/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060714.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 14, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 139


AAI MOTORSPORTS: Recalls Lamps with Sub-Standard Reflectors
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Plaintiff in Derivative Suit Adds Class Claims
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: July Hearing Set in Stock Suit Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Court Hears Arguments in South Central Farm Lawsuit
CANADA: Has Additional $1B Payout for Hep C Victims, Report Says

CANO PETROLEUM: Faces New Suits Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires
CENDANT CORP: July 24 Hearing Set for ABI Stock Suit Settlement
COLORADO: Suit Filed Over Medicaid Eligibility of Disabled
DEL MONTE: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in N.J. Over StarKist Tuna
DELPHI CORP: ERISA, Stock, Derivative Suits Merged in MDL-1725

E.I. DUPONT: Shares Teflon Safety Information in Iowa Court
ENCORE MEDICAL: Blackstone Deal Spawns Tex. Shareholder Suit
ENRON CORP: ERISA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set Later in July
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Aug. Hearing Set in Settlement of La. Suit
GEICO: Judge Decertifies Plaintiffs in Breach of Contract Suit

INDIAN TRUST: Court Blocks Shutdown of Interior's I.T. Networks
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls School Buses that Fail Safety Test
L'OREAL USA: Calif. High Court Favors Former Model in Labor Suit
LOUISIANA: Citizens Fair Plan Lawsuit Gets Class Certification
M2RACER LLC: Recalls Bicycle Headsets that May Damage Front Fork

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Reaches $19M Settlement in Or. "Razilov" Suit
RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25
SOURCEONE HEALTHCARE: July Trial Set for Junk Fax Suit Deal
SPRINT NEXTEL: Lawyers Face Sanctions Over "Leaked" Depositions
TIFFANY & CO: Recalls Paloma Rattles Prone to Breakage

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit in Minn. Over Stock Option Grants
WEST VIRGINIA: Retarded Man Files Lawsuit Over New DHHR Policies
WMC MORTGAGE: Removes Mortgage Payment Suit to Federal Court

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATO Says Hardie Payout to be Tax Deductible
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Exits Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indoor Air Quality to Pay $189T for Fraud
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper to Put $256M in Federal-Mogul Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Records $1.5Mil for Liabilities

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Courts Approve Porter Hayden Plan, Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AQMD Notifies Developer of No-Survey Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rideout, H&H Settle $5.8T for CAA Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 16 Joint Suits Filed v. 143 Firms in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Firms in Palermo Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. GenCorp Inc. Drop to 150
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hospital Admissions Double in N. Ireland
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Judge Approves Owens Corning Exit Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longley-Jones to Pay $4M for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Party to Seek Tax Changes for Hardie

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Court Hears Armstrong's Exit Arguments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Airguide Inc. Provides $800,000 for Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Discovers Hazard at Tex. City Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Concludes W.R. Grace, SEE Proceeding
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Charges Mass. Man for Improper Removal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Notifies Ohio City of Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie PM to Address Hardie Payout Issues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe Renews Fight v. Total Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS ALERT: Tube City IMS Faces Claims From Former Ventures
ASBESTOS ALERT: MassDEP Charges Dudley $19T for Cleanup Breaches

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANALOG DEVICES: Accused of Manipulating Managers' Stock Options
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Charles H. Johnson Files Stock Suit in Pa.
INFOSONICS CORP: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in Calif.


AAI MOTORSPORTS: Recalls Lamps with Sub-Standard Reflectors
AAI Motorsports USA, LLC, in cooperation with the U.S. National
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 87,745 units
of motorsports combination lamps.

The company said certain AAI motorsports combination lamps sold
as replacement lamps are not equipped with amber side reflectors
that fail to conform to requirements of the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.  The lack of amber side
reflectors in the lamps will decrease lighting visibility to
other drivers and may possibly result in a vehicle crash.

Replacement lamps are used in these vehicles:

Make/Models:                          Model/Build Years:      

AAI Motorsports/Combination Lamps      9999
Acura/Integra                          1990-2001
Audi/A4                                1995-2000
BMW/E36                                1992-2003
Chevrolet/C10                          1994-1998
Chevrolet/S10                          1998-2003
Chevrolet/Silverado                    1999-2006
Dodge/Neon                             1995-1998
Dodge/RAM                              1994-2001
Ford/Expedition                        1997-2001
Ford/F150                              1997-2001 2004-2006
Ford/Mustang                           1994-1998
Honda/Accord                           1990-2002
Honda/Civic                            1996-2003
Honda/CRX                              1988-1991
Honda/Del Sol                          1993-1997
Honda/Prelude                          1992-2006
Infiniti/G35                           2003-2004
Mitsubishi/Eclipse                     1995-2003
Subaru/WRX                             2002-2006
Toyota/SCION XB                        2002-2006
Toyota/Solara                          1998-2001
Volkswagen/Beetle                      1998-2002

Owners are advised to contact AAI Motorsports at 909-923-9188
for free replacement of the lamps.

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Plaintiff in Derivative Suit Adds Class Claims
The plaintiff in the lawsuit "Steve Staehr, derivatively on
behalf of Adobe Systems Inc. v. Bruce R. Chizen, et al." filed a
third amended complaint against Adobe Systems, Inc.'s directors
and the company, as a nominal defendant.

Initially, the suit, filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara, as a derivative action
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty and due care and caused the company to waste corporate
assets by:

     -- failing to renegotiate or terminate the acquisition
        agreement with Macromedia, Inc., following the
        announcement by Macromedia that it would restate its
        financial results for the fiscal years ended March 31,
        1999 through 2004; and

     -- failing to conduct sufficient due diligence prior to
        entering into the acquisition agreement.  

It seeks, among others, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys'
fees and certain forms of equitable relief, including
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the consummation of the

On August 18, 2005, plaintiff amended his complaint to add a
purported class action.  On May 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a third
amended complaint, to which defendants demurred.

For more details, contact Marc M. Umeda of Robbins Umeda & Fink,
LLP 610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619-525-3990 and 800-350-6003, Fax: 619-525-3991, E-mail:

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: July Hearing Set in Stock Suit Settlement
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County will
hold a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter: "In Re Cablevision Systems
Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 05-009752."

The suit was brought on behalf of all record and beneficial
owners of Cablevision Systems Corp. NY Group Class A common
stock from June 19, 2005 until April 24, 2006, including any and
all of their successors in interest, representatives, trustees,
executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees,
immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on
behalf, or claiming under any them, and each of them.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stephen Bucarla,
Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, Part B, Room 3021
at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County
Courthouse, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Minneola, New York 11501.

Deadline for submitting exclusions from the settlement is July
14, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In Re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholders
         Litigation, P.O. Box 9000 #6440, Merrick, NY 11500-900,
         Phone: 800-961-8348;

     (2) Karin E. Fisch of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701, E-mail:
         kfisch@abbeyspanier.com, Web site:
     (3) U. Seth Ottensoser of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         1 (877) 779-1414 and (212) 779-1414, Fax: (800) 863-
         0598 and (212) 779-3218; and

     (4) Benjamin Y. Kaufman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
         York 10119, (New York Co.), Phone: 212-594-5300, Web
         site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.

CALIFORNIA: Court Hears Arguments in South Central Farm Lawsuit
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Helen I. Bendix heard on July
12 a series of pre-trial motions in a suit over the sale by the
city of South Central Farm to developer Ralph Horowitz,
according to reports.

Farmers filed a class action against the city and Mr. Horowitz
in February 2004 asking to nullify the sale of the land in 2003
on grounds that the city did not issue a public notice prior to
the deal.  They said in court papers they could have raised
funds to buy themselves had they known of the planned sale.  
They are also claiming the city sold the land to Mr. Horowitz
for far less than its value, according to NBC4.TV.

The city bought the land from Mr. Horowitz in the 1980s using
its power of eminent domain.  It loaned the land to the Los
Angeles Regional Food Bank, and sold it to the Harbor Department
in 1994.  Mr. Horowitz sued the city over the sale, forcing it
to sell him the land back for $5 million in 2003.

On June 13, the farmers were evicted from the land at 41st and
Alameda streets in South Los Angeles under a court order signed

Patrick M. Dunlevy is attorney for the farmers.

CANADA: Has Additional $1B Payout for Hep C Victims, Report Says
The Canadian government is expected to announce soon some $1
billion funding for uncompensated victims of Hepatitis C, The
Canadian Press reports citing internal government communications

The program states Health Minister Tony Clement was scheduled to
"announce the framework agreement on Hep C" in Toronto early in
July.  But, according to the report, a source privy to the file
said the date was changed so that Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
who was visiting the U.S. that time, could participate in the
announcement.  The new date is July 24, the report said.

In April 1998, the Ontario Hemophilia Plaintiffs commenced
Action No. 98-CV-146405 in the Ontario Court (General Division),
at Toronto, against the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) and
Canada over the spread of hepatitis C through the government's
blood system.

In May 1998, the British Columbia Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced
Action No. A981187 in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme
Court of British Columbia against the CRCS and Canada.

In the same month, the Quebec Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced
Action No. 500-06-000068-987 in the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec for the District of Montreal against the
CRCS, Canada and Quebec.

A settlement agreement was reached as of June 1999, with the
government denying the allegations of the plaintiff.

On November 22, 2004, the Federal Minister of Health announced
Canada's intention to "enter into discussions on options for
financial compensation to people who were infected with
hepatitis C through the blood system before January 1, 1986 and
after July 1, 1990."

On March 9, 2000, the courts appointed Crawford Adjusters Canada
-- http://www.hepc8690.com/-- to act as Administrator of the  
1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions Settlement.

According to a recent report by the Canadian Press, only people
infected with Hepatitis-C between 1986 and 1990 have so far been
awarded money under a federal-provincial package announced in

CANO PETROLEUM: Faces New Suits Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires
Cano Petroleum, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in two lawsuits by the heirs of two
individuals who died in the recent grass fires in the Texas
panhandle.  The suits are filed in state court in Roberts
County, Texas, seeking damages and other relief.

Cano maintains the suits are without merit and the company
intends to vigorously defend itself.  

Jeff Johnson, Cano's chairman and chief executive officer said,
"We continue to stand firmly by our previous statements and
strongly believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are not
supported by the facts."

In May, Cano and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in two similar lawsuits filed in state court in
Roberts County, Texas, by local landowners seeking damages and
other relief relating to the recent grass fires in the Texas
panhandle (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2006).

A similar suit has been filed against Cano Petroleum and certain
of its subsidiaries in state court in Carson County, Texas.  The
suit blamed the fire to Cano's electrical wiring and equipment.  
It said the company failed to comply with the applicable
standards in the installation, maintenance and operation of its
electrical equipment used in connection with oil production.  
Burnett Ranches, Ltd., leading the complaint in the Mar. 12
grass fire, is seeking the termination of Cano's oil and gas
lease and the market value of the destroyed property in damages
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29, 2006).

Cano Petroleum Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com-- is an  
independent Texas-based energy producer with properties in the
mid-continent region of the U.S.  Cano's primary focus is on
increasing domestic production from proven onshore fields using
secondary and enhanced recovery methods.  Cano trades on the
American Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol CFW.

CENDANT CORP: July 24 Hearing Set for ABI Stock Suit Settlement
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006 at 10 a.m. for the proposed
$26,000,000 settlement in the matter: "P. Schoenfeld Asset
Management, LLC, et al. v. Cendant Corp., Walter A. Forbes, E.
Kirk Shelton, Cosmo Corigliano, Christopher McLeod and Ernst &
Young, LLP, Case No. 2:98-cv-04734-WHW-SDW."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of American Bankers Insurance Group,
Inc. common stock from Jan. 27, 2998 through and including Oct.
13, 1998.

The hearing will be held before the Hon. William H. Walls,
U.S.D.J., at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Bldg. and U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom 4D, at 50 Walnut St., Newark, New Jersey.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by June 30, 2006.  Deadline for the submission of a proof
of claim is on August 24, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) ABI/Cendant Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims
         Administrator, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, N.Y. 11753-
         8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
         site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims;and  

     (2) Joseph J. Depalma and Allyn Zissel Lite of Lite,
         Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center,
         12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-
         3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com and

COLORADO: Suit Filed Over Medicaid Eligibility of Disabled
The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People
and the law firm of Fox & Robertson, PC filed a class action on
behalf of three plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals with developmental disabilities.

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs were denied eligibility for
Medicaid services or was terminated without being afforded
notice and an opportunity to appeal the adverse decisions
through a state-level hearing.

The suit brings claims on behalf of all individuals with
developmental disabilities who applied for Medicaid-funded
developmental disabilities services and were found ineligible
and those who were eligible for Medicaid services and
subsequently had their eligibility terminated by the state
system in place to provide developmental disabilities services.

Initially, The Legal Center filed its complaint on behalf of Ann
Rossart, a 50-year-old-woman with developmental disabilities
whose application for Medicaid services was denied by
Developmental Pathways, Inc., the Community Centered Board
responsible for determining eligibility, and administering
Medicaid programs in the city of Aurora as well as Adams,
Arapahoe and Douglas counties.

Upon denial of Ms. Rossart's application, the plaintiff contends
that she should have been given notice that she had the right to
appeal to a state-level evidentiary hearing before an
administrative law judge.  As stated in the lawsuit, Ms. Rossart
was only offered a dispute resolution conference with
Developmental Pathways and a paper appeal to Marva Livingston
Hammons, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Human

According to The Legal Center, a close look at the process
itself reveals the problem.  "It isn't hard to understand why
leaving the appeal process in the hands of the same agency
and/or decision-makers who initially denied or terminated the
services in the first place is an unfair appeals process that
violates due process," stated plaintiff's attorney Andrea Faley.

Plaintiffs Robert Swift and Matthew Rice were also denied a
state-level fair hearing when their Medicaid eligibility for
developmental disabilities services was terminated by

Upon further investigation and past experience with Colorado's
system for providing services for individuals with developmental
disabilities, Andrea Faley estimates there are hundreds of
people with developmental disabilities who find themselves in
the same shoes as Ms. Rossart and Mssrs Swift and Rice.

Plaintiff's attorney Mark Ivandick said, "The current dispute
resolution process offered by Defendants promotes arbitrariness
in the provision of public benefits rather than fairness.  These
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have a constitutional
right to due process, which Defendants have not been willing to
recognize or provide."

Understanding the magnitude of this case, The Legal Center
teamed up with nationally recognized disability rights attorney
Timothy Fox, with the firm Fox and Robertson.

Mr. Fox agreed to join the effort out of his personal commitment
to ensure that people with disabilities are afforded their
constitutional protections.

Defendants in this case are:

     -- John Meeker, Executive Director for Developmental
        Pathways, and Developmental Pathways, Inc. -- a
        community centered board charged with providing services
        and support to persons with developmental disabilities;

     -- Marva Livingston Hammons, Executive Director of the
        Colorado Department of Human Services; and

     -- Stephen Tool, Executive Director of the Colorado
        Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.

Defendants are all responsible for the administration and
operation of the Medicaid programs for Colorado.

Medicaid law mandates that individuals whose eligibility for
certain Medicaid programs is denied or terminated must be
afforded notice and the opportunity to appeal through a state-
level evidentiary hearing.

"Defendants violated both federal and state law by creating and
utilizing a system that fails to provide the due process
requirements of both our state and federal constitution," said
Plaintiff's Attorney Elizabeth Fuselier.

The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People -
- http://www.thelegalcenter.org-- is a nonprofit organization  
established in 1976.  The Legal Center uses the legal system to
protect and promote the rights of individuals with disabilities
and older people through direct legal representation, protection
and advocacy, education and legislative analysis.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrea Faley, Liz Fuselier or Mark Ivandick, all of The
         Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older
         People, Phone: 303-722-0300 ext. 241 or 303-722-0300
         ext. 229 or 303-722-0300, ext. 231, E-mail:
         afaley@thelegalcenter.org or
         fuselier@thelegalcenter.org or

     (2) Tim Fox of Fox & Robertson, P.C., 910-16th Street,
         Suite 610, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303.595.9700, Fax:
         303.595.9705, E-Mail: mail@foxrob.com, Website:

DEL MONTE: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in N.J. Over StarKist Tuna
Del Monte Foods Co. is a defendant in a purported consumer fraud
class action filed in the Superior Court in Middlesex, New
Jersey on May 15.

The complaint alleges that four-packs of the company's StarKist
albacore tuna wrapped in shrink-wrap were mislabeled because the
nutritional information on the shrink-wrap was different from
the nutritional information on the individual cans.

The suit alleges consumer fraud, violations of the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act and unjust
enrichment.  It seeks compensatory, punitive and treble damages.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action.  The
company disputes the plaintiff's allegations, according to the
company's July 11, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for period the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2006.

DELPHI CORP: ERISA, Stock, Derivative Suits Merged in MDL-1725
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
on Dec. 12 transferring derivative, securities fraud and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations suit against
Delphi Corp. and other defendants to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings, according to the company's July 11, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.

The suits are consolidated as, "Delphi Corporation Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-

Delphi Corp., along with Delphi Trust I, Delphi Trust II,
current and former directors of the company, certain current and
former officers and employees of the company or its
subsidiaries, and others were named as defendants in several
class actions that were filed beginning in March 2005 following
the its announced intention to restate certain of its financial

                         ERISA Litigation

One group of putative class actions, which are purportedly
brought on behalf of participants in certain of the company's
and its subsidiaries' defined contribution employee benefit
pension plans that invested in Delphi common stock, is brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions allege, among others, that the
plans suffered losses as a result of alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

On October 21, 2005, the ERISA Actions were consolidated before
one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The ERISA Actions were subsequently transferred to
the Multidistrict Litigation.

On March 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint with a putative class period of May 28, 1999 to
November 1, 2005.  

The company, which was previously named as a defendant in the
ERISA Actions, was not named as a defendant in the Amended ERISA

Plaintiffs are not currently asserting claims against or seeking
relief from the company in the Amended ERISA Action due to the
company's bankruptcy filing.

However, plaintiffs stated that they plan to proceed with claims
against the company in the ongoing bankruptcy cases, and will
seek to name the company as a defendant in the Amended ERISA
Action if the bankruptcy stay is modified or lifted to permit
such action.  In response, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Amended ERISA Action.

                    Securities Fraud Lawsuit

A second group of putative class actions variously alleges,
among other things, that the company and certain of its current
and former directors and officers and others made materially
false and misleading statements in violation of federal
securities laws.

On September 23, 2005, these securities actions were
consolidated before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On September 30, 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed
a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of the company,
including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust
II, during a putative class period of March 7, 2000 through
March 3, 2005.

The amended securities action names several new defendants,
including Delphi Trust II, certain former directors, and
underwriters and other third parties, and includes securities
claims regarding additional offerings of Delphi securities.

The securities actions consolidated in the Southern District of
New York (and a related securities action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning
Delphi Trust I) were subsequently transferred to the Eastern
District of Michigan as part of the Multidistrict Litigation.  
It is currently stayed against the company pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code, but is continuing against the other defendants.

                       Derivative Lawsuit   

The third group of lawsuits is comprised of shareholder
derivative actions against certain current and former directors
and officers of the company.

In October 2005, following the filing by the company of its
petition for reorganization relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, three of the four shareholder derivative
actions were closed administratively without prejudice.

Two of the three lawsuits that were closed were pending in the
Circuit Court of Oakland County, Michigan, and the other was
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

Plaintiff in the remaining shareholder derivative action has
agreed to adjourn defendants' time to respond without date.  The
two federal derivative actions were transferred to the
Multidistrict Litigation.

The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corporation Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-
01725-GER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cari C. Laufenberg of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third Ave.,
         Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900,
         Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (2) Sara L. Madsen of Lockridge Grindal, 100 S. Washington
         Ave., Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: 612-
         339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-mail:

Representing the company are:

     (i) Stuart Baskin of Shearman & Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4000, Fax:
         212-848-7179, E-mail: sbaskin@shearman.com; and

    (ii) Joseph E. Papelian, Delphi Corporation Legal Staff,
         5825 Delphi Drive, Troy, MI 48098-2815, Phone: 248-813-
         2000, E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com.

E.I. DUPONT: Shares Teflon Safety Information in Iowa Court
Lawyers for Dupont agreed to begin sharing information regarding
the safety of its Teflon-coated products after a July 12 meeting
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
the Associated Press reports.

Previously, in court documents DuPont has been asked to:

     -- identify all the substances used to manufacture Teflon
        and substances used to attach it to cookware;

     -- name substances that may be emitted when Teflon is
        heated and at what temperature each is emitted;

     -- provide a list of tests, studies or experiments
        concerning whether Teflon does or may possibly emit any
        substance when heated.

DuPont attorneys complained that the requested information is
too broad.  They argued that some of the claims may be beyond
the statute of limitations and that others may conflict with
federal due process and other constitutional clauses.

Further, they argued some claims should be barred because
DuPont's products complied with laws and regulations at the time
they were manufactured, and that some of the claims seek to
impose liability retroactively for conduct that was not
actionable at the time it occurred.

In addition, the company claims its scientific skill and
knowledge at the time the products were distributed indicated
that they were reasonably safe.

DuPont also may claim that plaintiffs have not suffered actual
or ascertainable injury or damages, have not suffered any
physical injury or cannot show specific economic loss.

In July, 16 lawyers representing more than 72 clients in a $5
billion suit questioning the safety of Teflon cookware met with
lawyers from DuPont in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa to iron details over information sharing (Class
Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).

DuPont faces approximately 15 intra-state class actions in
federal district courts that were filed on behalf of consumers
that have purchased cookware with Teflon non-stick coating
(Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006).  

The suit includes people from Florida, Massachusetts, California
and 10 other states, including Iowa.  The actions allege that
Teflon contained or released harmful and dangerous substances,
including a chemical that is alleged to "likely" cause cancer in
human (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).

Another hearing is set for July 24.

DuPont's attorneys are continuing to fight class action
certification, which would allow plaintiffs to argue that they
represent millions of Teflon consumers and seek damages for them

However, court documents claim that the complaints filed in the
various states are not identical and in some cases cite
differing state law violations.

A hearing on the matter is expected before the end of the year.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Dupont -- http://www.dupont.com/
-- manufactures resins and additives used in the trenchless pipe  
rehabilitation industry.

The suit is "In re Teflon Products Liability Litigation, MDL-
1733, Master Docket No. 4:06-md-1733," pending in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge  
Ronald E. Longstaff with referral to Judge Celeste F. Bremer.

ENCORE MEDICAL: Blackstone Deal Spawns Tex. Shareholder Suit
Encore Medical Corp. faces a shareholder class action in Travis
County District Court, Texas, over its proposed $870 million
sale to New York-based private investment fund, Blackstone
Capital Partners V LP, The Austin Business Journal reports.

Filed on July 7, 2006 by shareholder Louis Dudas the suit named
as defendants: the company, Chief Executive Officer Kenneth
Davidson, and directors Alastair Clemow, Karen Osar, Joel
Kanter, Richard Martin, Zubeen Shroff, and Bruce Wesson.

According to the suit, it stems from the defendants' "unlawful
actions in attempting to complete the sale of Encore to
Blackstone Capital Partners V LP at a grossly inadequate and
unfair price," giving Encore and Blackstone insiders
preferential treatment at the expense of public shareholders.

On June 30, the company revealed that it would go private in the
merger deal with Blackstone.  In the buyout, the company's
stockholders will get $6.55 in cash for each share of Encore
common stock they hold -- a 36 percent premium on Encore's
closing price of $4.81 the day of the announcement.  

Furthermore, the suit states, "In essence, the proposed
acquisition is the product of a hopelessly flawed process that
is designed to ensure the sale of Encore to Blackstone, on terms
preferential to Blackstone and Encore insiders, and to subvert
the interests of plaintiff and the other public stockholders of
the company."

However, the company denied the allegations, pointing out that
it entered into the merger agreement based on the unanimous
recommendation by a special committee of independent directors
of its board of directors and the unanimous consent of its full
board of directors.

The company also pointed out that stockholders representing
approximately 15 percent ownership of its common stock entered
into voting agreements in which they agreed to vote in favor of
the merger.

It is expected that members of the company's existing senior
management team will retain their current positions after the
transaction closes and will participate in the ownership of the
private concern.

In a press release announcing the deal, Mr. Davidson said, "This
transaction offers outstanding value for our stockholders with a
significant premium over where our stock has traded during the
past year.  It also provides Encore with a strong financial
partner, with knowledge of the health care industry, to assist
in our future growth."  Both firms anticipate the completion of
transaction later this year.

For more details, contact Harry L. Zimmerman, Executive Vice
President - General Counsel, Encore Medical Corp., Phone: (512)
832-9500, E-mail: harry_zimmerman@encoremed.com.

ENRON CORP: ERISA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set Later in July
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. for the
proposed partial settlement in the matter: "In re Enron
Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. H-01-3913."

The settlement affects these classes:

      -- Northern Trust Class:  All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Enron Corp.
         Savings Plan (401K), and/or the Enron Corp. Employee
         Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) and any and all
         predecessors and successors to such plans during the
         period Jan. 1, 1995 through Dec. 2, 2001.  

      -- Administrative Committee Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans during the
         period Jan. 1, 1995 through June 7, 2002.

      -- Enron Corp. Class: All persons who were participants or
         beneficiaries in the Plans or the Enron Corp. Cash
         Balance Plan on Jan. 21, 1998 through
         Dec. 2, 2001.

      -- Arthur Andersen Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans or the Enron
         Corp. Cash Balance Plan during the period January 1,
         1995 through December 20, 2005.

      -- Arthur Andersen Worldwide Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans, the Enron
         Corp. Cash Balance Plan, and such Plans themselves, and
         all recipients of any "phantom stock" that employees of
         Enron received as compensation during the period
         January 1, 1995 through December 20, 2005.

The proposed partial settlement will provide $37.5 million, plus
interest, less attorneys' fees and costs, to pay claims to all
persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the plans
during the period from Jan. 1, 1995 through Dec. 2, 2001.  The
partial settlement resolves claims against The Northern Trust
Co., which allegedly breached its fiduciary duties by violating
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  

The court will hold the fairness hearing at the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk Avenue,
Houston, TX.

Any objections to the settlement must be submitted by June 29,

For more details, contact:

     (1) Lynn Lincoln Sarko and Britt L. Tinglum of Keller
         Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
         Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone: 206-224-7552 and 206-
         224-7572, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         lsarko@kellerrohrback.com and
         btinglum@kellerrohrback.com, Web site:

     (2) Steve W. Berman and Clyde A. Platt of Hagens Berman
         Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
         Seattle, Washington 98101, (King Co.), Phone: 206-623-
         7292, (206) 268-9324 and (206) 268-9320, Fax: 206-623-
         0594, Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com;and  

     (3) In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation, Independent
         Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91116, Seattle, WA
         98111-9216, Phone: 1-866-560-4043, Web sites:

GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Aug. Hearing Set in Settlement of La. Suit
An Aug. 29, 2006 fairness hearing is set in a settlement of a
class action over the 1995 Gaylord Chemical spill, according to
The Daily News Online.

On Oct. 23, 1995, a rail tank car of nitrogen tetroxide exploded
at the Bogalusa, Louisiana plant of Gaylord Chemical Corp., a
wholly owned, independently operated subsidiary of Gaylord.

Following the explosion, more than 160 lawsuits were filed
against the company, Gaylord Corp., and third parties alleging
personal injury, property damage, economic loss, related
injuries and fear of injuries.  Plaintiffs sought compensatory
and punitive damages (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2004).  In
1997, the Washington Parish, Louisiana, trial court certified
these consolidated cases as a class action.

On December 9, 2003, the company, its parent, and certain of
their insurers agreed in principle to settle the claims from the
class action and Mississippi state court actions, including
claims for compensatory and punitive damages, arising from this
accident.  In exchange for payments by certain insurance
carriers and assignment of insurance coverage rights against the
non-settling carriers, Gaylord and Gaylord Chemical will receive
releases and/or dismissals of all claims for damages, including
punitive damages.

Recently, a meeting was called by the Community Action
Organization in response to concerns raised by those involved in
the case.  Claimants were asking why they had not received
checks for the already-approved second settlement.  

Bogalusa attorney Pete Farmer, who represents a number of
claimants told attendees that although approved by the court,
second settlement payments would be made with pending third
settlement payments, according to the report.

"If the third settlement is approved and there are no defense
appeals after [the] Aug. 29 [trial], I think the distributions
will be made in the first part of summer next year [2007],"
Community Action president Joel Miller said.

GEICO: Judge Decertifies Plaintiffs in Breach of Contract Suit
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron signed an order on
July 7 dismissing all fraud claims by Myron Billups and Patricia
Singleton against insurer GEICO, according to The Madison St.
Clair Record.

The judge decertified them as class action plaintiffs on June 8,
in compliance with the Illinois Supreme Court decision in Avery
v. State Farm, the report said.  Prior to the ruling, arguments
between defendant and plaintiffs dealt on the effect of a
Supreme Court decision on two earlier cases: the Avery vs. State
Farm, a Williamson County class action, and the Price case.

An April 5 brief by plaintiff lawyer Robert Schmieder in the  
GEICO case argued that rulings in the Price and Avery suits did
not change the law.  

Lawyer for the defendant, Joseph Brown disagreed.  He insisted a
plaintiff cannot transform a breach of contract claim into
consumer fraud, and called on Judge Byron to decertify the class
action.  He wrote in response to the brief that in the "Avery"
case, each class member is required to prove breach of contract,
and both cases require each class member to prove deception.   
Under "Price," he wrote, GEICO faces no liability because it
complied with directives of a government agency.

Judge Byron told the plaintiff's lawyer that they prevailed in
most class actions, but the Supreme Court drastically changed
the concept of complex class actions.

Myron Billups, whose Pontiac Grand Am crashed in 1998, filed the
suit in 2001. He was joined later by Ms. Singleton, whose
Cadillac was stolen and wrecked.  Jeff Millar of the Lakin  
Law Firm in Wood River signed the complaint, which also listed
three Chicago firms and two attorneys from Marion (Class Action  
Reporter, Mar. 24, 2006).

The plaintiffs sought to represent drivers whose vehicles GEICO
had paid off as total losses.  Judge Byron certified their
representation in 2004, as well as a multi-state class on breach
of contract claims and an Illinois class on consumer fraud
claims.  In 2002, GEICO asked Judge Byron to postpone a decision
on a class certification pending the Supreme Court's ruling on
Avery.  In August, the court ruled that Avery and the other
plaintiffs failed to prove deception or damages, throwing out a
verdict of more than $1 billion.  

Representing the defendants are:  

     (1) Sheila Carmody and Joshua Grabel of Snell & Wilmer  
         L.L.P., One Arizona Center, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-
         2202, (Maricopa Co.), Phone: 602-382-6000, Fax: 602-  
         382-6070; and  

     (2) Joseph R. Brown, Jr. of Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld &  
         Dawson, LLP, P.O. Box 539, Edwardsville, Illinois  
         62025, (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-2321; Fax: 618-

Representing the plaintiffs are Gerald R. Walters and Jeffrey  
A.J. Millar of The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O.  
Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0027, (Madison Co.), Phone:  
618-254-1127; Telecopier: 618-254-0193.

INDIAN TRUST: Court Blocks Shutdown of Interior's I.T. Networks
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
overruled Judge Royce Lamberth's order to shut down the Interior
Department's I.T. infrastructure in the protracted class action
"Cobell v. Norton" in which American Indians claim that the
government mismanaged billions of dollars in federal trust

Filed in 1996 by Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, the case
became the longest and largest class action brought against the
government, involving royalties for farming, grazing, mining,
logging and other economic activities on tribal lands (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  

The suit dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to
break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40
to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans.  Back then,
the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing
and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for
Indians and their survivors.

As of the moment the case involves 500,000 Native Americans who
are asking the Interior Department to account for the billions
of dollars in their ancestors' land and natural resource assets
the federal government has held in trust since 1887.  The issue
of how to determine what is owed the Indians has gone back and
forth from Judge Lamberth to the appeals court repeatedly during
the last 10 years.

Back in Oct. 20, 2005, Judge Lamberth dictated an injunction to
shut down any computers, networks, handheld computers and voice-
over-IP equipment that access trust fund data.  That decision
would have prohibited Interior employees, contractors, tribes
and other third parties from using those systems.  

However, the next day, an appellate court postponed the
shutdown, pending appeal.  And the in its July 11 opinion, the
appellate court acknowledged extensive evidence of flaws in the
department's information technology security, but ultimately
sided in favor of the government.

The court opinion states, "The inherently imperfect nature of
I.T. security means that if we granted injunctive relief here,
based only on Interior's security vulnerabilities and not on a
showing of some imminent threat or specific reason to be
concerned that individual Indian trust data is a target, we
would essentially be justifying perpetual judicial oversight of
Interior's computer systems."

It further states that there has been no evidence indicating
that anyone has already altered Indian trust data by exploiting
Interior's security flaws or that such actions are planned, the
document continues.

Thus, the court determined that the shutdown would have
disrupted the department's operations.  It also determined that
under Judge Lamberth's "overbroad definition" of Indian trust
data, it is likely that "a very high percentage of Interior's
I.T. systems would be subject to disconnection, with serious

In concluding, the court pointed out, "We are confident that the
harm Interior would immediately face upon complying with the
disconnection order outweighs the class members' need for an

In addition to the ruling on the Interior's I.T. infrastructure,
the court also called for the Judge Lamberth, who had overseen
the case for a decade, to be removed.

In siding with the government and finding that the judge lost
his objectivity, the three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit
concluded that this was one of those "rare cases in which
reassignment is necessary."  

In so ruling, the panel ordered that a new judge be reassigned
to the case.  That task now is with Judge Thomas Hogan, chief
judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

A decision last July by Judge Lamberth wherein he lambasted the  
Interior Department prompted the government to petition for his  
removal from the case.  They argued that the judge was too  
biased to continue.

In that ruling, Judge Lamberth described the Interior Department  
as "a dinosaur -- the morally and culturally oblivious hand-me-
down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist government that  
should have been buried a century ago."

Circuit Judge David Tatel, who wrote on behalf of the panel,  
pointed out that Judge Lamberth was understandably frustrated,  
but the July decision -- combined with eight rulings the court  
said were evidence of bias -- went too far.

The Appeals Court opinion is available free of charge at:


The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., v. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC  
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,  
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;  
     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;  
     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American  
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:  
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and
     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th  
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)  
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:  

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or

For more details, contact The Committee on Indian Affairs,  
Phone: 202-224-2251, Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and    
House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web site:  

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls School Buses that Fail Safety Test
International Truck & Engine Corp., in cooperation with the U.S.
National Traffic Safety Administration, will recall on Aug. 18,
2006 about 1,200 units of 2006 and 2007 IC RESB (PB305) school

The U.S. said certain 2006 and 2007 IC RESB (PB305) school buses
manufactured between July 1, 2005 and May 9, 2006 equipped with
a joint at the rear where the davenport is attached to the floor
that does not meet the joint strength requirements of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221.  In the event of a
vehicle crash, the body structure of the bus could collapse,
possibly resulting in serious injury to the bus occupants.

Owners may contact International Truck at 1-800-843-5615 1-800-
448-7825 for the installment of a retaining bar along the front
of the davenport, free of charge.

L'OREAL USA: Calif. High Court Favors Former Model in Labor Suit
The California Supreme Court sided with a former Beverly Hills
hair model in her suit for immediate compensation against
L'OREAL USA, according to Law.com.  The court's unanimous
decision on July 10 effectively reversed Los Angeles Second
District Court of Appeal's decision denying immediate payment
for her one day of work in 2001.

Amanza Smith filed the suit in 2004 in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  Ms. Smith worked as a hair model at a show featuring
L'Oreal products that time.  She accepted the assignment for
$500 for one day of work.  She received her pay two months later
in the form of a check sent from the company's main accounting
office in New York.

She is claiming that the failure of the company to pay promptly
constituted conversion, fraud, unfair business practices,
violation of Labor Code sections requiring immediate payment
upon discharge, breach of contract, and negligent

L'Oreal claimed Smith was an independent contractor, not an
employee within the meaning of the state Labor Code, and
therefore, not entitled to immediate payment.  The company
denied it owes her or any other hair model so-called waiting
time penalties.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Frances Rothschild
granted summary judgment in favor of L'Oreal, and Los Angeles'
2nd District affirmed in 2004.

After an appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Marvin Baxter
wrote in the court's unanimous opinion that excluding such
employees would expose them to "economic vulnerability from
delayed wage payment."

The court opinion also stated that "... employees who are fired
for good cause would be entitled to immediate payment of their
earned wages and many employees who quit without fulfilling
their employment obligations would have a right to wage payment
no later than 72 hours after they quit."

The suit is Smith v. Superior Court (L'Oreal USA), S129476.  
Representing L'Oreal's is William Carroll Morgenstein &
Jubelirer LLP -- http://www.mjllp.com-- One Market, Spear  
Street Tower, 32nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94105 (San
Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-901-8700, Fax: 415-901-8701.

The plaintiff is represented by Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg,
Lionel Z. Glancy, Kevin F. Ruf and Avi Wagner.  On the Net:

LOUISIANA: Citizens Fair Plan Lawsuit Gets Class Certification
Judge Henry Sullivan of the 24th Judicial District Court granted
class-action status to a lawsuit against the Louisiana Citizens
Fair Plan that alleges it failed to pay homeowner claims in the
wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Louisiana Citizens, the
state property insurance plan of last resort, failed to comply
with state law requiring the claims adjustment process to begin
within 30 days of a catastrophic loss.  It also alleges that the
plan failed to pay a claim within 30 days of a satisfactory
proof of loss.

Geraldine Oubre of Avondale and Linda Gentry of New Orleans, who
say their claims were not handled according to the law, filed
the suit last year.

Their attorney, Madro Bandaries, said there are five pending
class actions and 30 to 40 individual lawsuits that could be
consolidated into this case.  Attorneys estimate that the class
could include all 65,000 Citizens policyholders at the time of
the two storms.

The case has been transferred to several district judges since
one judge had an interim appointment that ended and another
recused herself because she held a Citizens policy.  In earlier
hearings, attorneys for Citizens had also attempted to get the
venue changed from Jefferson Parish to East Baton Rouge Parish.

Legislation established the plan to cover homeowners who could
not obtain insurance in the commercial market and to price the
insurance at least 10 percent higher than comparable commercial

The Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, the suit's sole defendant is a
domestic insurance company, domiciled in Louisiana, bearing NAIC
No. AA1211.  It provides fire and casualty insurance policies to
the citizens of Louisiana, including the two named plaintiffs.
Previously, Terry Lisotta, Citizens' chief, stated in court that
claims forms mailed out to its policyholders were returned
because the customers have moved.

Mr. Lisotta also said that policyholders encountered
difficulties contacting Citizens at first due to a massive
telecommunications failure and that other delays in settling
claims resulted from a change of administrators.  

The suit is "Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, Case No.
625-567," filed in the 24th Judicial District, Parish of
Jefferson, Louisiana, under Judge Henry Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Madro Bandaries, PLC, #25339, 210 Huey P. Long Ave.,
         Gretna, LA 70053, Phone: (504) 361-4287, Fax: (504)
         362-1405; and

     (2) Anna E. Dow, #5040, 10988 N. Harrell's Ferry, Suite 18,
         P.O. Box 3456, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: (225) 272-
         0707, Fax: (225) 273-3590.

M2RACER LLC: Recalls Bicycle Headsets that May Damage Front Fork
M2Racer LLC, of Burlingame, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 150
units of Conventional and Integrated Lite Headsets.

The company said the headsets mount to bicycle frames and fasten
to the front fork assembly.  A protruding component of the
headset can contact the steering tube of the front fork
assembly, score or scratch the steering tube, and weaken the
structural integrity of the front fork.  The front fork could
break, causing the handlebars to separate from the bicycle
during use and result in a crash.

M2Racer has contacted all headset purchasers and received 21
reports of the headsets scoring the front fork assembly on
consumers' bicycles.  No fork failures or injuries have been

The headset is the component on a bicycle, which provides a
interface that can rotate between the bicycle fork and the
bicycle frame itself.  The Conventional Headset is constructed
of an anodized black alloy housing, stainless steel, and
polymers.  The Integrated Lite Headset is constructed of a black
polymer housing and light weight alloys.  The Integrated Headset
weighs 29 grams; the Conventional Headset weighs 39 grams.

Pictures of the recalled headsets:

The headsets were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold at
bicycle shops nationwide and through the M2Racer Web site:
http://www.m2racer.comfrom December 2004 through May 2006 for  
about $130.

Consumers are advised to stop riding bicycles with these
headsets and inspect their front fork assembly for scoring
damage.  M2Racer will refund the purchase price of returned

For additional information, contact M2Racer collect at (415)
738-8186 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
by E-mail: headset@m2racer.com.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Reaches $19M Settlement in Or. "Razilov" Suit
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. reached a $19.25 million
settlement with more than 67,000 people from Oregon and other
states who renewed automobile insurance between 2001 and 2004,
The Oregonian reports.

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon Judge Anna Brown
approved the proposed settlement last week, awarding about $285
each to the plaintiffs, minus attorneys' fees and costs of about
30 percent.

Eligible Nationwide policyholders were renewed between Jan. 1,
2002, and Dec. 31, 2004, and received a certain notice
purporting to inform them that their rates had been increased
based on their credit reports.

People who initially bought insurance from Nationwide or its
subsidiaries or affiliates during these time periods are not
eligible for the settlement.

Likewise, people who purchased or renewed their insurance
policies with other companies are not eligible.

Class members will be informed of the proposed settlement via
notices giving them 60 days to decide whether to opt out or
accept the settlement.

Later this year, Judge Brown will hold another hearing, probably
to deal with any objections to the settlement and determine how
much attorneys for the plaintiffs should receive, according to
the report.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon, claimed that insurers were using credit ratings to
increase insurance rates without any notice or without
adequately informing consumers as required by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.;

     -- Allied Group Inc.; and

     -- AMCO Insurance Co..

The suit is "Razilov et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01466-BR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna J.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Jennifer S. Atkins, Daniel F. Attridge and Brant W.
         Bishop all of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 655, Fifteenth
         Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 879-
         5000, Fax: (202) 879-5200, E-mail:        
         jatkins@kirkland.com or dattridge@kirkland.com or

     (2) Amanda T. Gamblin, Jan K. Kitchel, Heidi L. Mandt and
         Joshua P. Stump all of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC,
         1600-1900 Pacwest Center, 1211 S.W. Fifth Avenue,
         Portland, or 97204, Phone: (503) 796-2903 or  (503)
         796-2939 or (503) 222-9981 or (503) 796-2835, Fax:
         (503) 796-2900, E-mail: agamblin@schwabe.com or
         jkitchel@schwabe.com or hmandt@schwabe.com or
         jstump@schwabe.com; and

     (3) Richard J. Kuhn of Hoffman Hart & Wagner, LLP, 1000 SW
         Broadway, 20th Floor, Portland, OR 97205, Phone: (503)
         595-1243, Fax: (503) 222-2301, E-mail: rjk@hhw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven C. Berman, Mark A. Friel, Steve D. Larson, Scott
         A. Shorr and N. Robert Stoll all of Stoll Stoll Berne
         Lokting & Schlachter, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor,
         Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503)
         227-6840, E-mail: sberman@ssbls.com or mfriel@ssbls.com
         or slarson@ssbls.com or sshorr@ssbls.com or
         rstoll@ssbls.com; and

     (2) Charles A. Ringo of Charlie Ringo & Associates, PC,
         4085 SW 109th Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97005, Phone: (503)
         643-7500, Fax: (503) 644-4754, E-mail:

RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on July 25, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $3,000,000 settlement in the matter: "Swack v. Credit
Suisse First, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-11943-DPW."

Filed on October 3, 2002, the case was brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired Razorfish, Inc. common stock between May
24, 1999 and May 4, 2001.

The hearing will be held before the Douglas P. Woodlock in U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, MA 02210.  

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on October 6, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Claims Administrator, Razorfish Securities Litigation,
         c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014,
         Jericho, N.Y. 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax:
         (516) 931-0810; and

     (2) Thomas G. Shapiro, Edward F. Haber and Theodore M.      
         Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax:
         617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com,
         ehaber@shulaw.com and ted@shulaw.com.

SOURCEONE HEALTHCARE: July Trial Set for Junk Fax Suit Deal
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division, will hold a fairness hearing on July 25,
2006, 11 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Scott
R. Fladland, D.C. v. SourceOne Healthcare Technologies, Inc.,
and John Does, 1-10, Case No. 05 CH 20090."  

The settlement provides for the establishment of a fund of not
less than $150,000 or more than $360,000.

The case was brought of all persons or entities with Illinois
fax numbers who on or after Nov. 22, 2000, were sent advertising
faxes by or on behalf of SourceOne Healthcare Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff Scott R. Fladland, D.C., alleged that the defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements.

The court will hold a hearing on the settlement in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington,
Chicago, Illinois, 60602, Courtroom 2308 before the Honorable
David R. Donnersberger.

Deadline for submitting claim forms and objections to the
settlement is July 10, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Daniel A. Edelman and Heather Kolbus of
         Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 S.
         LaSalle Street, 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
         (312) 739-4200, Fax: (312) 419-0379, Web site:

     (2) [SourceOne] James A. Cherney and Deborah L. Steiner of
         Latham & Watkins, LLP, 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800,
         Chicago, Illinois 60606, Phone: 312-876-7700, Fax:
         (312) 993-9767, Web site: http://www.lw.com.

SPRINT NEXTEL: Lawyers Face Sanctions Over "Leaked" Depositions
Plaintiffs' attorneys in a purported class action against Sprint
Nextel Corp. face possible sanctions after a Johnson County
District judge found that they violated a protective order
covering documents in the case, The Kansas City Star reports.

Judge Kevin P. Moriarty made the finding after a hearing sought
by the company.  In providing The Kansas City Star with
depositions taken in the case, which concerns the recombination
of Sprint's FON and PCS tracking stocks in April 2004, it
contended that plaintiff's attorneys violated the protective

The depositions figured prominently in a July 2 report by the
newspaper about the events leading up to the 2003 ouster of the
company's former top two executives, William Esrey and Ronald
LeMay.  The men's depositions were among those provided to The
Kansas City Star and cited in the report.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argued that in handing over the
depositions to The Kansas City Star, they believed that the
documents were not covered by the protective order, since the
company failed to label them as confidential.

However, according to a "bench note" posted as part of the
case's electronic docket, Judge Moriarty disagreed.  The docket
stated that plaintiffs had 10 days to recommend possible
sanctions against themselves and that the defendants, including

Possible sanctions that Judge Moriarty could impose include not
certifying the suit as a class action, which would make the case
economically prohibitive for the plaintiffs to pursue.

Plaintiffs, various owners of PCS stock, initially sought to
halt the recombination, alleging it was unfair to PCS
shareholders, since it greatly undervalued PCS shares and
conferred enormous benefits on FON shareholders.

The recombination went ahead, however, and plaintiffs are now
seeking damages from the company and members of its board at the
time the recombination was discussed and decided upon.

The suit also alleges that company officers and directors,
including Messrs. Esrey and LeMay, had an incentive to favor FON
stock over PCS stock because they owned far more FON shares than
PCS shares.  

It contends as well that both men had an additional incentive to
favor FON shares, since they were threatened with personal
financial ruin at the time after the I.R.S. challenged their
participation in tax shelters it deemed questionable.

The company has insisted that the recombination was necessary
since it was changing its focus to sell all of its services on a
bundled basis.  Previously, the company was organized in
divisions, selling wireless, local, business and long-distance
services separately.  

According to the company, merging the tracking stocks eliminated
accounting and other issues that made it more difficult for it
to jointly market its services.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in April 2007.

For more details, contact Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star,
Phone: (816) 234-4481, E-mail: dmargolies@kcstar.com.

TIFFANY & CO: Recalls Paloma Rattles Prone to Breakage
Cunill Orferbres of Barcelona, Spain for Tiffany & Co., of New
York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 47 units of Paloma Rattles.

The company said the seams on the rattle can open during use,
releasing small round beads.  The beads can pose an aspiration
hazard to young children.  The breakage can also create ragged
edges on the ring, posing a laceration hazard.

The commission and the company have received no reports of
injuries or incidents of the product breaking in actual use.  
This recall is being conducted as a precaution, based on the
results of routine periodic product safety testing.

The Paloma Rattle is a ring that is 2.5 inches in diameter.  It
consists of nine linked sterling-silver balls that contain small

These rattles were manufactured on Barcelona, Spain and are
being sold at Tiffany & Co. stores, catalogs and on its Web
site: http://www.tiffany.comfrom January 20005 through March  
2006 for about $195.  This recall involves rattles sold in March

Picture of the recalled rattle:

Consumers are advised to take these rattles away from babies and
return the product to Tiffany & Co. for a full refund or a store

For more information, contact Tiffany & Co. at (800) 464-5000
between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.  Tiffany &
Co. also is contacting customers about the recall.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit in Minn. Over Stock Option Grants
The California Public Employees Retirement System initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota against UnitedHealth Group, Inc., in relation to its
stock option practices, the Associated Press reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- UnitedHealth Group, Inc.;
     -- William W. McGuire, chairman and chief executive;
     -- Stephen J. Hemsley, president and chief operating
     -- Lois Quam - division chief executive officer;
     -- the company's chief financial officer, general counsel,
        its directors and the three other division CEOs.

The complaint alleges:  

     -- that the company and the officers and directors named as
        defendants illegally misled investors about
        UnitedHealth's financial prospects;

     -- that the company "spring-loaded" options -- granting
        stock options just ahead of positive news, helping lock
        in a profit for the recipient of the options;

     -- that many of the officers and directors - including Ms.
        Quam, CEO William McGuire and Stephen Hemsley, the
        company's chief operating officer - benefited by
        receiving improper back-dated stock options or options
        awarded just prior to news that drove up share prices;

     -- that discrepancies between UnitedHealth's public
        statements about its profits and the troubles with its
        stock options that surfaced.

In May, UnitedHealth acknowledged a "significant deficiency" in
its stock option grants and has said it may have to restate up
to $286 million in earnings for 2003, 2004, and 2005.

The complaint also asserts that Ms. Quam -- CEO of
UnitedHealth's Ovations unit that handles insurance for retirees
-- "reaped illegal insider trading proceeds of $8.86 million by
selling 173,200 shares of her UnitedHealth stock."

But the suit does not specifically accuse Ms. Quam of making
misleading statements or allege she had any role in awarding
stock options.

UnitedHealth spokesman Mark Lindsay said some executives,
including Ms. Quam, has been arbitrarily included, and there is
no particular allegation against them in the complaint.

CalPERS spokesman Brad Pacheco declined to address specifics of
the lawsuit because the pension fund is seeking status as lead

On May 5, a purported class action, "Krause v. UnitedHealth
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the company certain of its officers alleging claims under
Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2006).

The suit is "California Public Employees Retirement System v.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: 0:06-cv-02939-RHK-
JSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge Richard H. Kyle, with referral to Judge
Janie S. Mayeron.

Representing the plaintiffs is Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr. of
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St Ste E-1250, St
Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:

UnitedHealth Group on the Net: http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com;
CalPERS: http://www.calpers-governance.org/forumhome.asp

WEST VIRGINIA: Retarded Man Files Lawsuit Over New DHHR Policies
The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources is
defendant in a purported class action in Kanawha Circuit Court
over its new Medicaid policy, according to The West Virginia

Jackie Fleshman, 65, who is described as a mildly mentally
retarded man living alone in Green Sulphur Springs, filed the
suit in July 3, 2006 through attorney Bren J. Pomponio of
Mountain State Justice, a nonprofit legal agency.

According to the complaint, "This case arises out of the
defendant's policy of discriminating against qualified
recipients of and applicants to the Medicaid Home and Community
Based Aged/Disabled Waiver Program on the basis of mental
disability and denial of due process to applicants and
recipients of the program."

It further states, "The ADWP provides benefits to individuals
who qualify for Medicaid nursing home care so that the
individuals may receive community-based skilled nursing care.
The defendant conducts annual eligibility determinations to
verify that recipients still qualify for ADWP services."

In Mr. Fleshman's case, the lawsuit claims that he was a member
of the program from 2000 until earlier this year, when he was
told he no longer meets the eligibility requirements.  It also
claims that modifications to several of the requirements that
Mr. Fleshman previously met left him without care.

Previously, the DHHR demanded that an applicant meet at least
five of its requirements, according to the suit.  However, the
suit claims that after it initiated changes, which made
eligibility requirements more stringent, Mr. Fleshman and
members of the class he is representing, no longer met five

In addition, the suit claims that the DHHR now discriminates
against applicants with mental disabilities, a violation of the
West Virginia Constitution and the West Virginia Human Rights
Act, by making changes in the areas of:

      -- the ability vacate premises in case of emergency,
         continence, transfer (requiring one or two persons'
         assistant in the home at all times);

      -- walking; and

      -- the ability to self-administer medications.

Mr. Pomponio claims that without care his client who has a
history of paranoia, brain atrophy and seizures faces the
possibility of dying.

DHHR statistics indicate that about one-third of the previous
members of the program were dropped after the modifications were
made to its eligibility requirements.

The program received the attention of Governor Joe Manchin, who
said it needed to reduce its size to make its budget, which was
frozen in 2003 at $60 million.  He plans to cut the number of
members in the program from 5,400 to 3,500.

The suit, which was assigned to Judge Charlie King under Case
No. 06-C-1331, seeks:

      -- the DHHR being found in violation of equal protection
         and the West Virginia Human Rights Act;

      -- the DHHR being found of denying due process;

      -- an order enjoining the DHHR from terminating the ADWP
         benefits to any member of the plaintiff class; and

      -- forward adjustments of benefits.

For more details, contact Bren J. Pomponio of Mountain State
Justice, Inc., 922 Quarrier Street, Suite 525, Charleston, WV
25301, Phone: (304) 344-3144, Fax: (304) 344-3145.

WMC MORTGAGE: Removes Mortgage Payment Suit to Federal Court
WMC Mortgage Corp. has removed a class action filed against it
in Madison County to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act, according to The Madison St. Clair Record.  The
case is now before District Judge James Foreman and Magistrate
Judge Donald Wilkerson.

Plaintiffs Fred and Victoria Crook filed their original
complaint on Feb. 17, 2005 in Madison County Circuit Court,
claiming that WMC misapplied their mortgage payments which
increased their charges, fees and interest on their debt.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on June 26, alleging WCM is
liable for actions taken by different independent companies.

Afterwards, on July 7, defense attorney Troy Bozarth of the
Burroughs, motioned to remove the suit to federal court, saying
by broadening WMC's potential liability to include acts done by
other companies, plaintiffs' recommenced this action within the
last 30 days for purposes of the CAFA.  Mr. Bozarth also pointed
out a recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that
when a plaintiff expands the potential for liability in a manner
that does not relate to the original claims, CAFA would apply.

The Class Action Fairness Act was signed into law on Feb. 18,

The Crooks borrowed $46,400 from WMC on May 22, 1998 securing a
promissory note secured by a mortgage.  In their original
complaint, they claimed that WMC failed to apply their payments
to prepayment charges, escrow charges, interest, principal
and/or late charge; and refrained from paying their interest on
unapplied funds, failed to reduce their debt and imposed late
charges in violation of the agreement;

The Crooks are seeking damages for breech of contract and unjust
enrichment.  They are represented by Steve Tillery and Lisa
Kernan of Korein Tillery and Kenneth Brennan of SimmonsCooper.

The suit is "Crook et al. v. WMC Mortgage Corp., Case No.
3:06-cv-00535-JLF-DGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

Representing the defendant is Troy A. Bozarth of Burroughs,
Hepler et al. - Edwardsville, 103 West Vandalia Street, Suite
300, P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510, Phone: 618-656-
0184, E-mail: troy.bozarth@ilmolaw.com.

Representing the plaintiff is Stephen M. Tillery of Korein
Tillery - Swansea, 10 Executive Woods Court, Swansea, IL 62226-
2030, Phone: 618-277-1180, E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com.

                          Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATO Says Hardie Payout to be Tax Deductible
The Australian Taxation Office advised that James Hardie
Industries NV's Special Purpose Fund contributions to its
asbestos claimants would be tax deductible over the anticipated
life of the arrangements.

The ATO ruling is in accordance with the "blackhole expenditure"
legislation, which was enacted in April 2006.

The SPF was established in April 2006, and Hardie recorded a net
provision for the estimated future asbestos-related compensation
payments of US$715.6 million at March 31, 2006.

The SPF was established under the Final Funding Agreement, which
was agreed by Hardie and the New South Wales Government on
December 1, 2005 to make asbestos compensation payments to
Australians injured by products made by former Hardie units.

Hardie CEO Louis Gries said, "While James Hardie welcomes the
ATO's decision that the Company's contributions to the SPF
comply with the blackhole expenditure legislation, the ATO
decision announced that it refuses to endorse the SPF as a
charity continues to place the FFA in doubt."

The ATO had advised it has refused to endorse the SPF as a tax
concession charity.

The parties to the Heads of Agreement, which was signed in
December 2004 and which set out the key principles on which the
FFA was negotiated, agreed that the SPF's exemption from
Australian income tax was critical to the long term viability
and affordability of the compensation fund for asbestos

SPF aims to make compensation payments, over a period of 40
years, to Australian asbestos claimants who would be left with
unpaid claims against current subsidiaries of the Medical
Research and Compensation Foundation and the former holding
company of the James Hardie Group (ABN 60).

Hardie and the NSW Government have agreed to extend the deadline
under the FFA to satisfy certain conditions precedent from June
30, 2006 to July 31, 2006.

Based in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to make products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding,
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Exits Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's Plan of Reorganization has become
effective and the Company has emerged from Chapter 11
bankruptcy, according to a Company press release on July 6,

"Today is a great day for Kaiser Aluminum," said Jack Hockema,
Chairman, President and CEO of Kaiser Aluminum, as he continued
to thank all of the stakeholders who stood by the Company over
the past four years.  

"The new Kaiser Aluminum emerges with fabricated aluminum
products as the core business and is a vastly different company
from the one that filed for reorganization in early 2002. Non-
strategic commodity businesses were divested, and we have
addressed all of the material debt, legacy and asbestos-related
liabilities that confronted the company prior to bankruptcy. It
is particularly gratifying that we were able to develop a
consensual plan that was overwhelmingly accepted by our

Mr. Hockema lauded the Company's $75 million expansion
initiative at the Spokane, Washington rolling mill, referring to
it as the "cornerstone" of its strategy." He spoke further of
its platform for external growth and its plan for acquisitions
complementing its current business structure.

Kaiser Aluminum began the distribution of shares of common stock
last July 6. Shares commenced trading July 7 on NASDAQ under the
ticker symbol KALU.

Based in Foothill Ranch, California, Kaiser Aluminum Corp.
produces fabricated aluminum products for aerospace and high-
strength, general engineering, automotive and custom industrial

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indoor Air Quality to Pay $189T for Fraud
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ordered asbestos removal firm Indoor Air Quality Inc. and its
owner Wallace Heidelmark to pay a total of US$189,582.34 for
fraud in the removal of asbestos from several locations between
2001 and 2004, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency press release.

Mr. Heidelmark, 48, was sentenced to 24 months in prison and
ordered to pay US$5,000 fine, a special assessment of US$300,
and restitution amounting to US$41,541.17 for asbestos

The Court ordered Phoenixville, Pennsylvania-based Indoor Air to
pay a US$100,000 fine, a special assessment of US$1,200 and
restitution amounting to US$41,541.17. The Court also sentenced
the Company to two years probation.

Issued in August 2005, the indictment charged the defendants
with mail fraud, failure to comply with federal and state
requirements concerning the removal of asbestos, including
improperly removing asbestos without using adequate water during
the removal, and not keeping the asbestos adequately wet.

The Court-ordered restitution will pay for medical examinations
for Company employees and will also reimburse certain homeowners
who had subsequent air testing performed.

Pat Meehan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, said, "These defendants are now being held
accountable for exposing people to the health risk. There are
significant dangers associated with the improper removal of
asbestos. That's why there are laws governing how it is removed
and disposed of."

The Criminal Investigative Division and the Inspector General of
the Environmental Protection Agency, with the cooperation of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, investigated the

The matter has been assigned to Assistant U.S. Attorney Albert
S. Glenn, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Keating and
Joseph Lisa.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper to Put $256M in Federal-Mogul Trust
Cooper Industries Ltd. and other parties in the resolution of
the Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy proceeding, on July 6, 2006,
reached an agreement to pay US$256 million into Federal-Mogul's
asbestos claimants' trust.

By participating in this trust, Cooper will resolve its
liability for asbestos claims arising from Cooper's former Abex
products business. The proposed settlement agreement is subject
to Court approval, approval of 75 percent of the current Abex
asbestos claimants and certain other approvals.

Cooper sold Abex Friction Products to Federal-Mogul in 1998.

The settlement will resolve more than 38,000 pending Abex
claims. Future claims will be resolved through the bankruptcy
trust, and Cooper will be protected against future claims by an
injunction to be issued by the Court upon plan confirmation.

Cooper said it has the cash flow and borrowing power to make the
US$256 million payment. Cooper said it would receive US$37.5
million from other parties to help cover this obligation.
Moreover, Cooper agreed to pay US$20 million a year over the
next 25 years. It will seek reimbursement from its insurers for
some of this total.

Connected with the settlement, Cooper anticipates taking an
after-tax charge of between US$20 million and US$25 million in
the quarter that ended June 30.

The revised agreement also provides Cooper with a resolution of
its claims against Federal-Mogul in the event that Cooper's
participation in the Federal-Mogul trust is not approved.

Based in Houston, Texas, Cooper Industries Ltd. manufactures
electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Records $1.5Mil for Liabilities
H.B. Fuller Co. accrued US$1.053 million for probable asbestos-
related liabilities and US$527,000 for insurance-related
recoveries for asbestos claims, as of June 3, 2006.

As of March 4, 2006, the Company recorded US$0.4 million for
probable liabilities and US$0.2 million for insurance recoveries
related to asbestos claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 21,

The Company and its subsidiaries had been named as defendants in
multi-defendant lawsuits in which plaintiffs had alleged injury
due to asbestos-containing products made by the Company more
than 20 years ago. The suits sought actual and punitive damages.  

In many cases, plaintiffs were unable to show that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products made by the Company or
its subsidiaries. The Company was dismissed as a defendant in
these cases without payment.

In 2005, the Company and a number of its insurers entered into a
cost-sharing agreement that provides for the allocation of
defense costs, settlements and judgments among these insurers
and the Company in certain asbestos-related suits.

In 2004, the Company and a group of other defendants, including
the third party obligated to indemnify the Company against
certain asbestos-related claims, entered into negotiations with
a group of plaintiffs to settle certain asbestos-related suits.

As previously reported and accounted for during the 2004-3rd
quarter, the Company agreed to contribute about US$3.5 million
towards the settlement to be paid in these cases in exchange for
a full release of claims by the plaintiffs. Of this amount, the
Company's insurers had agreed to pay about US$1.2 million.

On December 1, 2005, US$3.1 million was paid out of this trust
under the settlement. As of June 3, 2006, the amount the Company
and its insurers had remaining to pay out of trust was up to
US$0.4 million. The Company's remaining portion of this was up
to US$0.3 million.

Moreover, during the quarter ended June 3, 2006, the Company
accrued US$0.6 million for asbestos-related suits. The Company's
insurers have paid or are expected to pay about US$0.4 million
of this amount.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, H.B. Fuller Co. makes adhesives,
sealants, and powder coatings for metals and liquid paints. The
Company's industrial and performance adhesives customers include
firms in the packaging, graphic arts, automotive, footwear,
woodworking, and non-woven textiles industries.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Courts Approve Porter Hayden Plan, Trust
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland approved
Porter Hayden Co.'s Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization and the
creation of an Asbestos Trust, according to a Whiteford, Taylor
& Preston, LLP press release.

The key component of Porter Hayden's Reorganization Plan is the
creation of the Asbestos Trust, which is a pool of funds for
payment of existing claimants and potentially future claimants.

U.S. District Court Judge Andre Davis and Bankruptcy Court Judge
E. Stephen Derby confirmed the Plan.

The Plan represents a comprehensive settlement negotiated by
Paul Nussbaum of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, counsel for
Porter Hayden; Philip Milch of Campbell & Levine, counsel for
the Unsecured Creditors Committee, including about 58,000 known
plaintiffs with asbestos injury claims against Porter Hayden;
and Edward Harron of Young Conaway, counsel for the Legal
Representative for Future Asbestos Claimants.

The Trust's purpose will be to:

(1) Assume Porter Hayden's asbestos bodily injury liabilities;

(2) Manage the affairs of Porter Hayden to maximize the value of
its assets for the benefit of the asbestos claimants; and

(3) Equitably distribute those assets to both present and future
asbestos bodily injury claimants.

The Trust assets will include:

(1) All insurance policies and proceeds or other payments made
by asbestos insurance firms in respect of Porter Hayden's

(2) Recoveries from the Manville Trust, cash or cash equivalents
received by Porter Hayden after its reorganization; and

(3) 100 percent of Porter Hayden's common stock.

The Reorganization Plan included a Channeling Injunction,
permanently enjoining the assertion of any asbestos claim
against Porter Hayden or against its insurers who contribute to
the funding of the Asbestos Trust.

Based in Baltimore, Maryland, Porter Hayden Co. sold and
installed insulation products. The Company went out of business
in 1989. Its activities since then have been running off its
asbestos claims, securing insurance coverage for the claims, and
paying claims and related expenses.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AQMD Notifies Developer of No-Survey Breach
The South Coast Air Quality Management District in California
issued a notice of violation to developer Michael Harrah for
allegedly failing to conduct an adequate asbestos survey of the
site where he plans to construct a 37-story office tower, The
Orange County Register reports.

AQMD cited Mr. Harran's firm, One Broadway Plaza, and Garden
Grove, California-based Jordan Demolition, which was hired to
tear down a building at 1001 N. Broadway to pave way for the
tower. The AQMD issued the violation after detecting asbestos
levels in four of 15 samples.

AQMD halted demolition and will remain on hold until Mr. Harrah
provides a cleanup plan and disposes of the asbestos.

Carol Coy, AQMD's deputy executive officer for engineering and
compliance, said there was not likely any public exposure to
asbestos since the site is fenced and the amounts found are

According to AQMD, Mr. Harrah had a prior asbestos survey done
and properly disposed of the material.

Mr. Harrah plans to construct the tower in February 2007.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rideout, H&H Settle $5.8T for CAA Breaches
Rideout Memorial Hospital and H & H Trenching Inc. paid US$5,802
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to settle charges
from violating Clean Air Act asbestos laws, according to a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency press release.

In June 2005, Rideout hired H & H Trenching to demolish a
hospital-owned building located at 605 4th Street, Marysville,

Each party has agreed to pay US$2,901 for allegedly failing to
notify the U.S. EPA of the building demolition as required by
the Clean Air Act.

Deborah Jordan, director of the U.S. EPA's Air Division for the
Pacific Southwest Region, said, "Companies that conduct or
contract for building demolition must notify the EPA in advance
so appropriate agencies can ensure asbestos is properly removed
and doesn't become a public health risk. Notification protects
public health and the environment, as well as the construction
workers on these jobs."

The U.S. EPA has classified asbestos as a hazardous air
pollutant. Individuals exposed to asbestos fibers are at risk of
contracting illnesses such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 16 Joint Suits Filed v. 143 Firms in W.Va.
David P. Chervenick of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Scott S.
Segal of Charleston, of West Virginia filed 16 joint asbestos
cases against 143 defendants in Kanawha Circuit Court in West
Virginia, The West Virginia Record reports.

According to Court documents, while some plaintiffs were
afflicted with asbestosis, most of them suffered from lung
cancer. One plaintiff has colon cancer. The plaintiffs are from
West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania Indiana and
Illinois. Many of the cases involve deceased plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as
other relief.

One of the plaintiffs, the late Robert E. Bowling of Grayson,
Kentucky, was a member of Boilermakers' Local 667. Another
plaintiff, the late David R. Berry of Mount Morris,
Pennsylvania, was an electrician and member of IBEW 596. John L.
Best of Wellsburg, West Virginia, another plaintiff, was a
member of Laborer's Local 809.

Other plaintiffs were electricians, crane operators, painters,
glassworkers, steelworkers and bricklayers. Some worked at
Weirton Steel, others at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel.

The complaint stated that the plaintiffs "were exposed to and
did inhale asbestos dust and other dust from products of the
defendants, which caused the conditions, resulting in

The 17-count suit also said the injuries and cause of action
occurred in West Virginia as a result of the defendant
corporations doing business in West Virginia.

The complaint said the plaintiffs were exposed to products made
by various defendants, and the products reached the plaintiffs'
job sites or plaintiffs' locales.

Case numbers 06-C-1227 through 06-C-1242 have been assigned to a
visiting judge.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Firms in Palermo Suit
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the
decision of the Orleans Parish Civil District Court in a
consolidated asbestos-related suit that had ruled in favor of
the heirs of Jake Palermo and Abraham Veal.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Patricia Rivet Murray, Max N.
Tobias, Jr., and Edwin A. Lombard, decided in Case Nos. 2004-CA-
1804 and 2004-CA-1805 on March 15, 2006.

Mr. Palermo's children, Sheila Palermo Allgood, Frances Palermo,
and Robin Palermo, alleged that their father contracted lung
cancer from asbestos exposure while he worked on the wharves on
the Mississippi River in New Orleans, Louisiana from about 1962
until 1982.

On April 14, 2003, Mr. Palermo died, at the age of 76, from a
self-inflicted gunshot wound. His children alleged that his
depression-induced suicide was causally related to his terminal
lung cancer.

Sheila Veal alleged that her father, Abraham Veal, contracted
mesothelioma while working on the same wharves during about the
same period as Mr. Palermo. In July 2003, he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma and died from the disease on October 13, 2003 at
the age of 61.

Plaintiffs sued corporate defendants, including Mr. Palermo's
and Mr. Veal's employers, the Port of New Orleans, makers and
shippers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, and
several ship repair firms. The employers and manufacturers
settled with the plaintiffs before trial.

On April 1, 2004, the plaintiffs moved to amend the judgment and
for a new trial. On April 4, 2004, Dixie Machine, Welding & Iron
Works Inc. moved for partial new trial. On June 29, 2004, the
trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion and Dixie's motion.

The Port, Buck Kreihs Co. Inc., Dixie Machine, Welding & Iron
Works Inc., and Eagle Inc. appealed.

The Appeals Court found that the plaintiffs were unable to prove
that either Mr. Palermo or Mr. Veal experienced any specific
instances of exposure to asbestos resulting from the work of
Dixie or Buck Kreihs. The Appeals Court found that there was no
basis to support the District Court's conclusion that the
negligence of the defendants was a factor in causing Mr. Veal's
and Mr. Palermo's injuries.

The Appeals Court concluded that the District Court erred by
finding the defendants liable to the plaintiffs.

Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, and David R. Cannella of
Landry & Swarr, L.L.C., New Orleans, Louisiana represented Jake
Palermo, Abraham Veal and Sheila Rochelle Veal.

Joseph P. Tynan of Montgomery Barnett Brown Read Hammond &
Mintz, L.L.P., Francine Weaker of New Orleans, Louisiana, and
Henry E. Yoes, III, Yoes Law Firm, Lake Charles, LA, represented
the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans.

Gary A. Lee, Richard M. Perles, A. Ann Cates, and Patricia C.
Penton of Lee, Futrell & Perles, L.L.P., in New Orleans,
Louisiana represented Dixie Machine Welding & Metal Works, Inc.

H. Philip Radecker, Jr. of Montgomery Barnett Brown Read Hammond
& Mintz, L.L.P. in New Orleans, Louisiana represented Buck
Kreighs Co. Inc.

Lawrence C. Pugh III, Edward R. McGowan, and Alison S. Borisen
of Montgomery Barnett Brown Read Hammond & Mintz, L.L.P. in New
Orleans, Louisiana represented Eagle Inc.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. GenCorp Inc. Drop to 150
GenCorp Inc. faced about 150 pending asbestos-related cases as
of May 31, 2006, according to the Company's Quarterly Report, on
Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended May 31, 2006, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2006.

The Company faced about 155 pending asbestos-related cases at
February 28, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2006)

The Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building
materials, products or in manufacturing operations. Most suits
have been filed in Madison County, Ill. and San Francisco,

Since 1998, more than 175 of these asbestos suits had been
resolved with most cases dismissed.

For the six months ended May 31, 2006, the Company noted 33
claims filed, compared with 149 claims for the year ended
November 30, 2005. The 149 claims included 30 cases tendered to
the Company by PCC Flow Technologies Inc. and its affiliates.

PCC had originally tendered 57 cases to the Company, but 27
cases were dismissed before the Company's and PCC's settlement
agreement on May 31, 2005.

For the six months ended May 31, 2006, the Company noted 32
dismissed and three settled claims, compared to 65 dismissed and
two settled claims for the year ended November 30, 2006.

Aggregate settlement costs were US$37,000 for the six months
ended May 31, 2006, compared to US$50,000 for the year ended
November 30, 2005.

Average settlement costs were US$12,000 for the six months ended
May 31, 2006, compared to US$25,000 for the year ended November
30, 2005.

The Company's legal and administrative fees for the asbestos
cases for the first half of fiscal 2006 were US$0.3 million.
Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases were US$0.5
million for fiscal 2005 and US$1 million for fiscal 2004.

Based in Rancho Cordova, California, GenCorp Inc., through its
main subsidiary Aerojet-General, makes missile propulsion
technologies for defense and space systems. Lockheed Martin
accounts for about 40% of the Company's sales.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hospital Admissions Double in N. Ireland
Northern Ireland hospital admissions for asbestos-related
diseases have more than doubled in 10 years, with 208 admissions
in 2004 compared to 106 in 1995, UTV reports.

Victims warned that the tally would not peak until 2050. The
figures were released in response to a parliamentary question
from Democratic Unionist Party MP Iris Robinson.

Department of Trade, Enterprise and Investment Minister Sir Reg
Empey estimated in 2002 that 3,000 workers would be affected by
2050. Compensation could reach GBP190 million.

Conditions develop from asbestos dust particles caught in the
lungs. Many sufferers are former shipyard workers or tradesmen
who used asbestos as a popular building material in the 1950s
and 1960s.

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to legislate against a
Law Lords ruling. Law Lords found damages should be limited in
cases where several different employers are involved. The May
2006 decision was based on three test cases.

The Trades Union Congress claimed 1.5 million people across the
U.K. might still be working with asbestos. TUC research showed
4,000 people were dying each year in the U.K. from asbestos-
related disease.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Judge Approves Owens Corning Exit Plan
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald approved Owens Corning's
statement outlining its Chapter 11 bankruptcy exit plan, The
Toledo Blade reports.

The decision, made in a Pittsburgh, Pa. Hearing, cleared the way
for about 250,000 voting packets to be sent to creditors of the
Company, including shareholders.

The next step is a Sept. 18, 2006 hearing. If all goes well,
Owens Corning could exit bankruptcy.

Owens Corning had record revenue of US$6.3 billion in 2005 but
also posted a record US$4.1 billion loss, mainly because of
accounting to adjust for its ever-growing asbestos liability.

The Toledo, Ohio based Company is among more than 70 firms that
have sought bankruptcy protection to deal with surging asbestos
lawsuits since the early 1980s.

Jason Saragian, a Company spokesman, said, "We're very excited
about today's development and the fact that we're on track to
emerge from bankruptcy by the end of the year."

If the plan, the sixth one by Owens Corning since it filed for
bankruptcy in Oct. 5, 2000 in Wilmington, Del., is approved by
creditors, it would provide US$5.2 billion to pay asbestos
victims, US$2.5 billion to pay banks and some other creditors,
and 131.4 million new shares, with an estimated value of US$3.9
billion, much of which would go to bondholders.

Judge Fitzgerald said at the hearing that she planned to
overrule the few objections that remained concerning the

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longley-Jones to Pay $4M for Cleanup Breach
The U.S. District Court ordered Longley-Jones Management Corp.
to pay US$4 million fine for illegally removing asbestos from
local apartment buildings, The Post-Standard reports.

The Court also sentenced the Company to two years probation.

U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin agreed to suspend US$3
million of the fine as long as the Company will use the money
for asbestos cleanup.

On June 13, 2006, the Company pleaded guilty to federal charges
that its workers illegally ripped asbestos from 98 apartment
buildings across Onondaga County for up to 15 years.

Based in Syracuse, New York, Longley-Jones Management Corp. is a
real estate firm operating in Central New York and its
surrounding communities. The Company manages more than 8,500
apartment units throughout the region.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Party to Seek Tax Changes for Hardie
The Australian Labor Party plans to seek Parliament's approval
to exempt the James Hardie Industries NV compensation fund from
income tax, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The Australian Tax Office has given Hardie tax deductibility for
its contributions to the fund, but it has ruled that the fund is
not a charity. As a result, the fund will be required to pay tax
on investment earnings and may be required to pay tax on
payments made by Hardie.

Hardie agreed with the New South Wales Government in December
2005 to provide up to AUD4.5 billion over 40 years for a special
purpose fund to compensate asbestos victims. However, without
charity status, the fund would pay the top marginal tax rate of
AUD0.45 in the dollar, losing up to AUD1.4 billion for victims.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Labor would move an amendment
in the next parliamentary session to ensure the fund did not pay
tax on contributions or earnings.

Mr. Beazley said, "This decision could result in the fund having
billions of dollars less over the next 40 years, bad news for
asbestos victims."

Based in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV uses
cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding,
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Court Hears Armstrong's Exit Arguments
If the U.S. District Court finds that Armstrong World Industries
Inc.'s present and future liability on account of asbestos-
related personal injury claims is not less than US$1.3 billion,
its Chapter 11 plan does not unfairly discriminate against
commercial creditors and should be confirmed, Stephen Karotkin,
Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, told Judge Eduardo Robreno
in closing arguments in Philadelphia, Pa.

Armstrong, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants and the
Future Claimants Representative all support the Debtors'
Modified Plan, the Plan complies with the Third Circuit's
absolute priority rule decision, and the time has come for
Armstrong to emerge from bankruptcy and pay claims, Mr. Karotkin

The record in Armstrong's case, Mr. Karotkin argued, gives the
Court ample evidence to find and conclude that Armstrong's
asbestos-related liability is greater than US$1.3 billion.  

Mr. Karotkin told Judge Robreno that he should not rely on Dr.
Letitia Chambers' testimony, noting that no other court ever has
either. Dr. Chambers' testimony, Mr. Karotkin said, invents new
evidence to arrive at an erroneous conclusion that Armstrong's
asbestos-related liability is far below US$3.1 billion.
Additionally, Dr. Chambers admitted in her deposition and on the
witness stand that US$1.3 billion might be a reasonable estimate
of Armstrong's liability, Mr. Karotkin reminded Judge Robreno.

Mr. Karotkin cautioned Judge Robreno that pinpoint precision in
estimating Armstrong's asbestos liability is not required.  
Estimation within a range of reason is what's required, and
that's what Judge Fullam in Owens Corning's cases and Judge
Rodriguez in Federal-Mogul's cases teach.  

Mr. Karotkin also cautioned Judge Robreno not to be distracted
by the Creditors' Committee's last-act-of-desperation argument
in its post-trial brief that approval of a plan premised on a
Sec. 524(g) trust requires Commercial Creditors' consent. That
novel proposition, Mr. Karotkin, is not what the Bankruptcy Code

Under Armstrong's Plan, Mr. Karotkin said, asbestos claimants
are, in fact, receiving inferior treatment to what the plan
offers Commercial Creditors.   

Mr. Finch reminded Judge Robreno that the value of Armstrong's
present asbestos-related liability is a function of state law
and actual prepetition claim settlement history in the tort
system. The value of future asbestos-related claims is a
function of state law and actual prepetition claim settlement
history in the tort system, adjusted for actual upward and
downward trends in the tort system.  

Andrew N. Gordon, Esq., at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, another lawyer representing the Creditors
Committee, told Judge Robreno that everybody agrees the asbestos
litigation landscape has changed. There's no dispute disease
incidence is declining. The dispute is over the rate of the

Armstrong was identified as a "word processing defendant" --
well known, easy to identify, easy to sue, and, paying 90
percent of all claims, an easy mark for a settlement check --
Mr. Gordon said. Armstrong was a victim of mass screening scams
and over-reading, Mr. Gordon continued.  

Judge Robreno interrupted Mr. Gordon, suggesting that evidence
only speaks to non-malignant claims. The Plan Supporters contend
that the value of Armstrong's asbestos-related liability is
driven by the increasing value of mesothelioma claims.  

(Armstrong Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 97; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Airguide Inc. Provides $800,000 for Removal
Airguide Inc. paid US$800,000 into an escrow account with JP
Morgan Chase Bank to provide financial assurance for the removal
of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials from a property in
Pryor, Okla. within 18 months following closing of a share
exchange agreement.

On July 5, 2006, Airguide entered into a share exchange
agreement with Amerex Cos. Inc., an Okla. corporation, James P.
Frack, Airguide's control stockholder and sole officer and
director, and the stockholders of Amerex.

In February 2006, Amerex Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
Amerex subsidiary, acquired about 168 acres of heavily developed
industrial property in Pryor, Okla. from Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Corp. in consideration for US$700,000 which amount was
paid in cash at closing.

Moreover, Airguide is required to deposit US$400,000 with the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality through Guaranteed
Abstract Title Co. in Tulsa, Okla. to provide financial
assurance of Airguide's ability to close the two injection wells
on the Pryor property.  

Airguide expects to commence the removal during the 2006-3rd
quarter and to complete the removal within the required time

Based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Airguide Inc., formerly known as
CDX.com Inc., is engaged in the industrial and household waste
management services industry and the environmental remediation
and abatement services industry. Its waste management services
are conducted through Amerex and Waste Express Inc., an Amerex

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Discovers Hazard at Tex. City Site
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found an alarming
amount of asbestos in a San Antonio, Texas site, where the City
intends to put a hike-and-bike trail in the King William
District, Ken 5 Eyewitness News reports.

The site used to be an old manufacturing plant. Work on the
trail has already started, and some residents want it stopped.

In June 2006, a City official told KENS 5 that a City-conducted
study found no asbestos in the area. However, on July 11, 2006,
the U.S. EPA, along with the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, stated that asbestos was found in 20 of the 24 test
sites, and two of those samples exceeded the State limit.

The U.S. EPA has required that the City provide a detailed
cleanup plan.

District 5 Councilwoman Patti Radle said she is very concerned,
and is also working on finding out more details from the U.S.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Concludes W.R. Grace, SEE Proceeding
Judge Judith Fitzgerald has closed the adversary proceeding
between the Official Committee of Asbestos personal Injury
Claimants and Sealed Air Corporation, without prejudice to
Sealed Air and Cryovac Inc.'s rights to reopen the Adversary
Proceeding at a later date and renew, in their sole discretion,
Sealed Air's request to vacate Judge Alfred M. Wolin's July 29,
2002, In Limine standards opinion and order.

Closure of the Adversary proceeding is without prejudice to the
refiling and hearing by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in W.R. Grace
& Co.'s Chapter 11 cases of fee applications currently pending
in the Adversary Proceeding.

The Court approved in June 2005 a US$950,000,000 settlement
agreement among Sealed Air and the Asbestos Committees in the
Debtors' Chapter 11 cases. Sealed Air agreed to pay
US$512,500,000 in cash and deliver 9,000,000 shares of its
common stock to a Section 524(g) Trust to be created under the
Debtors' ultimate Chapter 11 plan. In exchange, Sealed Air and
its co-defendants obtain a complete release from all asbestos-
related obligations.

The agreement is expected to become effective upon the Debtors'
emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization that is
consistent with the terms of the agreement, which includes the
establishment of one or more trusts under Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 110; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Charges Mass. Man for Improper Removal
The Department of Environmental Protection has issued a US$2,500
fine to Thomas Payne, a Westborough, Mass. homeowner, for
removing asbestos without following safety procedures and
leaving pieces of asbestos siding on the ground uncontained, the
Milford Daily News reports.

In April 2005, the DEP uncovered the violations during a site
inspection at the 25 Elm St. property owned by Mr. Payne.

DEP assessed Mr. Payne a US$32,275 penalty, and suspended all
but US$2,500 of that amount provided Mr. Payne does not violate
asbestos rules in the next year.

DEP Deputy Director Lee Dillard Adams said, "Homeowners must
recognize that improper removal and handling of asbestos is a
serious matter, which potentially exposes their families,
neighbors and themselves to a known carcinogen."

According to the DEP, Mr. Payne failed to notify the DEP before
removing the asbestos-containing siding. He also did not follow
required handling, packaging and disposal procedures.

The DEP required Mr. Payne to hire a licensed contractor to
finish the job and decontaminate affected areas of the property.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Notifies Ohio City of Cleanup Breaches
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Northern District
notified the city of East Liverpool, Ohio for violating Federal
and State cleanup standards, The Review reports.

The City violated the standards in three areas: notification
prior to demolition or renovation, demolition procedures for
emission control, and standard for asbestos waste handling.

According to a Notice of Violations letter sent by the City to
the U.S. EPA in Ohio, Street and Incinerator Department
Superintendent Earl Taylor hired someone to help him remove
asbestos pipe insulation from a car barn but has refused to
divulge the person's name.

Jim Veres of the U.S. EPA's Northeast District Office sent the
letter on July 7, 2006 to Service-Safety Director Bill Cowan.

According to Mr. Veres, analysis showed the material to be air
cell insulation with greater than one percent chrysotile

Mike Settles, a U.S. EPA spokesman said the case will be
referred to the U.S. EPA central office in Columbus, Ohio for an
enforcement action, where the Agency would review the
investigation and notices of violation, and issue findings and
orders against the City and possibly against individuals.

On July 11, 2006, the finance and ordinance committee forwarded
an ordinance to provide funding for the cleanup. The US$18,000
found by City Auditor Kim Woomer would also provide funding for
a street study and labor negotiations consultants.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie PM to Address Hardie Payout Issues
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, upon persuasion of the
leaders of Australian states, would address the issue of James
Hardie Industries NV's asbestos victims' compensation at a
meeting between PM Howard and state leaders, The Daily Telegraph

New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma and all other Premiers and
Chief Ministers wrote to PM Howard, calling on him to agree to
list Hardie on the Council of Australian Governments agenda.

The states want the Federal Government to amend the tax laws to
allow the compensation fund for asbestos victims to be given
tax-free charitable status.

Hardie signed an agreement with the NSW Government in December
2005 to provide up to AUD4.5 billion over 40 years for a special
purpose fund to compensate asbestos victims.

However, without charity status, the fund would pay the top
marginal tax rate of 0.45 cents in the dollar, losing up to
AUD1.4 billion intended for victims.

Mr. Iemma welcomed the PM Howard's willingness to discuss
compensation at the COAG meeting.

The concession by PM Howard came as Opposition Leader Kim
Beazley promised to introduce a special Bill in the next
parliamentary session to exempt the fund from income tax.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe Renews Fight v. Total Asbestos Ban
Zimbabwe renewed its battle against the proposed total asbestos
ban by South Africa, the biggest importer of the country's
chrysotile asbestos fiber or white asbestos, allAfrica.com

The South African Government has made new asbestos regulations
with the aim of banning the white asbestos mined in Zimbabwe
claiming that it is harmful to humans. The asbestos is produced
at Zimbabwe's Shabanie and Mashaba mines.

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South Africa's Environmental Affairs
and Tourism Minister, had declared at South Africa's 2004 summit
that the mineral is harmful to human health and should be
totally banned. After the summit, all asbestos mines in South
Africa were closed and an anti-asbestos bill was passed in

A Turnall Zimbabwe asbestos expert said, "We are operating
within World Health Organization and International Labour
Organization regulations. They stipulate a limit of one fiber
per mil of air and our operations have not exceeded 0.15 at any
given moment so that way we believe we have exceeded the
expectations of these two organizations."

If the South African government goes on to implement the ban,
Zimbabwe's asbestos industry might collapse. South Africa
contributes over US$100 million in exports and the industry also
employs thousands of people.

Zimbabwe has since put in place a National Chrysolite Asbestos
Taskforce, whose mandate is to safeguard the interests of the
local asbestos industry.

Several European Union countries had banned white asbestos for
unclear health reasons and South Africa plans to follow.

Dr. David Bernstein, an American scientist based in Switzerland,
said that only the banned blue and brown asbestos were harmful.

ASBESTOS ALERT: Tube City IMS Faces Claims From Former Ventures
Tube City IMS Corporation was named a defendant in asbestos-
related claims relating to lines of business that were
discontinued over 20 years ago.

Two non-operating units of the Company before its acquisition on
October 26, 2004, with a landfill and waste management business,
were spun-off to stockholders in October 2002. The two former
subsidiaries were subject to asbestos-related personal injury

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

Management stated that the Company is protected by insurance
with respect to these asbestos claims related to these former
lines of business.

On October 26, 2004, Mill Services Holdings LLC, an affiliate of
Wellspring Capital Partners III, L.P, acquired the Company.


Tube City IMS Corp.
12 Monongahela Avenue
Glassport, Pennsylvania 15045
Tel.: 412-678-6141

The Company provides outsourced services to steel mills in North
America. The Company does not produce steel but is involved in
other stages of the steel making process, from initial raw
materials procurement through finished goods handling.

ASBESTOS ALERT: MassDEP Charges Dudley $19T for Cleanup Breaches
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued
a US$19,312 fine to Dudley Services Inc. for improper asbestos
removal at a site in Southbridge, The Arlington Advocate

In December 2004, MassDEP inspected an asbestos removal project
being conducted by Dudley at the Harrington Hospital in
Southbridge. Staff observed that the Company failed to notify
MassDEP of the removal they were conducting.

The Company also failed to adequately seal the work area, failed
to adequately wet asbestos waste material, and failed to use the
required air filtration equipment while conducting the asbestos

Martin Suuberg, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, said, "Licensed asbestos contractors are fully aware
that following the prescribed regulatory work practices is
crucial to protect their workers as well as the public health
and environment.

"Failure to notify MassDEP and to strictly adhere to all
required work practices inevitably results in significant
penalty exposure, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination
and monitoring costs."

MassDEP regulations require that asbestos removal contractors
properly seal their work area, filter the air exhausted from the
asbestos removal project and seal asbestos waste while wet into
leak tight containers that have appropriate asbestos warning
labels affixed to them.

MassDEP assessed a penalty of US$19,312 and suspended all but
US$3,000 of the penalty based on the Company's satisfactory
demonstration of the existence of financial hardship, and
provided that the Company does not have repeat violations for
one year.

Based in Arlington, Virginia, Dudley Services Inc. is an
asbestos contractor licensed by the Massachusetts Division of
Occupational Safety.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANALOG DEVICES: Accused of Manipulating Managers' Stock Options
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood commenced a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
claiming top officials at Analog Devices Inc. improperly priced
stock options granted to its senior managers, according to the

The suit specifically targets "certain directors and officers"
at the technology equipment maker.  It alleges violations of
Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including
allegations of price manipulation through back dating of stock
options, thereby violating laws governing officer and director
fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing securities and

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Charles H. Johnson Files Stock Suit in Pa.
Charles H. Johnson & Associates commenced a securities fraud
class action on behalf of investors in Herley Industries, Inc.

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The suit seeks recovery on behalf of
investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of the
company between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006.

According to the complaint, the company and its top officers
defrauded persons investing in Herley securities, violating the
federal securities laws.

On June 6, 2006, Herley revealed that the company and its
Chairman, Lee N. Blatt, had been indicted on multiple charges,
in connection with excessive profits improperly "earned" by
Herley on contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that its operations in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts, Chicago,
Illinois, and a subsidiary in Farmingdale, New York had been
suspended from receiving new contract awards from the U.S.
Government.  Government contracts had historically accounted for
approximately 25% of Herley's business.

In response to these disclosures, Herley stock plunged on very
high volume, from $19.38 on June 2, 2006 to $9.21 on June 14,

Interested parties may no later than August 14, 2006, move for
appointment as a lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles H.
Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton, MN  
55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com.

INFOSONICS CORP: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in Calif.
Berger & Montague, P.C., commenced a securities class action
against InfoSonics Corp., alleging fraud.  The suit, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
seeks recovery on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly
traded securities of the company between May 9, 2006 and June 9,

According to the complaint, InfoSonics and its top officers
defrauded persons investing in InfoSonics securities, violating
the federal securities laws.  

On May 8, 2006, defendants reported inflated results for the
quarter ended March 2006, by improperly accounting for warrants
issued in connection with a January 2006 private placement.  By
means of this improper accounting, defendants falsely reported
net income of $1.738 million for the March 2006 quarter.

The complaint charges that InfoSonics belatedly admitted that
the March 2006 reported results were false.  InfoSonics
disclosed that it would need to restate the March 2006 quarter
results.  As restated, net income for the quarter would be
$1.173 million, a decrease of 32.5%.  In response to this
disclosure, InfoSonics stock plunged on very high volume.

The complaint further alleges that defendants engaged in massive
insider trading between May 11 and June 7, 2006.  Indeed, some
of this insider trading continued even after InfoSonics
determined on June 5, 2006 that it would need to restate the
March 2006 quarter results.

Interested parties may no later than August 14, 2006, move for
appointment as a lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, Esq. and Kimberly A.
Walker, Investor Relations Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C.,
1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 888-891-2289
or 215-875-3000.


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related


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, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  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  * * *