advertising campaign to correct the
        misperceptions defendants' conduct created;

     -- for an order awarding plaintiff and the California and
        National classes pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and
        expert-witness fees and other costs pursuant to the
        Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et
        seq., Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and other
        statutes as may be applicable; and

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

The suit is "Claudia Sanchez et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, et
al., Case No. CV 07 5923," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard D. Mccune, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          McCune & Wright, LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Phone: (909) 557-1250
          Fax: (909) 557-1275


YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc. along with other less-than-truckload (LTL)
carriers face several purported class actions that accuse them
of conspiring throughout four years or more to fix fuel
surcharges on LTL shipments.

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. d/b/a
Water Tech, and C.B.J.T. d/b/a Agricultural Supply, on behalf of
themselves and other plaintiffs, filed a putative class action
against the Company and 10 other companies engaged in the LTL
trucking business in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Named defendants in that complaint are:

          -- Arkansas Best Corp.,
          -- Averitt Express,  
          -- Con-Way, Inc.,
          -- Fedex Corp.,
          -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.,  
          -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,  
          -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.,  
          -- R+L Carriers, Inc.,  
          -- Saia, Inc.,  
          -- United Parcel Service, Inc.,  
          -- YRC Worldwide Inc.,  
          -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary
CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply contend that the
practice dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2007).

They charge that the carriers agreed to impose identical or
nearly identical surcharges by linking them to diesel fuel
prices published by the U.S. Department of Energy and by listing
surcharges on their websites to communicate pricing.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or
their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003 through the
conclusion of the trial in this matter (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 2, 2007).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

Plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determines that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts
        done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-
        conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the
        damages class against defendants for three times the
        amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
        damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs
        of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- defendants and their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

        (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
            combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
            in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
            having a similar purpose or effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

       (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the manufacture,
            distribution or sale of any product except to the
            extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
            sales transaction between the parties to such
            communications; and

     -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

Since the filing of the above suit, other plaintiffs have filed
similar cases in various courts across the nation.  Under
federal court rules, the courts will likely consolidate these
cases into a single proceeding.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. et al. v.
Arkansas Best Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01389-BEN-RBB,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, under Judge Roger T. Benitez, with referral to Judge
Ruben B. Brooks.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Christopher M. Burke
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301

          Patrick J. Coughlin
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415)288-4545
          Fax: (415)288-4534
          E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey Todd Thomas
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614-8557
          Phone: (949)451-3967
          Fax: (949)475-4670
          E-mail: jtthomas@gibsondunn.com


ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Settles Suit Over Toy Hauler Trailers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zieman Manufacturing has settled a consolidated lawsuit filed
against it and Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc. over defective toy
hauler trailers.

On or about October 11, 2005 and October 12, 2005, two actions
were commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento, entitled:

     -- “Arlen Williams, Jr. v. Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc.,
         Zieman Manufacturing Company, et. al. (Case No.
         CV027691),” and

     -- “Joseph Giordano and Dennis Gish, v. Weekend Warrior
         Trailers, Inc, and Zieman Manufacturing Company, et.
         al. (Case No. 05AS04523).”

Each case purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. The complaints in
both cases are substantially identical and the cases were
consolidated. Defendant Zieman Manufacturing Company is a
subsidiary of Lippert Components Inc.

Mandatory mediation was conducted. The parties reached a
settlement, and entered into a final settlement agreement which
was preliminarily approved by the Court. It is currently
anticipated that the Court will conduct a final approval hearing
in three to four months. The settlement would not result in
material liability to Zieman. However, unless and until the
settlement is implemented and receives final approval by the
Court, the outcome cannot be predicted.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Weekend Warrior sold certain
toy hauler trailers during the model years 1999 - 2005 equipped
with frames manufactured by Zieman that are defective in design
and manufacture. Plaintiffs alleged that the defects cause the
trailer to place excessive weight on the trailer coach tongue
and the towing vehicle’s trailer hitch, causing damage to the
trailers and the towing vehicles, and that the tires on the
trailers do not support the advertised maximum towing capacity
of the trailers. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of
residents of California who purchased such new or used models.

Plaintiffs sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount
(including compensatory, incidental and consequential damages),
punitive damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief, attorney’s fees and costs.

Zieman vigorously defended against the allegations made by
plaintiffs, as well as plaintiffs’ ability to pursue the claims
as a class action. Zieman and Lippert’s liability insurers
agreed to defend Zieman, subject to reservation of the insurers’
rights.


* Lawyer R. Michael Underwood Joins Fowler White in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former senior Florida Office of Financial Regulation lawyer, R.
Michael Underwood, has joined the law firm of Fowler White Boggs
Banker in its Tallahassee office.

According to Burt Wiand, Practice Group Leader of Fowler White's
Securities and Financial Services Litigation practice, "The
addition of Mike is another significant step in the firm's
implementation of our strategic growth plan. We are truly
excited about Mike joining our firm, giving us one of the
largest securities and financial services litigation practices
in Florida and adding to our firm a tremendous talent. Mike is
well known in dealing with state financial services regulatory
matters. To have a former attorney with the Florida OFR join our
experienced group of lawyers raises the bar for our practice and
our firm."

Since leaving government, Michael Underwood has represented
securities broker-dealers, investment advisers, financial
institutions and affiliated individuals in civil litigation,
arbitration, regulatory matters and enforcement actions. His
experience includes defense of class actions, multi- district
litigation and regular appearances before self-regulatory
organizations like FINRA and the New York Stock Exchange as well
as state and federal financial regulators.

He will assist the firm's clients with state securities, banking
and insurance regulatory matters. Mr. Underwood is an officer of
the American Bar Association Committee on State Regulation of
Securities and Chair of its Subcommittee on Enforcement. He has
written many publications on financial services regulation and
lectures frequently on these topics.

Mr. Underwood remarked that, "joining Fowler White is truly
exhilarating. The firm's securities and financial services
litigation group is not only widely known in Florida, but
throughout the U.S. The quality of the lawyers is exceptional,
and I feel privileged to join their ranks."

Fowler White Boggs Banker is one of Florida's oldest and largest
law firms with more than 210 attorneys in eight offices
throughout Florida in Tampa, St. Petersburg, Ft. Myers,
Tallahassee, Orlando, Naples, Jacksonville and Fort Lauderdale.
For more information, visit http://www.fowlerwhite.com.


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Mayle Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued a split
ruling in an asbestos-related action filed by Chester D. Mayle,
Sr. against Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.

Judge Davis entered judgment of Case No. 06-3533 on Oct. 9,
2007.

Mr. Mayle served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1950
to April 1956. In August 1982, a VA regional office (RO) granted
him service connection for pulmonary tuberculosis with pleural
thickening and fibrosis, at a 10 percent disability rating.

In December 1989, a private physician diagnosed Mr. Mayle with
"simple asbestosis." In July 1992, an RO denied Mr. Mayle's
service-connection claim for asbestosis.

In a 1994 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision, the Board upheld
that denial, despite its determination that Mr. Mayle was
exposed to asbestos in service.

Mr. Mayle underwent a VA pulmonary examination in January 1999.
The examiner stated that Mr. Mayle had no history of asbestos
exposure until 1953, and that, after discharge in 1956, he was
exposed to very high level of asbestos.

Mr. Mayle also argued for reversal of the Board's decision
denying his service-connection claim for asbestosis. Because the
Board failed to consider the prior diagnosis, as Mr. Mansfield
conceded, remand was required.

Mr. Mayle appealed through counsel from a Nov. 22, 2005 Board
decision that denied:

-- service connection for asbestosis and a lung disorder other
than inactive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB);

-- an increased rating for pleural thickening and fibrosis; and

-- a total disability based on unemployability (TDIU).

The appeal was timely, and the Court had jurisdiction to review
the Board's decision.

The Appeals Court affirmed in part and set aside in part the
Board's November 2005 decision and remanded the matters for
further proceedings.

After consideration of the parties' briefs and a review of the
record, the Board's Nov. 22, 2005, decision was affirmed in part
and set aside and remanded in part for further development and
further adjudication.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Active Claims v. Dana Drop to 55T at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp. had about 55,000 active pending asbestos-related
product liability claims at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

These 55,000 claims include about 6,000 claims that were settled
but awaiting final documentation and payment.

The Company had about 72,000 active pending asbestos-related
product liability claims at June 30, 2007, including about 6,000
claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and
payment. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

The number of active pending claims was reduced as tort reform
and other initiatives in the State of Mississippi resulted in
the dismissal of 17,000 claims.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the Company filed a motion with the Bankruptcy
Court seeking approval to resolve an additional 7,500 pending
cases. The estimated total payments for these settlements, if
all claimants are able to submit the required proof to support
their claims, would be about US$2 million.

The Company had accrued US$138 million for indemnity and defense
costs for pending and future claims at Sept. 30, 2007.

Before 2006, the Company reached agreements with some of its
insurers to commute policies covering asbestos-related product
liability claims. There were no commutations of insurance in the
first three quarters of 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's liability for future demands
under prior commutations was US$11 million, bringing its total
recorded liability for asbestos-related product liability claims
to US$149 million.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had recorded US$71 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for pending and
projected asbestos-related product liability claims.

In addition, the Company had a net amount recoverable from its
insurers and others of US$17 million at Sept. 30, 2007.

Under the Plan of Reorganization, the Debtors propose that their
asbestos-related personal injury claims be reinstated upon
emergence and that the reorganized Debtors will defend, settle
and resolve such pending claims and future demands in the
ordinary course of business.

After the Center for Claims Resolution discontinued negotiating
shared settlements for asbestos claims for its member companies
in 2001, some former CCR members defaulted on the payment of
their shares of some settlements and some settling claimants
sought payment of the unpaid shares from other members of the
CCR at the time of the settlements, including the Company.

Through Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had paid US$47 million to
such claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance
carriers with respect to these claims.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had a net receivable of US$13
million for the amount that it expects to recover from available
insurance and surety bonds relating to these claims.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Corp. supplies axle, driveshaft,
structures, sealing and thermal products and also designs and
manufactures products for vehicle producers. The Company employs
about 36,000 people in 26 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Unit Has Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
are defendants, along with numerous others, in lawsuits filed by
individuals due to exposure to asbestos during work at formerly
owned facilities.

The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy Inc.

The Company anticipates that additional claims like those
received may be asserted in the future.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and
operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Company
subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas
gathering systems and provide various ancillary services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.87B at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc.'s asbestos-related reserves
amounted to a gross of US$3.869 billion (net of US$1.533
billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
a gross of US$4.039 billion (net of US$1.696 billion) in the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company's asbestos-related reserves amounted to a gross of
US$4.020 billion (net of US$1.596 billion) in the six months
ended June 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$4.136 billion
(net of US$1.748 billion) in the six months ended June 30, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

The Company's asbestos-related incurred but not reported reserve
for losses and loss expenses amounted to a gross of US$2.743
billion (a net of US$1.261 billion) in the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$2.863 billion (a net
of US$1.554 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company had 6,341 asbestos claims in the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 7,027 claims in the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company opened
321 claims, settled 113 claims, and dismissed or resolved 745
claims.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company opened
538 claims, settled 126 claims, and dismissed or resolved 678
claims.

The Company's asbestos survival ratio was a gross of 7.6 years
(a net of 11.9 years) during 2007, compared with a gross of 6.4
years (a net of 13.6 years) during 2006.

New York-based American International Group Inc.'s subsidiaries
serve commercial, institutional and individual customers through
a property-casualty and life insurance and retirement services
network.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco Drop to 8,274 at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. dropped
to 8,274 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, from 9,887
claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007.

Gross settlement and defense costs during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2007 amounted to US$12,124,000 and claims settled or
dismissed were about 2,354.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries and
of an inactive Company subsidiary. Those subsidiaries, and in
some cases the Company, are defendants in cases filed in various
state and federal courts.

The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$12
million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-
term asbestos liability amounted to US$127,799,276 at Sept. 30,
2007 and US$128,014,944 at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$11.7 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. The
Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$102,847,965 at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

Certain Company subsidiaries and the Company have an arrangement
with insurers responsible for historical primary and some
umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability. Under the
Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial
responsibility.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgment that Howden
Buffalo Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
Company subsidiary.

The Company has recorded reserves for the total costs, including
defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2013 of US$140 million, of
which about 60 percent is attributable to settlement and defense
costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed through 2013.

The Company has also recorded a receivable of US$114.5 million
for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which
the Company's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. makes metal products. It operates in two
business segments: the Forged and Cast Rolls segment and the Air
and Liquid Processing segment. Company headquarters are in
Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Records 826 W.Va. Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded a total of
826 asbestos exposure claims pending in West Virginia, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company also recorded two claims in
Pennsylvania and one in Illinois.

The Company's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Co., The
Potomac Edison Co., and West Penn Power Co.) have been named as
defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury
involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors’
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture,
sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the
Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's
historical operations were insured by various foreign and
domestic insurers, including Lloyd’s of London.

Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been
reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers.
Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to
pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the
asbestos suits.

The Company is involved in two asbestos and environmental
insurance-related actions.

These actions are:

-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London et al. v. Allegheny
Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County,
Md.), and

-- Monongahela Power Co. et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd’s London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action
No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.).

The parties in these actions seek a declaration of coverage
under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental
claims.

Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy Inc. operates primarily
through directly and indirectly owned subsidiaries. The
Company's two business segments are the Delivery and Services
segment and the Generation and Marketing segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reserves $3.061B for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd.'s asbestos-related loss reserves amounted to a gross of
US$3.061 billion (a net of US$1.560 billion) at June 30, 2007,
compared with a gross of US$3.221 billion (a net of US$1.611
billion) at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's asbestos-related loss reserves totaled a gross of
US$3.158 billion (a net of US$1.592 billion) at March 31, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

The Company faces claims relating to policies issued to
manufacturers, distributors, installers, and other parties in
the chain of commerce for asbestos and products containing
asbestos.

Claims can be filed by individual claimants or group of
claimants with the potential for hundreds of individual
claimants at one time.

Claimants will generally allege damages across an extended time
period which may coincide with multiple policies for a single
insured.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based ACE Ltd. is a holding company that,
through its subsidiaries, provides a broad range of insurance
and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide. ACE operates
through the following business segments: Insurance – North
American, Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and
Life Insurance and Reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Trial Court Ruling Upheld in CIC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 1st District, Hamilton County,
upheld the ruling of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in
an asbestos-related declaratory action involving The Cincinnati
Insurance Co, ACE INA Holdings Inc., Westfield Insurance Co. and
Flexo Products Inc.

Judges Mark P. Painter, Hildebrandt, and Sunderman, entered
judgment of Case Nos. C-060384 and C-060385 on Oct. 19, 2007.
                      
An excess insurer, Cincinnati Insurance sued the primary insurer
ACE INA (f/k/a CIGNA Property & Casualty Insurance Co., f/k/a
Aetna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.)in a declaratory-
judgment action seeking an additional US$1.8 million to cover
asbestos claims against their insured Flexo.

For clarity, “ACE” is used interchangeably with its
predecessors, “CIGNA” and “AETNA.”

Flexo manufactured and sold protective masks that purportedly
filtered and protected against harmful particles like silica.
ACE insured Flexo under three different and consecutive primary
insurance policies. The three consecutive policies ran from 1963
to 1966 (Policy 1), from 1966 to 1969 (Policy 2), and from 1969
to 1972 (Policy 3). Cincinnati Insurance issued excess policies
to Flexo from 1967 to 1986.

Westfield also provided primary insurance to Flexo but has been
dismissed from this case. Cincinnati Insurance and ACE provided
separate layers of insurance coverage to Flexo. ACE was the
primary insurer, and Cincinnati Insurance provided an excess
layer of coverage. When ACE notified Cincinnati Insurance that
its primary coverage had been exhausted, this declaratory-
judgment action followed.

Cincinnati Insurance alleged that ACE owed an additional US$1.8
million in primary coverage based on three multi-year policies.
The three successive multi-year policies each spanned three
years, for nine years of total coverage. The policies in the
record are incomplete, but the available documents reveal that
ACE's potential liability was US$300,000 "aggregate." The US$1.8
million question was whether the word "aggregate" meant that the
US$300,000 limit applied per year or per term.

The trial court granted in part and denied in part both parties'
summary-judgment motions, concluding that because the complete        
contents of the multi-year policies were not available, (1) the
term "aggregate" was ambiguous as it related to whether the
limit applied per year or per policy; (2) extrinsic evidence was
admissible; (3) the extrinsic evidence showed that the
contracting parties contemplated that the US$300,000 limit would
apply per year, for nine years, for a total of US$2.7 million in
coverage; (4) the underlying asbestos claims constituted
multiple accidents and occurrences; and (5) ACE did not lack
good faith in denying coverage.

Both parties now appealed.

The Appeals Court addressed a lost-policy insurance-coverage
quarrel. The Court affirmed. The aggregate policy limits applied
annually; and the "deemer" clause was ineffective to limit     
liability on these facts.

Because the policies were incomplete, the partial multi-year
policies were ambiguous and required extrinsic evidence; the
evidence revealed that the contracting parties intended the
aggregates to apply annually; and the limit of Policy 2 and
Policy 3 is $1,800,000. The judgment of the trial court is,
accordingly, affirmed.

K. Roger Schoeni, Kimberly A. Zamary, and Louis C. Schneider,
represented The Cincinnati Insurance Co.

Jason C. Gruber, and McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, and Patrick
Shine and Cohn, Baughman & Martin, represented ACE INA Holdings
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Court Issues Split Ruling in ACE Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Kansas, issued a split ruling in an
asbestos-related insurance action involving ACE Property &
Casualty Insurance Co. and Superior Boiler Works Inc.

The suit is styled ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Co., as
successor to Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co., as
successor to Aetna Insurance Co.; and Century Indemnity Co., as
successor to CCI Insurance Co., as successor to Insurance
Company of North America v. Superior Boiler Works Inc.

District Judge Marten entered judgment of Case No. 05-1301-JTM
on Aug. 27, 2007.

Superior Boiler, which makes industrial boilers, was named as a
defendant in lawsuits by individuals for alleged bodily injury
due to asbestos exposure while repairing or working on or near
boilers made by Superior Boiler.

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, in which they
requested the determination of whether:

(1) They are obligated to pay their pro rata share of Superior
Boiler's defense and indemnity costs for the underlying asbestos
claims based on a pro rata, time-on-the-risk allocation method
(Count I), and whether

(2) Superior Boiler is responsible for its pro rata share of
defense and indemnity costs for the underlying asbestos claims
based on a pro rata, time-on-the-risk allocation method for
periods during which it was uninsured and periods during which
it placed insurance with a company that later became insolvent
(Count II).

Plaintiffs also sought an order directing Superior Boiler to
reimburse plaintiffs for defense and indemnity costs for the
underlying asbestos claims that they have paid in excess of
their properly allocated pro rata share.

Superior Boiler argued that despite the fact that the underlying
claims were asserted since 1987, plaintiffs made defense and
indemnity payments since 1987 under their insurance contracts,
and that plaintiffs made demands on Superior Boiler to pay a
share of those costs, which Superior Boiler refused in 1996.

Plaintiffs sought a declaration of coverage and equitable
contribution for reimbursement of paid amounts. Furthermore, in
its motion for summary judgment, Superior Boiler argued that the
claims for paid amounts are barred by the applicable Kansas
statute of limitations for written contracts of five years and
for equitable contribution of three years.

Therefore, Superior Boiler argued, plaintiffs' claims should be
dismissed. The matter arose from the plaintiffs' and Superior
Boiler's motions for summary judgment.

The District Court ruled that plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment is denied and that Superior Boiler's motion for summary
judgment is granted with respect to Count I and denied with
respect to Count II.

Erin O'Brien, James F. Martin, Kathleen A. McQueeny, Cohn
Baughman & Martin, Chicago, IL, Geron J. Bird, Scott R.
Schillings, Hinkle Elkouri Law Firm, LLC, Wichita, Kans.,
represented the Plaintiffs.

Douglas Y. Curran, Richard L. Green, Stinson Morrison Hecker
LLP, Kansas City, Mo., represented Superior Boiler Works Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 460 Damage Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about 460
outstanding asbestos-related property damage claims, following
the reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

The Company, as of June 30, 2007, recorded about 470 outstanding
asbestos-related property damage claims, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally
seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing,
containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the
affected buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases filed before the April
2, 2001 Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial were
entered in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases
settled following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company.

Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1
million, 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
US$696.8 million, and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the
one on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attic
Insulation, a former Grace attic insulation product, and eight
relate to a number of former asbestos-containing products (two
of which also are alleged to involve ZAI).

About 4,035 additional property damage claims were filed before
the March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.

In October 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved settlement
agreements covering 255 property damage claims for an aggregate
allowed amount of US$64 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed
as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to
persons and homes in Canada.

These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the
removal, replacement and/or disposal of all such insulation. The
plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and
that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per
home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been
stayed.

The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute the Company's
position on the safety of ZAI. On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy
Court held a hearing on motions filed by the parties to address
a number of important legal and factual issues regarding the ZAI
claims.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos
and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no
unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. The ZAI claimants intend to
appeal that opinion and order.

The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a conference in November 2007
to consider whether any of the claimant’s theories of liability
still need to be addressed and what claims may still remain.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two
operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and
alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of
industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,”
which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in
commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and
beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. W.R. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos personal injury
lawsuits, in which claimants allege adverse health effects from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly made by the
Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Filing Date, 16,354
asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 claims
were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement
amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products were not
involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about 163,698
claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for
a total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 claims for personal injury were
pending against the Company.

The Company said it believes that a substantial number of
additional personal injury claims would have been received
between the Filing Date and Sept. 30, 2007 had those claims not
been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two
operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and
alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of
industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,”
which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in
commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and
beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $917M Excess Coverage at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., as of Sept. 30, 2007, had about US$917 million
of asbestos-related excess coverage from 54 presently solvent
insurers, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1984 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. Eligible claims would have to exceed US$4 billion to
access total coverage.

For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts
paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount for settled insurers available under these settlement
agreements is about US$487 million.

With respect to asbestos-related personal injury claims, the
settlement agreements generally require that the claims be
spread over the claimant’s exposure period and that each insurer
pay a pro rata portion of each claim based on the amount of
coverage provided during each year of the total exposure period.

Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers
with respect to about US$430 million of excess coverage, which
is at layers of coverage that have not yet been triggered, but
certain layers would be triggered if the Plan of Reorganization
were approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of
US1.700 billion.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess
insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of
US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of
the holders of claims for which the Company was provided
coverage under the affected policies.

The escrow account balance at Sept. 30, 2007 averaged US$93.7
million, including interest earned on the account. The
settlement agreement provides that unless the Company confirms a
plan of reorganization by Dec. 31, 2008, at the option of the
insurer, exercisable at any time prior to April 30, 2009, the
escrow amount with interest must be returned to the insurer.

In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two
operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and
alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of
industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,”
which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in
commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and
beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $267.1M Mont. Liability at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., totaled US$267.1 million at Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with US$255.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The liability includes the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby.

The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation
on its former vermiculite operations in Libby totaled US$267.3
million at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

As a result of a 2002 district court ruling, the Company is
required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million
(plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for
all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-related
remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining
and processing activities in the Libby, Mont., area.

These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs.

The estimated obligation as of Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006
includes US$164.4 million for asserted reimbursable costs
through 2005, which includes the US$54.5 million charge.

The estimate as of each date does not include the cost to
remediate the Company-owned mine site at Libby or other nearby
properties that may require remediation, which costs are not
currently estimable.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two
operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and
alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of
industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,”
which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in
commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and
beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Spends $11.2M for Libby Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and seven of its current or former senior level
employees spent US$11.2 million, for the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2007, over an asbestos-related lawsuit on the Company's
Libby, Mont., operations.

The Company and the employees spent US$48.2 million during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The amounts are included in selling, general and administrative
expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of
Operations. Cumulative expenses to address this matter were
US$83.8 million through Sept. 30, 2007.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and
seven current or former senior level employees on the Company's
former vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby,
Mont.

The suit is styled United States of America v. W.R. Grace & Co.
et al.

The indictment accuses the defendants of: (1) conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and
(3) obstruction of justice.

The Company bought the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it until
1990; vermiculite processing activities continued until 1992.
The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from 1976
to 2002.

According to the DOJ, the Company could be subject to fines in
an amount equal to twice the after-tax profit earned from its
Libby operations or twice the alleged loss suffered by victims,
plus additional amounts for restitution to victims. The
indictment alleges that those after-tax profits were US$140
million.

In March 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana entered a scheduling order setting a trial date of Sept.
11, 2006. In July 2006, the District Court dismissed a portion
of the conspiracy count of a superseding indictment alleging
conspiracy to knowingly endanger residents of the Libby area and
others in violation of the Clean Air Act.

In August 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the
defendants to exclude as evidence sample results that included
minerals that do not constitute asbestos under the Clean Air
Act. The Government appealed these and other rulings to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument in June
2007.

In September 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
the July 2006 and August 2006 District Court rulings.

In November 2007, the Company filed a petition for rehearing
concerning these rulings. A new trial date has not yet been
scheduled.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's
request to advance legal and defense costs to the employees,
subject to a reimbursement obligation if it is later determined
that the employees did not meet the standards for
indemnification set forth under the appropriate state corporate
law.

While the appeal is pending, the Company expects legal fees for
this matter to be US$3 million to US$5 million per quarter.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two
operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and
alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of
industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,”
which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in
commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and
beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Action v. Grace, 2 Ex-Employees Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and two former employees, since June 1, 2005,
have been facing an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County.

The suit is styled New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection
v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations
and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the DEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of the Company's former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J.

The State of New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Justice also
were conducting criminal investigations on the Company's former
operations of the Hamilton plant, but the Company is not aware
of any recent activity related to those investigations.

The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets in 1963 and
ceased operations in 1994. During the operating period, the
Company produced spray-on fire protection products and
vermiculite-based products at this plant. The current property
owners are conducting remediation activities as directed by the
EPA.

The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim
against the Company for this site and now seek about US$3.4
million with respect to the Hamilton plant site.

In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the State of New
Jersey’s motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the
amount of US$31 million.

This ruling, which the State of New Jersey has appealed, does
not affect the claims against the former employees, for which
the Company would have an indemnification obligation.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty
chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two
operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and
alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of
industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,”
which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in
commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and
beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. states that, as of Sept. 30, 2007, two Third-
Party Payor Actions are pending against its subsidiary Liggett
Group LLC, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8,
2007.

Other cigarette manufacturers are also named.

The Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been commenced by
insurance companies, union health and welfare trust funds,
asbestos manufacturers and others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for:
funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to
issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking
cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of
cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys’ fees.

Although no specific amounts are provided, it is understood that
requested damages against the tobacco company defendants in
these cases might be in the billions of dollars.

Miami, Fla.-based Vector Group Ltd.'s units include VGR Holding
LLC, Liggett Group LLC (engages in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the U.S.), Vector Tobacco Inc. (engaged in the
development and marketing of low nicotine and nicotine-free
cigarette products), Liggett Vector Brands Inc., and New Valley
LLC (engages in real estate).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 507 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards is a defendant in about 507 asbestos-related
claims, of which about 16 are “malignant” and about 491 are
“non-malignant,” according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
8, 2007.

The Company faced about 504 asbestos-related claims, of which
about 18 were “malignant” and 486 were “non-malignant.” (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at closed former facilities.

The cases include as defendants, in addition to the Company,
other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances.

The Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases
develop, analyzing them in two different categories based on
severity of illness. Certain diseases including mesothelioma,
lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis are categorized by
the Company as "malignant" claims. All others of a less
medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant."

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$5.5 million and a bodily injury
insurance receivable of US$4 million.

This compares with a previously recorded bodily injury reserve
of US$5.8 million and insurance receivable of US$4.3 million at
April 1, 2007.

Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corp., through subsidiary Todd
Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds
government-owned and commercial vessels. Services range from
minor repairs to major overhauls in dry dock at the Company's
Seattle-area shipyard. The U.S. government, primarily through
the Navy and the Coast Guard, accounts for more than 70 percent
of the Company's shipyard sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 54 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of Sept. 30, 2007,
had about 54 total pending asbestos-related claims filed against
it, of which three claims are covered by insurance, according to
a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

Dalmine, as of June 30, 2007, had 53 asbestos-related claims, of
which three claims were covered by insurance. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007)

In addition to the previously known 12 civil proceedings for
work-related injuries stemming from the use of asbestos in its
manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980, 40
asbestos-related out-of-court claims and one civil party claim,
two new asbestos-related out-of-court claims have been notified
to Dalmine during 2007-3rd quarter; while one claim was
adjudicated, dismissed or settled.

Aggregate settlement costs to date are EUR5.1 million. Dalmine
estimates that its potential liability in connection with the
claims above that are not yet settled is about EUR17.7 million
(US$25.1 million) of which EUR8.7 million (UR$12.3 million)
relate to the claims and proceedings notified to Dalmine during
2007.

Based in Luxembourg, Tenaris S.A. was incorporated as a holding
company for investments in steel pipe manufacturing and
distributing operations. The Company holds, either directly or
indirectly, controlling interests in various subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has 3,430 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc. recorded about 3,430 asbestos-
related cases at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with about 3,270 cases
at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
8, 2007.

The Company, at June 30, 2007, recorded about 3,395 outstanding
asbestos-related cases for which it was responsible for any
related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When it acquired this brake business,
the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products made by the seller of
the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through Sept. 30, 2007, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$6 million. In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31,
2007. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs, ranging from
US$23.8 million to US$55.2 million for the period through
2050.

As a result, in September 2007 an incremental US$2.8 million
provision in the Company's discontinued operation was added to
the asbestos accrual increasing the reserve to about US$23.8
million.

According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed
as incurred and are reported in loss from discontinued operation
in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated to
range from US$18.7 million to US$32.6 million during the same
period.

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products Inc. is
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of replacement parts
for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Park-Ohio Rise to 385 in Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2007, was a co-defendant
in about 385 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

At June 30, 2007, the Company faced about 365 cases asserting
claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

These asbestos cases relate to production and sale of asbestos-
containing products and allege various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.

There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on
a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes
of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million.

Cleveland-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through Park-Ohio
Industries Inc. and its subsidiaries, provides logistics
services and makes engineered products for the aerospace, auto,
semiconductor, and other industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $269.9M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses totaled US$269,959,000 in the nine
and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$279,969,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2006.

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE totaled
US$170,270,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2007, compared with US$168,003,000 in the nine and three months
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company’s reserves for asbestos and environmental related
liabilities are from business written in years 1985 and prior.

The Company has exposure to losses from asbestos, environmental
pollution and latent injury damage claims. Gross unpaid asbestos
and environmental losses and LAE as of Sept. 30, 2007 were
US$306.3 million, representing 5.9 percent of total gross unpaid
losses and LAE compared with US$344.7 million, or 6.7 percent of
total gross unpaid losses and LAE as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company did not incur net losses and LAE related to asbestos
claims for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007. Net
losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims decreased US$8.5
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Included in this reduction is a net reserve increase of US$5
million, a US$17.3 million benefit resulting from the
amortization of the deferred gain related to the 1995 Stop Loss
Agreement with nSpire Re Ltd. and a loss of US$3.8 million
related to the commutation of this agreement.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, net losses and loss
adjustment expenses incurred for asbestos claims increased
US$3.8 million, due to the commutation of the 1995 Stop Loss
Agreement.

The Company’s survival ratio for asbestos and environmental-
related liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2007 is 10 years. The
Company’s underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related
liabilities is 9 years.

Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. writes treaty
and facultative reinsurance through its London Market (including
Lloyd's of London syndicate Newline), EuroAsia, and Americas
divisions. The Company offers marine, aerospace, and surety
reinsurance. The Company's casualty lines include general and
auto liability, professional liability, and accident and health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 29 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corp. and five of its subsidiaries face lawsuits claiming
various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a
result of exposure to products made with components that had
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

Claims have been filed in these 29 states: Alabama, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, all
of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs
of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance has been settled for reasonable amounts.  
One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corp. is an applied solutions
company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health
and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety
and other diversified products built to its customers'
specifications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Lawsuits From Old Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek Inc. still faces asbestos-related lawsuits associated
with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but
which are no longer owned, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 8, 2007.

During the Company’s ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these
claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against
liability for asbestos-related claims or believes that it has no
liability for those claims.

The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and has also
tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of the
previously acquired businesses.

The Company has also filed late claims in the Federal-Mogul
Corp. bankruptcy proceedings to recover attorney’s fees paid for
the defense of these claims. The Company and Federal-Mogul
entered into a settlement agreement under which the Company is
entitled to receive amounts from a settlement trust established
under Federal-Mogul’s reorganization plan and funded by
insurance proceeds.

The Company is entitled to receive 15 percent of the first US$20
million and 10 percent of the next US$25 million of insurance
proceeds, up to a maximum of US$5.5 million, in exchange for
withdrawing its bankruptcy claims and objections to the
reorganization plan and execution of certain releases.

The settlement is subject to final approval of the plan by the
Bankruptcy Court.

Several insurance carriers filed a declaratory judgment action
relating to insurance coverage for those previously acquired
businesses, seeking a determination that no coverage is
available under the policies.

Federal-Mogul, the Company and other defendants filed responsive
pleadings and motions to dismiss the case, and the court
recently granted the motions to dismiss the declaratory judgment
action.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek Inc. provides digital power
control systems that are used to control motion and power
primarily in material handling, elevator, telecommunications and
energy delivery applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Has 26,376 Injury Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded 26,376 asbestos
personal injury claims filed against it, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

The Company, as of June 30, 2007, recorded 26,362 pending
asbestos personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants
many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous
types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product which
may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a
supplier.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants.

Of the 26,376 cases, 25,914 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court (a trial court) for New York County in New York State.  
The other claims, totaling 462, are filed in various counties in
a number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts
(including New York), and those complaints generally assert
lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or
do not state any amount claimed.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment before trial, in 17,343 cases.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 298 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.  

The Company’s insurance carrier has paid all legal and
settlement costs and expenses relating to the asbestos
litigation to date. The Company has liability insurance coverage
available under various primary and excess policies that the
Company believes will be available to substantially cover any
liability that might ultimately be incurred on these claims.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corp.’s mill services unit,
MultiServ, offers metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap
management, and other services. The Company’s Access Services
businesses, SGB Group and Patent Construction Systems, rent and
sell concrete-forming equipment, scaffolding, and bridge-decking
products. The Company's Harsco GasServ division makes gas tanks,  
fittings, valves, and related gear.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Pending v. General Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp., like most automobile manufacturers,
continues to be subject to asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

The Company has seen these claims arise from three
circumstances:

(1) Majority of these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged
to have resulted from asbestos used in brake components;

(2) Limited numbers of claims have arisen from asbestos
contained in the insulation and brakes used in the manufacturing
of locomotives; and

(3) Claims brought by contractors who allege exposure to
asbestos-containing products while working on premises owned by
the Company.

A small percentage of the claims pending against the Company
allege causation of a malignant disease associated with asbestos
exposure. The amount expended on asbestos-related matters in any
year depends on the number of claims filed, the amount of
pretrial proceedings and the number of trials and settlements
during the period.

Prior to 2006, with respect to incurred but not yet reported
claims, the Company concluded that a range of probable losses
could not be reasonably estimated. Over the last several years,
the Company has continued to accumulate data associated with
asbestos claims.

During the 2006-4th quarter, management determined that the
Company had sufficient information to determine a reasonable
estimate of its projected incurred, but not yet reported, claims
that could be asserted over the next two years.

Based on this analysis, the Company recorded a US$127 million
charge for unasserted asbestos claims in 2006. The Company said
it believes its liability for asbestos claims recorded at Sept.
30, 2007 is adequate.

Detroit-based General Motors Corp. is engaged in the production
and marketing of cars and trucks. The Company develops,
manufactures and markets vehicles through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East, and GM Asia Pacific. The Company
operates in two businesses, consisting of Automotive and
Financing and Insurance Operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC to Pay French Agency $300T for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies' principal French subsidiary, Compagnie
Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC), has yet to pay a French
governmental agency US$300,000 for asbestos-related claims.

From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite
asbestos fibers in the formation of battery cases, which, once
formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in
the plant over the period.

Since 1982, the French governmental agency responsible for
worker illness claims received 64 employee claims alleging
asbestos-related illnesses.

For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has
indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for about
US$400,000 in calendar 2004.

In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the
agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the
dependents of four such claimants. The Company was not required
to indemnify or make any payments subsequent to calendar year
2004.

In 2007, CEAC has been adjudged to indemnify the agency for
about US$300,000.

Alpharetta, Ga.-based Exide Technologies produces and recycles
lead-acid batteries. The Company’s four business segments,
Transportation Americas, Transportation Europe and Rest of World
(ROW), Industrial Energy Americas, and Industrial Energy Europe
and ROW, provide stored electrical energy products and services
for transportation and industrial applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp. Incurs $63M Losses at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corp. states that casualty results in the first nine
months and third quarter of 2007 were adversely affected by
incurred losses of US$63 million related to asbestos claims.

No further matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 8, 2007.

The Chubb Corp., which is based in Warren, N.J., is known for
comprehensive homeowners insurance for yacht owners. The Company
also offers property/casualty insurance to companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Still Has 535 Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against Constellation Energy Group Inc.
subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., have remained at
about 535, according to the Company's quarterly report for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

These individuals, who were never employees of Baltimore Gas or
the Company, seek several million dollars in compensatory and
punitive damages.

Asbestos-related claims against Baltimore Gas have risen to 535.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

Since 1993, Baltimore Gas and certain Company subsidiaries have
been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The
actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability,"
alleging that Baltimore Gas and the Company knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard.

Baltimore Gas, the Company, and numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases. Cross-claims and third-party claims
brought by other defendants may also be filed against Baltimore
Gas and the Company in these actions.

To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a  minority have
been resolved for immaterial amounts.

The remaining claims are pending in state courts in Maryland and
Pennsylvania.

Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group Inc. is an energy
company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries
including a merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Corp. Subject to Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. is routinely subject to product liability claims,
including claims related to its current products and asbestos-
related claims concerning premises and historic products of its
corporate affiliates and predecessors.

No further matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 8, 2007.

Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corp.'s chemical products are
sold to industrial manufacturing customers for use as additives,
ingredients, or intermediates. The Company's crop and consumer
products are sold to dealers, distributors and retailers. The
Company manufactures and sells more than 3,500 products and
formulations in more than 100 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Faces Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corp. is subject to various unresolved product
liability actions, including asbestos-related liability actions,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007.

Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corp. produces air
cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company
designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide. The Company
conducts its operations in two reportable segments: Engines and
Power Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.4M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corp.'s estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable is about
US$8.4 million, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of Sept. 30, 2007.

Of the US$8.4 million, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of about US$325,000 over the next 12 months.

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate
liability through March 31, 2025 and March 31, 2037 to range
between US$5 million and US$14 million using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years.

Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corp. manufactures and
markets hoists, cranes, chain, conveyors, material handling
systems, lift tables and component parts serving commercial and
industrial end-user markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AON Corp. Has $71M Liabilities at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
AON Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded US$71 million
liabilities associated with indemnities and were included in
other liabilities in the condensed consolidated statements of
financial position.

Reinsurance recoverables and other assets related to these
liabilities are US$91 million.

The remaining insurance liabilities represent estimates of known
and future claims expected to be settled over the next 20 to 30
years, principally with regard to asbestos, pollution and other
health exposures.

Chicago-based AON Corp. operates as an insurance brokerage firm
and a reinsurance broker. The Company operates in three  
segments: commercial brokerage, consulting services, and
consumer insurance underwriting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: XL Gains From $13M Strengthening of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital Ltd., for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007,
recorded a strengthening of US$13 million related to asbestos-
and environmental-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, property and other
short-tail lines reserve releases were primarily due to
favorable attritional loss activity in both the property
catastrophe and property risk portfolios.

Casualty reserve releases of US$35.4 million related primarily
to non-U.S. casualty business written through the Company’s
European and Bermuda operations and to a lesser extent the
Company’s U.S. casualty business.

Offsetting these casualty reserve releases was the strengthening
of US$13 million.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based XL Capital Ltd., through subsidiaries,
provides insurance and reinsurance coverages, and financial
products and services to industrial, commercial and professional
service firms, insurance companies and other enterprises on a
worldwide basis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Holds Sinnott Case Appealable
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 8th District Court of
Appeals' ruling that dismissed an appeal filed by American
Optical Corp., Abex Corp. (n/k/a Pneumo Abex LLC), and Viacom
Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by James and Freda
Sinnott.

The suit is styled Sinnott et al., appellees v. Aqua-Chem Inc.
et al.; American Optical Corp. et al., appellants.

Judges Lanzinger, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Cupp,
Moyer, and Pfeifer entered judgment of Case No. 2006-1604 on
Oct. 25, 2007.

In February 2004, before enactment of H.B. No. 292, which
included new requirements for the filing of asbestos complaints
under R.C. 2307.92, the Sinnotts filed a complaint against
several companies, including American Optical, Pneumo Abex, and
Viacom, as well as Aqua-Chem Inc. and many others, alleging
injury to Mr. Sinnott from workplace exposure to products with
asbestos.

In April 2004, the Sinnotts dismissed without prejudice American
Optical and Pneumo Abex. After the effective date of H.B. No.
292, in January 2005, the Sinnotts filed an amended complaint,
again naming American Optical and Pneumo Abex as defendants.

Because the amended complaint was filed after the effective date
of H.B. No. 292, American Optical filed a motion to  
administratively dismiss the Sinnotts' claim for failure to
comply with R.C. 2307.92. Pneumo Abex later joined that motion.

Although the Sinnotts opposed the motion to dismiss, they also
provided supplemental medical evidence and records regarding Mr.
Sinnott's illness. American Optical continued to argue for
administrative dismissal, claiming that the supplemental
evidence did not satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2307.91 et
seq.

The trial court held that while the requirements of H.B. No. 292
applied to the amended complaint, the Sinnotts had fulfilled
those requirements and the case could proceed to trial.

Appellants filed an appeal with the 8th District Court of
Appeals that was dismissed as premature.

The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to determine whether
orders finding that the Sinnotts have made the prima facie
showings required by R.C. 2307.92 were final and appealable. The
Supreme Court held that they are.
                                     
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the 8th District
Court of Appeals dismissing the appellants' appeal for lack of a
final appealable order and remanded to the Court of Appeals for
a determination on the merits of the appeal.

Brent Coon & Associates, Christopher J. Hickey, and Mary Brigid
Sweeney, represented James and Freda Sinnott.

Tucker, Ellis & West L.L.P., Susan M. Audey, Irene C. Keyse-
Walker, Christopher J. Caryl, and Jeffrey A. Healy, represented
American Optical Corp. and Pneumo Abex LLC.

Oldham & Dowling, and Reginald S. Kramer, represented CBS Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Set to Appeal $2M Dana Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ad Hoc Committee of Personal Injury Asbestos Claimants will
take an appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York from the Bankruptcy Court's approval of
Dana Corp.'s request to settle 7,500 Asbestos personal injury
claims asserted by parties represented by tort attorneys Robert
Peirce & Associates; The Lanier Law Firm; Goldenberg, Miller,
Heller & Anotognoli; and Bevan & Associates.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 62; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Magner Assigned to ASARCO Estimation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
5th Circuit temporarily assigns Judge Elizabeth W. Magner of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to
the Southern District of Texas to mediate the asbestos
liabilities proceedings of ASARCO LLC.

Judge Magner will remain in the Southern District of Texas until
ASARCO's asbestos issues are resolved, Judge Jones says.

On Oct. 29, 2007 to Oct. 31, 2007, ASARCO, the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary
Debtors, the Future Claims Representative, and other parties-in-
interest attended a three-day initial mediation session in New
Orleans before Judge Magner.

The estimation hearing on ASARCO's asbestos liabilities will
begin Jan. 2, 2008.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 60; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Wabtec
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. (d/b/a Wabtec) and
certain of its affiliates continue to face claims in various
jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

Since 2000, the number of those claims has increased and the
resolution of these claims may take a significant period of
time. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corp. and
are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the
Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former
stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that
entity’s liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to
RFPC’s product was resolved in the Company’s favor.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

As to RFPC, Management’s belief that any losses due to asbestos-
related cases would not be material is based on the fact that
RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC’s insurers have provided
RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions.

As to the Company and its divisions, Management’s belief that
asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact is also
based on its position that it has no legal liability for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former
owners of Wabtec’s assets retained asbestos liabilities for the
products at issue.

Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp.
provides products and services for the global rail industry. The
Company's products are found virtually on all U.S. Locomotives,
freight cars and passenger transit vehicles, as well as in more
than 100 countries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions Pending v. United Industrial
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial and its former unit Detroit Stoker Co. have
been facing, and may in the future face asbestos-related
personal injury litigation stemming from commercial stoker
products made by the Company and Detroit Stoker, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

Some of the parts and components of which used asbestos-
containing material were fabricated and provided by third
parties.

Detroit Stoker was acquired by a newly formed corporation
affiliated with a private investment group (Merger Parent) on
Dec. 29, 2006 by way of a merger of Bram Acquisition Corp.
(Merger Sub) with and into Detroit Stoker, with Detroit Stoker
being the surviving corporation (the Merger).

The use of asbestos-containing materials ceased in about 1981.
The insurance coverage potentially available to the Company is
substantial.

Under the merger agreement, Merger Parent and the surviving
corporation agreed to indemnify the Company for any asbestos-
related litigation liabilities, including, without limitation,
any asbestos liabilities arising from Detroit Stoker's operation
as a division of the Company and the Company's own operations.

To secure these indemnity obligations, Merger Parent established
an escrow account for the sole benefit of the Company.

Hunt Valley, Md.-based United Industrial Corp. designs, produces
and supports aerospace and defense systems through its wholly
owned subsidiary, AAI Corp., and AAI's direct and indirect
wholly owned subsidiaries. Products and services include
unmanned aircraft systems, training and simulation systems,
automated aerospace test and maintenance equipment, armament
systems, aviation ground support equipment, logistical and
engineering services, and maintenance, repair and overhaul
activities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Has 4,500 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of United America Indemnity Ltd.'s insurance companies has
been named in a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other
unrelated insurance companies that involves such issues with
regard to about 4,500 asbestos-related bodily injury claims and
others that continue to be filed.

The Company decreased its net reserves for prior years by US$5.3
million during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$16.2
million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The decrease of US$5.3 million for the quarter was primarily
comprised of a US$19.2 million reduction of net reserves for
primary liability, umbrella and excess, construction defect, and
lines in run-off due to both lower than expected frequency and
severity emergence, offset by a US$13.9 million increase in net
reserves for unallocated loss adjustment expenses (ULAE) and
asbestos and environmental (A&E). A&E reserves increased due to
an increase in frequency.

Management increased gross and net A&E reserves during the 2007-
3rd quarter to reflect its best estimate of A&E exposures.

United America Indemnity Ltd. provides specialty and surplus
property and casualty insurance, including insurance for social
service agencies and vacant properties. The Company also has
operations in Bermuda through its Wind River Reinsurance unit,
which offers treat (group risk) and facultative (individual
risk) reinsurance, as well as specialty property and casualty
insurance. The Company is based in George Town, Grand Cayman,
Cayman Islands.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Tenneco
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad
workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by the Pullman Co., one of the Company's
subsidiaries.

Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products.
A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with
the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from
various industries. The plaintiffs either do not specify any, or
specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. is an auto parts company
that makes Walker exhaust systems and Monroe ride-control
equipment for vehicle manufacturers and the replacement market.
The Company's product line includes vibration-control systems,
catalytic converters, and various exhaust system accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Hotels Accrues $1M for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., in the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded US$1 million as accrual for
asbestos abatement on the Company's redevelopment of the
Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort.

The Company, in the three months ended June 30, 2007, recorded
US$1 million as accrual for asbestos abatement on the Company’s
redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded
net restructuring and other special charges of about US$48
million related to the Company’s redevelopment of Bal Harbour.

The Company plans to demolish the current hotel and rebuild a
St. Regis hotel along with branded residences and fractional
units. Bal Harbour was closed for business on July 1, 2007, and
the majority of employees were terminated.

Based in White Plains, N.Y., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Inc. operates as a hotel and leisure company. The Company’s
principal business is hotels and leisure, which is comprised of
a worldwide hospitality network of about 900 full-service
hotels, vacation ownership resorts and residential developments
serving two markets: luxury and upscale.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Products Unit Has 97 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 15 percent, or 97 suits, of the 651 pending lawsuits  
against Norcross Safety Products LLC's North Safety Products
subsidiary are related to asbestos and other particles,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

About 15 percent, or 95 suits, of the 638 pending lawsuits
against North Safety Products were related to asbestos and other
particles. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

The Company is subject to various claims, in which most of these
lawsuits and claims are product liability matters that arise out
of the use of respiratory product lines made by North Safety
Products.

As of Sept. 29, 2007, North Safety Products, along with its
predecessors and the former owners of such business were named
as defendants in about 649 lawsuits involving respirators
allegedly manufactured and sold by it or its predecessors.

The Company is also monitoring an additional two lawsuits in
which it feels that North Safety Products, its predecessors and
the former owners of such businesses may be named as defendants.
Collectively, these 651 lawsuits represent a total of about
8,451 plaintiffs.

About 85 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
injury resulting from exposure to silica dust.

These lawsuits allege that the purported injuries resulted in
part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured.

Invensys plc, formerly Siebe plc, is contractually obligated to
indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of
defending claims, resulting from respiratory products
manufactured or sold prior to the acquisition of North Safety
Products in October 1998.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based Norcross Safety Products LLC designs,
manufactures and markets products in the fragmented personal
protection equipment industry. The Company manufactures personal
protection equipment for worker in the general safety and
preparedness, fire service and electrical safety industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Records 76 Pending Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded 76 pending
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Co. (UE), (Central
Illinois Public Service Co. (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating Co.
(Genco), Central Illinois Light Co. (CILCO), and Illinois Power
Co. (IP).

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 343 suits filed, 116
suits settled, and 151 suits dismissed.

The Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP have been named,
along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos
exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case is
significant, as many as 189 parties are named in some pending
cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that
were pending as of Sept. 30, 2007, the average number of parties
was 71.

The claims filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP
allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs’
activities at its present or former electric generating plants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO
plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Co.
(AERG).

Most of IP’s plants were transferred to a Dynegy Holdings Inc.
subsidiary before the Company’s acquisition of IP. As a part of
the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating
plants, CIPS or CILCO has contractually agreed to indemnify
Genco or AERG for liabilities associated with asbestos-related
claims arising from activities prior to the transfer.

Each suit seeks unspecified damages, which, if awarded at trial,
typically would be shared among various defendants.

From July 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2007, nine more asbestos-
related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP,
mostly in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Four
lawsuits were settled.

The Company, as of June 30, 2007, recorded 71 pending asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

St. Louis-based Ameren Corp. is a public utility holding company
under PUHCA 2005, administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. The Company's subsidiaries operate rate-regulated
electric generation, transmission and distribution businesses,
rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution
businesses and non-rate-regulated electric generation businesses
in Missouri and Illinois.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Essex Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Essex Inc. says that, since about 1990, Essex
International Inc. and certain subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in product liability suits filed by electricians,
other skilled tradesmen and others claiming injury, in most
cases, from exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire
products produced years ago.

Essex International is a subsidiary of Superior Essex Holding
Corp., which is a Company subsidiary.

Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International
who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex
International against these lawsuits was settled during 1999.

Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for
substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the
defense of these lawsuits. The insurers have undertaken to
defend, are currently directly defending and, if it should
become necessary, will indemnify Essex International against
those asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the
respective policies.

Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in
these actions will be able to assert claims under applicable
insurance coverage and other similar arrangements.

Atlanta-based Superior Essex Corp. manufactures and supplies
communications wire and cable products to telephone companies,
CATV companies, distributors and systems integrators, and magnet
wire and fabricated insulation materials to major original
equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, for use in motors,
transformers, generators and electrical controls and, through
its distribution operations, to smaller OEMs and the motor
repair industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Limle Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the Court of Appeals for
Franklin County's ruling, which stated that the Industrial
Commission of Ohio did not err in granting Ferrall L. Limle
compensation for personal disability.

The case is styled State ex rel. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.,
Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

Judges Moyer, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell,
Lanzinger, and Cupp, entered judgment of Case No. 2006-1579 on
Oct. 23, 2007.

Mr. Limle worked for E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. for about 27
years, during which he was exposed to asbestos. In 1992, he
retired from DuPont and worked for Zane Trace School District.
It is not known when or why Mr. Limle left that job.

In 2001, Mr. Limle was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis,
asbestosis, and pleural disease as a result of his exposure at
DuPont, and a workers' compensation claim was allowed for these
conditions.

Three years later, Mr. Limle applied for permanent total
disability compensation. The Commission granted Mr. Limle
compensation for permanent total disability.

The Commission found that Mr. Limle was medically incapable of
sustained remunerative employment and his retirement from DuPont
was not a voluntary and total abandonment of employment that
would bar permanent total disability compensation.

DuPont filed a complaint in mandamus in the Appeals Court,
alleging that the Commission had abused its discretion in
awarding compensation.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the order was
supported by evidence.

The Supreme Court held that Mr. Limle's retirement before
becoming disabled did not bar compensation for permanent total
disability.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Court.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP., and Robert E. Tait,
represented E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, Assistant
Attorney General, represented Industrial Commission of Ohio.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Inc. Faces Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, with
other industrial companies, face asbestos-related litigation
claims filed in certain states.

No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases and the Company said it believes it has
valid defenses to such claims and.

Given the state of these claims it is not possible to determine
the potential liability, if any, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries Inc. designs, manufactures
and distributes energy systems and controls, scientific and
industrial imaging products and software, industrial technology
products and radio frequency (RF) products and services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Parker Drilling Ongoing in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Co. states that it was notified that certain of
its subsidiaries, since August 2004, have been named in several
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege that they
were employed by some of the named defendants between about 1965
and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly made drilling related products containing asbestos
that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company’s subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in
offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and
in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the Plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county
in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause
of action allegedly accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has
joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel
discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment
relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of
the Company.

Out of 528 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 12
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant.

Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 based on selection of
six by plaintiff’s counsel, six by defense counsel and 48 by
random selection of the special master.

Houston-based Parker Drilling Co. provides contract drilling and
drilling-related services. The Company owns 43 rigs, including
24 land rigs, 17 U.S.-based barge drilling and workover rigs,
and two international deep drilling barges. The Company drills
worldwide and has worked in 54 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Records 14T Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, determined that it is
a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
about 14,000 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

The Company faces suits filed in numerous state and federal
courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a
result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

The traditional asbestos personal injury lawsuits and claims
relating to the production and sale of asbestos material
typically allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek
compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts.

Based on an analysis of the claims and suits pending as of Dec.
31, 2006, about 91 percent of plaintiffs and claimants either do
not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court
filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional
minimum of the trial court.

About eight percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of
US$15 million or less, and one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million but less
than US$100 million. Fewer than one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages US$100 million or greater but less
than US$123 million.

The Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many
plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. The criteria for
those claims include verification of a compensable illness and a
reasonable probability of exposure to a product made by the
Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period
ending in 1958.

Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically withheld claims under
these agreements for later presentation while focusing their
attention on active litigation in the tort system. During the
2007-3rd quarter, the Company accelerated the disposition and
payment of accumulated but previously unpresented claims.

The Company said it believes that as of Sept. 30, 2007 there are
about 10,000 claims against other defendants and which are
likely to be asserted some time in the future against the
Company. These claims are not included in the 14,000 pending
"lawsuits and claims."

The Company also faces other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims
involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-
defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
Sept. 30, 2007, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
358,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$6,700. Certain of these dispositions have
included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.

Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$55.2 million at Sept.
30, 2007 (US$82.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006) and are included in
the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$3.11 billion through 2006, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois Inc. manufactures
consumer-preferred, 100 percent recyclable glass containers.
Established in 1903, the Company employs more than 25,000 people   
with 83 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries. In 2006, net
sales from continuing glass operations were US$6.65 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Worldwide Incurs $1M Costs for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, incurred or
expected to incur about US$1 million of costs related to
asbestos-related claims, as to which it either has received or
expects to receive about US$800,000 in insurance reimbursements.

The Company’s non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC. Substantially all of these
contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third
parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related
claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and
does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts
related to these matters.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc., the Company and two
Company subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement. Under
the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI
substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the
assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace
Division and certain contingent liabilities and the related
assets, including its historical insurance and indemnification
arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., to
undertake certain administrative and funding obligations with
respect to certain categories of asbestos-related claims and
other liabilities, including environmental claims that Pneumo
Abex did not transfer.

Before 1988, a former subsidiary of Pneumo Abex manufactured
certain asbestos-containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has
been named, typically along with 10 to as many as 100 or more
other companies, as a defendant in various personal injury
lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc. has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper
Industries Inc. (now Cooper Industries LLC) assumed
responsibility for substantially all asbestos-related claims
asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not
indemnified by PepsiAmericas.

Federal-Mogul Corp. purchased the Cooper Subsidiary in October
1998. In October 2001, the Cooper subsidiary filed a petition
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped
performing its obligations to Pneumo Abex.

Performance of the Cooper subsidiary’s obligations is guaranteed
by Cooper Industries LLC. Since the bankruptcy filing of the
Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries LLC has been fulfilling the
Cooper subsidiary’s obligations to the extent that they are no
longer being performed by the Cooper subsidiary.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a series of
agreements with the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries LLC and
others that proposed a settlement of the Company’s claims
against the Cooper subsidiary relating to the 1994 sale
transaction as part of the bankruptcy reorganization of the
Cooper subsidiary.

Pneumo Abex’s former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products.

The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other
coverage agreements with other carriers, payments by the
PepsiAmericas, the Cooper subsidiary and Cooper Industries LLC
under their obligations to Pneumo Abex, and the Transfer
Agreement, all of its monthly expenditures for asbestos-related
claims other than as described below are managed and paid by
others.

The future aggregate cost of cleanup and related expenses
attributable to Pneumo Abex with respect to matters for which
Pneumo Abex, together with numerous other third parties, have
been named potentially responsible parties should be
substantially less than US$50 million, and the Company does not
itself expect to pay any of these costs.

New York-based M&F Worldwide Corp.'s Mafco Worldwide flavorings
firm makes licorice extract. The Company's primary flavoring
brand is Magnasweet, but the Company also sells Right Dress,
gardening mulch that is a byproduct of processing licorice root.
The Company has expanded into the security printing business
through its acquisition of Clarke American Checks from
Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Faces 31 Lawsuits at Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corp., at Oct. 31, 2007, recorded about 31 asbestos-
related lawsuits, in which the Company is one of many
defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9,
2007.

None of these suits are scheduled for trial in 2007.

The Company faces lawsuits in which the claimants seek
unspecified amounts of monetary damages for personal injury,
including claims under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these suits is not
currently determinable.

Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corp. provides deepwater oil and
gas contract drilling services. The Company, with operations in
waters off the coasts of five continents, has a fleet of 63
offshore drilling units: three submersibles, three drillships,
13 semisubmersibles, and 44 jack-up rigs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim Gets Payout Days Before Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Alexander, who filed a GBP100,000 compensation case
against his employers for exposure to asbestos, won his High
Court bid three days before he died, The Argus reports.

Mr. Alexander died on Nov. 25, 2007.

The 71-year-old Mr. Alexander claimed his illness was caused by
deadly fibers he inhaled while working as an electrical fitter
between 1973 and 1981.

On Nov. 22, 2007, Mr. Alexander learned the council he used to
work for, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, had
settled his High Court claim out of court in a deal worth
GBP88,000.

Mr. Alexander claimed the mesothelioma he developed later in
life cut his life expectancy by 12 years.

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

Mr. Alexander said the pipes were lagged with old, crumbling
asbestos, which fell on to the floor where he worked and walked.

The writ claimed Mr. Alexander once disturbed asbestos lagging
as part of work replacing an old boiler door. In 1978, he worked
near contractors as they replaced asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Calls for an SA Specialist Tribunal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Segelov, the lawyer of asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton,
says South Australia needs a specialist tribunal to expedite
dust disease cases, ABC News reports.

Ms. Segelov says the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal
moves quickly and makes judges immediately available for
terminally-ill victims.

Ms. Segolov says had Mr. Banton's case been heard in SA's
District Court, it probably would not have been resolved before
his death on Nov. 27, 2007.

Ms. Segolov says it was Mr. Banton's wish that other states,
including SA, have specialist tribunals to expedite dust disease
cases stemming from asbestos use.

Ms. Segelov says, while the courts do their best to fast-track
cases, they are ultimately reliant on the availability of
judges.

However, the SA Government is defending the system.

The Attorney-General's office has issued a statement, saying it
believes the current system is the best way to fast-track
asbestos cases.

Terry Miller, of the Asbestos Victims Association, wishes the SA
Government would reconsider its rejection of having a specialist
tribunal for cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Settles Case with Aussie Campaigner
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos victim and campaigner Bernie Banton, on Nov. 22, 2007,  
won a final victory against James Hardie Industries N.V., The
Australian reports.

However, Mr. Banton died on Nov. 27, 2007.

Mr. Banton's lawyers achieved a compensation settlement in his
case against Hardie in the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal, which
could be a test case for others.

Mr. Banton reached the confidential agreement with Hardie's
compensation fund hours before prominent witnesses including
former Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Greg Combet
were due to give evidence.

At a press conference after the settlement was accepted by the
tribunal, Mr Banton's lawyer Tanya Segelov would not discuss the
terms.

Karen Banton, Mr. Banton's wife, said her husband's case, as
with his role in the campaign to make Hardie meet its
responsibilities to its asbestos victims, was not about money.

Mr. Banton's case was the first against Hardie to seek not just
financial compensation, but exemplary damages, in which Hardie
would be punished for knowingly exposing its workers to
potentially fatal levels of asbestos dust.

Ms. Segelov said the fact that Mr. Banton had brought the case
for exemplary damages and achieved a settlement could enable
other asbestos victims to follow the same approach.

Mr. Banton contracted asbestosis from working in a Hardie
asbestos insulation operation in the 1960s and 1970s. He
received an AUD800,000 payout in 2000 from a former Hardie
subsidiary, but in 2007 contracted mesothelioma, which is caused
by asbestos and takes 30 to 40 years to manifest after exposure.

Hardie had unsuccessfully asked the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal,
a division of the Supreme Court, to deny Mr. Banton the right to
pursue exemplary damages, and contested his diagnosis.

Mr. Banton had also sought aggravated damages for the stress he
endured during the successful fight to make Hardie agree to pay
billions of dollars to thousands of future victims of its
asbestos building products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.M. Best Sees $65B Total Incurred Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.M. Best Co. Inc., in its latest report, estimated that the
ultimate incurred asbestos losses totaled US$65 billion,
Business Insurance reports.

According to Best's report, the U.S. property/casualty insurance
industry is approaching full funding for its asbestos losses,
but a “significant gap” remains in funding for its environmental
losses.

The report on the industry’s asbestos and environmental
liabilities, which was issued on Nov. 26, 2007, said there is a
US$2.8 billion funding gap for asbestos liabilities, with nearly
96 percent of ultimate asbestos loss estimates funded through
year-end 2006.

This compares with a 92 percent funding level in 2005 and a 70
percent funding level in 2002, when the asbestos deficit was as
high as US$20 billion, according to the report.

The report stated, “The industry has been funding its pollution
liabilities very slowly based on its optimistic assumptions
about underlying claims trends.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Still Has Compensation Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. continues to struggle with ongoing
asbestos compensation issues, and a whole new potential round of
damaging litigation, at the same time that its U.S. earnings
which account for 80 percent of its income slumped 32 percent in
the last quarter, The National Business Review reports.

The former Australian company has already moved its base to the
Netherlands, established an AUD1.5 billion fund for asbestos
compensation claims, and has 10 former directors facing court
charges over the handling of the fund and misleading statements
to the market.

Now, the Company has reached an out of court settlement with
asbestosis victim Bernie Banton for exemplary damages. The
amount is confidential, but comes on top of the AUD800,000
compensation payment Mr. Banton received from the trust fund in
2000, and opens the door for exemplary damages claims from other
victims.

There are concerns that, after the first two waves of victims
(asbestos miners first, and workers in factories and large-scale
users of asbestos second), there may be a third wave of
litigation from victims exposed to asbestos in their homes or
public buildings.

The case against the 10 former directors, brought by the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission, also contains
a clause requiring a separate AUD1.9 billion fund be set up. The
court case does not get under way until September 2008, but it
is potentially yet another time bomb for the Company.

There is still the possibility of litigation from the U.S.,
where a lot of Hardie asbestos products were sold.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dukeminster Accused of Negligence in Devon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dukeminster, a property developer, has been accused of
negligence for leaving asbestos exposed at a site in the city of
Exeter, in Devon, England, which is being cleared for housing,
Express & Echo reports.

Exeter city councilor Marcel Choules criticized Dukeminster
after a resident alerted him to the asbestos risk at the old
Royal Naval Storage Depot site, off Topsham Road.

The member for the Priory ward notified environmental health
officers about the hazardous material at the site.

Councilor Choules said that asbestos could be seen clearly from
the gate of the site and was in a large container with the doors
open. Photographic evidence was passed to the council's
environmental health department.

Asbestos was used in the U.K. building industry from the 1940s
to the 1980s, until it was found that many workers who breathed
in dust from the material developed cancers.

The Dukeminster spokesman said that there was 24-hour security
on the site and when buildings were being demolished the site
could be dangerous.

A spokesman for Exeter City Council confirmed that the
environmental health department had contacted the Health and
Safety Executive about the presence of asbestos at the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Gov't. Bldg. in Cyprus Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal from the roof of one of the Government Printing
Office's buildings in Nicosia, Cyprus, is ongoing, Cyprus Mail
reports.

A spokesman told the Mail that the work, which began over the
weekend, will be completed as part of a government plan to
remove all asbestos from government buildings.

“The asbestos was on the roof of a storage building which we
use,” the spokesman explained, adding that no members of staff
work on the premises. He added, “It is being removed for
environmental and health reasons and will be replaced by solar
panels.”

In 2005, a technical committee of the Labour and Environment
ministries found that the presence alone of asbestos in
buildings does not pose health risks, but that the material
becomes dangerous when corroded.

Heaviest exposures to asbestos occur in the construction
industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during
renovation or demolition.

The Government Printing Office was founded by the British
colonial administration in 1878. The existing premises were
built in 1915.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ERICSSON LM: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action on November 28, 2007
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Ericsson LM Telephone Co.  
(Nasdaq:ERIC) and (Stockholm:ERICA) (Stockholm:ERICB) between
February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit -- filed against Ericsson, its CEO Carl-Henrik
Svanberg, and its former CFO Karl-Henrik Sundstrom -- alleges
Ericsson and certain of its officers and directors violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ericsson is a Sweden-based
company that offers a portfolio of telecommunication and data
communication systems and services covering a range of
technologies.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. The complaint alleges
that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that:

     (i) the Company was experiencing declining sales in its
         networks due to lower sales of expansions and upgrades
         of mobile networks;

    (ii) sales in Western Europe were declining due to operator
         consolidation in several markets; and

   (iii) as a result, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the Company's business,
         such as the repeated reassurances of continued strong
         earnings growth in 2007.

On October 16, 2007, before the market opened, Ericsson issued a
release entitled "Lower than expected results for Ericsson in
third quarter 2007." That same day, after these results were
issued, Ericsson's stock collapsed to close at $31.33 per share,
a decline of 24%, on volume of 42.7 million shares.

On November 20, 2007, Ericsson finally acknowledged that it had
experienced, and would continue to experience, lower customer
demand across product lines and regions. The Company also again
lowered sales projections for the rest of 2007 and 2008. The
Company's shares declined an additional 12% after this
disclosure.

For more information, contact:

          Christopher Keller, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 800-321-0476


LDK SOLAR: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of LDK Solar Co.,
Ltd. during the period June 1, 2007 through October 8, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint charges LDK and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had significantly less polysilicon  
         feedstock inventory than it was reporting;

     (2) that only a fraction of the feedstock inventory that
         the Company did have was of sufficient quality for use
         in the manufacture of silicone wafers; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 7,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Brian D. Brooks
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          E-mail: bbrooks@murrayfrank.com
          Website: http://www.murrayfrank.com


LEAP WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 California on behalf of
purchasers of Leap Wireless International, Inc. common stock
during the period between January 7, 2005 and November 8, 2007.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is no later than 60 days from
November 27, 2007.

The complaint charges Leap and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Leap is a wireless communications carrier that offers
digital wireless service under the Cricket Communications, Inc.
and Jump Mobile brands in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, prospects and financial results. As a result
of defendants' false statements, Leap stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching
its all-time high of $98.33 per share in July 2007.

On August 7, 2007, Leap announced disastrous second quarter 2007
results, including missing its revenue projections, soaring
expenses and a high customer turnover rate, causing its stock to
decline from $80.36 per share on August 7, 2007 to $60.00 per on
August 8, 2007 - a one-day decline of 25%. Then, on November 9,
2007, before the market opened, defendants disclosed that Leap
would be required to restate its financial statements for fiscal
years 2004, 2005, 2006 and for the first and second quarters of
fiscal year 2007 to correct for errors in its previously
reported service revenues, equipment revenues and operating
expenses, causing its stock to drop $21.38 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its service revenue in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP);

     (b) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its equipment revenue and cost of equipment in
         violation of GAAP;

     (c) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon   
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; and

     (d) given the Company's exposure to subprime consumers and
         the intense competition in the low-cost cell carriers
        market Leap was facing, the Company had no reasonable
        basis to make projections about its ability to maintain
        its customer turnover rate and net customer additions.
        As a result, the Company's projections issued during the
        Class Period were at a minimum reckless.

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

Coughlin Stoia Geller on the Net: http://www.csgrr.com.


                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *