CAR_Public/071207.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, December 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 243

                            Headlines


AON CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Litigation in Illinois
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Minn. Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Certifies Class in Ovcon-35 Lawsuits
BELL RACING: Recalls Mini Helmets for Lead Paint Standard Breach

EXPEDIA.COM: Accused of Bait and Switch Tactics in Missouri
GOODYEAR TIRE: Cash Benefit from $324M “Entran II” Deal, Out
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued Over Underinsured Motorist Compensation
ICON HEALTH: Recalls Inversion Benches Posing Fall Hazard
INTERMIX MEDIA: Dec. 11 Hearing Set in Calif. Securities Suit

KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
KOPPERS INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Somerville Wood Treatment Plant
NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Suits Over Sale of Annuities to Elders
NAVARRE CORP: Yet to Report Minn. Securities Suit Deal Approval
OFFICEMAX INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Court Drops Options Backdating Suit Defendants
PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit
PEOPLES ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Connection Fees
POLO RALPH: Calif. Club Monaco Store Employees File Labor Suit
SOMA BEVERAGE: Recalls Flavored Water on Possible Contamination

TEPPCO PARTNERS: Still Faces UnitHolder's Lawsuit in Delaware
THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: N.Y. Securities Suits Sent to Cal.
TIME WARNER: Continues to Face Privacy Rights Violation Suit
WALT DISNEY: Workers File Lawsuit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: 401(k) Members Claim Losses of at Least $150M


                       Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: “Premises” Cases Ongoing v. Huntsman Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Corp. Faces Cases Product Sale/Use
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Reserves $20.1M at Sept. 30 for A&E
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Continues to Face Coverage Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $558.1M for A&E Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Still Pending v. Duke Energy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Domtar Corp. Affiliates Face Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Records $169.5M A&E Reserves at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Affinia Still Involved in Dana's Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,791 Claims at Oct. 19
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,741 Claims at Oct. 19
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mount Vernon Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $446M Reserves at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Defends v. Asbestos-Related Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Has Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Records $225T for Settlements

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Still Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Specialty Deals w/ Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DT Solutions Still Has Removal Suit in Md.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $6.45M Liabilities at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Bar Suits v. Congeleum Pending

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Faces 92 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Suit Still Pending v. Chase Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,900 Claims Pending v. Building Materials
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liability Totals $10.66M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,363 Claims at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valentec in Litigation w/ La. Over Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Still Faces Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 27,912 at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M for Rockwell Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $44M Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Completed by Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Lummus Pays $27.78M Liability at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Has 5,600 Liability Cases at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Has 134,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending Against Fairchild

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Faces 39 Pending Actions at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Defends Itself in Banton Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Has $28.9M Adjustments at 2Q08
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PI Committee Objects to Dana Corp.'s Plan

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Urges Court to Disallow 1,064 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee to Appoint Tersigni Probe Examiner
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Issues Penalties to N.M. Contractors
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Whyalla Shipyard Worker Sues BHP Billiton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Firm Ordered to Pay KPW133M Damages

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow's Compensation Hearing Set on Dec. 10
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Gets Payout from British Rail
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues East Lancashire Hospitals Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australia Braces for New Wave of Deaths
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFA Fears Closure Due to Lack of Funding
ASBESTOS ALERT: Injury Actions Ongoing v. Imperial Subsidiaries


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

FX ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GENESCO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn.
LEAP WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
MORGAN ASSET: Lockridge Grindal Files Tenn. Securities Lawsuit
VIRGIN MOBILE: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit


                            *********  


AON CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Litigation in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face a consolidated class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.  The case caption is “In re Aon ERISA Litigation, 04 C 6875
(N.D. Ill.) (Norgle, J.).”

Beginning in late October 2004, several putative ERISA class
actions were filed against Aon in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The case is about Defendants’ alleged ERISA violations, arising
out their investment of material assets of the Aon Corporation
401(k) Savings Plan in Aon Corporation stock during the time
period relevant to the action, the named plaintiffs and the
other members of the Class.

Defendants invested Plan assets in Aon Stock, despite the
Company’s engaging in admittedly improper business practices
throughout that time period – an undisclosed bid-rigging and
kickback scheme that rendered such investment imprudent.  
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class entrusted their
retirement savings to Defendants, who, by investing Plan assets
in Aon Stock during the time period relevant to the action,
breached their statutory fiduciary duties of loyalty, care,
skill, prudence, and diligence.

Adam J. Levitt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC,
Class Counsel in the case, told Class Action Reporter that the
lawsuit alleges that the fiduciaries of the Aon Savings Plan
violated their fiduciary duties by investing Plan assets in Aon
stock from Oct. 31, 2002 to the present, during which time Aon
failed to disclose certain harmful business practices.  Those
practices, which increased Aon’s income at the expense of its
clients, included:

    -- suggesting that an insurer raise its quote for a client’s
       business in order to settle a debt to the insurer and
       increase its contingent commission payout;   

    -- promising increased retail business to insurers in
       return for their commitments to use Aon’s reinsurance  
       services;

     -- entering into “producer funding agreements” whereby
        insurers directly funded the hiring of Aon brokers who
        held themselves out as Aon employees without disclosing
        that their positions were funded by the paying insurer;

     -- entering into secret “pay-to-play” arrangements with
        insurers whereby Aon required compensation from insurers
        that wished to bid on a client’s business;

     -- agreeing with preferred insurers to “freeze out” a
        competing insurer from Aon placements when that insurer
        did not provide comparable improper compensation to Aon;

    -- withholding a lower quote and placing a client with a
       higher bidding insurer with which Aon had a contingent
       commission agreement; and

     -- providing preferred insurers with first looks, last
        looks, and exclusive looks on preferred business in
        exchange for improper compensation.

As set forth in the Complaint, these illegal business practices
can generally, though not entirely, be grouped into three types
of wrongdoing: “contingent commissions,” “client steering,” and
“clawbacks.”

While Aon was engaged in the wrongful practices that led to the
present litigation, Defendants, in their fiduciary capacities,
made Aon Stock a vital and material part of the Plan and never
provided Plan participants – including Plaintiffs and the other
members of the Class – with the truth regarding Aon’s business
operations and the risks associated with investing Plan assets
in Aon Stock.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Plan participants and beneficiaries, in violation
of SS 404 and 405 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. SS 1104 and 1105, by,
inter alia:  

     (a) overconcentrating the Plan’s investment purchases and
         holdings in Aon Stock;

     (b) imprudently permitting the Plan to purchase or hold Aon
         Stock during the Relevant Time Period, which, in turn,
         caused Aon Stock to trade at artificially inflated
         prices during the Relevant Time Period;

     (c) providing employer matching contributions to Plan
         participants’ Plan contributions in the form of   
         knowingly overvalued Aon stock, thereby failing to
         provide Plan participants with true matching value for
         their Plan contributions;

     (d) failing to provide Plan participants, including
         Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, with
         complete and accurate information sufficient to advise  
         the participants of the true risks associated with
         investing in the Plan; and

     (e) failing to properly monitor the Plan and its
         fiduciaries.

On May 3, 2005, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC was
appointed Interim Class Counsel over these consolidated actions.   
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 22, 2005 and
on Nov. 29, 2006, Judge Charles R. Norgle ruled that the action
may proceed as a class action and approved Wolf Haldenstein as
Class Counsel.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

For more details, contact:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, Illinois  60603
          Phone:  (312) 984-0000


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and four of its current and former
officers face a purported securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The suit was filed by Joseph C. Hubbard, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C. Toalson, Jarrett S.
Levan and Alan B. Levan on Oct. 29, 2007.

It alleges that during the purported class period of Nov. 9,
2005 through Oct. 25, 2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and the
named officers knowingly and/or recklessly made
misrepresentations of material fact regarding BankAtlantic and
specifically BankAtlantic’s loan portfolio and allowance for
loan losses.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages.

The suit is “Joseph C. Hubbard, et al. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-61542,” filed in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-915
          Fax: (310) 201-916
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

          Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
          830 Third Avenue 10th Floor
          New York Ave, NY 10022
          Phone: 212.317.2300

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215.638.4847
          Fax: 215.638.4867

          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310.209.2468
          Fax: 310.209.2087
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

               - and -

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Minn. Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Nov. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
alleging deceptive trade practices and fraud associated with its
mortgages, the St. Paul Business Journal reports.

The suit was originally filed in Hennepin County District Court
in October and was transferred to U.S. Federal Court in
Minnesota in November.

Named plaintiffs Kieran and Maxine Hughes brings this suit on
behalf of all Minnesotans similarly situated who have gotten
Bank of America mortgages in the past six years.

The Hughes refinanced their home in 2003 and paid a $372 loan
discount fee at closing, but they paid an interest rate higher
than the par rate for which they qualified, the complaint said.

The complaint alleges that the company broke Minnesota laws when
it charged hundreds of Minnesotans "loan discount fees," then
failed to give them discounted interest rates.

According to Mr. Switzky, Bank of America hasn't yet filed an
answer to the complaint.

The suit is “Hughes et al v. Bank of America, N.A., Case Number:
0:2007cv04583,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, under Judge Donovan W. Frank with
referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Certifies Class in Ovcon-35 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted a motion to certify class in suits filed by
direct purchasers of the Ovcon-35 drug against Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Warner Chilcott Holdings, Co. III,
Ltd., among others.

To date, the Company has been named as a co-defendant with
Warner Chilcott and others in complaints filed in federal courts
by the Federal Trade Commission, 34 state Attorneys General, and
certain private class-action plaintiffs claiming to be direct or
indirect purchasers of Ovcon-35.

These actions, the first of which was filed by the FTC in
December 2005, allege, among other things, that a March 24, 2004
agreement between the Company and Warner Chilcott (then known as
Galen Holdings PLC) constitutes an unfair method of competition,
is anticompetitive and restrains trade in the market for Ovcon-
35 and its generic equivalents.

In the actions brought on behalf of the direct purchasers, on
Oct. 22, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a
class on behalf of all entities that purchased Ovcon 35 directly
from Warner Chilcott (or its affiliated companies) from April
22, 2004.

Fact and expert discovery are now closed.  The Court has ordered
dispositive motions to be filed by Nov. 14, 2007.

No trial date has been set, according to the company's Nov. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is  
primarily a holding company.  The Company's subsidiaries, Barr
Laboratories, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop,
manufacture and market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical
products, respectively.  It operates in two business segments.  
In the generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures and
distributes approximately 150 different dosage forms and
strengths of approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical
products, including 22 oral contraceptive products that
represent the largest category of its generic product portfolio.


BELL RACING: Recalls Mini Helmets for Lead Paint Standard Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Racing Co., of Santa Cruz, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,400 collectible mini helmets.

The company said the surface paints on the recalled helmets
contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead
paint standard.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled products are six-inch tall, collectible, miniature
helmets, modeled after helmets worn by several race car drivers.
The follow models are included in the recall: Terry Borcheller
helmet, part number 2005740; Kurt Busch helmet, part number
2001368; and Vitor Meira helmet, part number 2001381. The part
number is located on the product?s packaging with the UPC.

These recalled mini helmets were manufactured in China and are
being sold at home improvement and discount department retailers
nationwide from March 2007 through November 2007 for about $50.

Pictures of the recalled mini helmets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08112a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08112b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08112c.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled helmets away from
young children immediately and contact Bell Racing to receive a
full refund.

For further information, contact Bell Racing toll-free at (866)
892-6059 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, via
e-mail: minireplicasrecall@bellracing.com, or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.acprecall.com


EXPEDIA.COM: Accused of Bait and Switch Tactics in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia.com is facing a class-action complaint alleging it uses
a bait-and-switch scheme to lure consumers into booking hotels
through its Web site, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

It also claims that Expedia was administratively dissolved by
the State of Missouri on Aug. 29, 2006, but continues to do
business in the state illegally.

Named plaintiff Tom Burcham claims he booked a room at the
Hampton Inn in Cape Girardeau, Mo., through Expedia because its
Web site promised that the hotel had a conference room, indoor
and outdoor swimming pools, a restaurant and a bar and lounge.
In reality, the hotel had none of these.

He filed the suit on behalf of all Missourians who booked a room
at the Hampton Inn in Cape Girardeau through Expedia.

The class seeks more than $5 million in damages.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Tom R. Burcham, III
          222 West Columbia
          Farmington, MO 63640
          Phone: (573) 756-5014
          Fax: (573) 756-6878


GOODYEAR TIRE: Cash Benefit from $324M “Entran II” Deal, Out
------------------------------------------------------------
Current or former property owners in the United States with
radiant heating or snow melting systems that use a particular
rubber hose are eligible to receive a cash benefit from a $324
million Settlement Fund.

The hose, Entran II, is orange and stamped with the name
"Heatway" or "Heatway Systems." It is put in floors or driveways
to carry warm fluid that provides warmth and melts snow. The
majority of the hose was sold and/or installed between 1989-
1995.

The $324 million Settlement Fund is the result of the Settlement
of a class action approved in 2004 by Federal District Court
Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey. Eligible
property owners may receive a payment of tens of thousands of
dollars, but need to file a claim no later than November 17,
2009 in order to receive a payment.

The Entran II lawsuit alleges that Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company manufactured a defective product and that Entran II hose
is prone to leaking when used under normal conditions. However,
the Defendant denies all allegations and maintains that it
produced Entran II according to agreed to specifications and
that the problems are with improperly designed, installed and
maintained heating systems - not the hose. The Defendant decided
to settle the case in order to avoid the cost and inconvenience
of a trial.

"Eligible property owners have until November 17, 2009 to file a
claim for payment from the $324 million Settlement Fund. This is
a great deal for eligible property owners; the first average
payment is in the tens of thousands of dollars," said Charles
LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Lead Class Counsel for
the Plaintiffs in this case.

An interactive Web site, http://www.entraniisettlement.com,
includes the complete notice form, claim form, and other Court
documents. There is also a "Frequently Asked Questions" section,
as well as information, pictures, and a video clip to assist
property owners in identifying Entran II hose. Property owners
can also call 1-800-254-9222 for more information and to find
out if they are eligible.

For further information on the proposed settlement, contact:

          Entran II Settlement
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 24
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0024
          Tel: 1-800-254-9222
          http://www.entraniisettlement.com/

                       About Goodyear

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
(NYSE: GT) -- http://www.goodyear.com/-- manufactures tires,   
engineered rubber products and chemicals in more than 90
facilities in 28 countries. Goodyear Tire has marketing
operations in almost every country around the world including
Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Jamaica and Peru in Latin America.
Goodyear employs more than 80,000 people worldwide.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued Over Underinsured Motorist Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County alleging it has cheated policyholders who submit claims
regarding underinsured motorists since 1990.

Named plaintiff William Briggs brings this action pursuant to
the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class
of persons injured in motor vehicle accidents from 1990 to the
present while occupants of motor vehicles insured under
automobile policies issued by the defendants and its various
affiliates, providing coverage under, inter alia, the
Pennsylvania Motor vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75
Pa.C.S.A. Section 1701 et seq., where a Rejection of
Underinsured Motorist Protection form has been executed and
where coverage has been denied by the defendants on the basis of
the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection.

He wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the members of the class have presented claims to the   
         defendants and/or its affiliates for recovery of
         underinsured motorist benefits under a Pennsylvania
         commercial automobile policy issued by the defendants
         and/or its affiliates;

     (b) defendants and/or its affiliates denied claims for
         recovery of underinsured motorist benefits on the basis
         of a Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection
         form;

     (c) the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form
         relied upon by the defendants does not specifically
         comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Motor
         Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A.
         Section 1701 et seq.;

     (d) the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection from
         upon which the defendants rely is an illegal and
         invalid Rejection of Underinsured Motorist protection
         form;

     (e) by operation of law, the defendants are required to
         provide underinsured motorist coverage under each of
         the automobile policies wherein coverage has been
         rejected but reliance upon the illegal and invalid
         Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form;

     (f) each member of the class is entitled to a declaration
         that the policy of insurance issued by defendants
         and/or its affiliates under which claim has been made
         does, in fact, provide underinsured motorist coverage;
         and

     (g) each member of the class is entitled to adjucation of
         his or her underinsured motorist claims through
         arbitration before a Special Master for the award of
         underinsured motorist benefits under the policy of
         insurance where such coverage was wrongfully and
         illegally denied by defendants and/or its affiliates.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- appointing a Special Master for the arbitration of the
        underinsured motorist claims of the members of the
        class;

     -- ordering the Special Master to establish a process
        whereby the underinsured motorist claims of the members
        of the class can be fully, completely and expeditiously
        adjudicated; and

     - such other relief the court deems appropriate.

The suit is "William Briggs et al. v. The Hartford Financial
Services Group, Inc. et al.," filed in the court of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Howard G. Silverman, Esq.
          Kane and Silverman P.C.
          The Philadelphian
          2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1 C-44
          Philadelphia, PA 19130
          Phone: (215) 232-1000

          - and -

          Charles Jay Schleifer, Esq.
          Weinstein, Schleifer & Kupersmith, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, 41st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6600


ICON HEALTH: Recalls Inversion Benches Posing Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Icon Health & Fitness Inc., of Logan, Utah, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
22,000 Nordic Track and Reebok Inversion Benches.

The company said the ankle clamp mechanism can release
unexpectedly, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Icon has received five reports of injuries to consumers
including contusions, lacerations and back pain.

The recalled inversion benches invert a user by securing the
ankles in a locking device and rotating the bench. The Nordic
Track bench is model number 831.14595.0 and the Reebok bench is
model number RBBE1996.0. The model number is located under the
seat of the bench.

These recalled inversion benches were manufactured in China and
are being sold at sporting goods stores nationwide from
September 2006 through January 2007 for about $200.

Pictures of the recalled inversion benches:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08109b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08109a.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the inversion benches
immediately and contact the firm to receive a free repair kit.

For further information, contact Icon Health & Fitness toll-free
at (866) 506-9095 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.iconfitness.com


INTERMIX MEDIA: Dec. 11 Hearing Set in Calif. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
set a Dec. 11, 2007 hearing for motions in a purported
securities class action filed against several former officers
and directors of Intermix Media, Inc., an acquisition of News
Corp.

The suit, “Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al.,” was filed on
June 14, 2006.  In it, plaintiff asserts claims for alleged
violations of Section 14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well as
control person liability under Section 20a.   

Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants disseminated false and
misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions:  

     -- on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder  
        vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and  
        ratification of financing transactions with certain  
        entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former  
        large stockholder of Intermix; and  

     -- on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote  
        on the formation of Fox Interactive Media, a division of  
        News Corp.  

The complaint names as defendants certain VantagePoint-related
entities and the members of the Intermix Board who were
incumbent on the dates of the respective proxy statements.

Intermix is not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity
obligations to the former officer and director defendants in
connection with these claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain
investment banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain indemnity
obligations to the investment banks as well.   

After conferring with defendants concerning deficiencies in the
amended complaint pursuant to local rule and entering a
stipulation with defendants regarding a briefing schedule,
plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006.  

On Oct. 19, 2006, defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims
in the second amended complaint.  

On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred from Judge Walter to
Judge George H. King, the judge assigned to the derivative
action, captioned, “LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al.,” on the grounds
that it raises substantially related questions of law and fact
as LeBoyer, and would entail substantial duplication of labor if
heard by different judges.  

Judge King took the Feb. 26, 2007 hearing date for the motions
to dismiss off-calendar.  On May 22, 2007, Judge King ordered a
combined status conference with the LeBoyer action occur on June
11, 2007 at which he ordered the Brown case be consolidated with
the LeBoyer action.

Judge King also stated that he was not going to consider the
pending motions to dismiss but rather ordered plaintiffs’
counsel to file a consolidated first amended complaint setting
forth the causes of action in the LeBoyer and Brown matters and
further ordered the parties to file a joint brief regarding
dismissal of the first amended complaint.

On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated first
amended complaint.  Pursuant to the stipulated briefing schedule
ordered by the court, the parties’ joint brief was filed on Oct.
11, 2007, and the matter is scheduled to be heard on Dec. 11,
2007.

The suit is “Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06
cv-03731-JFW-SH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge John F. Walter with
referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

        Christy W. Goodman, Esq.
        Goodman Sheridan and Roff
        1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Phone: 619-241-4860
        E-mail: cgoodman@gsrllp.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Elizabeth A. Moriarty, Esq.
         Hogan and Hartson
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-785-4600
         E-mail: eamoriarty@hhlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.hhlaw.com
        
              - and -

         Stephen M. Knaster, Esq.
         Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
         Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-773-5700
         Fax: 415-773-5759
         Web site: http://www.orrick.com


KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. is appealing a ruling that granted class-
action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's
employees working in the State of California.

The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of
personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under
state law and alleged technical violations of a state law
pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs.

A hearing relating to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification
was held on March 5, 2007, and on April 30, 2007, the Court
certified the class.  

As to the April 30 order, the Company has both filed with the
trial court a motion for reconsideration and a writ with the
California Court of Appeal seeking an interlocutory appeal.

The company reported no new development in the matter in its
Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a  
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


KOPPERS INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Somerville Wood Treatment Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers, Inc. faces purported class actions in Pennsylvania and
Texas that were brought on behalf of residents of Somerville,
Texas, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

                    Pennsylvania Litigation

Koppers, Inc. also is defending a putative class action, which
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring program and the
costs of periodic health screening and diagnostic testing for a
class of approximately 7,500 people who have lived or currently
live in Somerville, but who have not experienced any diseases.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania in October 2007.  

Plaintiffs allege that they have been exposed to harmful levels
of various toxic chemicals from the Somerville wood treatment
plant. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief,
attorneys’ fees and costs.

                        Texas Litigation

In addition to the lawsuit mentioned above, an additional
complaint was filed in the District Court of Burleson County,
Texas in October 2007.

The complaint is a putative class action filed on behalf of
current and former residents of Somerville, Texas who live or
lived within a one mile radius of the Somerville wood treatment
plant.

Plaintiffs estimate the putative class to number in excess of
2,500 people.  Koppers Inc. and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway Co. are defendants.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, relocation
expenses, injunctive relief, punitive damages in an unspecified
amount, the costs of developing a notice plan to notify members
of the putative class and attorneys’ fees.

The complaints contains counts relating to private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence
arising from alleged emissions of toxic chemicals from the
Somerville plant.

Plaintiffs’ also filed an application for a temporary injunction
seeking, among other things, temporary injunctive relief from
alleged further releases of chemicals from the Somerville plant,
the temporary relocation of all class members and reimbursement
for certain personal and relocation expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, Koppers filed a notice of removal removing
this case from the District Court of Burleson County, Texas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Koppers Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.koppers.com/-- is an  
integrated global provider of carbon compounds and commercial
wood treatment products.  The Company's products are used in a
variety of applications in a range of end markets, including the
aluminum, railroad, specialty chemical, utility, rubber and
steel industries.  It serves its customers through a global
manufacturing and distribution network, including 33
manufacturing facilities located in North America, Australasia,
China, Europe and South Africa. The Company operates two
principal businesses: Carbon Materials & Chemicals, and Railroad
& Utility Products.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Suits Over Sale of Annuities to Elders
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Co. is facing several purported
class actions in California, which alleges elder abuse and other
state code violations over the sale of certain deferred fixed
annuities to seniors, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing.

The Company is a defendant in three such class actions.  The
court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.  

The court has additionally certified a subclass of 36
policyholders alleging fraud against their agent, and
vicariously, against NWL.  

One of the suits is targeting National Western, for selling a
deferred annuity to an Oceanside senior that was allegedly an
"unsuitable" investment, since its payouts began well past the
buyer's life expectancy (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2005).

The legal action puts in the spotlight the increased scrutiny
being given to the sales practices of certain types of
annuities, investment vehicles offered by insurance companies
and designed to provide an income stream and tax benefits to
investors, usually during retirement.

San Diego lawyer Ronald Marron and the law firm of Finkelstein &
Krinsk brought the state court case charging the Texas firm of
selling deferred fixed annuities with steep surrender charges to
seniors.  They are seeking class action status for California
seniors who were sold similar products by National Western.

Austin, Texas-based National Western Life Insurance Co. --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life
insurance company doing business in 49 states, the District of
Columbia and four U.S. territories or possessions.


NAVARRE CORP: Yet to Report Minn. Securities Suit Deal Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corp. has yet to report that the  U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota has granted final approval to a
settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors.

Several purported class-action lawsuits were commenced in 2005
by various plaintiffs against Navarre Corp., and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

Plaintiffs cite to alleged violations of Sec. 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated
under the Act, and as to the individual defendants only,
violation of Sec. 20(a) of the Act.

Plaintiffs sought certification of the actions as a class action
lawsuit, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.

The actions are identified as:  

      -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"  

      -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211   
         (MJD/JGL);" and  

      -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-  
         1260 (DWF/JSM)."

By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 12, 2005, the
Court appointed “The Pension Group,” comprised of the Operating
Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Funds
and Ms. Grace W. Lai, as Lead Plaintiff, and appointed the
Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm as liaison counsel and
the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead counsel.

The Court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the
caption, “In re Navarre Corporation Securities Litigation,” and
further ordered that a Consolidated Amended Complaint be filed.

On Feb. 3, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint with the Court.  This Consolidated Amended Complaint
reiterates the allegations made in the individual complaints and
extends these allegations to the Company’s restatements of its
previously issued financial statements that were made in
November 2005.

A hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss was held on May 10,
2006 and by an order dated June 27, 2006, the Court granted
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
without prejudice.

The Court allowed Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended
complaint in an effort to cure the identified pleading
deficiencies.

On July 28, 2006 Plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint against Defendants.  Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the renewed complaint on Sept. 22, 2006, asserting,
among other things, that Plaintiffs had not sufficiently cured
the defects present in the original Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

By a Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2006, the Court granted
Defendants’ motion in part, denied it in part, and specifically
removed Cary L. Deacon, Brian M.T. Burke and Charles Cheney as
individual defendants. Defendants answered the Complaint on Jan.
26, 2007 and typical disclosure requirements and discovery
proceeded.

The Company and Plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle this
litigation.  This settlement remains subject to the satisfaction
of various conditions, including the negotiation and execution
of a final stipulation of settlement and approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

However, the Company anticipates that it will not be required to
contribute any funds to the settlement beyond the already
exhausted retention under its insurance policy.

A hearing for preliminary approval of this settlement has been
scheduled for Nov. 15, 2007.

The suit is “In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson with referral
to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W Broadway Ste 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858
         E-mail: lauraa@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. Esq.
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250,
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         David A. Davenport, Esq.
         Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
         225 S. 6th St., Ste. 3500,
         Mpls, MN 55402-4629
         Phone: 612-604-6716
         Fax: 612-604-6816
         E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com


OFFICEMAX INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted OfficeMax Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended securities
fraud complaint filed against the company, according to the
company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29,
2007.

The company and several former officers and/or directors of the
company or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidated
class action proceeding, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed to
disclose:

      -- that vendor income had been improperly recorded;

      -- that the company lacked internal controls necessary to
         ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance
         with generally accepted accounting principles; and

      -- that the company 's 2004 and later results would be
         adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper
         practices.

The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  On Sept. 21,
2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, which is pending.  

On Sept. 12, 2006, the court granted the defendant group's joint
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On Nov.
9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a purported amended complaint.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 26, 2007, the court granted the
motion to dismiss and terminated the case.

The suit is “Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00236,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William J. Doyle, Esq.
         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058

Representing the defendants are:

         Phillip M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Foley & Lardner
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Phone: 312-832-4500

         John William Rotunno, Esq.
         Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC
         70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60602-4207
         Phone: (312) 372-1121
         E-mail: jrotunno@bellboyd.com

             - and -

         Patrick Thomas Stanton, Esq.
         Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberg & Krauss
         180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 516-4489
         E-mail: pstanton@scgk.com


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Court Drops Options Backdating Suit Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed certain defendants from a shareholder lawsuit filed
against Openwave Systems and nine former executives over an
alleged stock-option backdating scheme.

Between Feb. 21, and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar
securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Openwave and four current and former officers of the Company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002
through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the Class Period,
the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and
issued materially false and misleading statements in the
Company’s public filings and press releases regarding the manner
in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of
action—one against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a
second against the individual defendants for violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern
District of California where the related shareholder derivative
class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the
four securities class actions into a single action captioned,
“In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-
1309 (DLC)),” and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  

On June 14, 2007, the court entered an order denying the motion
to transfer.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint. The consolidated and amended
complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,
     * KPMG LLP, and
     * Merrill Lynch,
     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,
     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and
     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of the
Company’s 2005 public offering. The complaint seeks money
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company is required under contracts with the individual
defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for
attorneys’ fees and expenses.  

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is appointed lead
plaintiff; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP shall serve
as lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions
and the class.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss.  

The court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted under
the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against whom
those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to dismiss
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against certain
of the officer and director defendants, but denied the motion to
dismiss the Exchange claims asserted against Openwave and
certain of the other director and officer defendants.

                  Defendants Dismissed from Suit

As a result of the court’s decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC have all been
dismissed as defendants from the litigation.

The remaining defendants are the Company, certain former
officers of the Company, and certain former and current
directors of the Company.

The suit is “In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation
(Master File 07-1309 (DLC)),” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denise L.
Cote.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212.279.5050
         Fax: 212.279.3655
         E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square
         Boston, MA 2109
         Phone: 617.542.8300
         Fax: 617.230.0903
         E-mail: info@bermanesq.com

              - and -  

         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212.554.1400
         Fax: 212.554.1444
         E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com


PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court has yet to rule on a motion
seeking for a dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses Peoples Energy
Corp. of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act in relation to matters at issue in the
utilities’ fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge reconciliation
proceedings.

Peoples Energy was acquired recently by Integrys Energy Group,
Inc.

In February 2004, customers of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke
Co. and North Shore Gas Co. (NSG) filed a purported class action
in Cook County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy, Peoples
Gas, North Shore.

The suit, “Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corp.,” seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  Peoples Gas and
North Shore have been dismissed as defendants and the only
remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and that Peoples
Energy acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act.  

Peoples Energy denies the allegations and is vigorously
defending the suit.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the court granted in part Peoples Energy's
motion to dismiss the case by limiting the potential class
members in the suit to those persons who were customers during
the time that Peoples Energy’s joint venture with Enron was in
operation and did not receive part of the settlement proceeds
from the reconciliation cases.

However, the court denied Peoples Energy’s motion to dismiss the
case to the extent that the complaint seeks punitive damages
(regardless of whether such customers received part of the
settlement proceeds from the reconciliation cases).

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for
class certification and on April 25, 2007 the Court denied,
without prejudice, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

On June 29, 2007, Peoples Gas and North Shore filed a motion to
dismiss the proceeding for failure to join a necessary party.  
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2007.  

Subsequently, Peoples Gas' and North Shore's motion to delay
responding to the amended complaint until the court rules on the
motion to dismiss was granted.

Integrys Energy 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.

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding  
company and does not engage directly in any business of its own.
It operates through its regulated utility subsidiaries, The
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North Shore Gas Co.  Peoples
Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy Resources Co.,
LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy
Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp.  It has five
segments: Gas Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy
Marketing, Energy Assets, and Corporate and Other.


PEOPLES ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Connection Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Energy Corp., along with its utility subsidiaries, is
seeking for the dismissal of an amended class action complaint
that accuses them of improperly charging connection and
disconnection fees to several Chicago-based builders.

In June 2005, the purported class action was filed against the
company by Birchwood Builders, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.  It named as defendants:

       -- Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co.; and
       -- North Shore Gas Co.

The suit generally accuses defendants of fraudulently and
improperly charging fees to customers with respect to utility
connections, disconnections, reconnections, relocations,
extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of distribution
gas mains and failing to return related customer deposits.

Peoples Gas and North Shore filed two motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On Jan. 25, 2007, the judge entered an order
dismissing the complaint, but allowing the plaintiffs the option
of filing an amended complaint, except as to the plaintiffs’
seeking of declaratory relief, which was dismissed with
prejudice.  

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could file their claims
directly with the Illinois Commerce Commission.  

On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the
Circuit Court.  Peoples Gas and North Shore responded by filing
a motion to dismiss and are awaiting a decision on this motion.

Peoples Energy was acquired recently by Integrys Energy Group,
Inc.  Integrys Energy 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.

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding  
company and does not engage directly in any business of its own.
It operates through its regulated utility subsidiaries, The
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North Shore Gas Co.  Peoples
Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy Resources Co.,
LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy
Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp.  It has five
segments: Gas Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy
Marketing, Energy Assets, and Corporate and Other.


POLO RALPH: Calif. Club Monaco Store Employees File Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. faces a purported class action in
California that alleges violations of California wage and hour
laws, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007.

On Aug. 21, 2007, eleven former and current employees of the
company's Club Monaco stores in California filed a lawsuit in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of the state's
wage and hour laws by improperly classifying employees as exempt
and by failing to pay overtime work and granting meal breaks to
workers

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com-- is a  
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men’s, women’s and children’s
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.


SOMA BEVERAGE: Recalls Flavored Water on Possible Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Soma Beverage recalls Metromint flavor water in 16.9 fluid ounce
bottles. All flavors of Metromint with Best Before 2008/12/21
and produced at its California facility are affected by this
recall, this includes peppermint, spearmint, orangemint, and
lemonmint.

Soma Beverage of San Francisco, California is recalling all
bottles of Metromint flavors Peppermint, Spearmint, Orangemint,
and Lemonmint with Best Before 2008/12/21 and produced at its
California facility because they may be contaminated with
Bacillus cereus.

The products were distributed nationwide to grocery stores and
sold on the Internet.

The products were packaged in plastic 16.9 ounce bottles. The
Metromint recalled products were produced at the California Soma
facility. The recalled products can be identified by the "Best
Before" date found on the shoulder of the bottle. All Metromint
recalled products (Peppermint, Spearmint, Orangemint, and
Lemonmint) with "Best Before" dates before 2008/12/21, produced
at the Californian facility, are affected by this recall.
Products produced in the California facility have the lettering
"KSA" in a rectangle located on the lower right-hand corner of
the back panel on the label.

There have been no reported illnesses in California.

The symptoms of B. cereus diarrheal type food poisoning usually
include onset of watery diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and pain 6-
15 hours after consumption of contaminated food. Nausea may
accompany diarrhea, but vomiting rarely occurs. Symptoms persist
for 24 hours in most instances. The vomiting type of food
poisoning associated with B. cereus is characterized by nausea
and vomiting within 30 minutes to 6 hours after consumption of
contaminated foods. Duration of symptoms is generally less than
24 hours. Infants, children and pregnant women are susceptible
to dehydration resulting from diarrhea.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product should discard
it or return it to the point of purchase. Individuals who think
they may have become ill from eating these products should
contact their health care provider for evaluation.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-415-979-
0781 Ext. 101.


TEPPCO PARTNERS: Still Faces UnitHolder's Lawsuit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Co., LLC, the general partner of
TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (Parent Partnership), continues to face a
lawsuit that was filed by a TEPPCO unitholder in the Court of
Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware.  
  
On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of  
TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual
capacity, as a putative class action on behalf of:

     -- Parent Partnership's other unitholders, and  
     -- derivatively on its behalf.  

It concerns proposals made to its unit holders in its definitive
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Sept. 11, 2006 and other transactions involving
the Parent Partnership and Enterprise or its affiliates.   

The complaint names as defendants:  
      
      -- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline;  

      -- the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products;  

      -- the parent companies of Texas Eastern Products,
         including EPCO Inc., a privately held company  
         controlled by Dan L. Duncan;  

      -- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and certain of its  
         affiliates; and

      -- Mr. Duncan.   

The Parent Partnership is named as a nominal defendant.

The complaint alleges that certain of the transactions proposed
in the proxy statement, including a proposal to reduce the Texas
Eastern Products's maximum percentage interest in the Parent
Partnership's distributions in exchange for limited partner
units, are unfair to its unit holders and constitute a breach by
the defendants of fiduciary duties owed to its unit holders and
that the Proxy Statement fails to provide its unit holders with
all material facts necessary for them to make an informed
decision whether to vote in favor of or against the proposals.   

The complaint further alleges that, since Mr. Duncan acquired
control of Texas Eastern Products in 2005, the defendants, in
breach of their fiduciary duties to the Parent Partnership and
its unit holders, have caused the Parent Partnership to enter
into certain transactions with Enterprise or its affiliates that
are unfair to it or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise or its
affiliates over the Parent Partnership.   

These transactions are alleged to include the Jonah Gas
Gathering Company joint venture entered into by the Parent
Partnership and an Enterprise affiliate in August 2006, the sale
by the Parent Partnership to an Enterprise affiliate of the
Pioneer plant in March 2006 and the impending divestiture of our
interest in MB Storage in connection with an investigation by
the Federal Trade Commission.  

As more fully described in the Proxy Statement, the Audit and
Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern
Products recommended the Issuance Proposal for approval by the
Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products.   

The complaint also alleges that Richard S. Snell, Michael B.
Bracy and Murray H. Hutchison, constituting the three members of
the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of
Texas Eastern Products, cannot be considered independent because
of their alleged ownership of securities in Enterprise and its
affiliates and their relationships with Mr. Duncan.

The complaint seeks relief:

     -- requiring the Parent Partnership to issue a proxy  
        statement that corrects the alleged misstatements and  
        omissions in the Proxy Statement;  

     -- enjoining the Oct. 26, 2006 meeting of unitholders  
        provided for in the Proxy Statement;  

     -- rescinding transactions in the complaint that have been  
        consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect  
        thereof, including the impending divestiture of our  
        interest in MB Storage;  

     -- awarding damages for profits and special benefits  
        allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the  
        alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and  

     -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees  
        and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

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.

TEPPCO Partners, L.P. -- http://www.teppco.com/-- is a common  
carrier pipeline of refined products and liquefied petroleum
gases in the U.S.


THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: N.Y. Securities Suits Sent to Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered the transfer of several purported securities fraud class
actions against Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to the the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suits were filed between July 5 and July 18, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  They were
filed against the company, its chief executive officer Harold E.
Selick and its former chief financial officer Janet I. Swearson.

The securities lawsuits, which the company expects will be
consolidated into a single proceeding, allege claims arising
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers
of the Companys common stock from the date of the Company's
initial public offering of securities on Feb. 4, 2005 through
July 14, 2006.

Plaintiffs allege generally that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Companys Phase II and
Phase III clinical trials of Lonidamine (TH-070).

On Sept. 14, 2007, these lawsuits were ordered transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The reference complaint is “Jerry Twinde, et al. v. Threshold
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Case No. 07-CV-04972,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610.668.7987
          Fax: 610.660.0450
          E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631.367.7100
          Fax: 631.367.1173

              - and -

          Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
          273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610.660.8000
          Fax: 610.660.8080
          E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


TIME WARNER: Continues to Face Privacy Rights Violation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
declined to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a
purported nationwide class action alleging violation of
subscribers privacy rights by Time Warner Entertainment Co.,
L.P., and Time Warner Cable.

The suit, “Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time
Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable,” alleges
that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable
information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy
rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984 and common law.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was denied on Sept. 7, 1999.  On Dec. 8, 1999, the company filed
a motion to deny class certification, which was granted on Jan.
9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with
respect to injunctive relief.

On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification
as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings
on class certification and other matters.

On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Time Warner Cable has opposed.  On Oct. 25,
2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a class
settlement arrangement on terms that were not material to the
company.

A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 19, 2006,
and on Jan. 26, 2007, the court denied approval of the
settlement.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 1,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al.,
Case no. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge I. Leo
Glasser.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael G. Lenett, Esq.
         Cuneo Waldman & LaDuca LLP
         507 C. Street, N.E.
         Washington, DC 20002
         Phone: 202-789-3960
   
              - and -

         Peter Steven Linden, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 371-6600

Representing the company are:

         Landis Cox Best, Esq.
         Jonathan D. Their, Esq.
         Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
         80 Pine Street
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (212) 701-3694
         Fax: (212) 269-5420
         E-mail: lbest@cahill.com
                 jthier@cahill.com

              - and

         George W. Sampson, Esq.
         Hagens Berman LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Fax (206) 623-0594


WALT DISNEY: Workers File Lawsuit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed Nov. 26 in the U.S. Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles over unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime compensation, TMZ.com reports.

Named plaintiff Amber Galloway alleges that Disney ignored
California labor laws when they didn't permit breaks, overworked
the staff and made them toil "off the clock" during lunch
breaks.

Ms. Galloway also alleges that the company didn't keep an
accurate count of hours worked by employees, and further claims
that Disney "injured" her and was "unfair, unlawful, and
harmful."

Ms. Galloway brings this action on behalf of all hourly
employees who are employed or have been employed by Disney at
Goofy's Kitchen in the State of California and for at least four
years prior to the filing of this action.

She wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) defendant's failed to pay members for all hours worked;

     (b) defendants violated Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512,
         IWC Wage Order 5-2001 or other applicable IWC Wage
         Orders, by failing to provide meal periods on days they
         worked in excess of five hours and failing to
         compensate said hourly employees one hour wages in lieu
         of meal periods;

     (c) defendants violated Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512,
         IWC Wage Order 5-2001 or other applicable IWC Wage
         Orders, by failing to provide meal periods on days they
         worked in excess of five hours and failing to
         compensate said hourly employees one hour wages in lieu
         of rest periods;

     (d) defendants violated Section 2269a) of the Labor Code by
         failing to maintain accurate and itemize time records
         for each employee;

     (e) defendants violated Sections 201-203 of the Labor Code
         by failing to pay compensation die and owing at the
         time that any proposed class member's employment with
         defendants terminated;

     (f) defendants violated Section 17200 et seq. of the
         Business & Professions Code by failing to provide wages
         and compensation to hourly employees; and

     (g) plaintiff and the members of the proposed class are
         entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Business &
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

Ms. Galloway prays for the following relief:

     -- for compensatory damages in the amount of unpaid wages
        and overtime not paid to plaintiffs from at least four
        years prior to the filing of this action to the present
        as may be proven;

     -- for compensatory damages in the amount of plaintiffs'
        hourly wage for each meal period missed or taken late
        from at least four years prior to the filing of this
        action to the present as may be proven;

     -- for compensatory damages in the amount of plaintiffs'
        hourly wage for each shift where rest period(s) were
        missed from at least four years prior to the filing of
        this action to the present as may be proven;

     -- for relief from defendants failure to keep and maintain
        accurate, complete and itemized records as required by
        statute including the presumption that where breaks were
        not properly recorded, they were not actually taken;

     -- for penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203 for all
        hourly employees who quit or were fired equal to their
        daily wage times 30 days;

     -- an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest;

     -- an order enjoining defendant and its agents, servants,
        and hourly employees, and all persons acting under, in
        concert with, or for it from providing plaintiffs with
        proper meal and rest breaks pursuant to Labor Code
        Sections 512, 226(a), 226.7 and IWC 5-2001;

     -- for restitution for unfair competition pursuant to
        Business & Professions code Section 17200, including
        disgorgement or profits, in an amount as may be proven;

     -- an award providing for payment of costs of suit;

     -- an award of attorneys' fees; and

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

The suit is "Amber Galloway et al. v. Disney Worldwide Services,
Inc.," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
for the County of Los Angeles.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          George R. Kinsgley, Esq.
          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: (818) 990-8300
          Fax: (818) 990-2903


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: 401(k) Members Claim Losses of at Least $150M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual employees participating in the company's
401(k) plan filed a class action against the company, its chief
executive, board members and all other fiduciaries, claiming the
organization failed to adequately monitor the plan and advise
participants when the company stock investment was no longer
prudent. As a result, employee participants suffered total
financial losses in excess of $150 million.

Filed on November 29, 2007 in District Court in Seattle, Wash.,
the suit seeks to represent all WaMu employees whose 401(k) plan
accounts include investments in company stock from April 18,
2006 until present.

The suit claims that under ERISA fiduciaries are obligated to
eliminate imprudent investment vehicles from 401(k) plans and to
warn plan participants of risky investments. The suit alleges
that the fiduciaries are legally responsible to restore any
losses to the plan resulting from mismanagement. As of December
31, 2006 the plan held $341,404,922 in company stock and has
since plummeted 60 percent.

"In recent months WaMu has been hit with investigations and
lawsuits that call many of its basic business practices into
question," said lead attorney and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
managing partner Steve Berman. "Now the effects of the company's
mismanagement are trickling down to employees and WaMu is
forcing them to take a hit where it hurts most -- through
retirement and savings plans."

The suit alleges that while CEO Kerry Killinger and the insider-
appointed benefits committee members had a fiduciary
responsibility to warn employees of the company's precarious
financial health they intentionally concealed information from
plan participants.

Plaintiff Barbara Alexander, like many WaMu employees, deferred
a portion of her salary and invested in the company savings
plan. WaMu offers employees company stock funds as an investment
option and plan fiduciaries are responsible for monitoring
investment options and eliminating those that become imprudent.

According to the complaint, WaMu's involvement in the subprime
mortgage industry contributed to the decrease in stock value and
employee savings plans. WaMu held billions of dollars in
subprime loans that it had originated and in the last year has
seen many of those go into foreclosure.

The complaint goes on to explain that WaMu's risk was
exacerbated by the fact that the company engaged in a fraudulent
appraisal scheme under which it artificially inflated the
appraised values of homes. This means the loans in WaMu's
portfolio were inherently overvalued but when WaMu securitized
those loans and sold them to investors they were perpetuating a
massive fraud on investors that created another risk -- WaMu
would have to re-assume ownership of those loans if the scheme
was revealed.

"As the WaMu appraisal scheme has recently been unfolding and
the subprime mortgage crisis has been in the limelight for the
past year the company had the obligation to warn employees and
investors that stock prices would be negatively affected," said
Berman. "Not notifying employees of the potential risk is a
clear violation of ERISA law and is explicitly stated as one of
the roles of a fiduciary."

According to the complaint WaMu's troubles have been pushed into
the spotlight, and with increasing severity since September
2007. On September 13, 2007 the company announced it was cutting
1,000 jobs and closing a once-prized loan subsidiary. On October
5, 2007 WaMu announced its third-quarter sales would be severely
impacted due to the subprime market, as much as 75 percent from
the prior year. Not two weeks later WaMu announced its net
income for the third quarter had dropped $210 million from $748
million in the third quarter of 2006.

In a final blow on November 1, 2007, the Attorney General for
the State of New York sued Washington Mutual's main appraisers
for conspiring to provide the company with rigged and inflated
appraisals.  Within a day of the announcement company stock
collapsed more than 15 percent which created a loss for
investors and plan participants of almost $4 billion.

The suit makes several claims of wrongdoing by WaMu's
fiduciaries, including: failure to prudently and loyally manage
the plan's assets; failure to provide complete and accurate
information to participants and beneficiaries; failure to
monitor the investment and administration committees and provide
them with accurate information; breach of duty to avoid
conflicts of interest; and, co-fiduciary liability.

Under ERISA law a plan participant can bring a civil action on
behalf of a retirement plan against companies and individuals
that breach any of the duties outlined for a fiduciary.

According to the complaint Alexander is seeking compensation for
any losses the plan suffered, imposition of a constructive trust
on any amount by which the defendants were unjustly enriched and
for the court to require defendants to appoint one or more
independent fiduciaries to participate in the management of the
WaMu stock.

Defendants are Washington Mutual Inc., Washington Mutual Inc.
Human Resources Committee, Washington Mutual Inc. Plan
Administration Committee, Kerry K. Killinger, Stephen E. Frank,
Thomas Casey, James B. Corcoran, Charles M. Lillis, Phillip D.
Mathews, Regina T. Montoya, Michael K. Murphy, Margaret Osmer
McQuade, Mary E. Pugh, William G. Reed, Jr., Orin G. Smith,
James H. Stever, Daryl D. David, John Does and Jane Does.

The suit is "Alexander v. Washington Mutual Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:2007cv01906," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington before Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: Mark@firmani.com


                      Asbestos Alerts
  

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corp. continue to face personal
injury actions allegedly from exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

While there are few such cases that name the Company, there are
in excess of 70 cases against D/C that are pending on the U.S.
mainland (primarily in California).

Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior
business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are
allegedly based on D/C's prior distribution business operations
primarily in California.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Co. v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corp., Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center. No other purported party was served.

In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff
alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for  
defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly
based on exposure to asbestos containing products.

Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.

Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights,
and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff was
not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that
the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been
incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment
and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for
defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation
of cooperation with plaintiff.

D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. In addition, D/C
said it believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs
for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on
the lawsuits previously tendered.

In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations
while such suit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and
Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby
Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory
note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any
D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit.

In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount
was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured
indebtedness.

Chicago-based Kaanapali Land LLC is the reorganized entity
resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii
LLC, certain of its subsidiaries, and FHT Corp. The Company's
continuing operations are in three business segments:
agriculture, Property and Golf, all of which operate in the
State of Hawaii.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: “Premises” Cases Ongoing v. Huntsman Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp. has been named as a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making
claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged
injuries occurred, or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.

These facts generally have been learned through discovery.
Changes in Texas tort procedures have required many pending
cases to be split into multiple cases, one for each claimant,
increasing the number of pending cases.

Where the alleged exposure occurred prior to the Company's
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

The Company has cases for which service has been received that
the Company has tendered to the prior owner, all of which have
been accepted. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the
Company recorded three case tendered, 38 cases resolved, and
1,207 unresolved cases.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded
990 cases tendered, 170 cases resolved, and 1,396 unresolved
cases.

The Company has not made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had an accrued
liability of US$12.5 million relating to these cases and a
corresponding receivable of US$12.5 million relating to its
indemnity protection with respect to these cases. The Company
has made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos
exposure claims as of Sept. 30, 2007.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. In
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded one
case filed, 51 cases resolved, and 41 unresolved cases.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 18
cases filed, nine cases resolved, and 43 unresolved cases.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$2.6 million
and during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$10,000
during the nine months ended September 30, 2006. As of Sept. 30,
2007, the Company had an accrual of about US$900,000 relating to
these cases. The Company has made no accruals with respect to
unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of Sept. 30, 2007.

Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corp. manufactures chemical
products and inorganic chemical products. The Company's products
comprise chemicals and formulations and are used in various
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Corp. Faces Cases Product Sale/Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, various claims or charges are asserted and
litigation commenced against Harris Corp. arising from or
related to the sale of use of product containing asbestos.

The Company also is involved in litigation in matters including
product liability; personal injury; patents, trademarks or trade
secrets; labor and employee disputes; commercial or contractual
disputes; breach of warranty; or environmental matters.

Melbourne, Fla.-based Harris Corp., together with its
subsidiaries, is a communications and information technology
company serving government and commercial markets in more than
150 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Reserves $20.1M at Sept. 30 for A&E
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group Inc.'s asbestos and environmental
reserve for losses and loss adjustment expenses amounted to
US$20.1 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$24.7 million
at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's A&E reserve for losses and LAE, net of
reinsurance, amounted to US$13.8 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and
Dec. 31, 2006.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance and pool business with asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability of US$56.6 million
at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$57 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group Inc.
(f/k/a Allmerica Financial Corp.) is a property/casualty
insurance holding company. Through Hanover Insurance Co., the
Company provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners,
workers' compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance
coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Continues to Face Coverage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Ltd. says that it anticipates it will continue to
face litigation and arbitration proceedings, including
litigation generally related to the scope of coverage with
respect to asbestos and environmental claims.

No other matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 9, 2007.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Ltd. (f/k/a Castlewood
Holdings Ltd.) invests in firms that acquire and manage domestic
and international reinsurance companies that are in run-off. The
Company provides claims administration, adjustment and
settlement, and collection services for the companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $558.1M for A&E Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group Ltd.'s net asbestos and environmental loss
reserves totaled US$558,101,000 in the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$480,271,000 in the three
and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company's net A&E loss reserves amounted to US$529,020,000
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with
US$440,015,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

The Company's gross A&E loss reserves totaled US$652,192,000 in
the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$643,096,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006.

The Company's gross A&E loss reserves amounted to US$637,888,000
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with
US$619,879,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

At Sept. 30, 2007, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$133.9 million representing case reserves
reported by ceding companies, US$145.9 million representing
additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed
reinsurance claims, US$195.5 million representing case reserves
established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims,
including Mt. McKinley Insurance Co., and US$176.9 million
representing incurred but not recorded reserves.

With respect to asbestos, at Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$586.4 million, of which
US$339.4 million was for assumed business and US$247 million was
for direct excess business.

The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures were US$40 million
for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$47 million for
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures were US$80 million
for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$63.4 million for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company has continued to experience adverse development on
its asbestos exposures. In particular, the Company experienced
US$25 million of development on the Mt. McKinley reserves in the
2007-2nd quarter, and US$15 million (2007-2nd quarter) and US$40
million (2007-3rd quarter) on the reinsurance reserves.

The Company's A&E liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley’s direct
insurance business and Everest Reinsurance Co.’s assumed
reinsurance business.

In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley, which has
significant exposure to A&E claims, LM Property and Casualty
Insurance Co. provided reinsurance to Mt. McKinley covering 80
percent (US$160 million) of the first US$200 million of any
adverse development of Mt. McKinley’s reserves as of Sept. 19,
2000 and The Prudential Insurance Company of America guaranteed
LM’s obligations to Mt. McKinley. Cessions under this
reinsurance agreement exhausted the limit available under the
contract at Dec. 31, 2003.

The Company's net three year survival ratio on its asbestos
exposures was five years for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Incurred losses and loss adjustment expense increased US$36.6
million, or 6.7 percent for the three months ended Sept. 30,
2007 as compared to the same period in 2006 and was due to a
US$60 million increase in attritional losses, a US$17.7 million
decrease in catastrophe losses and a US$5.7 million decrease in
A&E losses.

Incurred losses and LAE decreased by US$21.1 million, or 1.2
percent for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 compared to the
same period in 2006 due to a US$71.5 million decrease in
catastrophe losses, partially offset by a US$33.2 million
increase in attritional losses and a US$17.2 million increase in
A&E losses.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group Ltd. is the holding
company for Everest Reinsurance Co., an underwriter of property
& casualty reinsurance and insurance. The Company offers
specialized underwriting in several areas, including property &
casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical
malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional
errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Still Pending v. Duke Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. continues to face numerous claims relating to
damages for personal injuries alleged to have arisen from the
exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction
and maintenance activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas
LLC on its electric generation plants during the 1960s through
the 1980s.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Carolinas in the Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled
about US$1.143 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007 and US$1.159 billion
as of Dec. 31, 2006.

These reserves are based upon the Company's best estimate of the
probable liability for future asbestos claims through 2021.

The Company has third-party insurance to cover losses related to
Duke Energy Carolinas’ asbestos-related injuries and damages
above an aggregate self insured retention of US$476 million.
Through Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has made about US$450
million in payments that apply to this retention.

The insurance policy allows for potential insurance recoveries
of up to US$1.107 billion in excess of the self insured
retention. Probable insurance recoveries of about US$1.040
billion (as of Sept. 30, 2007) and US$1.020 billion (as of Dec.
31, 2006) related to this policy are classified in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets primarily in Other within
Investments and Other Assets.

Subsidiaries Duke Energy Indiana Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio Inc.
have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits
related to asbestos at their electric generating stations.

The Company has recorded reserves, including reserves related to
the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damage claims,
of about US$1.2 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$1.3 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has insurance coverage for certain of these losses
incurred. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has recognized about
US$1.040 billion of probable insurance recoveries related to
these losses.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corp. serves 3.9 million
electric customers in the South and Midwest of the United
States. The Company's Commercial Power unit has 8,700 MW of
unregulated generation. Duke Energy International has 4,200 MW
of generation (mostly in Latin America). Crescent Resources
manages land holdings and develops real estate projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Domtar Corp. Affiliates Face Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corp. states that several asbestos-related personal
injury claims have been filed in U.S. state and federal courts
against Domtar Industries Inc. and certain other Company
affiliates, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9,
2007.

These claims are filed in connection with alleged exposure by
current and former employees of the Company to asbestos.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had a provision of US$89
million for environmental expenditures, including certain asset
retirement obligations (such as for land fill capping and
asbestos removal).

Most of Montreal, Quebec-based Domtar Corp.'s sales come from
its paper segment, which produces communication and specialty
papers, including offset printing paper, photocopying paper,
fine paper, and technical papers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corp. or its subsidiaries continue to face a
number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

To date, the Company has not been found liable or paid any
material sum of money in settlement in any case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its operations and the relatively non-friable condition of
asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it will face
material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company does maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and it believes adequate coverage exists to cover
any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Roseland, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corp., with its
subsidiaries, is a multinational manufacturing and service
company that designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision
components and systems. The Company provides products and
services to the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding,
oil and gas processing, agricultural equipment, transportation,
power generation, security, and metalworking industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc. continues to face personal injury
liability cases alleging damages caused by exposure to asbestos
and other substances, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 9, 2007.

The selling and servicing of complex, large scale equipment used
in various locations and climates, and integrating a variety of
manufactured and purchased components, entails an inherent risk
of lawsuits and liability relating to the operation and
performance of the equipment and the health and safety of the
workers who operate and come into contact with the equipment.

The Company's subsidiary, DBT GmbH, is subject to product
liability and personal injury claim including those relating to
alleged asbestos and silicosis exposure.

South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International Inc.
manufactures and markets excavation equipment used in surface
mining. As a result of its acquisition of DBT GmbH on May 4,
2007, the Company designs, manufactures, and markets high
technology system solutions for underground coal mining.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Records $169.5M A&E Reserves at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings Ltd.'s recorded a gross of
US$169.5 million as loss reserves for asbestos and environmental
claims at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$164.7
million at Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company recorded a net of US$158.6 million as loss reserves
for A&E claims at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a net of
US$152.6 million at Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company has received A&E liability claims arising out of
general liability coverage primarily written in the 1970s and
into the mid-1980s.

The Company has a specialized claims unit that investigates and
adjusts A&E claims. Beginning in 1986, nearly all standard
liability policies contained an express exclusion for A&E
related claims. All policies currently being issued by the
Company's insurance subsidiaries contain this exclusion.

In addition to the previously described general uncertainties
encountered in estimating reserves, there are significant
additional uncertainties in estimating the amount of the
Company's potential losses from A&E claims.

The Company completed its annual actuarial analysis of the A&E
reserves during the three months ended Sept, 30, 2007, and as a
result strengthened its A&E liabilities by US$26 million.

Included in losses and loss adjustment expenses for the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2006 was US$7.7 million in reserve
strengthening for the asbestos exposure as a result of a 2006
actuarial study.

Based in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group International Holdings
Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides catastrophe and
property/casualty insurance to primary insurers in the U.S. and
Europe. The Company operates seven subsidiaries, including
primary and specialty property/casualty insurance, and excess
and surplus lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Affinia Still Involved in Dana's Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. continues to be
involved in Dana Corp.'s bankruptcy, which includes asbestos-
related matters.

On March 3, 2006, Dana and 40 of its domestic subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District
of New York (Case No. 06-10354).

On Sept. 26, 2007 Dana filed an adversary complaint against
Company subsidiaries Affinia Group Inc. and Affinia Canada Corp.
(Adv. Pr. No. 07-02059) seeking turnover under the Purchase
Agreement and section 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a tax
refund in the amount of US$32.5 million. Dana alleges that the
tax refund is an excluded asset that was not transferred under
the Purchase Agreement.

In addition, on Oct. 3, 2007, Dana filed a motion under section
365 of the Bankruptcy Code to reject both the Stock and Asset
Purchase Agreement and the Spicer Trademark License Agreement,
the rejection of which would enable Dana to disavow and abandon
its obligations under these agreements.

Under these agreements, Dana is contractually obligated to:

(a) indemnify the Company for specified liabilities; including,
(i) liabilities arising out of legal proceedings commenced prior
to the Acquisition, and (ii) liabilities for death, personal
injury or other injury to persons (including, but not limited
to, such liabilities that result from human exposure to
asbestos) or property damage occurring prior to the Acquisition
relating to the use or exposure to any of Dana’s products
designed, manufactured, served or sold by Dana; and

(b) license the Company's use of the “Spicer” trademark.

Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings
Inc.'s subsidiary, Affinia Group Inc., designs, manufactures,
and distributes on and off highway replacement products and
services. The Company's replacement products are sold in e sold
in North America, Europe, South America and Asia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,791 Claims at Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 18,791
asbestos-related claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, compared with
18,813 claims as of July 27, 2007, and 19,120 claims as of April
27, 2007.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products previously made by the Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed from 1967 to 1976 and used in
certain paper mills. These suits allege a variety of lung and
other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously
made by the Company.

As of Oct. 19, 2007, about 12,612 of the claims pending against
the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,031
are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel,
either through removal or original jurisdiction.

In addition to the 12,031 Mississippi claims pending against the
Company at the MDL, there are about 850 claims pending against
the Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts
in other states.

As of Oct. 19, 2007, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 21,613 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,706,000. Of this amount,
US$6,671,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company’s insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC,
custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each
phase of production). The Company also makes industrial fabric
doors (Rapid Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock
doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric
filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,741 Claims at Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
An affiliate of Albany International Corp., Brandon Drying
Fabrics Inc., was defending against 8,741 asbestos-related
claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, compared with 9,023 claims as of
July 27, 2007, and 9,089 claims as of April 27, 2007.

Brandon, a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a
subsidiary of the Company, is a separate defendant in many of
the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corp., in 1999. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from
Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney’s wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc., which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent,
Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics before the 1978 transaction.

As of Oct. 19, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 8,822 claims for a total of US$152,499.
Brandon’s insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2
percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related
to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of
rights. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne
directly by Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon’s insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC,
custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each
phase of production). The Company also makes industrial fabric
doors (Rapid Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock
doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric
filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mount Vernon Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Inc. is named both as a direct defendant
and as the “successor in interest” in asbestos-related cases
involving Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
before this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon before
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC,
custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each
phase of production). The Company also makes industrial fabric
doors (Rapid Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock
doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric
filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $446M Reserves at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group Inc.'s asbestos and environmental
reserves for its property and casualty group amounted to US$446
million, net of reinsurance recoverables, at Sept. 30, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007.

The Company's property and casualty group's A&E reserves, at
June 30, 2007, amounted to US$455.6 million, net of reinsurance
recoverables. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

In July 2007, the Company completed a comprehensive study of its
A&E exposures relating to the run-off operations of its property
and casualty group and its exposures related to former railroad
and manufacturing operations and sites.

As a result of the study, the Company recorded a US$44.2 million
charge (net of reinsurance) in the 2007-2nd quarter to increase
the property and casualty group's asbestos reserves by US$30.8
million.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's three year survival ratio was
17 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and 11.1 times
paid losses for the total A&E reserves. These ratios compare
favorably with A.M. Best's most recent report on A&E survival
ratios (March 2007) which were 9 for asbestos and 8 for total
industry A&E reserves.

In addition to the property and casualty group, the study
encompassed reserves for A&E exposures of the Company's former
railroad and manufacturing operations.

As a result of the study, the Company recorded a 2007-2nd
quarter charge of US$43 million (included in other expenses) to
increase the A&E reserves related to these former operations.
The US$19 million increase in asbestos reserves was the result
of increasing estimates of the cost of mesothelioma claims
partially offset by lower estimated overall claim counts.

As previously reported under "Legal Proceedings" in the
Company's 2006 Form 10-K, Great American Insurance Co. entered
into an agreement in 2003, which was approved by the bankruptcy
court, for the settlement of coverage litigation related to A.P.
Green asbestos claims. The settlement is for US$123.5 million
(Great American has the option to pay in cash or over time with
5.25% interest). The agreement allows up to 10 percent of the
settlement to be paid in AFG Common Stock.

The settlement agreement is conditioned upon confirmation of a
plan of reorganization that includes an injunction prohibiting
the assertion against Great American of any present or future
asbestos personal injury claims under policies issued to A.P.
Green and related companies.

During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the
A.P. Green Plan of Reorganization which includes the injunction
required by Great American's settlement agreement.

Counsel for the Debtor notified Great American that it is likely
that such confirmation will be appealed. Great American is not
required to fund the settlement agreement until confirmation is
final and non-appealable.

Cincinnati-based American Financial Group Inc., through the
Great American Insurance Group of Companies and Great American
Insurance Co., offers property/casualty insurance focused on
specialty commercial lines like workers' compensation,
professional liability, ocean and inland marine, and multiperil
crop insurance. The Company also provides car insurance,
especially nonstandard motorist insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is named as a defendant in personal
injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party
contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene.

These employees had worked at refineries (previously owned by
predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California
and Oklahoma.

Litigation charges and adjustments of US$22 million were
expensed for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, and US$56
million were expensed for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Litigation charges and adjustments of US$6 million were expensed
for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, and US$9 million were
expensed for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which is based in The Woodlands, Tex.,
is engaged in the exploration, development, production,
gathering, processing and marketing of natural gas, crude oil,
condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also
engages in the hard minerals business through non-operated joint
ventures and royalty arrangements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Defends v. Asbestos-Related Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Co. is the subject of, or a party to, a number
of pending or threatened legal actions involving various
matters, including asbestos-related claims and class actions.

No other matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 14, 2007.

Tecumseh Products Co. makes compressors, small engines, power-
train products, and pumps. The Company makes compressors for use
in refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, dehumidifiers,
and vending machines. The Company is headquartered in Tecumseh,
Mich.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Has Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems Inc. and other third parties continue to
face several lawsuits filed related to illnesses from exposure
to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.

The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company’s products. Since the cases are in
initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have
asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company’s products,
much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-
containing component part of the Company’s product or whether
such part could have been a substantial contributing factor to
the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal
and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these
products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc, under the
stock purchase agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired
Invensys Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated
with all other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase
price paid by the Company in connection with the acquisition of
Invensys Metering Systems.

Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides
metering, Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) and Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) system solutions for water, gas, electric,
and heat utilities as well as sub-metering entities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Records $225T for Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reunion Industries Inc. states that the gross cost of 179
asbestos-related case settlements was US$225,000, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.

The gross amount of legal fees and costs incurred during the
first nine months of 2007 was US$699,000.

Since the end of 2006, 306 new cases have been opened, 398 cases
have been dismissed, and 179 cases have been settled for a net
reduction of 271 cases during the first nine months of 2007.

The Company's insurance carriers cover the significant majority
of these costs and the Company's total share of the US$924,000
in settlement and other costs in the first nine months of 2007
was US$132,000.

Pittsburgh-based Reunion Industries Inc. makes machined and
fabricated industrial products like fluid power cylinders,
gratings, and steel pressure vessels. The Company serves
customers in the transportation, power generation, chemicals,
metals, and electronics industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Still Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kraton Polymers LLC continues to be indemnified by Shell
Chemicals on claims alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the
Company's Belpre, Ohio facility, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.

Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell
Chemicals on the separation from Shell Chemicals in 2001, Shell
Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain
liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims against
the Company by a third party relating to matters arising before
the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that the Company has acquired. In
particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals
alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio
facility.

In addition, the Company and Shell Chemicals have entered into a
consent order relating to certain environmental remediation at
the Belpre, Ohio facility.

Houston-based Kraton Polymers LLC makes styrenic block
copolymers, or SBCs, at its manufacturing facilities in six
countries: Belpre, Ohio; Wesseling, Germany; Berre, France;
Pernis, The Netherlands; Paulinia, Brazil; and the Company's
joint venture in Kashima, Japan. The Company sells its products
to customers for use in industrial and consumer applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Specialty Deals w/ Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. is involved in various product
liability, commercial and employment litigation, personal
injury, property damage and other legal proceedings, including
actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has
allegedly made or used, containing asbestos, silica, vinyl, and
chloride monomer.

No other matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 14, 2007.


Company Profile:

Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc.
180 E. Broad St.
Columbus, Ohio
Phone: 614-225-4000
http://www.hexionchem.com

Description:
Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. serves global industrial markets
through thermoset technologies, specialty products and technical
support for customers in a diverse range of applications and
industries. The Company is owned by an affiliate of Apollo
Management L.P.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DT Solutions Still Has Removal Suit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diversified Thermal Solutions Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, DT
Solutions Inc., still faces an asbestos-related removal action
in the Circuit Court of Allegeny County, Md., according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.

On Sept. 25, 2005, First Capital Insulation Inc. filed a
complaint against DT Solutions and Mt. Savage Firebrick Co.

DT Solutions entered into an agreement for the purchase of real
property from Mt. Savage Firebrick Co.

First Capital Insulation seeks about US$38,000 for its removal
and disposition of asbestos containing material from two brick
ovens.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, this matter had not been resolved.

Memphis, Tenn.-based Diversified Thermal Solutions Inc. makes
refractory products, like clay and brick, for the linings of
high-temperature furnaces and reactors. Before the refractory
business, the Company was involved in providing international
long distance communications service.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $6.45M Liabilities at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp.'s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$6,454,000 at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$13,950,000
as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
14, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities totaled
US$8,560,000 at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19,
2007)

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products
for residential and commercial use. The Company's products
include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring),
do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American
Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Bar Suits v. Congeleum Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Bondholders' Committee, on Oct. 12, 2007, filed a
motion seeking a bar order requiring all known holders of
asbestos personal injury claims to file proofs of claim on or
before Jan. 8, 2008 or be forever barred from asserting asbestos  
personal injury claims against Congoleum Corp.

A hearing on the bar order motion was held on Nov. 5, 2007, at
the conclusion of which the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Jersey took the matter under advisement.

Entry of a bar order and the subsequent filing of asbestos  
personal injury proofs of claim may affect the amount currently
recorded for such liabilities in the Company's financial
statements.

The Bondholders' Committee represents holders of the Company's
8-5/8% Senior Notes due Aug. 1, 2008.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products
for residential and commercial use. The Company's products
include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring),
do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American
Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Faces 92 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. records 92 plaintiffs in lawsuits
relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products
containing asbestos, by its predecessor, Hilco Inc., according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.

Universal Supply Group Inc. is a wholly owned Company
subsidiary.

On June 25, 1999, Universal acquired substantially all of the
assets of Universal Supply Group Inc., including its name, under
the terms of a purchase agreement.

Subsequent to the sale, Universal Supply Group Inc. (the selling
corporation) formerly known as Universal Engineering Co. Inc.,
changed its name to Hilco.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

Of the existing plaintiffs, 15 filed actions in 2007, seven
filed actions in 2006, 15 filed actions in 2005, 38 filed
actions in 2004, 15 filed actions in 2003, and two filed actions
in 2002. There are 121 other plaintiffs that have had their
actions dismissed and 11 other plaintiffs that have settled as
of Sept. 30, 2007 for a total of US$3,327,500. There has been no
judgment against Hilco.

The Company's Universal subsidiary was named by 36 plaintiffs.
Of these, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006,
11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed
an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999. Six plaintiffs
naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the
total US$3,327,500 of settled actions, two plaintiffs naming
Universal have settled for US$26,500. No money was paid by
Universal in connection with any settlement. Following these
dismissed and settled actions, there currently exist 28
plaintiffs that name Universal.

Based on advice of counsel, the Company said it believes that
none of the litigation that was brought against the Company’s
Universal subsidiary through Sept. 30, 2007 is material, and
that the material litigation that was brought against Hilco
through that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corp., filed on April
26, 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 (Settlement) under an agreement reached in
connection with a US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered
on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes
case.

On April 29, 2005, prior to the Rhodes case trial, Hilco filed a
third party complaint against Sid Harvey Industries (Third Party
Complaint) in an action demanding contributor payment in
connection with the Settlement. Sid Harvey Industries moved
successfully for summary judgment.

Hilco filed an appeal as to the dismissal of its Third Party
Complaint. In a decision dated Dec. 29, 2006, the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the dismissal of
Hilco's Third Party Complaint and remanded the matter for
further proceedings as to Hilco's claim for contribution.

Hilco's majority shareholders, John A. Hildebrandt and Paul
Hildebrandt, and Hilco have jointly and severally agreed to
indemnify the Company's Universal subsidiary from and against
any and all damages, liabilities and claims due to exposure to
asbestos at any time prior to the June 25, 1999 closing of the
purchase agreement.

Insurance companies have, as of Sept. 30, 2007, defended the
Company and Hilco, and have paid all settlement amounts and
defense costs.

The Company's Universal subsidiary has not engaged in the sale
of asbestos products since its formation in 1997. Its product
liability policies for all years since 1998 exclude asbestos
claims.

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp., through
subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group, and
American/Universal Supply, supplies HVAC products, climate-
control systems, and plumbing fixtures to some 6,000 customers
(mostly builders and HVAC contractors) in New York and New
Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Suit Still Pending v. Chase Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive asbestos-related lawsuit, filed in Ohio, is still
pending against Chase Corp., according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 14, 2007.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in the personal injury
lawsuit, which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in certain Company products.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the
Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in
September 2005.

The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30,
2007. However, that date had been postponed and no new trial
date has been set.

As of October 2007, there have been no new developments as this
Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the Company.

Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corp. manufactures Specialty
Tapes, Laminates, Sealants, and Coatings and provides electronic
manufacturing services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,900 Claims Pending v. Building Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America, as of Sept. 30, 2007,
still faces about 1,900 alleged bodily injury claims relating to
the inhalation of asbestos fiber, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.

The Company, as of July 1, 2007, has about 1,900 alleged
asbestos-related bodily injury claims (relating to the
inhalation of asbestos fiber) pending against it. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007)

In connection with its formation, the Company contractually
assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of
liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating
to the inhalation of asbestos fiber (Asbestos Claims) of its
indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc.

As of March 30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed
asbestos-related liabilities. In January 2001, G-I Holdings
filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to Asbestos Claims.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that BMCA has no successor liability for
Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action).

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants (creditors' committee), subsequently filed a
counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration that BMCA
has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings
and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings.

On May 13, 2003 the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and
this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court.

On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a
complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey
against G-I Holdings and BMCA. The complaint requests
substantive consolidation of BMCA with G-I Holdings or an order
directing G-I Holdings to cause BMCA to file for bankruptcy  
protection.

On March 21, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs'
application for interim relief. In November 2002, the creditors'  
committee, joined in by the legal representative of future
demand holders, filed a motion for appointment of a trustee in
the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy. In December 2002, the Bankruptcy
Court denied the motion. The creditors' committee appealed the
ruling to the U.S. District Court, which denied the appeal on
June 27, 2003.

The creditors' committee appealed the denial to the 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004. The
creditors' committee filed a petition with the 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors'
committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on
Oct. 26, 2004.

On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
authorizing the creditors' committee to commence an adversary
proceeding against the Company and others challenging, as a
fraudulent conveyance, certain transactions entered into in
connection with the Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I
Holdings caused to be transferred to the Company all of its
roofing business and assets and in which the Company assumed
certain liabilities relating to those assets, including a
specified amount of asbestos liabilities (1994 transaction).

On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain
aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004
decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the
holders of the Company's bank and bond debt and BMCA cross-
appealed. The District Court entered an order on June 21, 2006
affirming in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy Court's
July 7, 2004 order.

In March 2007, after participating in a mediation which resulted
in the parties agreeing to an outline of the principal terms of
a settlement of the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and all related  
litigations, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings pending
the completion of their negotiations.

The judges presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding
and the related litigations, including the BMCA action and the
fraudulent conveyance action, have each entered stipulated
orders dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007 and April 4, 2007,
respectively, implementing the stay.

Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America
(d/b/a GAF Materials), which deals in shingles and roofing
systems, also makes flashing, vents, decorative stone for
fireplaces, and wrought iron balusters. Founded in 1886, the
Company is a subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liability Totals $10.66M
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
totaled US$10,660,000 at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$10,300,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities totaled US$9,320,000 at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006.

Wellesley, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces
Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and
it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates
supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect
materials during handling and for varied applications. The
Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,363 Claims at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, is a co-defendant
with other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing
products in about 1,363 pending claims involving about 1,949
individuals.

The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded
383 new claims, 15 settlements, and 337 dismissals. In the year
ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 625 new claims, 30
settlements, and 966 dismissals.

The Company faced about 1,415 pending asbestos claims involving
about 2,001 individuals as of June 30, 2007, compared with 1,332
claims as of Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19,
2007)

The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance
coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred
to settle claims were US$2.1 million during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$2.1 million during the twelve months
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The amounts were paid by the Company's insurance carriers under
a February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement with the Company's
applicable primary layer insurance carriers, as were the related
defense costs. The Company will seek reimbursement for asbestos
claims under its excess layer coverage upon exhaustion of its
primary insurance coverage.

The amount of indemnity coverage limits remaining at Sept. 30,
2007 under the Company's primary insurance coverage relating to
policies underwritten from 1961 to 1985 was about US$500,000 to
US$1.6 million, depending on the interpretation of the terms of
the coverage-in-place agreement.

Wellesley, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces
Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and
it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates
supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect
materials during handling and for varied applications. The
Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valentec in Litigation w/ La. Over Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentec Systems Inc. is engaged in ongoing litigation with the
State of Louisiana on the responsibility for the rebuilding of a
65-year old facility in Louisiana and for debris removal because
some of the original construction material contains small
amounts of asbestos.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the Company experienced a small detonation in
an unattended (by personnel) granulation process at its
Louisiana facility. This detonation occurred in a facility that
had concrete walls and was self-contained.

However, the resulting fire completely destroyed 75,000 square
feet of space at this manufacturing facility, completely
eliminating the Company's existing 40mm flare capability.

The Company was leasing this facility from the State of
Louisiana by the Company and had obtained the required insurance
coverage.

With regards to the asbestos issue, the Company said it believes
that the asbestos removal and abatement is the responsibility of
the property owner, the State of Louisiana.

On June 29, 2007, The State of Louisiana formally issued a
letter asserting a claim demanding US$7.5 million in clean-up
and rebuilding compensation as a result of the Aug. 14, 2006
fire.

The Company has responded to the State of Louisiana citing
section 9 subsection b of the Lease, in affect at the time of
the fire, that provides a hold harmless clause thereby releasing
the Company from any and all responsibility above the stated
US$50,000 that was paid by the initial cleanup.

Based in Minden, La., Valentec Systems Inc. supplies
conventional ammunition, pyrotechnic and related defense
products, including systems management and integration programs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Still Faces Personal Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of the Company's
products, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other
companies. Most of the cases do not allege exposure to any
asbestos-containing product that the Company or its predecessors
manufactured or sold.

In addition, when Company products appear to be identified, in
some cases they are from divested businesses, and the Company is
indemnified for most of the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by the
Company's Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and
motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by
the Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these
claims with no payment to claimants.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for most of these claims.

The Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court on Feb. 12, 2004 to enforce the insurance policies against
Nationwide Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance, the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to the
Company's former Allen-Bradley subsidiary.

As a result, the insurance carriers have paid some past defense
and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay the substantial
majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley
asbestos claims, subject to policy limits.

Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation Inc. provides industrial
automation power, control and information solutions. The Company
has two operating segments: Architecture & Software and Control
Products & Solutions. In 2007, the Company's total sales were
US$5 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 27,912 at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending asbestos-related claims against ArvinMeritor Inc.
subsidiary, Maremont Corp., dropped to about 27,912 claims at
Sept. 30, 2007, from 51,895 claims at Sept. 30, 2006, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007.

Maremont had about 40,134 pending asbestos-related claims at
June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007)

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries Inc. acquired Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. The significant
reduction in pending claims in fiscal year 2007 is primarily due
to numerous dismissals of claims.

Bates White LLC provided an estimate of the reasonably possible
range of Maremont’s obligation for asbestos personal injury
claims over the next three to four years of US$28 million to
US$38 million. Maremont determined that, as of Sept. 30, 2007,
the most likely and probable liability for pending and future
claims over the next four years is US$37 million.

Maremont's total asbestos-related reserves amounted to US$43
million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$50 million as of
Sept. 30, 2006.

Maremont's asbestos-related insurance recoveries amounted to
US$28 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$31 million
as of Sept. 30, 2006.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. supplies integrated systems,
modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle,
trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and certain aftermarkets. The Company's total sales from
continuing operations in fiscal year 2007 were US$6.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M for Rockwell Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc. has recorded an insurance receivable related
to Rockwell Automation Inc. legacy asbestos-related liabilities
of US$12 million at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 19, 2007.

The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$7 million at
June 30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
10, 2007)

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products many years ago.
Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor
Automotive Inc. from Rockwell in 1997. Thousands of claimants in
lawsuits name the Company and many other companies as
defendants.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell’s products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell’s products,
and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the
claimants will never identify any of Rockwell’s products.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these
claims with no payment to claimants.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. supplies integrated systems,
modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle,
trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and certain aftermarkets. The Company's total sales from
continuing operations in fiscal year 2007 were US$6.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $44M Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s long-term asbestos asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$44 million at Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with US$46 million at Sept. 30, 2006, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$39 million at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10,
2007)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$11 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related recoveries amounted to
US$32 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$30 million at
Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries amounted to
US$8 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. supplies integrated systems,
modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle,
trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and certain aftermarkets. The Company's total sales from
continuing operations in fiscal year 2007 were US$6.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Completed by Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerex Group Inc. states that the asbestos-remediation project
at its site in Pryor, Okla., was completed by Sept. 30, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007.

On Feb. 1, 2006, the Company acquired certain fixed assets
located in Pryor, Okla., from Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co.
for US$700,000 plus related costs of US$12,070.

Properties acquired contain asbestos, which the Company
initially estimated the cost to remove to be US$875,000, such
estimate being recorded as an environmental remediation
liability.

The US$1,587,070 fixed asset cost was allocated to the
individual assets based on their estimated fair values. The
Company identified selected assets to sell, to which it assigned
a cost of US$656,062.

As a result of sales, this amount has been reduced to
US$220,889, which is presented as assets held for sale at Sept.
30, 2007 and included in the Amerex segment.

The Company had originally intended to convert the property to
be retained into a licensed waste management facility. However,
Management has decided to sell the property and use the proceeds
to pay down existing debt.

Tulsa, Okla.-based Amerex Group Inc. makes outerwear for men,
women, and children. Founded in 1946, the Company has licensing
agreements with brands like Jones New York, London Fog, OshKosh,
and Mudd. The Company also sells outerwear under its own labels
(Static and Weather Tamer) and sports-oriented outdoor wear
through subsidiary Gerry (Bombshell and Mambosok).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Lummus Pays $27.78M Liability at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Lummus Global Inc. paid US$27,779,000 for asbestos
liabilities during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007,
compared with US$12,361,000 during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2006, according to a Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
report, on Form-8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 21, 2007.

Chicago Bridge, on Nov. 19, 2007, announced it has completed the
acquisition of the Lummus Global business from ABB Ltd.

Lummus had been a co-defendant in a number of lawsuits claiming
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos.
Lummus was included in the initial Pre-Packaged Plan of
Reorganization for Combustion Engineering Inc., an affiliate
company, which was filed on Feb. 17, 2003.

When confirmation of the initial CE Plan was reversed by the
Court of Appeals in December 2004, it was determined that Lummus
would file its own prepackaged plan of reorganization.

The Lummus Plan was filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Delaware on April 21, 2006. On June 29, 2006, the Bankruptcy
Court issued its order confirming the Lummus Plan and
recommended that the District Court affirm the Bankruptcy
Court’s Order.

On Aug. 30, 2006, the District Court’s order affirming
confirmation of the Lummus Plan became final and the Lummus Plan
became effective on Aug. 31, 2006.

Lummus' current asbestos obligations amounted to US$3,633,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2006, compared with US$43,450,000 as of Dec. 31,
2005.

Lummus' long-term asbestos obligations amounted to US$25,300,000
as of Dec. 31, 2006.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Has 5,600 Liability Cases at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of Sept. 28, 2007, had about 5,600
asbestos liability cases pending against it and its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 27,
2007.

The Company, as of June 29, 2007, recorded about 5,600 asbestos
liability cases pending against it and its subsidiaries. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

The Company and some of its subsidiaries and certain Covidien
Ltd. subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.

Under to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Covidien has
assumed all liabilities for pending cases filed against
Covidien's subsidiaries.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property. Most of the cases involve product
liability claims, based on allegations of past distribution of
heat-resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the
past distribution of industrial valves that incorporated
asbestos-containing gaskets or packing.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by
the courts.

To date, the Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a
trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims.

Princeton, N.J.-based Tyco International Ltd., in mid-2007, was
split up into three publicly held companies: Covidien Ltd.
(formerly Tyco Healthcare Group), Tyco Electronics, and Tyco
International, which retained the manufacturing conglomerate's
Fire and Security and its Engineered Products and Services
businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Has 134,000 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 134,000 open asbestos-related claims during
the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 162,000 claims
during the year ended Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's
annual report dated Nov. 27, 2007.

During the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company noted 4,000
new claims filed, 2,000 claims settled, and 30,000 claims
dismissed. During the year ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company
noted 6,000 new claims filed, 3,000 claims settled, and 25,000
claims dismissed.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in
connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corp., a former
subsidiary. Although Riley neither produced nor manufactured
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-
containing components provided by other companies.

Since Oct. 1, 2004, Riley has been dismissed as a defendant in
87 percent of the resolved claims.

The Company's total reserves for asbestos claims amounted to
US$610 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$635 million
at Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company incurred asbestos expenses of US$5 million at Sept.
30, 2007, compared with US$104 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The
Company made asbestos payments of US$30 million at Sept. 30,
2007, compared with US$40 million at Sept. 30, 2006.

The Company has estimated that it is reasonably possible that
total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an
inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as about
US$1 billion. Previously estimated to be US$1.9 billion, this
high range approximation decreased primarily as a result of a
change in the projected long-term inflation rate assumed by the
Company.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$488 million, of which US$68 million relate to
costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to
US$474 million at Sept. 30, 2006.

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc.'s businesses consist of four
wholly owned segments: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland
Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies. At Sept.
30, 2007, the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries had
about 11,700 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending Against Fairchild
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits are still pending
against The Fairchild Corp. and its subsidiaries, according to
the Company's quarterly report for the period ended March 31,
2007.

On Jan. 21, 2003, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were
served with a third-party complaint in an action brought in New
York by a non-employee worker and his spouse alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

The defendant, who is one of many defendants in the action, had
purchased a pump business from the Company, and asserts the
right to be indemnified by the Company under its purchase
agreement. The case was discontinued as to all defendants,
thereby extinguishing the indemnity claim against the Company in
the instant case.

However, in September 2003, the purchaser has notified the
Company of, and claimed a right to indemnity from the Company in
relation to thousands of other asbestos-related claims filed
against it. The Company has not received enough information to
assess the impact, if any, of the other claims.

During the last 42 months, the Company has been served directly
by plaintiffs’ counsel in 55 cases related to the same pump
business. Two of the 55 cases were dismissed as to all
defendants based upon forum objections.

The Company was voluntarily dismissed from 17 additional pump
business cases during the same period, without the payment of
any consideration to plaintiffs.

During the last 42 months, the Company, or its subsidiaries, has
been served with a total of 330 separate complaints in actions
filed in various venues by non-employee workers, alleging
personal injury or wrongful death as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products other than those related to the
pump business.

The plaintiffs’ complaints do not specify which, if any, of the
Company’s former products are at issue, making it difficult to
assess the merit and value, if any, of the asserted claims.

During the same time period, the Company has resolved 206
similar, non-pump, asbestos-related lawsuits that were
previously served upon the Company. In 201 cases, the Company
was voluntarily dismissed, without the payment of any
consideration to plaintiffs. The remaining five cases were
settled for a nominal amount.

The Company’s insurance carriers have participated in the
defense of all of the aforementioned asbestos claims, both pump
and non-pump related.

Based in McLean, Va., The Fairchild Corp.'s business consists of
three segments: PoloExpress; Hein Gericke; and Aerospace. Both
PoloExpress and Hein Gericke are engaged in the design and
retail sale of motorcycle apparel, protective clothing, helmets,
and technical accessories for motorcyclists in Europe. Aerospace
stocks aircraft parts and distributes them to commercial
airlines and air cargo carriers, fixed-base operators, corporate
aircraft operators, and other aerospace companies worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Faces 39 Pending Actions at Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corp. recorded a total of 39 pending asbestos cases
filed against it as of Oct. 31, 2007, compared with 37 cases
that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Dec. 3, 2007.

The Company recorded a total of 36 pending asbestos-related
cases filed against it as of July 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 14, 2007)

Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its divisions began to
be named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in
Mississippi on a mass basis by plaintiffs against a industrial
companies including in particular those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.

More recently, the Company and this division have been named as
one of many pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed in New York and Maryland by individual
plaintiffs, sometimes husband and wife. To a lesser extent, the
Company and this division have also been named together with
many other pump and fluid handling defendants in these type of
cases in other states as well.

The complaints filed against the Company and this division have
been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company,
and the division, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries and loss to the
plaintiffs.

The Company and the division have been dismissed from or settled
a number of these cases. The sum total of all payments through
Oct. 31, 2007 to settle these cases was US$340,000, all of which
has been paid by the Company’s insurers, with an average cost
per settled claim of about US$24,000.

For the nine-month period ended Oct. 31, 2007, 13 new cases were
filed against the Company, the Company was dismissed from seven
cases and settled four cases.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules
leading to trial.

Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corp. produces professional
cleaning products. The Company's product recovery and pollution-
control segment makes products ranging from particle collectors
(used in food preparation) to fans and blowers (used in
semiconductor manufacturing plants). The fluid-handling
equipment segment makes products for handling corrosive,
abrasive, and high-temperature liquids.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. is subject to asbestos exposure allegations
and other consumer-based claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 30, 2007.

These allegations or claims may seek compensatory, punitive or
treble damage claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well
as other types of relief.

Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears Holdings Corp. is the parent
company of Kmart Holding Corp. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The
Company is a retailer with about 2,300 full-line and 1,100
specialty retail stores in the U.S. operating through Kmart and
Sears and about 380 full-line and specialty retail stores in
Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 70 percent-owned
subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Defends Itself in Banton Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Nov. 28, 2007 has
generated significant media attention about the claim made in
that article that James Hardie Industries N.V. withheld a
doctor’s report relating to the late Bernie Banton for the
purpose of denying Mr. Banton compensation.

James Hardie asserts that the allegation made in the article is
wrong and appears to be designed solely to incite anger and
adverse opinion against James Hardie, according to a Company
statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on Nov. 29, 2007.

James Hardie added that it did not manage Mr. Banton’s
asbestosis-related claim in 2000 or the recent mesothelioma-
related claim settled last week. James Hardie does not have a
copy of the doctor’s report referred to in the article.

James Hardie said that it has made inquiries regarding the
handling of the claims. Based on these inquiries, James Hardie
understands that a doctor’s report commenting on Mr. Banton’s x-
ray history was prepared in 2000. This report was not tabled in
2000 because Mr. Banton’s medical condition was not in question
— there was no dispute concerning his diagnosis of asbestosis.  
In 2007, the report was tabled, but as part of a comprehensive
tabling of all materials designed to enable the case to be
expedited. It was in no way used to prevent or limit
compensation to Mr. Banton as implied in the Nov. 28, 2007
article.

The Company's inquiries also lead it to believe that it would be
unusual for employees not to be presented with the results of x-
rays which were taken regularly as part of Amaca’s standard
health monitoring service.

James Hardie assures all stakeholders that it intends to uphold
its part of the funding agreement that Mr. Banton and others
worked so hard to achieve. All those involved in the development
of the agreement, including Mr. Banton, recognized that for the
funding agreement to be viable over its lifetime of 40+ years,
James Hardie has to remain strong and successful.

Articles that incite vilification against James Hardie will make
it more difficult to achieve this.

James Hardie is repeatedly described in error as managing the
claims by the late Mr. Banton for compensation. James Hardie did
not manage Mr. Banton’s 2000 claim for compensation, or his
recent 2007 claim.

The compensation matters were handled by Allianz, the workers’
compensation insurer for Amaca, the former James Hardie
subsidiary which employed Mr. Banton as part of the Hardie BI
joint venture between James Hardie and CSR.

Mr. Banton received compensation from Allianz in 2000. Because a
further claim is uncommon, Amaca asked the NSW Court of Appeal
to confirm the nature of damages to be paid in relation to his
recent claim.

Contrary to some media commentary that the request was designed
to delay the matter, the reality is that the course of action
was intended to ensure that the damages were assessed
appropriately and paid according to law. The matter was settled
on Nov. 22, 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Has $28.9M Adjustments at 2Q08
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s asbestos adjustments totaled
US$28.9 million during the fiscal 2008-second quarter, compared
with US$47.2 million during the fiscal 2007-second quarter,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 28, 2007.

The asbestos adjustments are derived from an estimate of future
Australian asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with the
Amended Final Funding Agreement that was signed with the New
South Wales Government on Nov. 21, 2006 and approved by the
Company’s security holders on Feb. 7, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos restricted
cash and cash equivalents totaled US$61.6 million and its
current restricted short term investments totaled US$78.5
million.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos insurance
receivable totaled US$10.3 million and its long-term insurance
receivable totaled US$171 million.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded US$3 million as the
current amount for asbestos workers' compensation. The Company
also recorded US$83.7 million as the long-term amount for
asbestos workers' compensation.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos deferred
income taxes totaled US$9.1 million and its long-term deferred
income taxes totaled US$342.5 million.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos liability
amounted to US$69.5 million and its long-term asbestos liability
totaled US$1.309 billion.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries
N.V., a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced fiber cement, uses the
material to create products for residential and commercial
construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding,
walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PI Committee Objects to Dana Corp.'s Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
disputes Dana Corp.'s contention that the asbestos personal
injury claimants are not impaired by the Third Amended Joint
Plan of Reorganization.

According to Douglas T. Tabachnik, at Law Offices of Douglas T.
Tabachnik, in Freehold, N.J., the Debtors have failed to
demonstrate that the asbestos personal injury claimants are not
impaired. He elaborates that under the Plan, the Debtors can
engage in Court-sanctioned Restructuring Transactions that could
readily leave holders of asbestos personal injury claims with
little or no meaningful remedy for injuries.  

A Restructuring Transaction can extinguish a Reorganized
Debtor's obligation to pay asbestos injury claims and the
successor Acquiring Entity would have no obligation to assume
those liabilities, Mr. Tabachnik points out. Accordingly, the Ah
Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants asserts that
the Plan should not be confirmed.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 64; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Urges Court to Disallow 1,064 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to disallow 1,064
claims, totaling US$52,663,000, because these claims are
Asbestos Personal Injury Claims and will be reinstated under the
Plan.

The Asbestos Personal Injury Claims include:

-- Roy Adair (Claim No. 12079 - US$200,000)
-- Gregorio Aguirre (Claim No. 11968 - US$200,000)
-- David Alber (Claim No. 12043 - US$200,000)
-- John Alexander (Claim No. 11989 - US$200,000)
-- Clarence Allen (Claim No. 12371 - US$200,000)
-- Naomi Ammerman (Claim No. 12076 - US$200,000)
-- Johnnie Apodaca (Claim No. 11992 - US$200,000)
-- Linda Atchley (Claim No. 12372 - US$200,000)
-- Joseph Baca (Claim No. 11938 - US$200,000)
-- Haroldine Bartlett (Claim No. 11977 - US$200,000)
-- Walter Becker (Claim No. 12311 - US$200,000)
-- Joseph Boutot (Claim No. 11991 - US$200,000)
-- Leonard Chavez (Claim No. 11964 - US$200,000)
-- Lyle Covington (Claim No. 1227 - US$200,000)
-- Claude Dawson (Claim No. 11985 - US$200,000)

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 64; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee to Appoint Tersigni Probe Examiner
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald has authorized the U.S. Trustee for
Region 3 to appoint an examiner to investigate the conduct of L.
Tersigni Consulting P.C., in the asbestos cases of W.R. Grace &
Co., Federal-Mogul Corp., and G-I Holdings, Inc.

Tersigni was engaged by the asbestos creditors committees to
provide accounting and business advisory services related to the
Chapter 11 cases of Owens Corning, USG Corp., W.R. Grace & Co.,
ACandS Inc., Federal-Mogul Global Inc., The Flintkote Co. W.D.
Pa., Global Industrial Technologies Inc., North American
Refractories Co., Pittsburgh Corning Corp., Burns & Roe
Enterprises Inc., Congoleum Corp., G-I Holdings Inc., Quigley
Co. Inc., Armstrong World Industries Inc., Combustion
Engineering Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Inc., Mid-Valley Inc., and
Babcock & Wilcox Co.

Upon preliminary investigation, the U.S. Trustee has suspected
that Tersigni engaged in improper billing practices. In August
2007, the U.S. Trustee called for the appointment of an examiner
to conduct a probe on the firm.

At a hearing on Nov. 13, 2007, in the Pittsburgh Corning case,
Joseph Sisca, representing the office of the U.S. Trustee,
advised the Court of several concerns raised by certain parties-
in-interest regarding the allocation of costs of the examiner.

That same day, Tersigni filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Connecticut, Bridgeport Division. The firm filed a plan of
liquidation on Nov. 19, 2007.

The Asbestos Committee in the Federal-Mogul cases has urged the
Court to direct the U.S. Trustee to nominate the same person in
any Chapter 11 case seeking an examiner for the review of
Tersigni's conduct.

Judge Fitzgerald directed the U.S. Trustee and the Examiner to
meet and confer with the asbestos companies and other interested
parties to discuss the scope of the Examiner's work and the
appropriate allocation of its costs and fees and of any
professional the Examiner may hire.

Judge Fitzgerald further directed the Examiner to cooperate
fully with any governmental agencies, provided that the
Examiner's cooperation will not be deemed a "public disclosure"
and that nothing in the Court order will prejudice any party-in-
interest's right to protect documents, information or
privileges.  

The U.S. Trustee is required to consult with the parties-in-
interest to determine the appropriate candidate for the Examiner
position and refer back to the Bankruptcy Court for approval.

Judge Fitzgerald will hear any development made by the parties-
in-interest on the matter on Dec. 11, 2007. The parties-in-
interest and the U.S. Trustee, without the Court's involvement,
held weekly conference calls on Nov. 19, 2006 and Nov. 26, 2006,
and will hold conference calls on Dec. 3, 2006 and Dec. 10,
2006.

(Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Issues Penalties to N.M. Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has issued penalties to two Albuquerque, N.M.,
construction companies for 17 asbestos-related safety
violations, New Mexico Business Weekly reports.

OSHA announced that Maloy Construction Inc., a general
contractor, and Deerfield Corp., a plumbing and construction
company, had 17 violations of asbestos exposure at a Mescalero,
N.M., hospital construction site.

OSHA proposed a US$75,600 fine for Maloy Construction for five
violations. OSHA proposed a US$81,900 fine for Deerfield Corp.
for 12 violations.

OSHA's El Paso, Tex., district office began an inspection of the
site on June 9, 2007 after receiving a complaint alleging that
employees were removing asbestos-laden materials without proper
protective gear.

Rich Tapio, OSHA's area director in Lubbock, Tex., said, “The
OSHA inspection revealed that the two companies failed to take
appropriate action to protect their employees. Employers must
remain committed to keeping the workplace safe and healthful at
all times.”

The violations include failure to regulate an asbestos area,
failure to assess initial exposure to asbestos, failure to
provide protective equipment, failure to launder contaminated
clothing, and failure to train employees in asbestos removal.

The companies have 15 working days from receipt of the citations
to comply, to request an informal conference with OSHA's area
director in Lubbock or to contest the citations and penalties.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act became law in 1970. OSHA
conducted more than 39,000 inspections in fiscal year 2007,
during which it found nearly 89,000 violations nationwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Whyalla Shipyard Worker Sues BHP Billiton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish migrant Thomas Paul, who worked at the Whyalla
shipyards in South Australia, is suing BHP Billiton claiming
that he has asbestos disease that has left him 20 percent
disabled, ABC News reports.

Mr. Paul worked at the shipyards for periods between 1960 and
1987 as a welder and boilermaker. He says he was exposed to
asbestos dust and fibers and developed benign asbestos pleural
disease and other health problems.

In an Adelaide court, Mr. Paul claims BHP failed to provide a
safe workplace and did not properly clean or ventilate work
areas. He is seeking damages to cover treatment costs and fears
that he could contract mesothelioma.

However, BHP is fighting the case. The Company says that if Mr.
Paul is ill, it is due to his own negligence.

BHP argues Mr. Paul should have known that being a smoker was
harmful to his health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Firm Ordered to Pay KPW133M Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daegu District Court, on Dec. 4, 2007, ordered an unnamed
asbestos producer to pay KPW133 million in compensation to the
family of a worker who died in 2006 from asbestos-related
mesothelioma, The Chosun Ilbo reports.

The ruling, Korea's first to recognize the danger of asbestos
and hold an employer liable, paving the way for similar suits.

The judge found the company negligent of its duty of care for
the employee. Although it was aware of the danger of the
substance, it did not provide protective gear to staff, install
a ventilation system or try to raise awareness of the dangers.
However, the judge admitted the victim's partial liability for
failing to protect herself.

The woman, named as Won, worked at the company in Busan, Korea,
for two years from 1976. Although she was not diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma until 2004, 26 years after she had left
the company, she sued for KPW210 million in compensation.

The lawyer for the victim said it had been difficult to prove
that Won's disease was related to asbestos exposure, since
asbestos-related diseases like malignant mesothelioma can
develop after a latency period of 10 to 40 years.

The lawyer said the ruling sets an important precedent for
asbestos victims to receive compensation. He said, “But asbestos
affects not only the workers involved but also end-users and
people who live near an asbestos plant. The government should
conduct an inquiry into the dangers of asbestos.”

Few asbestos victims have so far received damages, and Won was
the first whose illness was recognized as a work-related disease
by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, adding malignant
mesothelioma to a relatively short list.

According to an environmental activist group in Daegu, 46 people
have died of asbestos-related diseases in the last seven years.
Among residents near an asbestos factory in Busan, one was
recently diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.

However, the number of patients is expected to grow given the
swift development of the asbestos industry since the 1960s and
the long latency period of related diseases.

Korea only implemented measures over asbestos in July 2007. A
basic survey of the damage is expected in 2008 and a systematic
inquiry in 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow's Compensation Hearing Set on Dec. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Withers is to attend a hearing at London's Royal Courts
of Justice on Dec. 10, 2007 to find out whether she will be due
compensation over the death of her husband Thomas Withers,
Norwich Evening News 24 reports.

Mr. Withers was 61 when he died in June 2002 from malignant
mesothelioma. Shortly after his death, Mrs. Withers enlisted the
help of Sheffield-based asbestos-related claims specialist Irwin
Mitchell to see if she was liable for compensation.

However, no one came forward to admit responsibility for
insuring the now defunct firm where Mr. Withers worked until
2006.

When Zurich Insurance Co., which insured the London firm at the
time, admitted responsibility, Mrs. Withers was told a six-
figure payout was likely.

However, a legal row has erupted because Zurich is now refusing
to pay out because the claim for compensation to them was not
made with the statutory three-year time period after Mr.
Withers' death.

Mr. Withers was exposed to asbestos whilst working as a lorry
driver at Lawrence Brothers Transport Ltd. in London. Part of
his work included transporting sacks of white asbestos.

Irwin Mitchell's David Cass said, “The London firm folded in
1978 and we only found out this year that Zurich insured the
firm when Mr. Withers was working there. I think it's despicable
what the solicitors for the firm are doing.”

A Zurich spokeswoman said, “This case is sub judice and
therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment. What we
can say is that we hope that the court hearing scheduled for
December 10 will give us clarity around the complicated issues
associated with it.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Gets Payout from British Rail
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Shergold, the widow of mesothelioma victim Herbert
Shergold, has won substantial damages from British Rail, Gazette
& Herald reports.

Mr. Shergold died in November 2006 from mesothelioma.

British Rail has accepted liability for Mr. Shergold's death and
has agreed to pay out of court damages to Mrs. Shergold for
wrongly exposing him to asbestos dust.

Mr. Shergold worked at British Rail Swindon Works from 1942 to
1944 and again from 1946 to 1986 apart from five years between
1962 to 1967.

Mr. Shergold worked in various capacities as an engine cleaner,
fireman and laborer. He also worked in the notorious “A” Shop
where there was extensive exposure to asbestos dust.

A large number of men in “A” Shop have succumbed to asbestos
disease where locomotives were dismantled and erected.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues East Lancashire Hospitals Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Brimelow, a 75-year-old suffering from mesothelioma, is
suing East Lanchashire Hospitals Trust after he developed
mesothelioma following years working as a maintenance builder at
various U.K. Hospitals, Burnley Express reports.

These hospitals are Burnley General Hospital, Victoria Hospital,
Bank Hall, Hartley and Marsden hospitals.

Mr. Brimelow was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2007 and is
claiming damages for an undisclosed sum.

According to a writ at London's High Court, Mr. Brimelow said he
developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when he
worked for the Trust's predecessor.

Mr. Brimelow worked in boiler houses containing boilers and
pipework lagged with asbestos which he had to strip off. The
writ explains how he and his colleagues could not avoid brushing
against asbestos and how he also had to remove asbestos rope
from boiler doors and pipework.

Mr. Brimelow said he believes the health authority negligently
exposed him to risk of injury, failed to warn him of the risks,
failed to damp down dry asbestos and failed to give him
effective protective equipment.

Lynn Wissett, of the Trust, said, “The Trust can confirm we have
received correspondence from a legal representative relating to
employment between 1967 and 1987. This relates to a time period
before the formation of East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australia Braces for New Wave of Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Paul Reynolds, an authority on lung disease, says
Australia and other countries in the Asia Pacific region are
bracing for a new wave of asbestos-related deaths, ABC News
reports.

Professor Reynolds says tradespeople and those who have worked
on renovating homes are expected to be the "next wave of
asbestos victims."

Professor Reynolds is the convenor of an international medical
conference on the Gold Coast that has explored asbestosis and
other lung diseases.

Professor Reynolds says asbestosis can take 30 or 40 years to
develop but most victims are dead within 12 months of a
diagnosis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFA Fears Closure Due to Lack of Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, which provides
support to asbestos victims, is concerned that it may fall apart
due to a lack of funding, ABC News reports.

The Foundation survives entirely on donations from the
community.

President Barry Robson fears the Foundation may be forgotten in
the wake of the death of its highest-profile campaigner, Bernie
Banton.

Mr. Robson said, “People think that with Bernie's passing that
the fight's over. Well it's far from over and we're just a bit
concerned that the donations to the Asbestos Diseases Foundation
will dry up and we'll be struggling.”


ASBESTOS ALERT: Injury Actions Ongoing v. Imperial Subsidiaries  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Imperial Industries Inc.'s subsidiaries, DFH Inc. and
Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., are engaged in legal
actions and claims, including two claims against Premix and non-
affiliated parties which allege bodily injury due to exposure to
asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30
years ago.

The Company's insurance carriers have accepted coverage and are
proving a defense in each lawsuit.

None of Premix’s currently manufactured products contain
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007.


Company Profile:

Imperial Industries Inc.
3790 Park Central Blvd. North
Pompano Beach, Fla.
Phone: 954-917-4114
Fax: 954-970-6565
http://www.imperialindustries.com

Description:
Imperial Industries Inc. is involved in the manufacture and sale
of exterior and interior finishing wall coatings and mortar
products for the construction industry, as well as the purchase
and resale of building materials from other manufacturers. Sales
of the Company’s and other products are made to customers
primarily in Florida and the Southeastern United States.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


FX ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Utah on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of FX Energy, Inc. from
March 1, 2004 through January 5, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges FX Energy and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. FX Energy is an independent energy company with activities
concentrated within the upstream oil and gas industry. 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 methods used to estimate the Company's
         potential reserves were flawed and defective;

     (2) that given the Company's erroneous methodology for
         determining reserves, the Company's future business
         prospects were inherently uncertain and unachievable;

     (3) that the Company's estimated reserve numbers varied by
         orders of magnitude for the Company's Sroda, Zaniemysl
         and Winna Gora sites, and that their estimates were
         lacking in any reasonable basis;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On December 20, 2005, the Company shocked investors when it
reported that its Lugi-1 well was determined to be "uneconomic,"
and that the well would be plugged and abandoned. The head of
the Company's technical team stated that "[u]ntil the well
results are better understood, the impact of the well on the
major Rusocin -- Lugi pinchout play can not be fully
determined." On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.34 per
share, or 21.5 percent, to close on December 20, 2005 at $8.55
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on January 5, 2006, the Company again shocked investors
when it announced that a drill stem test on the Company's Sroda-
5 well in western Poland tested gas and brine. Additionally, the
Company indicated that additional drilling would need to take
place before the commerciality of the well could even be
determined. On this news, the Company's shares fell an
additional $2.19 per share, or over 26.5 percent, to close on
January 5, 2006 at $6.07 per share, also on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 18,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


GENESCO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of
purchasers of Genesco Inc. common stock during the period
between April 20, 2007 and November 26, 2007.

The complaint charges Genesco and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Genesco is a retailer of branded footwear, licensed and
branded headwear, and a wholesaler of branded footwear.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning Genesco's
business and prospects. As a result of their representations,
Genesco was seen as an attractive acquisition target for Foot
Locker, Inc. Foot Locker ultimately made an offer and The Finish
Line, Inc. and Headwind, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Finish Line, subsequently made an increased offer, based on
Genesco's purported success. When the truth about Genesco's
results began to be revealed, however, Finish Line indicated it
would no longer pursue the acquisition. Then, on November 26,
2007, Genesco received a subpoena from the Office of the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York seeking documents
related to its merger agreement and in connection with alleged
violations of federal fraud statutes. On this news, Genesco's
stock plunged to $25.44 per share on November 27, 2007, almost a
16% drop from the closing price of $30.17 on November 26, 2007,
on volume of 2.4 million shares.

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

     (a) the Company's stores were not performing well and would
         not produce the financial results being forecast for
         the Company;

     (b) the Journeys stores were performing poorly relative to
         plan with big same store sales declines; and

     (c) these poor results would be considered adverse events
         to potential acquirors, leading to significant share
         price declines at Genesco.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Genesco common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than60 days from
November 27, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


MORGAN ASSET: Lockridge Grindal Files Tenn. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action against
Morgan Asset Management, Inc., Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., MK
Holding, Inc., Regions Financial Corp., PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, and certain individuals, officers and directors associated
with the above entities in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee.

The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares
of the Regions Morgan Keegan Select Intermediate Bond Fund
(MKIBX) and Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund
(RHIIX) from December 6, 2004 through October 3, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to:

     (i) the nature of the risk being assumed by an investment
         in the Funds,

    (ii) the illiquidity of certain securities in which the
         Funds invested,

   (iii) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios contained
         securities that were illiquid or exhibited the
         characteristics of illiquid securities so that they
         were highly vulnerable to suddenly becoming unsalable
         at the prices at which they were being carried on the
         Funds' records,

    (iv) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios were subject
         to fair value procedures,

     (v) the extent to which the values of such securities, and,
         consequently, the net asset values of the Funds, were
         based on estimates of value and the uncertainty
         inherent in such estimated values, and

    (vi) the concentration of investments in a single industry
         in excess of investment restrictions to which the Funds
         were subject.

As of November 23, 2007, Morningstar reported RHIIX's NAV was
down almost 55% year-to-date; from December 31, 2006 until
November 30, 2007, the RHIIX's NAV per share declined from
$10.14 to $3.91 for a loss of $6.23 per share, or 61.4%. For the
same period, Morningstar reported MKIBX's NAV was down over 43%;
MKIBX's NAV per share declined from $9.93 to $5.07 for a loss of
$4.86 per share or 48.9%.

The Complaint alleges that these extraordinary losses in share
value were caused by the Funds' heavy investment in relatively
new types of manufactured or structured fixed income securities
that had not been tested through market cycles and by the
failure of the Funds to have previously complied with required
and disclosed procedures relating to the manner in which the
Funds' assets were invested, the liquidity of their assets would
be maintained, the lack of liquidity in the Funds' portfolios,
the valuation procedures used to price their assets, the
uncertainty inherent in the estimated value of their assets,
violations of the Funds' investment restrictions on illiquid
securities and investments in a single industry, and/or the
failure to disclose such breaches and failures and conditions in
the Funds' portfolios that rendered them extraordinarily
vulnerable to changes in market conditions, far more vulnerable
than other intermediate bond and high income funds affected by
the same events and conditions in the subprime and other markets
in 2007.

The Funds revealed, for the first time, on October 3, 2007 that,
as of June 30, 2006, and June 30, 2007, the magnitude of the
Funds' securities that were fair valued and were, therefore,
illiquid securities. For MKIBX, it was disclosed that 55.8% of
its investment securities were fair valued at June 30, 2006, and
50.4% at June 30, 2007. For RHIIX, it was disclosed that 49.5%
of its investment securities were fair valued at June 30, 2006,
and 59.7% at June 30, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN  55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com


VIRGIN MOBILE: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. pursuant or traceable to
the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about October 11,
2007 through November 15, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Virgin Mobile and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Virgin Mobile is a provider of wireless communications services,
offering prepaid, or pay-as-you- go, services targeted at the
youth market. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in
connection with the Company's IPO, the defendants failed to
disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company had already suffered an enlarged
         financial loss for the third quarter of 2007;

     (2) that the Company's expenses had significantly increased
         for the third quarter of 2007;

     (3) that the Company's subscriber growth trends had
         dramatically slowed;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On or about October 11, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In
connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the
"Registration Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was a financial
success for the Company, as it raised $412.5 million by selling
27.5 million shares of stock to the public at a price of $15.00
per share.

Then on November 15, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced its quarterly financial and operational results for
the third quarter of 2007 (ended September 30, 2007). For the
quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $7.3 million, or
($0.15) per share, as compared to a net loss of $5.1 million, or
($0.10) per share, for the third quarter of 2006. On this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined $1.54 per share, or over
10 percent, to close on November 16, 2007 at $9.19 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's stock continued to
decline following this disclosure, and closed on November 29,
2007 at $7.25 per share, a cumulative loss of $7.75 per share,
or over 51 percent of the value of the Company's shares at the
time of its IPO just weeks earlier.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.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  * * *